Scientology Philosophy and Practice

 

Religions consist of philosophy and practice. They are two distinct, separate things. LRH explains this in detail in the lecture Scientology, Its General Background, Part II, 19 July 1954 (The Phoenix lectures). He also explains how a “Saint” can come along and create a whole new practice based on an existing philosophy and, voila, you’ve got a whole new church:

Now, religious practice could take the identical source and by interpretation put it into effect and so create various churches, all dependent upon the identical source, such as Saint Luke. If we think of the number of Christian churches there are and we look at this one book, Saint Luke, and realize that just this one book, Saint Luke, was productive of Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholics – and here we go!

We have this tremendous number of practices basing upon one wisdom. So let’s get a very clear differentiation here when we talk about religious philosophy and religious practice. And someone who comes to you and says, “So-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so is actually the way you are supposed to worship God,” you can very cleanly and very clearly and very suddenly bring him to a halt by merely mentioning to him that he is talking about religious practice and you are talking about religious philosophy. Even a Catholic priest hauls up, so that you smell his brakes on that one.

You would think that all the DM-bots being forced to study the “basics”, including the Congresses and other 1950s lectures might one day come to the realization that Miscavige’s training PRACTICES and his solo auditing PRACTICES and his ETHICS/JUSTICE PRACTICES and his Fundraising PRACTICES bear no resemblance to, and in fact are quite contrary to, the religious PHILOSOPHY of Scientology. Wouldn’t you? In my view, that they do not is testament to the BLACK DIANETICS, REVERSE SCIENTOLOGY nature of Miscavige’s PRACTICES.

Whatever you do, do not ever invalidate your knowingness and livingness of the PHILOSOPHY of Scientology. It is the wisdom of the subject. Without the PHILOSOPHY there is no purpose for PRACTICE. Practice that is not conducted in a manner so as to attain the philosophy is bad practice. PRACTICE should always lead toward realization of PHILOSOPHY or wisdom.

Don’t ever let a DM bot make you feel guilty. Do not ever be embarrassed or tongue tied around a DM-bot. All he or she will ever make you wrong about are DM’s PRACTICES. Arguing about his PRACTICES is fruitless. It is an argument they are not allowed to think with. So, why bother with it? Instead, talk to him or her about the PHILOSOPHY of Scientology. It is something not only not achievable in the C of M, but something DM’s practices drive people further and further away from. If you talk to them about the PHILOSOPHY of Scientology you are liable to stop them in their tracks so fast you’ll be smelling their brakes.

214 responses to “Scientology Philosophy and Practice

  1. Marty,

    You complete us.

    Centurion

  2. Freedom Fighter

    Marty, IMO, this is your most brilliant post yet! Man, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or jump up and cheer — so I did all three simultaneously. Absolutely spot on!

  3. No worries Mate! ~

  4. “Let the ignorant laugh; the ignorant always do. Let the smug and pompous ride their toboggan to nowhere. We have an answer and we are using it.

    If each of us moves up toward higher states of effectiveness, we can then expect enough pressure collectively to set things right. That’s easy. We have the way if we follow it.

    Times must change.

    The hard thing to do is to try to keep society the way it is; the cruel thing to do to oneself is to do nothing. Times must change.

    No pressure of governments, no campaign by the incompetent “healers” who have already failed, no threat of ridicule or punishment must be let stand in our way.

    We have the technical materials. We are making our way already all the way. Now we must not stop. There is not one more single thing we need to know to accomplish all.

    We weren’t effectively prevented from attaining our knowledge—the hard part of the journey. Now we cannot be prevented from applying it.

    Times must change.”

    LRH
    Article: Times Must Change

  5. “The only possible way that you can get any freedom is to stop asking everybody’s permission to be.”
    LRH
    PDC Lectures
    quotation found in book “Understanding: The Universal Solvent”

  6. In a few months it will be 40 years since I got into Scientology and joined staff (and quickly became a Cl IV auditor). There was more than one reason for my getting in, but I would have to say that the most important was the desire to strengthen my own postulates – to turn what I wanted into “reality.” Of course, in a many decades long tech career, I very soon got into the “swing” of the 3D and developed additional goals and purposes. But these goals were always tied into the VERY BASIC LRH ideas from his basic books: creating one’s own universe, “living” the ARC Triangle, creating exchangable valuable final products with fellow staff members, helping others to have cognitions and become happier and more able, etc. Yeah, applying the most very senior and wonderful discoveries of LRH. So, I found this post extremely important. It IS those ideas that ARE SCIENTOLOGY. You will know that these ideas are being betrayed WHENEVER force continues to be used to change one’s reality. In fact, I would no longer be willing to EVER be “handled’ in an org by a person (young or old) who is not proven to be highly trained and competant in the use of Scientology (I would no longer deal with someone in the church who was not a very proven auditor). My shock a few years ago was when I realized that I was being handled in the Church of Scientology by foks WHO KNEW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY!!!! (and this was in an SO Org I am sorry to say). And I allowed this to occur in continous lower tone levels despite the fact that I had just studied Science of Survival, so that responsibility is MINE. And I’ll just end my comments here by saying that it DOES come down to each of us as individuals. DM and company may be who they are and do what they do and yeah, it is absolutely appalling and a real betrayal to LRH’s ideals. BUT……it will ultimately come down to the individual;s own application of Scientology to himself and others (or Buddhism or Christianity, etc). I don’t need a group’s permission anymore to have my own integrity or my own cogs/gains, and I now think the journey I have made out of active participation in the church has turned out to be a good thing for me. Though I am still royally pissed on flow 3 general principles here. Thanks Marty for your wonderful and VERY necessary website for all of us people who still care very much about this subject.

  7. Wonderful post, Marty.

    Practices in the C of M have become anti-Scientology. They are anti-thought, anti-self-determinism, anti-pan-determinism, anti-personal expansion, anti-personal freedom, anti-ARC, and certainly anti-theta. I guess we might as well call the C of M the Anti-Life Church! C of M practices are against everything we learn when we study the philosophy of Scientology. It has truly become a destructive cult.

    The real Scientology, the study of knowing, the philosophy of improving life, is out here. It’s in the theta of your blog, in the real exchange of ideas, and it’s in the rest of the Independent Field.

    The test is really quite simple: If it’s real Scientology, it will improve communication, it will improve ARC, it will improve life, it will emanate theta. In the C of M comm is cut, thinking is not permitted, and the rest of the downward spiral follows.

    Oh, did I say that was a great article?

  8. The trouble with the philosophy of Scientology is that the very foundations upon which it has been constructed are fallacious.

    Has anyone here bothered to consider the concept of M.E.S.T in light of that famous, Earth-shattering equation: E=MC² ? The Scientology paradigm for existence itself is an impossibility!! Ask any physicist.

    Everything else is relative.

    • BLip, You haven’t been keeping up with quantum physics. It is heading toward the Philadelphia Doctorate Course.

      • Touche!!!

        Or — how about the fMRIs that show how seasoned meditators can light up areas of their brain (that have been mapped as areas of love, kindness, compassion) through meditation IN SPITE of having screams, train wrecks, noise etc. blasting in their earphones.

        Geesch — BliP — you gotta get with it. The train left the station long ago — BUT, we’ll let you on, on the next station you just have to run a bit. :)

        WH

      • Not to mention the emerging field of epigenetic biology that demonstrates that our thoughts determine our condition, a la Creation of Human Ability, 1954.

      • I think you’ll find quantum physics is based upon E=MC² and the arguments now are related not to the equation but more to the nature of energy: i.e., strings vs waves. This current research amplifies the theory of relativity rather than detracts from it. I have yet to see or even hear of a scholarly reference to the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, and, believe me, I’ve looked. Perhaps you can link me to a University site I might have missed.

        So, Einstein says “everything is relative to energy” while Scientology’s first Axiom is that “life is a static”. Spot the dichotomy? One is false, the other true. Overall, I think you’ve missed the point about Einstein’s breakthrough. See, matter, time and space are all energy. The three former terms are constituent to the latter, they do not exist independently. If E=MC² is true, there is no such thing in nature that exists as a static and, even theoretically, a static cannot produce an M.E.S.T. universe. A static is inertia.

        Moving on from this, perhaps one of you might take the time to explain what logic holds that something which has no mass, motion, wavelength nor location can do anything, let alone perceive and postulate; and, even if it could perceive and postulate, what language does it use that has no time and, thus, no context and, ipso facto, no meaning.

        No doubt many will consider my question “beneath” them but, how about this: consider indulging me on this occasion as your random act of kindness for the day. If it transpires that, in fact, you simply believe M.E.S.T. without being able to provide a logical basis, that’s fine. I also believe some things I cannot prove; but I don’t claim that my beliefs are based on unquestionable truths. Do you?

        • Blip, THe only reason some might find your “question beneath them” is that they have transcended to know the spirit, something that science has for so long denied the existence of; but is now beginning to get a glimpse of.

          • Blip — in a nutshell — LRH points to the absolute truth, but uses words, thus it isn’t ITSELF the truth. Just points to it. Auditing enables a person to HIMSELF realize absolute truth, but again — can’t REALLY be discussed, as it uses words.

            The following I found online — not easy to understand but not impossible and my attempt to explain HOW I UNDERSTAND … life is a static.

            “Other than the Eight Right Paths, Buddhism introduces Absolute and Relative Truth.

            Abhidharmamaha-vibhasa-shastra defines that all understandable phenomena based on worldly common sense or rational traditions and customs that people agree upon with is the Relative Truth and that the truth of the reality that is clearly observed by those Saints without any defilement is the Absolute Truth.

            The commentary of the Middle Path (Mulamadhyamaka-karika) explains the absolute and relative truth by the empty nature of interdependent origination.

            The understanding of interdependent origination, that is, all phenomena arise or cease based on co-existing interdependent relationship, is called the Relative Truth.

            Interdependent origination is a temporary phenomenon. All things do not have permanent and unchangeable nature. Therefore, arising or ceasing is just a false image that has false name and function but no real substance. The arising is not real arising and ceasing is not real ceasing.

            The reality of no arising and no ceasing is called the nature of emptiness. Realizing the empty nature is the Absolute Truth.

            The Absolute Truth and the Relative Truth, one is the empty nature of all phenomena and the other the temporary occurrence and function of all things, are in truth an indivisible method of non-duality. Even though the Relative Truth is not the ultimate, yet we may rely on it to search for the Absolute Truth.

            For example, language, action, ideal, and concept etc. are all Relative Truth. Yet, if we do not apply them, we are not going to be able to explain the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the Relative Truth, to sentient beings. If there is no way to realize the Absolute Truth, then there is no way to enter the Nirvana.”

            So BLip — if you take the above paragraphs and really work on them — you’ll find that Einstein AND LRH ULTIMATELY say the same thing.

            AND one more thing — read Einstein’s book — Out of My Later Years. The preeminent scientist was completely spiritual … believed in a spiritual world.

            Love,
            WH

            • So BLip — if you take the above paragraphs and really work on them — you’ll find that Einstein AND LRH ULTIMATELY say the same thing.

              I’ve read Einstein’s book and its fabulous, but can you show me where he says life began as a static?

              I must say how heartening it is to see that in this focus on “the philosophy” and, again, in your insistence on semantics you have abandoned any attempt to correlate Scientology with science. This is entirely positive. The challenge now is to re-examine all your fundamentals with a view to testing by regressive analysis the “infinity logic” precept and its relationship to your tech. I’m sure this must appear as a frightening, or even a reformative / Lutherian idea but, I’m told, if done with the correct intention, will result in a stronger, more durable foundation upon which to launch your ambitions for Scientology in the 21st Century.

              • Hey, the Theory about relativity is all about viewpoints. It’s always depending on the wievpoint of the observer for to describe certain phenomena. Pls read and understand the factors.
                by the way have you read the Mission earth series ? there you can learn more about physics !

                IMHO

                LO

              • ooops . . . that should be “aggressive regression analysis” . . .

              • BLip – I have no plan to launch anything regarding LRH and Scientology … I leave that to those much more worthy and knowledgeable than me regarding LRH/scientology.

                My apparently poor attempt to explain MY understanding of Theta with Buddhism wasn’t the best.

                But, I did try.

                My path is no longer scientology — I study Buddhism and can best relate to that and I chose to do so.

                I believe I’ve made my intentions clear on this blog and others — the exposure of current management and its abuses, the gathering of those like-minded individuals REGARDLESS of practices and/or philosophy to help others, to help those who have suffered from past abuse and to re-find my friends.

                Could you tell me what your intentions are in visiting and posting on this blog?

                Perhaps someday we will meet in person. You never know what the future will bring.

                Love,
                WH

                • It seems the embedding in the comments has been turned off so I cannot reply within your comment.

                  I have made a serious error in assuming that your are a Scientologist. Sincere apologies.

                  My own spiritual journey has been a meandering and tortuous one and, for the moment, I am happily engaged in studying Anthroposophy which, although sharing many similarities, is the very antithesis of Scientology. Can I suggest the book “Philosophy Of Freedom” by Rudolf Steiner. I am sure you will find much in there that accords with your Buddhist world view. I have taken a long, hard look at Buddhism but find that it does not relate to me here in the heart of Western “civilisation”. Still, much respect to you in that you find it brings direction and even more respect that the pursuit of Spiritual matters are of importance in this lifetime.

                  My intentions in visiting and posting on this site is to point out what I perceive as being blatant and fundamental errors in the basic thinking that underlies the application of Scientology tech. I have no doubt that almost all Scientologists want a better world for everyone (even me!) yet I cannot bear the damage that the tech is doing to children. If it were just adults involved, that would be something else, caveat emptor I say in that case. But it is not adults, it is the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society that bear the greatest suffering. Children are not “little adults” and Applied Scholastics inhibits real education; in fact, the ideal “raw meat” for Scientology is someone without a formal tertiary education. You must have noticed that in the comments.

