Super Power Release – Ethics Repair List

One major portion of Super Power that L Ron Hubbard did directly see through to completion was the Ethics Repair List.

I wrote the following comment on a thread on this blog on 11 April 2011 concerning the Ethics Repair List:

Sinar,
Thanks. Do you think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that the ETHICS REPAIR LIST – as approved by L Ron Hubbard – is gonna be on that line up? Think about it. It ferrets out arbitrary, wrong condition assignments and ethics actions. The EP of that RD in this day and age, could be nothing but REVOLUTION against the Miscavige machine. It could be nothing but. Forget it, the original LRH Ethics Repair list will NOT, I REPEAT WILL NOT, ever see the light of day. I know all about it. Used it to great effect. Miscavige has altered it beyond recognition already – I’d bet my life on it.
Marty

Well, I have to eat half my words.   I still hold that David Miscavige has done and will continue to do everything in his power to keep the Ethics Repair List from Corporate Scientology public.  However, due to the alert action of Independent Scientologists, what I consider the very most powerful step of Super Power – and one of the few that LRH wound up completing to final issue –  the Ethics Repair List is now available to the world.  Check the pre-reqs on it – just about anyone can be run on it.

I have seen “reconstructions” floating around the internet over the years – but none even resembled the Real McCoy.  Now, the real deal has surfaced.

I have used it several times to wonderful results years ago within the church and look forward to using it with even more spectacular results away from that oppressive environment.

LRH notes the following in the HCOB:

Exterior

Nothing is more likely to exteriorize a pc than this list.

If the pc goes exterior during this list, do not audit past it, gently end off the session.

I hope you all have a heck of a lot of fun with this.

Ethics Repair List. *

* Download instructions from Michael Hobson:

The “DOWNLOAD” in big letters at the top of the page is *NOT* the hosted file. That is actually an embedded advert designed to fool you into downloading that other crap.

Theo, you ought to know better than to run any executable downloaded from a random website you don’t know anything about.

The PDF file you want is at the link labeled “Click here to start download from Sendspace”. It’s a PDF document, which is not executable.

Michael A. Hobson
Independent Scientologist

 

195 responses to “Super Power Release – Ethics Repair List

  1. I am reminded too of when the Happiness Rundown first came out. Some of the executives at the Org were displeased with it because their juniors, upon completing the rundown, were actually trying to ensure they got enough sleep, took proper care of themselves, treated others kindly and without force, etc. The executives in mention said derogatory things about the rundown as it created “first dynamic oriented” people. I love this rundown.

  2. What I find so exciting is that such a list even exists!