                  The official “church” (how I hate to use that word here), is in a death spiral and it is not possible to communicate with its adherents in a rational manner. For whatever reason, a significant proportion of the independent movement has coalesced around Marty and, for whatever reason, Marty will countenance my input (more than half my comments make it past moderation!) – maybe he’s holding me up to ridicule or maybe he deems some things I say have value. Either way, the end result is that I feel I am, if not changing minds or getting someone to think, then I’m . . . perhaps, maybe, sort of, kinda . . . tempering the blind adherence to practises that mangle children and act, from my point of view, as a largely unconscious conduit of Evil into karma. My main problem is that the independent movement appears to have transferred liability for the consequences of their own actions onto the malignant midget and seem to believe that everything will be hunky-dory if DM were to evaporate. Don’t get me wrong, DM is a huge part of the problem but, in focussing largely on that individuality is, to my mind, treating the symptom and not the cause.

                  As I said above, this refocussing on “philosophy” is great, but still flawed. There is still a long, hard row to hoe before Scientology is able to live up to its promise. Who knows, perhaps with the application of the blow torch that is logic and the materialising in the physical world of its apparent intention, Scientology could well provide a unifying force for all religions to rally under a common banner. Not in this lifetime – but like you say – you never know what the future will bring.

                  Regards

                  BLiP

                  • BLiP,

                    I like this description of Anthroposophy, “a spiritual philosophy founded by Rudolf Steiner, postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development”

                    Does he offer techniques by which to arrive? How is it working for you?

                  • BLip — thank you for your reply.

                    Firstly, I was very much a scientologist for 20 years and about 7 years after I left, I still thought of myself as a scientologist. So about 6 years short of 1/2 of my life!

                    I have credited a great deal of my current understanding of buddhism is as a result of my grounding in scientology.

                    As for Steiner — I haven’t read him, only leafed through his works — there was a Steiner bookstore on High Street in East Grinstead, as well as a Steiner school in Forest Row, which we tried to get my step-son enrolled into but they had no openings for his class. This was back in 1983.

                    I am not going to debate you on this blog regarding scientology and children. What you have stated is patently untrue in my experience. LRH has wonderful tech for children, if it’s been misapplied – that is a different story.

                    I’m afraid you have been woefully misinformed about LRHs view of children, about tertiary education …

                    As well as thinking that anthroposophy is the anti-thesis of scientology.

                    IF that were true — then I would have to conclude that anthroposophy doesn’t have an iota of ULTIMATE truth within it’s texts — because scientology – while not perfect DOES have much ultimate truth.

                    What I do know – through friends who have studied Steiner is that there is a great deal of truth.

                    In any case, I wish you well with your studies.

                    Voicing alternative points of view is always fine. It’s important however to make pretty sure you are on firm ground when you make blanket comments that are negative.

                    Perhaps it would be best to let this rest. Until another time and place.

                    Regards,
                    WH

                    • Fair enuff. But, remember that little niggle, the knock-knock-knock on the door of your consciousness, the one you first tried to ignore but couldn’t and then when you finally opened the door there stood Truth? I’m sure she’s happy to remain on the stoop but invite her in one day and ask her to tell you the story about LHR and Derek Green.

                    • Excellent answer to Blip, WH.

                  • I want to jump here on the comment about kids and LRH tech. This is a sore point for me as a mom and thing the biggest problem we have is the misapplication of LRH tech on kids, and then parents out of fear just stand by and let it all happen.

                    This is my observation after having 3 kids in an applied scholastics school. All of my kids started out when they were 4 going to the local apps school. The school used mostly heron books and materials and delphi courses. They learned how to read using the delphi reading program and the math program from Delphi. What I observed is that each of my kids learned how to read with anxiety of misunderstoods. They had a hard time just reading a whole chapter or even a whole page without starting and stopping for each misunderstood word or looking for manifestations. It drove me absolutely crazy because they lacked total big picture comprehension and couldn’t just read a book to enjoy reading. I didn’t agree with regimented checksheets, and they were constantly stressed about making their targets, not getting sent to qual, not going to ethics because they were slower than expected, etc…. it became a complete nightmare to see what was happening to my kids and how to tech was being applied to them. I grew to hate and despise the whole applied scholastics education system for our kids. We decided to pull all of our kids out and we enrolled them in public school. I have to say I was terrified because of all the PR that you hear from other SCNs about public school and how much psych influence there is, etc… my kids started to flourish in public school. When they arrived in public school they were at least one grade behind where they should have been, and the school worked really hard to get them caught back up. Sure it isn’t a perfect system, but at least they are thinking for themselves and don’t have anxiety.

                    I don’t blame LRH tech for this, I blame the applied scholastics training and expectations of applied scholastics that force misapplication of the tech. It is like running a school under Dm for kids. In fact if you really read up on child dianetics, LRH is very much for kids learning at their own pace, on their own schedule and exploring what they want to learn.

                    Another side note relating to Delphi and Heron Books. Alan Larsen is no longer active in the COS. He had big disagreements on GAT that were never resolved. he no longer lives at the Delphi Campus in Oreogn, instead is living somewhere else. He and his wife never returned back to OT 7 and are quietly doing there thing disconnected from the church. I am sure for PR reasons he has just quietly gone off into the sunset, however don’t you think it is an outpoint the the founder of Delphi is not an active member of the COS?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Lucy, thanks for this. I have heard from two sets of parents that Delphi LA has become a thinly veiled recruiting ground for C of M. Basic education has become secondary to pledging allegiance to Little Nap.

                    • I can confirm that, Marty. Delphi Oregon lost at least 20 students and recent graduates to the SO this past summer at FLB. Some more at Pac. There are several hundred staff at FLB who were at Delphi at one point in time. I have never seen one Scn Delphi kid not being recruited actively and intensively. It makes sense tho, no Scn parent can say no, school can’t say no. Simple.

                      On Delphi OR campus, there are bans on active recruitment, but it is fair game off campus or when students are home or doing it on the phone. Staff encourages students to join.

                      Also none of these school allow students, parents or staff who would be disaffected with the Church. Staff gets sent away. Students asked not to come back. Especially true now.

                      Worse is that I have seen 12 year old’s disconnected from their mom or dad and going to Delphi Oregon. It’s a mess. Wog kids ask, “where is your mom?” Kids don’t know what to say. Some say we don’t see each other. When asked why, they are speechless, upset, terrified and lost.

                      This is one box, they do not want opened.

                    • As I said in my earlier post – isn’t it an outpoint that Alan Larson, the founder of Delphi and Heron Books is disaffected and not involved anymore except in name only so that there isn’t a PR problem!

                    • Point taken, Lucy. As I mentioned, I haven’t been in comm with them (nor Delphi for that matter) in years. I was declared in 2006 after I blew org staff and haven’t talked with anyone on lines before the SP Times. I hadn’t realized they were off lines. This is an outpoint, indeed.

                    • WOW, from the comments I have been hearing, Delphi has really gone off purpose.

                      Just for info, it is a non-sectarian school. By law they can not discriminate because of religious beliefs. I think they could be setting themselves up for some legal problems.

                    • I believe this is a result of an older Delphi policy called “Religious Callings” which did give guidelines on how to handle students who wanted to work for the church. It was never intended to be a recruitment pool. In the mid 80’s, joining the SO was considered a very respectable profession.

                      Gradually, through time more Delphi students did go into the SO or into Orgs and Missions. This was done on a natural basis. As more students joined staff, the push to go Ideal Org or (just prior) St. Hill size resulted in these younger Scientologists regging their friends to join them.

                      Sadly, it is true. Delphi students are hot prospects on any recruitement cycle. So much so that many “followers” might get the idea that it was somehow CI if they didn’t join somewhere. If they ever want to get their integrity back on their educational standards, they might want to re-evaluate these policies. Even worse is that the execs of the schools are so entrenched in following step that they don’t see anything wrong with it.

                    • Alan, if you’re out there, someone would love to hear from you; he’s the guy who got you into scn. contact me at:
                      beebercat@hushmail.com

                    • Lucy – I agree. Sadly “scientology” schools never, in my opinion offered the stellar educations that they should have.

                      Starting with Apple School in LA, then Mace-Kingsley over to Delphi LA — all expensive and hugely disappointing. While pretending to be on source, they failed – because 9/10ths of their staff were themselves illiterate.

                      We took our kids out of them as well.

                      WH

                    • Lucy,

                      The first thing I want to point out is that children are individuals. Just as you would audit the PC in front of you, you must handle each one in terms of what is right for them to flourish. And, factually LRH provided all the tech to do that, even for children.

                      Secondly, what your children experienced was out tech, pure and simple. I worked at Delphi for 17 years and helped to pilot the reading and math programs. Great care was taken to fully duplicate and deliver what LRH recommended in the Teacher’s Hat. In fact all those trained in the reading program had to clay demo each sentence of what he wrote. If the program was done standardly, it got results. It sounds like someone was being robotic and may even have their own MUs. They certainly weren’t applying the gradients aspect of reading. In Delphi’s program the whole subject of dictionary use and study tech had been thoroughly researched to ensure that anxiety about MUs and learning did not occur. The product was that the children wanted to know and were interested and winning.

                      Delphi is not a perfect system and is not the best for each child’s need but they do have some amazing tech delivery that is consistently successful with a large number of kids. Go at your own pace is not workable especially if one merges into another educational system as those who need more time will be behind when they transfer. But neither is keeping a child in a high duress environment. The bottom line is that it didn’t work for your children and you did the right thing by changing that.

                      I have deep respect and admiration for both Janet and Alan. They had weaned themselves away from the school quite a while ago but had remained in contact with Delphi Sheridan for quite some time. I had not known that they had stopped their auditing. In some ways that thought makes me very happy as I always felt that Alan had a huge amount of integrity and it could make sense to me. Thinking about it, this may have indeed happened around the time that GAT came out. I would love to communicate with either of them should they be connected to independents or even be lurkers. At this time, I have had no indication that they have disconnected from the church. If there is any any data on this occuring I’d be willing to chat, any time.

              • I’ve read Einstein’s book and its fabulous, but can you show me where he says life began as a static?

                BliP — you’ve only read one of Einstein’s books? which one?

                You’re holding Einstein up as the pinnacle of intelligent achievement, as a shield, to assert and prove rightness. Understandable, in that he is an approved “icon” of “intelligence.”

                I question, though, 1) whether you’ve in fact read Einstein thoroughly, and 2) whether, if Einstein had not yet received worldwide, you would recognize and appreciate him.

                That said — as pertains to your question of the static, some of the following Albert Einstein quotes may help you reconcile your polarization between physics and consciousness (the spirit):

                “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” – Albert Einstein

                “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. ” – AE

                “The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. ” – AE

                “The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. ” – AE

                “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. ” – AE

                and last (but not least — just sort of dicey because it brings up God, a word and concept ripe for misunderstanding and semantics, but what the hay…)

                “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. ” – AE

                BLiP,

                You might also want to ponder why the icon for scientific intelligence that Einstein is would say:

                “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” -AE

          • You know what, Marty, I agree.

      • I think you’ll find quantum physics is based upon E=MC² and the arguments now are related not to the equation but more to the nature of energy: i.e., strings vs waves. This current research amplifies the theory of relativity rather than detracts from it.

        In the early 40s, Einstein wrote to a friend, “I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn’t wear socks and who is exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions.”

        Why? Because he had become isolated from the mainstream scientific community that was off on quantum mechanics. You lump them into the same school of thought, which they are not.

        It took 50 years for Einstein’s search for the Unified Theory, a simple, elegant explanation, to become the holy grail of physics.

        In any case, the strong and weak forces had not yet been discovered in Einstein’s day, but even the two distinct forces—gravity and electromagnetism — bothered him. So he set off on his quest apart from mainstream physics.

        Half a century later, Einstein’s thinking and search for a Unified Theory is somewhat satisfied by String Theory — but string theory is not T.O.E. (Theory of Everything). Physicists seeking namesake immortality still salivate to discover that.

        I have yet to see or even hear of a scholarly reference to the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, and, believe me, I’ve looked. Perhaps you can link me to a University site I might have missed.

        IMHO, it’s ahead of its time. Besides, University courses are not the pinnacle nor the frontier of discovery and thought.

        Scientology had its own academy. (Historically, this is not a unique model for excellence and learning).

        (The problem today is that the philosophy has been usurped by money-motivated management that has diluted and altered Scientology to make a buck and conquer the world. But I digress…)

        I quote genius polymath Leonardo da Vinci: “I am well aware that certain presumptuous people think they can slight me because I am not learned… But though I cannot, like them., quote from all the best authors, it is much better and more praiseworthy to be well-read in the book of experience, he teacher of their teachers.’ These men strut about, puffed up and pompous, clothed and ornamented with the result of others’ work, not their own, and give me credit for nothing…”


        So, Einstein says “everything is relative to energy” while Scientology’s first Axiom is that “life is a static”. Spot the dichotomy?

        No. he delineated between the states of quanta. and he isn’t saying everything. He’s talking about Matter Energy and SpaceTime.

        What about alternate universes? What about multiple dimensions?

        And what’s making the energy? It’s a binary universe. Energy is conducted between two points. What or Who is perceiving that? Your grey matter? Is it your brain that affects electrons (as proven with the slit experiment)? or creates entanglement (electrons affecting each other at a distance). What exactly is self-awareness?

        You’re basing your supposition on the fallacy that *all* has been discovered about quanta (the nature of matter as both wave/particle).

        I have no dispute with MEST, that it exists, and that it behaves in manners that have been mapped (though not all has been charted…what about 96% of the universe, dark matter?)


        One is false, the other true.

        I disagree. They are two fields. One is Physics, the other is Consciousness (which deals with the perception of and in physics). Scientology provides techniques which interface the two.


        Overall, I think you’ve missed the point about Einstein’s breakthrough. See, matter, time and space are all energy.

        The three former terms are constituent to the latter, they do not exist independently.

        No point missed there at all. General Relativity is the best working model of the physical universe in existence. Remember, though, Einstein apologized to Newton when he released it. Consciousness as it exists as human beings is evolving.

        If E=MC² is true, there is no such thing in nature that exists as a static and, even theoretically, a static cannot produce an M.E.S.T. universe. A static is inertia.

        Your definition of static as inertia has some applicability in physics. However, it doesn’t track with the word’s usage in Scientology as nomenclature.

        However, I point out that your conclusion here takes a leap without foundation, i.e., a wrong premise. Your statement “There is not such thing in nature…” is not scientific. It presupposes ALL that is in Nature is *known*. Incorrect and doomed to failure (and no further discovery).


        Moving on from this, perhaps one of you might take the time to explain what logic holds that something which has no mass, motion, wavelength nor location can do anything, let alone perceive and postulate; and, even if it could perceive and postulate, what language does it use that has no time and, thus, no context and, ipso facto, no meaning.

        The cosmos itself contains more languages than your brain can fathom. Just pick any ecosystem to find several. Do you speak those languages? Yet, by definition of language, a communication process, that is what these systems are.


        No doubt many will consider my question “beneath” them

        No question is beneath me, or anyone. I’ve read your thoughts and arguments with interest. I hope that what I’ve offered gives you something to ponder.


        If it transpires that, in fact, you simply believe M.E.S.T. without being able to provide a logical basis, that’s fine.

        MEST isn’t something in which one believes (although when you hit your head on a wall, it would like you to believe in it) :-) MEST is quantifiable and observable.


        I also believe some things I cannot prove; but I don’t claim that my beliefs are based on unquestionable truths. Do you?

        IMHO *All* truths must be questioned! That said, some Axioms in Scientology can be noted for use in observation, as a hypothesis if you will. I personally have experienced reading about something in Scientology and , while it resonated, I had not directly experienced it. However, at some later point the data aligned and fit in and explained an experience or observation and thereby became subjective.

        I’m very excited to see the study of Consciousness becoming more prevalent in the sciences. The problem with it, as I see it, is: how does one quantify “static” “spirit”, or the unquantifiable.

        Galileo’s quote contains an axiomatic truth, applicable to the current needs of science: “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”

        Through a process of elimination, science will find itself nose to nose with the human soul. L. Ron Hubbard had a leg up. I personally find in Scientology a way to exercise my “unquantifiable” biceps and triceps:) It’s not really about belief as much as doing and observing. (Action heroes do more action than thinking:-)

        The quantum leap is very very small step, and I invite you to take it. Has all there is to be known been discovered? about the universe or consciousness? if you believe it has, then I wish you a spark of wonder. meanwhile, dare to imagine. It can be a hypothesis. You don’t have to accept it as fact, and please don’t ever accept anything as a belief … you might end up wearing purple pants to breakfast because it means you’ll be lucky.

    • Oh blip, blip, blip. You really must let go …. As Einstein said, take on the “beginner’s mind”. As the Buddha said, learn to “not know”. Sage advice in any study … including the subject of Scientology.

    • MEST in itself is limited to 4 dimensions, It is a 4 dimensional model of the universe.

      • CD,

        I know you’re not a Scientologist, but you often sound more like one than many who consider themselves Scientologists. You’re cool, man, and you’re in the right place here! I bet you’d actually dig some of LRH’s books. Check out 8-8008 (one of my favorites).

      • @Tone 41

        I thank you for your consideration and well ment compliment.

        I will never be a fan of the man mildly put,but I am not of the opinion that looking at things has a destructive effect on a person unless it is seeing destruction done to another person in real live .

        I promised Paul to look into self-Analysis on the condition that David Miscavige must be gone and the C of $ is on its knees paying damages to all it has crushed from that big IAS fund.

        Like a Cat something must fancy my curiousity.

        So maybe I do or maybe I don’t. For now I choose to concentrate on keeping the Church in a state of enturbelation.

        8-8008 reminds me of 888chan *wink*, but I take it it has to do with infinity bedded in the theorium of quantum physics ?

        With a friendly disposition, CD

      • Cat Daddy,

        I am not going to open Schrödinger’s box.

        According to him, the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. (Schrödinger’s Cat)

        Here’s to infinite possibilities. Meow! Happy discovery.

      • Was it not that the Cat could be in there or not as far as the universe was concerned. A black box.

      • Veritas that was funny and I was mixing things up.

        “Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment, often described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. In the course of developing this experiment, he coined the term”

        “It was time to do something different. So Jason and I decided to conduct a “Black Box Experiment.” This involves building a black box that has a definate input and a definate output. At the beginning of class we would describe “black boxing” as an attempt to figure out a problem without being able to see all the parts. ( For example, given a set of symptoms we can ascertain what is happening…if you hear a loud “WHUMP” and your car suddenly starts leaning toward one side and there is a “thump-thumpa” sound as you drive, odds are you have a flat tire…other relevant examples are the elusive “top quark” and the discovery of both Pluto and its moon ). This usually lead to a discussion of how we could fool the pop machine into giving us free pops ( I have never heard of so many creative solutions! ).”

      • /\_/\
        ( o o )
        ==_Y_==-

        Schrödinger’s take is that basically all reality (matter and events) exists as a potentiality containing any possible outcome (the cat is box dead and alive inside the box). My further take on the theory that is that it incudes Perception (consciousness) (that be what we is;) in the equation as a determining factor and participant in this whole molecule dimension.

        ,
        ,-. _,—._ __ / \
        / ) .-‘ ` / / \
        ( ( ,’ ` / /|
        \ `-” \’\ / |
        `. , \ / |
        /`. ,’-`—-Y |
        ( ; | ‘
        | ,-. ,-‘ | /
        | | ( | | /
        ) | \ `.___________|/
        `–‘ `–‘
        (. \
        \ |
        \ |___(\–/)
        __/ ( . . )
        “‘._. ‘-.O.’
        ‘-. \ “|\
        ‘.,,/’ .,

      • wooopps the cat molecules got messed up, sorry about previous errors … here it is:

        …. /\_/\
        …..( o o )
        ==__Y_==-

        Schrödinger’s take is that basically all reality (matter and events) exists as a potentiality containing any possible outcome (the cat is both dead and alive inside the box). My further take on the theory that is that it includes Perception (consciousness) (that be what we is;) in the equation as a determining factor and participant in this whole molecule dimension.

      • CD,

        8-8008 refers to the reduction of the MEST universe (physical reality) to zero, and the expansion of each individual being’s universe to infinity.

        If you decide to get curious about that or any of the books, just pretend they were written by someone else, rather than by a man you’re not a fan of!

        All of us want David Miscavige gone, and I’d be delighted to see him in jail for a good long time. But we also would never give back the rather glorious things we’ve gained from our experiences with Scientology.

        One of my very favorite actions in Scientology is Life Repair. It’s one of the most freeing and beautiful experiences you can have. I therefore wish it on you. :)

      • Tone 41, Thank you for your kind words.

        “just pretend they were written by someone else:

        It crossed my mind. Some of the work has been contributed by others like Mayo or people we will never know of anyway.

      • CD,

        Good enough. It’s more importnat if it works for people than who developed every atom of it. If others contributed to the work, that’s quite okay in my book. :)

    • M.E.S.T. is a mere label of one effect of our consciousness, and E=MC2 is only a description of the relativity between two of its components.

      Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s showed that subatomic particles had no objective existence and took on definite properties only when physicists tried to observe and measure them, thus were in effect creations of consciousness or perception rather than components of some inherent reality.

      Hubbard of course expanded on that knowledge from the perspective of a technology of understanding consciousness, in his PDC lectures in 1952.

      Now days quantum interconnectedness and the effects of consciousness as morphic resonance are fairly mainstream.

      If young blip were interested, some basic grounding in Scientology would be helpful seeing the whole picture of how science is slowly coming to understand life.
      :)

      • martyrathbun09

        Dave, And subsequent experiments have demonstrated that the sub atomic particles (or waves) behave differently depending on who the observer is.

      • I am a particular fan of Rupert Sheldrake, in regards to consciousness and biological and physical phenomenon.

        http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

        While the concepts of scientology have a higher order of importance in understanding self and life, I believe understanding the world around us supports it.

        That sub atomic quanta react to consciousness is probably the most profound “discovery” of science in our time.

        The implications are that we are spiritual beings living in a predominately spiritual universe.

        Imagine that. Science catching up with religion!

    • Dave, Marty, Yes!
      Heisenberg empirically proved particles are influenced by the observer and also Duality: Particles can become a wave and vice versa. So what’s really solid.

    • BLiP

      You wrote: >>>
      The trouble with the philosophy of Scientology is that the very foundations upon which it has been constructed are fallacious. <<>> Has anyone here bothered to consider the concept of M.E.S.T in light of that famous, Earth-shattering equation: E=MC² ? <<>> The Scientology paradigm for existence itself is an impossibility!! Ask any physicist.<<>> Everything else is relative.<<<

      Did you mean realtive to Einstein's equation?

      And how more relative can things be than Consciousness being a direct participant in the perception if not creation of Reality, dear BLiP?

      One comment that comes to mind about "Earth shattering" discoveries. .. it's difficult to imagine that Einstein's theory was so revolutionary and ahead of its time when he first presented it, that he was fought, attacked, ridiculed and disparaged. However, I venture to bet that the following quote of his came from personal experience:

      "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." –Albert Einstein

      (Note: Spirits. vs. Minds relevant? could be)

      • BLiP

        Reposting some of my comment that didn’t make it through (due to my misuse of punctuation symbols):

        You wrote:
        Has anyone here bothered to consider the concept of M.E.S.T in light of that famous, Earth-shattering equation: E=MC² ?

        Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity ceased being earth shattering a few decades ago but it is still being put to the test. Two new and independent studies just recently tested Einstein’s equation using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory.

        One of the tests beat out a newer gravity model, and the second test proved out Einstein’s theory (relativity) across the cosmos over immense times and distances.

        Note that times, as in plural. Time does have varying speeds. It makes sense that there is consistent behavior through this know universe.

        You wrote: Ask any physicist.

        I recommend asking physicists who are familiar with subatomic behavior of “spooky action at a distance” , which BTW Einstein initially dismissed. It has since been proven, known as Entanglement, i.e. instant Cause/Effect between electrons that exist across great distances (space).

        I find no contradiction between Duality (Matter as both wave/particle) and MEST theory, on the contrary.

      • I have asked several practising physicists and they agree with Einstein.

      • BLiP,

        I’m curious what exactly you asked them.

        Your use of “practicing physicist” was a little delightful to my imagination, as though its medicine. I’m amused to think of their job as if the physical universe needed a band aid or an operation :-)

        Anyway, if they say “Einstein was right” do they then disagree with Heinsenberg and Schrödinger (the later who, BTW, performed “thought experiments” despite being a physicist) ?

    • BLiP wrote:
      Everything else is relative.

      What is ‘everything else’? Dark matter? Of which this universe is compromised by more than 96%, and physicists still haven’t explained?

      Or Matter and SpaceTime?

      and Relative to what?

      You got me going now, I live on this stuff! ;)

      Heisenberg observed the Uncertainty Principle (a particle’s location & speed cannot be both measured). Through epiphanies (and I love Scientology for this above all), one can understand how/why.

    • Veritas

      A “practising physicist” is someone who is employed as a physicist. Perhaps you can link me to someone who is both a physicist and a Scientologist? I’m sure no such person exists but, if so, I would love to have a chat with them some time, or at least read something they might have published. Even a link to a reference to any of Hubbard’s physics studies used in a scholarly fashion in a University setting would be much appreciated.

      In the meantime, I stand by my conclusion: If E=MC² is true, and you have not proved otherwise, then the equation provides proof positive that nothing can be created from a “static” and, thus, Axiom One is fallacious.

      I can see we will have to agree to disagree, for the moment. Would you be interested in moving on to a dialectic of Axiom Two? Your argument in relation to languages is fascinating and goes to the heart of my main question. You seem to be suggesting that Time is irrelevant when it comes to consideration, opinion and postulates. Is that really your position?

      • BLiP,

        I was certain a “practicing physicist” was someone who fixed MEST when it had the flu. Well, thanks for setting me straight on that. (My turn for a feeble joke.) ;)

        In a sentence, I don’t agree or disagree with you because we’re talking apples and oranges.

        Einstein talks about God and the spirit …where does that fit into E=MC² ? Answer: He had not figured it out. He was seeking to know what was behind it all.

        The Axioms in Scientology deal with Perception. The Observer.

        I personally don’t think you have enough grasp of Einstein or quantum mechanics to come to a conclusion. You are not going to find it in a classroom. It will take your reading and understanding (beyond parroting data) various theories and, more importantly, a different approach (which I’ll describe forthwith.)

        To answer your question: I personally know physicists who appreciate Scientology and could call themselves one if not for an inefficiency of labels that convey confusion or conflicting interpretations. I’m not going to name them here. But that should not be your increment for measuring validity anyway.

        Your last paragraph lost me altogether, I apologize, I could not follow the logic and don’t see any correlation between my observations about languages and the relevance of Time to opinions.

        Besides, Time — it can be argued — does not exist … and many leading physicists do argue about just that.

        Einstein’s E=MC² abolished the idea of Time as a universal constant. Time can be slow, Time can be fast. It has more than one stream. It is relative to motion of correlated particles.

        The reason I suggest a different approach and recommend that you observe firsthand a lot more …and maybe even try some experiments and techniques that involve YOU, as an observer … is because you clearly do not grasp the full implications of the theory that you brandish like a license to conclude without all the facts.

        What tells me that?
        First off, you lumped Einstein and quantum mechanics together.

        You see, one consequence of Einstein’s E=MC² is not only with Time but Einstein’s theories posed a breach in physics that appeared incompatible with those of quantum physics (the realm of all subatomic and the tiny). If you knew your Einstein, you would realize that E=MC² describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

        Honestly, “not knowing” is highly more respectable than grabbing onto anything to know. It is actually very smart to “not know” until you really, really do know, and that is a subjective experience.

        Measuring time — aside from my subjective experience, I leave it to the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics.

        Read up on the Planck scale, a temporal scale in which even attoseconds drag by like eons. In the edge of known physics, distances and intervals between Time are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down.

        Richard Feyman starts his classes with (paraphrase) along the lines of : if you think none of this makes sense, you’re right. Leading physicists find themselves right now on the *brink* of known physics. Think about that.

        These are exciting times!

        So, BLiP, rather than come here to *disprove*, may I recommend you come here (or anywhere) to discover? You may *know* something if you get you wet — you the soul, the observer you are, the aware of awareness unit. Let go of the monkey-bar thinking of neat, safe little pathways.

        Besides, this is not a physics forum, so why would finding a physicist who is a Scientologist prove validity? That’s apples and oranges. Scientology is the realm of knowing how to know.

        The Theoretical basis for Einstein is this: Einstein
        1. The speed of light is the constant. (c) (The speed of Light is the same for all observers.
        2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference.

        It says nothing about all is relative to energy — it is the law (physical) by which a playing field exists and is observable by different players (observers)!!

        It explains how that happens…it has nothing to do with what or who created it, nor does it define or involve the *observer* (which is the realm of Scientology).

        Einstein is saying the only constant in this universe is the speed of light, and everything else is in motion (Particles in Motion that are measured by Time) (or MEST!)

        The theory is an equation to measure energy (E) that corresponds to a mass (m) at rest. and it accounts for mass converting into energy when dissipated (like with fission).

        In no way anywhere anyhoo in that theory doe Einstein quantify or address the *observer*

        So your argument is loopy — no offense meant, but literally it goes in a circle and is trying to disprove that an orange exists because there’s an apple over here.

        You stated you came here to disprove. Well, that ain’t gonna happen. And — ironically– it’s not because people in this forum aren’t willing to consider and look at anything. Speaking for myself, I thrive on learning what I had wrong or didn’t know. That’s why I love Scientology. It’s a tool. an assist that one applies.

        • martyrathbun09

          Veritas, these responses are posts in themselves. Priceless.

          • Marty, thank you for this forum. Thank you for being an auditor and applying the tech so seamlessly (like playing the piano).

            It’s true that I and a lot of people keep saying Thank You … but everyday there’s more for which to thank you.

            Thank you to every member in this group around the world. I admire and treasure each of you — your unique quintessential talents and quality bring me much comfort and company throughout the day.

            Thank you for the hope. Thank you for giving me back Scientology, which never stops continuing to surprise and impress me. (Just when I think I couldn’t possibly have another such frikkin’ amazing behemoth cog…YAOW! New portal)

            Cogs are my favorite sustenance:-)

            Let’s hear it for the cogs!! WøøT!!!

            It’s a great day to have even ONE, but Whoa. hey Marty, personally speaking, my epiphanies, insight and relief continue exponentially ≥ …wayyy beyond the session snowballing Cogs

            TH A N K ✩Y O U✩

      • Your last paragraph lost me altogether, I apologize, I could not follow the logic and don’t see any correlation between my observations about languages and the relevance of Time to opinions.

        Axiom One says that life came from a state where there was no Time, yet Axiom Two says that “static” was able to “consider”. So far as the Axioms are concerned, those two terms are mutually exclusive – it is impossible to “consider” without having a sequence in which to weight the items for consideration and, without Time, there can be no sequence.

        Your comment in regard to this was that there are more languages in the universe than I could imagine. Whether or not you believe in aliens, there can be no language that does not make use of Time for there can be no context without Time – regardless of your shifting definitions thereof.

        Perhaps it would be better to re-brand the “Axioms” as “Articles Of Faith”, in which case I would have no quibble.

      • BLiP
        Re: Axiom 1 — Here’s how I see it: it boils down to What is the opposite of Matter? is it Antimatter? No. Because antimatter and matter are mutually interdependent for existence.

        Life is the opposite of Matter. It’s a non-thing.

        It’s narrow and limited to say that because Matter exists, All that Ever Was and IS can and must be defined by It.

        To do so is like thinking inside an equation (and unless the equation is Pi, the results are finite). I once heard Stephen Hawking speak at CalTech and one of his colleagues introduced him by this distinction: most of the physicists went about trying to solve problems with extant equations. Hawking was different in that he free-formed, with imagination, out of the blue, a hypothesis … and then went about proving or disproving it with math.

        The difficulty about the soul, which is — for lack of a better word — an aspect or offspring, whatever, of Life (in quintessence) — is that it needs an instrument by which to be measured.
        And the instrument is not Matter.

        *Life* is not an *it* — as difficult a concept that is for a brain to grasp, it’s so. The only way Matter can be used to measure Soul is through a process of elimination, i.e., what the soul is *not”, or by observing effects.

        Much like the only way we perceived dark matter was because its gravity was bending light — but even that is not a perfect analogy because it’s still Matter.

        The slit experiment comes close. It does not quantify or pinpoint the observer, but the repeatable result is that outcome is different when *observed*.

        But let’s face it, without nit picking — it is a glaring big red flag and bane of physics that there *is* no answer to What came before the Big Bang? (sorry, “Nothing” is not the answer).

        Have you read Biocentrism? I’m reading that now, pretty cool stuff.

        there can be no language that does not make use of Time for there can be no context without Time

        Interesting thought, since language is the act of relaying a concept/particle/causation, it would presumably be across space (thereby also Time).

        Would love to think about this more. Immediately, ‘entanglement’ comes to mind, essentially instantaneous cause/effect in a nonlocal manner. That’s a language (between electrons). But by nature of the fact that particles are involved, they’re within the context of time.

        Anyway, I love Scientology for fun because I want to know. I literally want to know, and thinking does not always lead to knowing. Rather than pick out a phrase or piece here and there, you might want to understand some aspect of it by *doing*.

        I could go through *any* of civilization’s “revered” icons and find one or two sentences that contradict the philosophy or body of work. It’s not productive. In matters of the Quest for enlightenment, truth, knowledge, peace …or TOE (Theory of Everything), I seek tools that produce results. The tools are not datums in which to “believe.”

        You can look at a shovel all day and figure out how it could have been designed more efficiently, and knock the choice of bolt or angle or length … or you can dig. If you want to know Scientology, you’re going to have to get up and pick it up and start digging;) Into yourself.

      • Would love to think about this more. Immediately, ‘entanglement’ comes to mind, essentially instantaneous cause/effect in a nonlocal manner. That’s a language (between electrons). But by nature of the fact that particles are involved, they’re within the context of time.

        Electrons also have Mass, Energy, and take up Space which further reinforces my main point. I think you might be getting it.

        Before I collect my shovel, I find its a good idea to first consider the task ahead and whether or not a scalpel might not be the better implement. I think what you’re trying to suggest is that I should beware of “paralysis-by-analysis”; rest assured, its a concept I am familiar with but do not endure. I agree with you, though, and by all means pick up the tools, but consider also the damage that could be caused by your haste in selecting the wrong one.

      • I’m really laughing here because it is just amazing how you tossed out my apples/oranges simile to bent my mention of entanglement into “See, they’re MEST, I’m right.”

        Life is a nonthing.

        BLiP, I fully understand and support RIGHT. But going in circles doesn’t get you anywhere new.

        Thank you for the advice. I definitely won’t use a shovel to make any incisions, that might be quite messy (unless dealing with earth or mud).

        And thanks for your warning as well. No worries, I’ve been around and know that saying that’s been bouncing around about scissors. Right? “Sure it’s all fun …. ’til someone puts an eye out!” :-) ✂ ✂ ✂

        p.s. (Was it really really the scissors fault???)

        I should like to think it’s over genuine concern for my welfare. This has been fun but let’s wrap up this thread here.

        Don’t hurt yourself thinking ;-)

        It’s been great fun, and I hold out the smallest hope that somewhere in your heart/mind/apple/orange you wanted to do more than disprove something.

      • I fully understand and support RIGHT. But going in circles doesn’t get you anywhere new.

        Ahhh … I was right: you *were* applying the “infinite shades of grey” Logic 7 where up is down, left is right and apples are really oranges. What a pity for it is this Logic which is largely responsible for absorbing bona fide doubt. I can understand your fear about progressing through without agreement but would love to know your conclusion in relation to the requirement for Time to be present before considerations and postulates can be made. Yet, alas, I may never know . . . but will you?

        I look forward to further encounters. Maybe one day we can discuss Logic as it relates to Axiom 38 which, inter alia, states:

        Lying becomes alter-isness, becomes stupidity.

        . . . and the implications this has on much of the tech and many of the actions of scientology itself.

      • Axion Four states:

        Space is a viewpoint of dimension.

        Logically speaking, this Axiom is using a subordinate clause to define a term. Its the same as saying “a car is a steering wheel”.

    • Blip – So, Einstein says “everything is relative to energy” while Scientology’s first Axiom is that “life is a static”.

      The relationship between energy and wavelength was determined by Max Planck. The relationship is E = hc/(lambda) where lambda is the wavelength of the frequency. So, Blip, if you know your math, you know what happens when that wavelength goes to zero (static) – infinite energy. Can’t go to zero you say? Take the limit as lambda goes to zero – same result. I’m sure you won’t proclaim that some lambda couldn’t approach zero, in fact should be able to approach infinitely close to zero.

      That would probably be the equivalent of a slightly enmested static, IMO.

      Nice rejoinders, Veritas.

      • 2ndmxr,
        Yes, Max Plank, the founder of quantum theory.

        And interesting that he came from two generations (grandparents) of theologians.

        This description of him is somewhat relevant to our discussion:


        Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, “faith” interpreted as being similar to “having a working hypothesis”. For example the causality principle isn’t true or false, it is an act of faith.

      • The same knowledge you display in your understanding that it is not possible to divide by zero is the same logic that holds: if E=MC² is true, then Axiom One is false. Your math proves my point. Again. Thank you.

        Perhaps if LRH has said “life if a slightly enmested static” you would have a point but, really, are you seriously saying that Axiom One is “almost” true? What else is “almost” true, what is Scientology’s margin of error when it comes to truth?

      • BLIP
        I have a feeling you would think out a way to be right no matter what, with no supporting evidence, but here goes…

        You wrote:

        Perhaps if LRH has said “life if a slightly enmested static” you would have a point but,

        Good news! LRH did say that. :-) As follows:

        Phoenix Lectures – L. Ron Hubbard
        “A Thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static. He has practically no wavelength. Actually a thetan is in a very, very small amount of mass.”

        Hubbard then references experiments conducted that repeatedly documented a body weighting approximately 1.5 oz. less at death.

      • BLiP – Perhaps if LRH has said “life if a slightly enmested static” you would have a point but, really, are you seriously saying that Axiom One is “almost” true?

        Our Master of Qual may have to help us with the exact LRH reference on that, but, yes, that life in the physical universe is a slightly enmested static is essentially what LRH says.

        Axiom 2: At least a portion of the static called Life is impinged upon the physical universe.

        Axioms 2 to 7 bring us into the context of theta in the physical universe.

        Time (mine) and blogspace may not allow for a workout of all your questions about the static. Maybe we could start a thread over on Geir Isenes forum – this is an interesting topic and I think it’s close to being answered by science but maybe off topic for this thread.

        For now, one final consideration: Axiom 1 does not define the static as being part of the physical universe. As I’m sure you agree, the physical universe is finite and expanding, therefore there can be a condition of ‘not being in the physical universe’ for ‘something.’

        What laws to apply outside the physical universe may be a topic for lifetimes of research, or they may be answered by a philosphical study. Time will tell.

      • Hubbard then references experiments conducted that repeatedly documented a body weighting approximately 1.5 oz. less at death.

        Really!! That’s amazing. Are you able to link me to a scientific site which can confirm those loss of weight at death experiments? I can’t seem to find one.

        The implications for Axiom One are that your comment indicates that there is, in fact, a “Mass” for the “static”. Logic would indicate that there must also have been “Space” so as to accommodate that “Mass” and there must also have been “Time” so as to allow the “static” to “consider” and “postulate”. And, in the presence of Mass, Energy, Space and Time, there must also have been wavelength.

        Thus, Axiom One is incorrect from start to finish. Is this really a sound foundation for a philosophy?

        • BliP, In order to follow your logic we’d have to all get down on our knees and beg allowance by the almighty MEST universe to let us play.

          • First, thanks for extending the courtesy of allowing me to post on your site. That you permit a devil’s advocate at all is heartening and sets an example that must frighten the Co$. I think I said somewhere before, a healthy society is one which values and protects its critics.

            Pleasantries aside, it is not “my” logic, it is just Logic.

            The weaknesses that logic exposes in the foundation of your philosophy are there because those foundations were written before Scientology became a “religion”. You will recall that Dianetics was originally termed a “science” of the mind. Whatever the circumstances that resulted in Dianetics subsequently becoming a “Church”, (an absorbing story in itself) the fact remains that the foundations are not applicable to a spiritual quest. Rather, they are couched in pseudo-scientific terms which are easily refuted by real science which, in turn, detracts from any societal respectability Scientology might otherwise attract. In fact, it leads to derision.

            Its time now to stop with the fables and myth-making in relation to your founder, and jettison that which is no longer applicable so as to institute new technology that reflects Scientology’s stated intentions. Hayden’s great post today hints at that. If Scientology is seeking to change the world, then it should itself model the new world that it is intending. A good start would be to have as Axiom One:

            Humans are spiritual beings

            The science world would still seek to deny it, but logic cannot.

      • BLiP before you get too gleeful about having finally found the Achilles Heel of the Discussion let’s just say that I know you’re being BLiPant. :) And we both very well know that there *is* only one such experiment searchable on the net.

        LRH may or may not have read about the 1907 series of experiments by the Scottish MD, and yes, they’ve been discredited but that doctor had some *excellent* questions. In any case, the mention was in passing, no such experiments were listed by Hubbard as citations nor for the purpose of proof.

        Your logic process about Axiom 1 is good but has one flaw: You are thinking down a one way street named Disprove.

        …that your comment indicates that there is, in fact, a “Mass” for the “static” … Logic would indicate that there must also have been “Space” so as to accommodate that “Mass”

        From what I now know, since mass is (amount of) Matter, then in this universe it would be persisting in Space/Time sure.

        But here is the question you did not consider: Is it possible for the Static to attach itself (interface with) or perceive an entirely different universe? By which no mass was involved?

        Or/And: could the Static Be in simultaneous states? with mass in this universe, without it natively:? A Schrödinger Static if you will ;-)

        As a Schrödinger’s BLiP surely you can fathom that! Tell me it didn’t give you a bit of a sparkle!:)

        Good exploring with you.

      • heh . . . sprung!! :smile:

        You will note, I hope, that I didn’t actually lie when I said “I can’t seem to find one”. If you search Google with the expression: “weight at death” +myth there’s 106. You’d be surprised how useful that “+myth” variable is when checking claims made on the internet.

        I too am enjoying this dialogue. Please understand that I am not trying to be right or trying to make you wrong. I am simply attempting to apply Logic to the Axioms. This post is about the Philosophy and the Axioms are its foundation. As such, doesn’t the subject deserve a thorough airing whether we end up agreeing or not?

        How are you getting on with your considerations in relation to Time? I get the feeling from some of your comments that you might be attempting to apply the “infinity-valued logic” paradigm as per scientology’s “Logic 7″. It might be best if we discuss our understandings of that idea before moving into Axiom Four?

        My understand is that “infinity valued logic” is a fallacy. Do you recall our brief exchange in relation to ON/OFF?

  9. Exactly. It was while on the Basics that I realised the absurdity of the situation. Here we were, good obedient Scientologists studying the fundamental tenets of the religious philosophy such as the Chart of Human Evaluation and Tone Scale and its underlying philosophy. At the same time the clear unequivacol message from on high was “Listen, Don’t Look”. (And don’t even think about actually applying!).

    A cursory study of the COHE for example reveals exactly where current management is at. Just look at column “Method used to handle others” for example. It’s black and white.

    Similarly one of the MOST basic concepts in Scientology – the ARC triangle: R – reality. “Extraordinary Expansion!” (except not in your area). “Superpower just around the corner” (told to me 10 years ago when I made a substantial donation for it). “OTs IX and X as soon as we’ve made all Orgs SH size” (except that criteria has quietly been done away with so is an unattainable target). “Arbitaries cancelled!” (Except you still need to do endless sec-checks not authorised in any LRH materials, and study all your books and courses all over again with shiny new robot-drills). “The war is over!” (Except the war between the media and CofS is raging like I’ve not seen in 30 years, and scientology has a worse public PR than at any time in its history). “We are the authority on Human Rights!” (except the world is painfully aware that human rights abuses are rampant at the top levels in Scientology).

    Never mind – sign up for your next Basics course; that will handle everything! (And give another $10k to the IAS while you’re at it).

    Forgive the savage irony (graduated from simple sarcasm a while back), but I guess the sense of betrayal still lingers somewhat. The positive is that here there are many wonderful, bright and diligent thetans who care and will stand up for the decent thing despite – in the case of Marty, Steve, Dan et al – incredible provocation and harassment. I wonder why DM even bothers any more – the battle is affectively over. Truth is winning, sanity will prevail, as it always does in the end.

  10. Yep. “Miscavige IS Scientology.” LOL. No, he is not. What he has created is a mutual out-ruds society, in which most anything is allowed as long as the actual truth is withheld, and the appropriate “admiration” is expressed….
    Just don’t talk about the underlying spiritual slaughter of beings.

    Or as LRH put it on the Tone Scale: “Talks apparent theta, but intent is viscious.”

    To mangle Shakespeare: “There are more things in heaven and earth, DM, than are dreamt of in your philosophic practice.”

  11. Excellent write up, Marty. Really.

    I was one of those people. I finished the Basics when in the SO. I cognited s/t is wrong here. Then, it took me a OEC 0, 1, 7, Data Series, Stat Analysis and Ethics and PTS Spec courses to believe myself and stand up to others who said otherwise. Then, I did some covert Evals and Stat Analysis of my own. What I saw: unprecedented and bedazzling expansion in the number of outpoints, squirrel programs and financial irregs.

    I kept these to myself. Because, anytime I had casually pointed out some outpoint I saw re: Superpower, recruitment, IAS, GBS; I was yelled at or even given the privilege of receiving some TM sec checks. So, I was forced to keep them to myself. I went about trying to fix things as much as I can from my level of authority. I made some progress.

    Till, I was confronted by Mr. Webb, and Mr. Bach. D/IG MAA and D/RTC Rep for Training, respectively, regarding my CI to GBS and IAS quotas. I told them, I was against people being off posts and study to make these quotas consistently. I was yelled at and sent to bilges. And I was taken off post to do MEST work.

    What made me tick? Well, that would be the SP Times. In October, I believe, there was a three day lock down. This was the final blow to my allegiance to DM. I knew what the subject of these articles could be, because of the earlier Freedom Mag. I managed to secure a copy of it each and read them. I wasn’t surprised. I thought to myself. This, sure as hell, could have happened. Then, I got online at the FH, thanks to my iPhone, read the Truth RD. Again, I was NOT surprised.

    That night, I made up my mind. I was leaving.

    I told my senior next day. I was on MEST work and Sec Checks for 2 more months. Then, I was free.

    The evals and stat analysis are still somewhere they do not know. Unfortunately, they are hidden on the FLB. Maybe on a computer? Maybe at my old office? Maybe where I used to do MEST work? Who knows…

    Anyway, as of now, I owe the Church $4 Million US dollars for 6 counts of disclosing confidential data and one count of disclosing data heard in RTC spaces….

    Ah one more thing, how about this email, the field got, with my answers:

    INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE FILL THIS OUT AND SEND THIS BACK TO ASHO@scientology.net

    1. WHEN YOU ATTEND EVENTS, WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT?
    Truth
    2. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE BRIEFED ON?
    Truth, GDS
    3. HOW CAN THIS INFORMATION HELP YOU?
    Well…
    4. WHAT DATA IS MOST USEFUL TO YOU?
    Facts, GDS.
    5. WHAT WOULD INSPIRE YOU TO ATTEND SUCH AN EVENT?
    Demise of DM
    6. WHOSE OPINION DO YOU LISTEN TO?
    Mine

    Mr.Webb

    • Mr Webb, Thanks for sharing this story. Good on you for maintaining your personal integrity.

      • Thank you for the ack. I needed that. Things are falling place slowly but surely.

        BTW, after hitting “submit” I felt considerable amount of relief. Again thanks for the ack and most importantly for giving us the opportunity to do just that and everything else you have done.

        One more thing. How about this ethics interview question, I received in several variations for 3 hours. “Why do you ask questions?” It kinda sums everything up, huh?

        • Mr. W, Yes, you are right. When you posted as Mr. W I thought of the original confused pup namesake.

          • Hahahaha… I had to use his name. The guy was frothing from the mouth terribly when he was giving me my very own SRA. It was an interesting picture. He did look like a baby bulldog when he was yelling to be honest. Sorry, Ty.

            • good story Mr Webb. Do you know by any chance if the real Mr Webb was D/IG MAA at ANZO back in 1999. His name really rings a bell and if it is him, he truly was a sour nasty man.

              • Most likely we are talking about the same sour nasty man. He is the D/IG MAA FLB these days. It wouldn’t surprise me is he was at ANZO in 99. Marty could be of assistance here.

              • Concerned Citizen

                He used to be one of the kindest and smartest I ever met, but so were so many who are now DM clones. I just finished listening to “The Rule of the Weak Valance” boy do I recomd that one for anyone looking for answers.

              • Yes, that is him Lise.

            • Ah, I thought you were named after Jack “Just The Facts” Webb from Dragnet!

              Michael A. Hobson

            • What an insouciance to do so. Hilarious!
              Can’t wait for your full story!
              Best, Fidelio

            • thecountesskrak

              A baby bulldog?

              No, they are at least cute and cuddly, not Ty Webb.

    • Hi Mr Webb, I wonder if we’ve ever met while I worked at FSO, but nevertheless I thought of a funny initiative to help handle your bill of 4 plus million $ you now owe the church. Shall I call some fundrising to get it paid up by the time of the 9 May event?

      • Hello, NOTSaware. I don’t think we have met. I don’t think I was there when you were. If you were there, we definitely would have been good friends tho.

        Re: the bill. It has to be Condition 1 till then. What should the bilges be? Scrubbing the sea wall by AO? CB drain scrubbing? Unfortunately, after the renovations in the FH, we cannot get people to work in subbasement swimming in sewage. It’s gone. It’s sad. Also please contact Transpo to let them know there will be a lock down. No busses till quotas are made.

    • Hello Mr. Webb,

      Great story. A few parts made me laugh out loud.

      Today OSA will probably be confiscating all iphones but whatever. Maybe that’ll wake up some more people.

      Shouldn’t be too long before the Dwarf cancels the Data Series course. Can’t have people being able to evaluate things now, can we.

      The part about being asked why do you ask questions made my head spin. There’s only one reason for such a question: The Dwarf has to be experiencing bedazzling amounts of paranoia, terror and downright panic over the fact that he’s losing his grip on the “faithful”.

      Well done on getting out!

    • Welcome Mr. Webb!

      We would love to hear your story, when you have the time to put it in to words. There is no armor that can stop Ideas and Truth….which is why CoM MUST implement dis-connection.

      The truth blows the lies away.

      • Thank you all. I am planning on getting my Declaration of Independence, if you may, sometime soon. I just have to handle some more cycles.

        No worries. Laptops and iPod Touchs are only allowed when internet capabilities are disabled by security. iPhone’s are big no no. Only CMO Dir level and up with 3g disabled. I used a public’s laptop at the FH to reset the phone to factory settings and got the FH wireless access password from this public. In case anyone is wondering it is “fortharrison210″. I remember going to the Men’s room during base briefings sand catching up on whats happening out there.

        I was not the only one who used internet while in the SO. One guy got busted for looking at entheta and got a Comm Ev. Yes, a Comm Ev for looking at entheta. He was off post to do CB galley.

        Another was busted for looking at porn over 6o times in 3 weeks. Comm Ev but still on post.

        Data Series… I was going over the crew list for postings in FSO once. I noticed less than 50 were done with DSEC. Harvey has not done the course.

        When I started I was shown a bunch of Golden Age of Squirrel Drills for it. Not released yet. Lastly, he doesnt have to cancel it. Nobody has time to do it between Study Orders, Condition 1, basics and sec checks.

        Oh no. God forbid if someone looks and doesn’t listen. It’s a new suppressive act to look and evaluate. Guilty.

      • Amazing but not surprising, Mr. Webb. The Inquisition meets 1984 meets Farenheit 451

      • Amazing but not surprising, Mr. Webb. The Inquisition meets 1984 meets Farenheit 451

    • Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comm. I’m sure you’d have spotted me if we had been in close proximity. If you need any assistance from me feel free to ask. ML Ignazio.

    • Looking forward to your story. Welcome, Mr. Webb!

    • KevinBloodyMackey

      G’day Mr Webb, pleased to see you here. Just a question, I thought you were Mr Webb, but you refer to him in the third person.

      Is my irony broken?

    • Mr. Webb,

      It’s so good to see you here. Too cool that you looked and didn’t listen. Too cool that you evaluated, even though evaluating in the C of M may be the biggest crime of all! Too cool that your loyalty is to truth and not to suppressive midget dictators! Welcome; you’ve arrived in the right place.

      I’d love to hear the whole, long story. :)

  12. The difference between a cult and a church is in HOW THEY PRACTICE and not what they believe.

  13. Nice theta arrow right into the heart of DM and his Bots, Marty. And for us, another gem to destimulate us.

    I love that you take the TIME and THETA to destim people, Marty.

    If anyone has any idea that you are a bad guy or not, they need to understand what it would take for a person to put up a blog, continuously export information about the most diabolical situation mankind has ever seen, and then take the time to read all of the responses, and from those responses find the correct LRH datums needed to assuage the readers – take immense, boundless LOVE.

    And that is you Marty; boundless love for your Scientology friends. Thanks for being there. Really. If not for you we would be screwed.

    ML Virgil

  14. Great post Marty.

    For me this expresses the very reason LRH wrote KSW and made it mandatory for that policy to be placed at the beginning of every course.

    It’s amazing what happens when staffmembers, or public for that matter, ask to be shown the LRH policy reference whenever they are in doubt about some order or faced with arbitraries.

  15. Wow- Mr. Webb, who are you? I loved your post – and respect you for your courage. “Why do you ask questions?” The suppression is SO OBVIOUS that its invisible! Welcome to the bright side :)

  16. Thanks, Marty! Beautifully stated.

    Making a clear distinction between Scientology philosophy, and what is currently, fraudulently practiced under the label “Scientology” is so important.

    Very practical, too: Many times over the past few years, I’ve had non-Scientologist friends go all surprised and confused when they learn I’m a Scientologist. What they know of me doesn’t fit in with the noise and nonsense they’ve heard or read about Scn.

    The confusion routinely blows as soon as I ack it well, and explain the difference between the SUBJECT (philosophy and actual – not Miscavized – technology) and the ACTIONS of Dave and those he’s snowed and twisted. The surprise and confusion turn to understanding and interest. “So what is Scientology REALLY, then?”

    • Wow, Russ, well done for disseminating the difference between Scn and the church! I think that’s the first thing that has to be done in any dissem cycle.

    • Yes, I have always wondered at the symbols being used in the ‘church’ – very much like the illuminati symbols, as also evidenced on American money, and the president’s office.

      Know the symbol being used on books and tapes in recent years? The math symbol of earth, (circle with cross in middle) and the levels, or steps indicating bridge? That was my husbands copyrighted music business logo, from an old time – bunch of implanters. (We divorced). He had it made onto an ounce of gold for a necklace.
      I saw the letter apparently from Ron about his symbol, and next thing ya know it’s on the newer tapes and books. That was some time ago…

    • I forgot the link of the symbol – this is the original form. http://www.debsnotebook.net/zzzsc/02symbol.html

    • My point was that it was a violation to use the Grand Seal unautherized. But I know what you are telling me.

      And Miscavige will use anything or anybody if and when he gets away with it.

      Sorry to hear about your divorce. I red your piece on a board and saw your narrated video’s.

      One thing. do not let people on the Internet get you upset. smile it off and venture towards new encounters. Glad to see you post again Deb.

  17. Marty great article and to Mr. Webb well done!

  18. You are singing my tune here, Marty, and oh, you really have a way with words. It’s exactly what I was referring to in my opt-out notice to CoS.

    “Yes, there are an abundance of reasons for my decision, but I won’t go into them here. Suffice to say, that my personal values and (in my opinion) the fundamentals of the Scientology philosophy, do not align with the current operations and practices of the Church as it is currently organized and managed. What I see is that the Church is producing far more BS and self-promotion than any other product or service, and is leaving as a by-product a wake of toxic bad news and ill repute the half-life of which is anybody’s guess.

    “Until there is significant reform in the Church’s organizational structure, management style, and operational practices – I’m opting out. Marta”

    In other words – Hey, dumbasses, I may consider some affiliation when the management of CoS stops acting like emotionally and organizationally immature nincompoops, cleans up their act, practice what they preach, demonstrates authenticity, applies simple logic and honesty (oh, and how about the admin scale). CoS, get your Ethics In or get out of the way.

    It dawned on my that it’s just not good sense to continue to support any group, organization or business (let alone your own religious group) once I found out it operates as poorly as does the CoS. If my physician was not being honest about his credentials, I’d get someone whom I could trust..? If my stock broker was juggling accounts, I’d fire him at minimum. If the pastor had his hand in the offering plate, I’d certainly quite going to that congretation!

    I’m just sayin’.

  19. Fantastic article Marty. Could tell you some other damage the real Mr Webb caused. I am very much under the radar and rarely post. I am working through my conditions and getting the data that I have fully observed for myself while reading your blog and all the comments from this very theta group. I have been active in the Church for 30 years, in SO and out.
    Yesterday, I read the most spectacular story by Thoughtful, I was very touched by it and to me it was theta plus, absolutely beautiful, how you would think that anyone who could write something like that was anything but a theta being is insane, This brings me to my next point which I think ties in with your article. I went from reading Steve’s to reading an article about Joe Howard (my hero from Pro TRs days) on Minervas (OSAs) site. I was disgusted, this is the Church at it’s best, broad generalities, lies that if read carefully can be spotted, like time line, natter, criticism. Very enturbulating, but I found that if someone had doubts before, they couldn’t after reading the verbal diarhorea spewed out on that site. This particular story is supposedly by an Int Mgmt SO member. Wow, they are surely doing themselves in.
    We have the theta of Steves article using the tech and the practices of the Church.
    Thanks to all you guys for what you are doing. I am still coming through the process of getting out, it is not easy but without you guys I don’t think that I could have done it. You all have my love and gratitude. Do I press the submit button, do I, hell here goes. heheheh

    • Abbeyrose,

      I’m so glad you pressed the submit button! Please let us hear a lot more from you.

      Gettting out was hard for most of us. We all had a lot invested in the story that the church was going to save the world. It took me a long time to admit that I truly believed the church to be a suppressive organization devoted to submerging the human spirit.

      You are so right to look for yourself and see where the truth is and where the theta is, and where the entheta lies are coming from. Welcome to the place where Scientology lives, where theta flourishes, where communication and thought are permitted, and where beings can actually expand.

      • Abbeyrose,

        I remember the fear I felt when I made the leap to communicate something that might give away who I was but I courageously did so because it was what I felt was the right thing to do.

        With passing posts I was less and less worried about the consequences of identifying myself. By the time I decided to do so overtly I felt pretty confident but not bulletproof about the subject. Since doing so, I no longer feel withholdy or like it is an overt…because I write what is true and take care not to natter.

        When you are ready, it will be fine and it is very chargeblowing…the suppression simply lifts. Post as much as you can and I’ll be sure to read it. Welcome to the comm cycle!

    • “Do I press the submit button, do I,..”

      You hit the submit button!!! And you’re still alive! And …. don’t it feel great! The smoke and mirrors is just that.

    • abbeyrose said:
      “I went from reading Steve’s to reading an article about Joe Howard (my hero from Pro TRs days) on Minervas (OSAs) site”

      I don’t know what “Minervas” refers to.

      Eileen

  20. Major Point Marty!

    Just realized about 27 years of my 30 involved in Scn have been in “PROTEST” of so many off policy, out Tech, out PR “Practices”.

    And I believe DM knows he is creating a great confusion between what LRH put forth and what is currently being practiced. And with his false PR can send anyone into confusion or break there personal integrity thus becoming part of a herd of blind unquestioning followers. How so many can be broken with the Technology that can free so many is really Incredible.

  21. Marty.

    Thanks for another great post.

    I’m guessing that the separation of these two things, practices and Philosophy, is likely a key ingredient in many of us being here. Until I had separated the two I was very reluctant to D- PTS from the current CofS.

    It is curious, but understandible, that when I wrote a letter to the person with whom I considered I had the most reality, His response was that “the two are the same thing” and said “good Bye” He then sent a copy of my E-mail suggesting he might be interested in these blogs to our local OSA (misrouted).

    That unwillingness or inability to differentiate is a bitch!

    WW

  22. Mr. Rathbun, thank you very much for the hatting and Source enlightenment you provide on your Theta Blog !

    In today’s post, you are definitely disproving the False Data that has been floating around about the Scientology Religious Philosophy.

    The following LRH quote is a TRIBUTE to YOU:

    “Understanding, added to competence, is probably the most ideal character of an executive.” […]

    “In all great leaders there is a purpose and intensity which is unmistakable. Plus there is a certain amount of courage required in a leader.

    “A man who merely wants to be liked will never be a leader. Others follow those who have the courage to get things done eventhough they ‘say’ they follow those they like. A broad examination of history shows clearly that men follow those they respect.
    Respect is a recognition of inspiration, purpose and competence. ”

    LRH – Executive Series 2, LEADERSHIP (HCOPL 29 OCT. 71 III)

    You certainly have MY respect. Thank you for your Theta help !

  23. Mr. W, good for you. Ty was carefully molded into what he has become. I remember how delightful he was a child, sort of shy. This is another crime dm has to pay for. My sec check question was, “what are you doing to prevent public from going up the Bridge?” Now, anyone who has ever known me and had the pleasure of working with me knows how hard I worked to ensure public made it up the Bridge. Imagine my surprise and confusion the first time that I was asked that question. I actually said to the auditor that I thought she’d been given the wrong program for me that it must be for someone else. Sadly, it was meant for me. Such gross out tech.
    Now, obviously I had to have done something to warrant being taken off post and put into a sec check. Right? One day, when there were lots of blue suits and brass in the room, I said to a public that I was working with to get back onto Solo NOTs “it doesn’t take a fing rocket scientist to figure it out”. While I said those words clearly on the phone, the entire room had gone quiet for a moment. For saying that to a public I was removed from post, treated in a most humiliating way and put on the decks. Now, in the context of the phone conversation what I said was not out of line, and not directed at the public but at something he had been relating to me about something that had happened at his business.
    It was said as a joke, it was said in a joking manner and the public laughed his ass off, he was in very good comm with me, which did not happen with very many people at the FSO at the time because he was so ARCXen. I was the first person who had gotten through to him and had gotten him to agree to return. Not one person dared speak up to the brass in the room on my behalf, they became part of the mob, either helping to humiliate or standing by and letting it happen. It was a devastating experience.
    That was NOT SCIENTOLOGY IN PRACTICE as I thought it should be. It had nothing to do with the SCIENTOLOGY PHILOSOPHY as I knew it.
    Reading this blog I realize that is the exact point where I went fully into Doubt about my church as it was being practiced. It started at the event to announce GAT.
    Marty, I can’t thank you enough for this blog and all that you are doing to preserve Scientology Philosophy purely and exactly.

    Love, Eileen

    • Hi Ceileen,

      I wish there were more Sea Org members like you when I was at flag. I like real people, not the phonies that pretend ARC.

      I am glad you escaped.

      ARC,
      Alex

    • Eileen,

      Of course, the question you were asked was meant to introvert you and to cave you in. OSA has succeeded in driving people to psychotic breaks with their evilly-intended sec checks.

      And gee, you were taken off post for being there and communicating. You committed the crime of making your comm real!

      I could go on and on. The examples you gave perfectly exemplify what the church has become. Welcome to the side of truth and theta!

      • Tone 41

        Thanks for that nice acknowledgement.
        I really miss doing what I did with the public, loved my job…long as I was left alone to just do it.
        Silly me, I thought I was wearing LRH’s hat as he would have liked me to. Where did I go wrong?….LOL!

        Eileen

      • Eileen,

        The joke is on them, of course. You *were* wearing LRH’s hat as he would have like you to. But I know you know that. Wouldn’t it be great to see a truly theta org of some sort, kind of like the old-time missions, staffed by independents?

  24. one of those who see

    “Practice that is not conducted in a manner so as to attain the philosophy is bad practice. PRACTICE should always lead toward realization of PHILOSOPHY or wisdom.”

    For the sake of this post I will call you “oh thine enlightened one” Marty, you have outdone yourself here.

  25. Marty this is so perceptive and incisive! —->
    Don’t ever let a DM bot make you feel guilty. Do not ever be embarrassed or tongue tied around a DM-bot. All he or she will ever make you wrong about are DM’s PRACTICES. Arguing about his PRACTICES is fruitless. It is an argument they are not allowed to think with. So, why bother with it? Instead, talk to him or her about the PHILOSOPHY of Scientology.

  26. Love the post. Thank you Marty!

    Great post Mr. Webb. Looking forward to reading your truth.

  27. Thanks Marty for the fantastic Lrh reference — very much to the heart of what we are addressing here — seperation of philosophy and practice.
    Yes, I also wonder why would someone studying the basics so intensively now not see the outpoint that is going on in the church.
    There is almost like a massive group implant — here is the philosophy but here is how we agree to practice differently. And the punishment is losing your eternity and being outcast by the group if u do not follow the practice.

    Shame, blame and regret tactics are the stock in trade of current management.

    Hit a person ‘below the belt’ many times with these tactics — that is what dm knows to do.

    But life is resilient. Dm did not know the ‘basics’ himself.

    A simple truth revealed, more theta shared, another person seeing the difference between LRH philosophy and church practice will break the control which dm seeks to put on scientologists.

    It is a losing game for dm.

    He simply does not know or even aware of the power of theta and truth.

    He needs to do his basics.

  28. Let’s take a look at a hypothetical situation.

    If an SP or a “squirrel” takes over the church of scientology, what would be the phenomena we would see?

    Wouldn’t the following phenomena naturally occur as a result?

    1. Alteration and abuse of the policies that existed before that person took over.

    2. Decline of the church of scientology stats on an international basis.

    3. A collision with real scientologists that were in the church of scientology under him.

    4. An abuse of the position to enhance his or her own personal lifestyle.

    5. Abuse of the other scientologists in the organization under him or her.

    Isn’t this what we are seeing happening now?

  29. Great article Marty. Thank you again.

    AND so great to see all the new names on this blog. Seems every new article, there are more new people speaking up (and perhaps soon out!)

    It is my hope that as we form this formless group of “family” that we remember to be the wind at each others back, to stand on our own two feet but never be afraid to say – gosh, could you lend a hand here … and most of all — to know that the only thing that isn’t impermanent is … theta.

    Everything we’ve been through as a group, and as individuals will serve to make us happier, stronger and wiser — just look for the gold within the dirty nugget.

    WH

  30. Perhaps Miscavige is tipping his cap as to what he really thinks of himself by shoving his black Scientology practices on everyone else. LRH said of squirrels that they think everybody has their case and abandon standard technology.

    He thinks he needs a sec check every 6 months with FPRD so evil purposes are uncovered and blown.
    He thinks his Clear status is b.s. and should be cancelled.
    He thinks his Purif is unflat and that he needs 75 hours of Objectives.
    He thinks his auditor training was glib and that he needs to do tons more drilling so he can attain perfection.
    He thinks he has no clue what the basics of Scientology are and should do courses on every book.
    And last but not least, he thinks he should be locked up in the Hole and treated like the scumbag that he knows he is.
    YSCOHB

  31. COB once said to 800 outer org trainees “You are either in the loop or out of the loop. I am, THE LOOP”. That didn’t strike anyone as an outpoint at the time.

  32. marty,

    your site always raises my tone level, and makes me rise on my beautiful balloon:

  33. Veritas, sorry to keep picking on you but you
    continue to impress. A friend of mine heard
    I was posting stories so decided to check out
    Marty’s blog. I was asked ‘are all Scientologists
    so Intelligent’? Honest as I am had to reply
    ‘ only the smart ones’. I think you’re one of
    the smart ones. Have you read ‘Zen Physics’?

    • Sarge, No I haven’t. I just looked the book up and it looks wonderful. If it were available for Kindle I’d have instantly downloaded it but it’s now on my list. Thank you for the recommendation.

      I like your answer to your friend, it really goes for just about any label or category even some PhD’s I’ve met:)

      Thank you more than words can say for your company.

  34. Great post. I can’t help but hear that piano in the dark:

  35. Marty,

    Very good article and on the spot.
    Here some reality on what you are talking about;

    In 1981 it was propably the last Time I did Trs the standard way.
    It was always my dream to do a pro Trs course at Flag as I knew mine weren’t perfect.
    I never got a C/s Ok for it, as most people thought I should do NOTs first and that the problems I want to handle with Trs will be handled on NOT’s ???????
    in 2003 with my wife I did the VM Course, it also included Tr’s. Had some wins on those but felt very strange and decided again I want to do the Pro trs course and originated it to the Registrar. He promised to ask for a C/S ok.
    At the same time we started our daugthers and a friend of them on this Tr’s course. They nearly had no wins on it, we didn’t understand it and felt strange, as we knew Tr’s give spectular wins !
    We forgot about it and I kept Tr3ing the registrar for years about the C/s Ok til I wrote myself to the C/S and got the OK.
    When I showed it to the reg. he confessed he never asked for it as he knew he wouldn’t get one. So now, I was very happy and wanted to organize a Twin and my life for to do the Pro Tr’s course….But….
    The reg told me I should do the Basics first !!!!!!
    I started on them, did some courses. It was very Funny – the Meter Checks by the Sups. There was only one Sup., an old lady with huge Arc, that always indicated my F/N as a student by just a glimpse onto the meter. The other sups were just staring onto the meter and didn’t see the F/N I knew I had. I didn’t get it. Also in those checkouts I found out that my wordclearer
    was nearly illiterate, just a robot. Unbelievable !
    So know I’m doing the Basics of the Basics and reading Will Durant’s history of Civilization, about 30 books and in some weeks I’m done.
    Some weeks ago I decided to get my basics in life really in (I mean Basics like Tr’s, Arc, ethics etc…not reading books).
    Yesterday, I started with OTTRO with my wife. We started well, but after 10 minutes she interrupted me from time to time giving me a Flunk for different reaction. That was really strange. I asked myself what the hell are we doing ?
    I asked her for the reference about what she’s doing. She showed me the Trs that are described in the VM Handbook.
    She did it the right way as described in that book, but as I looked further at the Book I realized what we were doing was a new Tr, I never did in Scientology. The Tr that we were doing was called “TRO Be there” but with closed Eyes and one student being the coach and the other one the student and the commands being “that’s it” and “Start”, no flunks (only in the next Tr flunk is added as a command) with an example “that’s it you fell asleep, start !”.
    We asked ourselves what that is and went into the attick where we found my beloved old VMs Handbook that is more than 30 years old. I was so happy I never threw those books away as many Scientologists did.
    In this book under chapter Trs were the original Reference about OTTRO, very short and precise (only about a 20% of text as compared to the new book) and it’s called OT(operatingThetan)TRO and not TRO be there (with closed eyes). We couldn’t believe it. Ommitting the word OT changes the drill totally and gives it a totally different purpose. We couldn’t believe it that we didn’t see those changes 6-7 years ago. My wife was schocked and we could understand why our kids and their friends didn’t have the expected wins.
    So we did then OTTRO – boy what a relief and the wins I had !-. My Life changed quite after only an Hour, but we will continue. I never had so cheap wins ! I’ll do pro TRs without paying a cent !
    Master of Qual you should look at it and give out a warning.
    So 200’000 of VM’s worldwide did Trs without having done OTTRO as first step. I understand now that they don’t exist as they didn’t learn to be OT on OTTRO and so they are now “there” as I don’t know what but for sure not as OT or a thetan.
    My god the guy was so right, I was blind towards those little changes.
    It starts to make so much sense.
    I’ll rather stick to the “applied religious philosophy of Scientology” then become a Faithful member of the new Religion, created by DM and which he calls “Scientology”.
    Thanks for listening (uh… reading)

    Have a good day

    LO

    • martyrathbun09

      LO, I can relate. I recently got Mosey through TRs 0-9, right from the HCOBs. Amazing stuff.

      • Yeah, we will be searching our house for those Hcobs, somewhere we will find them. Perhaps buried under all those plastic lectures sets ?

        LO

    • LO maybe digitalizing your materials is an idea.

      • This guy was really right, I’m blinder then blind. It never occured to me that I could put my references into the Computer for easier use and i even can disseminate Lrh materials then to friends.
        Thanks for the advice ! :)

        LO

    • I’m glad I kept all my books, too! Those changes are “small” and insidious High Crimes. Right now I am incensed, really incensed as I think about the implications of the change made to TRs that you describe, Lo.

      “TRO be there (with closed eyes).” ?????

      What is that saying!? Be there as a body!! >:-|

      It’s really beyond awful to think of what is being robbed from people who aren’t doing OT TRO !

      • It makes perfect sense. If you look at scientologists of today. 80 % of them have done the VM checksheets and were learning that nonsense.
        OT has been canceled !!!!! Tr’s have nothing to do with operating Thetan.
        It rehablilitated so much when I found out about this nonsense.

        LO

    • LO,

      I had one of my biggest wins ever in Scn on OT TR0, and it became my favorite of the TRs. It was truly an OT win. With the “OT” part of the drill canceled, I guess people will just be sitting there as closed-eyed bodies. They sure won’t be having the wins I had on it!

      • This is so true !

        Just take one tiny little word (OT) away and the activity becomes something totally different.
        It took me 7 years to see it !

        LO

      • LO,

        The important thing is that you saw it, and you’re telling others about it. Amazing how a little word can make so much difference! Like, just the difference between hmanoid and OT!

    • LO,

      I had one of my biggest wins ever in Scn on OT TR0, and it became my favorite of the TRs. It was truly an OT win. I guess that with OT canceled, people will just be sitting there as closed-eye bodies. They sure won’t be having the wins I had!

  36. I’m no historian, but it seems to me that the practice of Scientology, even under LRH, changed dramatically over the years as his philosophy changed. The basic purpose and philosophy may have remained, but experience causes a thetan to make adjustments. Studying GPMs dramatizes this process.
    The advent of the Sea Project expresses one of those changes. So many of the quotes we read expressing the right to use Scientology freely came from earlier LRH. Later, post mid sixties the attitude became much more rigid and strict.
    Just as in any other religion, contradictions exist in the philosophy and the practice of Scientology.
    In Christianity does one practice “an eye for an eye” or “forgive seven times seventy?”
    In Scientology does one practice “be true to your own observations” or “KSW?” And which Scientology do we keep working? The Scientology of the PDC and that era or the Scientology tech of the Class 8 philosophy? That the policy on tech degrades says that all Scientology is workable still begs the question as the philosophical change introduced harsh ethics in the sixties.
    So, Marty, despite the beauty of your sage post, the application becomes more nuanced. Or, perhaps contradictory. It’s like trying to do TRO, you have to sit there for hours or years until the simplicity works through the complexity. Philosophy versus practice is not always an easy path.

    Blink, blink.
    Flunk.
    Blip, blip.
    Flunk.

    Much love,

    Michael

    • martyrathbun09

      Michael,
      Thanks. I think it is crystal clear when you study the entire body of work adhering to the early injunction to study it with a critical eye toward workability. SO or no SO, I never worked in any group of Scientologists that did not use it in a sane, workable fashion with the exception of the DM experience.
      Marty

      • Marty,
        First, I think you are a wise and remarkable being. But, like myself, imperfect. I don’t give praise lightly.

        All religion and philosophy should lead toward clarity of vision. When perception is distorted by any means, alter-isness creates a downward spiral away from truth. That said, I realize that none of us have perfect clarity of vision. We are all, hopefully, evolving toward more accurate perception.

        My observations and comments are always accompanied with the realization that my understanding will increase and amendments will follow. So, when I prod, please realize I do so out of respect for not only your ability to listen and your ability to increase your understanding, but also a respect for your reader’s ability to do the same.

        Agreement and admiration are wonderful things. Agreement creates reality. And admiration just plain feels fantastic. But freedom demands a vigilance about what realities are being created and practiced.

        Whenever I see agreement brewing, I like to assume all viewpoints to ensure that vigilance. However, a post limits one to a viewpoint expressed. To express all viewpoints would drive us all to distraction.

        My job is to enter enough cognitive dissonance that none of us become complacent about what we agree to. If I did not respect this audience to step back and look, I would not waste my time.

        I’m not looking for agreement; I’m looking for intelligent analysis to improve our chances of attaining a rational culture that produces actual operating thetans instead of robots and adherents.

        A fighter gets tougher by getting hit hard in training. Training meekly does not prepare you for the ring. Nor for bar fights. My philosophy is “hit me as hard as you can; if I can’t take it today, maybe I’ll be able to tomorrow.” Intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, physically. No sense in being squeamish. And the harder I hit a friend in training, the more I respect them and trust their ability to become stronger.

        Much love,

        Michael

      • Once Upon a Time

        I’m looking for intelligent analysis to improve our chances of attaining a rational culture that produces actual operating thetans instead of robots and adherents.

        I think that’s vital.

      • Once Upon a Time,

        I answered your post (adressed to “Michael,”) but my comment didn’t embed under yours and floated to another locatiion. Just wanted you to know there’s an answer to you drifting around somewhere on this blog!

      • tone 41
        could not find your comment. But thanks.

        And though this may have been stated elsewhere: the thetan is basically a static. Absolutes are not attainable. Basically a static.

      • Once Upon a Time,

        It’s down below, but I’ll paste it in up here. I’m hoping this is embedded in the right place this time:

        Michael,

        Your post above is so articulate and sane that it’s really rather beautiful. I look forward to reading many more of your posts in the future.

        Intelligent analysis with the goal of attaining a rational culture with actual operating thetans rather than robots is one of the buggest turn-ons there is.

        And your answer to Blip below is a riot. Perfect! He had to try really hard to miss the simple point you were making, didn’t he? Oh well, I guess ser facs will do that to you.

      • tone 41,

        Thanks for taking the time and effort to repost this.
        As you point out, analysis brings great joy. I’m becoming more and more aware of the importance of the “analytical mind” aspect of DMSMH. The capacity for analysis is diametrically opposed to the capacity for reactivity. We all have both with or without a reactive mind. And, as in all things, each of us has a different capacity for analysis or reactivity. Some are natively more inclined to analysis; some more inclined to reactivity.
        On a scale of aesthetics, the beauty and sensation available from using the analytical aspect of our being is very high and very rewarding. The beauty and sensation available from using the reactive portion of our being tends to be more MEST oriented and cruder. Each has a “pay off,” just depends on which you prefer.
        For me, sometimes I like Mozart; sometimes I like Fifty Cents. Sometimes I like an exterior journey through spiritual art galleries; sometimes I like gritty sex.
        The point is, the real significance of “the analytical mind” seems to not have gained a large audience–even in Scientology. With the advent of Scientology, the concept of “Operating Thetan” seemed to move to the forefront. But, even an operating thetan is only as capable as he operates analytically. You can have an operating thetan who is just a huge being but an idiot prone to reactivity and he’s just going to cause a mess for the rest of us.
        So, I advocate an understanding of intelligence and analysis over brute power and control. And I advocate an appreciation of beauty and joy over analysis. If you are filled with joy and you fill others with joy, intelligence and analysis become mere tools to maintaining a theta universe.
        As this comes so late in the posting cycle, I don’t know if you will read this or if anyone will read it. I probably will have to post these concepts another day in another forum.

        Much love,

        Michael

      • Michael,

        I just found this, and I’m glad I did. One of the problems with the format of WordPress blogs is that it’s difficult to keep up with older threads. Personally, I like to ack or reply to every response to anything I’ve written. But that’s not easy on this blog.

        Anyhow, thanks for your cogent and insightful answer. I would attempt to say something more, but it’s very late and I’m perhaps 10% awake and 90% semi-delirious.

        I love both beauty and analysis. I guess I’d have to agree that if one must be senior, it would be beauty and theta. But it seems to me that an appreciation for real analytical thinking is more scarce than an appreciation for aesthetics.

        Of course, another way to look at what you said is that the ability to think clearly and with discernmenet follows tone level. Joy is very high on the tone scale, and sanity prevails high on the tone scale.

        So now I don’t know if you’ll see *my* reply on this old thread. Next time I see a post of yours on a current thread I’ll mention that I answered this so you’ll know that what you wrote was seen and very much appreciated, at least by me.

    • In Christianity does one practice “an eye for an eye” or “forgive seven times seventy?”

      Except the quote you use is from the Pre-Christian Old Testament. Christ teaches us to turn the other cheek. If you wish to persist in on cherry picking you could produce a veneer of validity by at least choosing quotes from within the same millennia.

      • Um, how about “Thou shall not kill.”

        Once again … as Marty points out and sooo fundamental and most cogent:

        The Difference between Practice and Philosophy

      • Though you and I may differentiate between Old and New Testament, Christians seldom do. For Christians that I have talked with, the Bible is the word of God and all that is written therein is sacred. There was a huge philosophical shift between the two, but that seems to be lost on most believers.
        I do love cherries. As you must nits. “Veneer of validity?” Qui accuse s’accuse? Hiding behind intellectual argument is always a shallow exercise. Intellectuals tend to be desperate and frantic because they won’t take that leap of faith suggested by Camus. In faith is peace.
        By millennia I assume you mean millennium as “same” implies a unit, and millennium is singular. And I assume you mean a thousand years as opposed to another Christian definition meaning an unspecified period of bliss. But, even then the millennium is a New Testament concept right out of Revelations, so if you are talking about the same millennia or millennium you must be talking about the New Testament. Whew! How tiring picking all these cherries.
        Wait! God damn! No seeds. YUK! I’m picking nits.
        Christ I’ve gone into Blip’s valence! Wow! I love it. I’m suddenly smarter than everyone else! I’m sticking with this one. It’s a winner. I’m right; I’m dominating. Glory Jesus.

        Love yah, baby
        Keep swinging.

        Michael.

        • Michael, there is an essay you might enjoy by William James called The Will to Believe. You can find it by google search.

      • LOL!! That’s so funny. Excellent mock up. Ohhhh oyoyoy LOL LOL

    • Once Upon a Time, very interesting post. I’ve been thinking a lot about this myself recently. I studied Scientology for over 35 years and yes, you’re right – there WAS a change in LRH’s viewpoint. In the early books (and PDC) there was a great stress on a being’s individual viewpoint and ability to and right to create his own universe and find his own truth. This includes many parts of Scientology, including The Code of Honor, Personal Integrity, etc. Starting in the mid 60s with the advent of the ethics system, you start to see a lot of emphasis put on the potential crimes of people re: Scientology, whole lists of them, and various procedures to protect the group by finding and handling these individuals (not that I have any problem at all with a group’s right to ensure its survival by dealing with the evil within and without their group). In 1973 you see sec checking/confessionals re-instated for use with the release of Integrity Processing and then more and more emphasis put on handling the evil one has done (and which is presumably stopping one’s own survival as well as the group) with Expanded Dianetics, False Purpose RD, Happiness RD, Six Month checks, etc to the point where OW write ups and Sec checks start to become the handling for almost any situation. And we see the start of the RPF as well. Yes, I have thought of what LRH was thinking during this time that caused him to move steadily in this direction. But for now, I’ll leave that for you and others to decide yourselves. But his sort of “chipper” attitude you hear in the early tapes was gone by the mid 60s. As far as KSW goes and AUDITING TECH, we are talking about something else really. I was a Case Supervisor for a long time and auditing is a technology, an applied set of principles. So, when this technology is missapplied, one doesn’t get the results one should and the auditor’s missapplication needs to be corrected. A being can be VERY free to have his own viewpoint and judge the truth for himself of what he reads and hears, but if he is designing a building and missapplies the science and engineering in this technology, then there will be some very unhappy folks living in this building (if they do indeed continue living very long that is). Keep up your very insightful and thought provoking posts.

      • Joe,
        I really do understand and respect the tech and the need to keep it standard. I do understand how frigging crazy humans can be and how prone to alteration of anything workable. I also recognize from personal experience that we are all different and that “standard application of tech” can open its own can of worms. Such as what about tech that hasn’t been developed yet?
        What about those who had gone clear and ran into trouble until LRH discovered what he did about this? Tech was being standardly applied and these individuals were getting hammered by it. And this happens with other areas of case.

        As a personal example, which I’ve written about elsewhere (and I’m not talking case, just giving an example), I was stuck in endless repair in the early seventies. C/Sed by class 8 and 12’s who were using standard tech. After six hundred hours of this I was getting nowhere fast. When I left the church, I took my folders, FESed them, corrected all the errors and solo audited out all the bugs. The bugs turned out to be NOTs case phenomenon and undeclared states similar to clear. But, NOTs had not been created at the time. The solution to the case would have standardly been NOTs, but that tech was not in the tool bag. Only later, after I had already handled what I did, I discovered the NOTs material on the internet and sort of grinned.

        Now granted, much of NOTs is really in the factors and axioms and PDC era material if you just know what to look for. And, with that in mind, an astute auditor and c/s could have done an, “Aha!” and applied that basic material, which per tech degrades would have been “standard tech.” But what process would they have used? Those processes hadn’t been developed yet. Using the ITSA line would have worked, I suppose.

        And what about handling the borderline sociopaths (and there are many) who are really stuck in a sort of super-ser-fac aspect of case rather than simply being out valence or stuck in overts? I don’t know that this tech is available.

        So, yes, standard tech is applicable to the vast majority living in the middle hump of the bell shaped curve. And astutely applied, that tech applies to those on both tapers. But, recognizing just exactly what case you have in front of you isn’t always easy. I tell people that genius and insanity look alike to the average mind. And sometimes the very high end case and the very low end case look much the same: difficult and hard to resolve. That’s partially due to magnitude of problem relative to available free theta. A big being embroiled in the basic problems of this universe is going to look absolutely frigging nuts. Look at public response to OT3.
        But the problem with applying standard tech is understanding the reach of the material and sometimes even the relevance of some comment buried inside an obscure lecture which LRH did not emphasize or bother to develop more fully.
        So, we’re really on the same book, just looking at different pages at the moment.

        Much love,

        Michael

  37. WH, You are my hero and speak truth. Relative
    or not. Another one of them smart ones. Whats
    the world coming to.

    • Thank you Sarge. I think the world is waking up … if I seem smart, it’s thanks to those who have been my teachers!

      You’re my hero. Your sense of loyalty and integrity is inspiring!

      WH

  38. thecountesskrak

    As an additional note on cells and computers at the FLB. It all started back in 1995-96. One of my friends had a simple cell phone to be able to talk to his dad. One day COB Security Kevin Papavich saw him with it. This lead to Kevin and another security guard keeping him up all night telling him that he needed to give up his cell because it was “out-security”, etc, etc. The next day the issue canceling all cell phones for staff was issued broadly. Since then no one was allowed a cell phone at Flag unless you were an Exec ,CMO, OSA or RTC and even then they would only use the walkie-talkie feature because it was the “safe secure” one.
    Same went for laptops, having internet was a high crime. Security would ransack the rooms and confiscate your laptop and if it even had the dvd feature they would not give it back till it was disabled. A personal laptop either had to stay at home and have nothing “confidential” even a photo. Or if you used it at the base it was now a property of the base for fear of any leakage

  39. I also wonder, what about the *subjective* spiritual world? of which there may exists as many as there exist spirits? and who is doing the accessing of the “objective” spiritual world? A subjective spirit? Or an intellect that is divorced from spirit? Ohhh, wonder winder wonder is a glorious thing.

    Fortunately, it can be subjectively known, and objectively panned out. Onward! :-)

  40. Blip, (if thats your real name) You are either
    one of two things. 1) not too bright or
    b) very brave. Gump

    • On/Off thinking in relation to human beings is soooooo limiting. I could, in fact, be both.

      • BLiP,
        I’m having fun playing Ping pong with you.

        As a matter of fact On/Offf thinking is the notorious think-mode of engineers. (Without it, we would have no space program, and I loved those images coming back from Mars).

        BLip

        I could, in fact, be both.

        Hmm. I suspected as much! A Schrödinger’s BliP! ;)

      • That said, I can be On Off and everything in between, around, in cubic 360 so maybe we can agree on that, that On/Off is indeed — while it has it’s place in mechanics … sooooooooooooooo limiting! I agree!

      • heh!

        Thank goodness for the exponentially useful IF, THEN, and ELSE functions.

        A Schrödinger’s BliP

        . . . good one and far from feeble, still chuckling to myself :smile:

  41. Ah, another spirited debate.

    Veritas: What an impressive mind/intelligence. I’m going to check your work on the web. Seems I remember your name from long ago when a.r.s. temporarily caught my interest.

    BLiP: I have long felt the same frustrations about scientology, but have also returned to so many fundamental truths I found there, even though I’ve spent thousands of hours researching the spiritual world to find my own truths. Will check into your references and give them a read. Given a choice between boatloads of theoretical data and watching our koi swim, I’ll watch the koi.

    Marty: Surprised you let me get in a couple of cheap shots. You must be busier than I thought. Don’t know which Michael you referred to, but I certainly will check out William James.

    Much love to all for the insights,

    Michael

    • Once Upon a Time,
      That’s a lovely thing to hear, particularly since my work is of sorts in the realm of thought, so thank you.

      I never participated in a.r.s. though. Do you mean my avatar, veritas? Or have we met?

      In some ways “know about” is limiting and it’s fun for me for a number of reasons having the freedom to be my essential self (Thought) here, with no name/gender/significance in these forums. I don’t post with my own name for various reason, primarily internet privacy and some professional reasons — but I am happy (uber happy) to connect with our community.

      This blog and this community has been and is a sanctuary for me. Marty and everyone here, thank you.

      • Veritas,
        I understand about the “know about.” I don’t know much about avatars.

        As I am spending more and more time researching the spiritual/theta world as a reality rather than a theory, we may well have met.
        Truth thrills me in a way that no sensation ever could.

        Sometimes we don’t give enough emphasis and importance to the “analytical mind.” You know, that awareness, that capacity to view and understand and compare and arrange and rearrange data. Thetans are all different and their capacities for analysis are all different.

        Logic at once energizes and bores me. The beauty and truth that logic expresses fills me with awe and joy, whereas the sterile expression of that beauty through language and symbols sometimes leaves me drained.

        That said, I recognize the beauty of the analyzer through their analysis. An individual’s expression reflects much about them and their current quality. Yours I admire. As I do many of those who post here.

        I don’t have time to spend on these sites, but the quality of individuals gathered here is addictive. What a congress. I just wish you were all a bunch of morons so I could go about my business. Damn you all, anyways.

        Much love,

        Michael.

  42. I just called up my Delphi sources and what they reported to me is that Alan has not been on any org lines since GAT came out. he had huge disagreements with it and felt it was off policy and out-tech. He lives in Redmond Oregon (google his name and oregon, you will find his contact info and a linked in page).

    He has not been into the Portland Org for any events for years, hasn’t been on course or to FLAG, does not financially support the Ideal Org campaign in Portland, and is just doing his own thing quietly. I am sure that the minute he wrote reports or voiced concerns over GAT he was heavily pushed to just shut up, which caused him to not buck the system but rather keep quiet and move off the lines. I would hope that if Alan Larson is a man of integrity, that he will stand up against the oppression and do something about it. Not just quietly disappear into the forest.

  43. Alan Larson lives in Redmond Oregon (google his name you will also find a linked in page). We can only hope that if he has the integrity that people say he does, then he will stand up against the oppression and do something about what he feels is off policy and out tech. Not just run off into the forest and keep the peace!

  44. Veritas:

    I read your comments, smack my head and say — (with the voice of the Caterpillar – Alice in Wonderland) —

    WHOOOOOO ARE YOU? :)

    Looking forward to the day we can all get together, big BBQ (make mine veggies, I’m vegan), by the sea, lake, gulf and just be astonished as we get to SEE each other, hear each other … and just smile.

    WH

    • Windhorsegallery

      I can think of six impossible things before breakfast (Alice in Wonderland) :-)

      So, you know the answer of who I am based on what I love and tuning into my Thought. A super idea, a BarBQ. When we *meet* in 3D the exchange will continue with more “know about”. Maybe some grilled zucchini (I roast it on rosemary sticks, imparts great flavor) and coleslaw and roast chipotle corn.

      That is going to be one vast smile … : – ) ) )

    • Windhorsegallery

      I can think of six impossible things before breakfast (Alice in Wonderland) :-)

      So, you know the answer of who I am based on what I love and tuning into my Thought. A super idea, a BBQ. When we *meet* in 3D the exchange will continue with more “know about”. Maybe some grilled zucchini (I roast it on rosemary sticks, imparts great flavor) and coleslaw and roast chipotle corn.

      That is going to be one vast smile … : – ) ) )

  45. Michael,

    Your post above is so articulate and sane that it’s really rather beautiful. I look forward to reading many more of your posts in the future.

    Intelligent analysis with the goal of attaining a rational culture with actual operating thetans rather than robots is one of the buggest turn-ons there is.

    And your answer to Blip below is a riot. Perfect! He had to try really hard to miss the simple point you were making, didn’t he? Oh well, I guess ser facs will do that to you.

  46. Einstein was under contract with the US Government and was privy to intelligence, he wasn’t aloud to talk about it.
    One of his last duties before he died was to evaluate the works of LRH that was brought to him by intelligence (remember all those plants ?).
    After he read trough the axioms, factors and the definition of a static his remark was something like this:
    ” My God, he finally found was I’ve been looking for my whole lifetime, it’s so simple, why didn’t I see it ?
    If mankind will be aloud to use those principles great times are ahead of us and we will be able to fly to the stars !
    I don’t know if I’ll write that in my reports, as if this knowledge is in the wrong hands it might become the destruction of Mankind like the atomic bomb.
    I wish I would be younger and could be part of that evolution.
    LRH is in big trouble as the powers that are will not aloud him to reach his goals, but want to use it for their own evil goals of controlling mankind.
    I hope that enough people will understand the magnitude of his discoveries and it will be used
    for to help Mankind out of the trap it is in.”
    :)
    LO

  47. For BLiP.

    At first, I had no respect for what I perceived as short-sighted obstinance. I appreciate a person’s right to have an opinion; I advocate an honest study of both sides of an issue.

    Though I disagree with you, I commend your resilience. You never gave up. And you inspired an interesting debate that may not have occurred otherwise.
    So, though you might be a pain, you were a good and useful pain in these circumstances. The posting stats for this article would confirm this. So take a gold star.

    And though I am not a Scientologist, I recommend a thorough and honest study of Hubbard’s works while disregarding his personal failings. After all, would Einstein’s work be valid even if you discovered he was a pedophile or an ax murderer?

    Though you may disagree with what they write, you may also have noted the keen minds posting here. That’s not an accident. Remember the adage: where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
    We all studied the subject because we found validity there, not because we’re a bunch of dupes hypnotized by a master manipulator. Of the many times I’ve allowed someone to try to hypnotize me, it never worked. There was always a part of my awareness overlooking the process. So the common internet argument that Scientology is a slow process of hypnosis and manipulation may hold in some cases, but don’t buy into it as universally applicable. That argument stems from convenience not understanding.

    So, once again, as a non-Scientologist, I invite you to an honest study. Use the integrity model of study of “if it isn’t true for you.” Go in with the attitude that you don’t already know and see if any of the data apply to you or your life or others. We’re not a bunch of fools.

    You’re a fighter. That’s good. But, the best fighters are calm and patient. They study their opponent rather than wade in with a flurry of ineffective punches. Then: bam! bam! Fight’s over until another day.

    Much love,

    Michael

  48. Marty,

    Just came upon this blog entry. You’ve nailed it right on the head and given a handling as well. Perfect! Thanks.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s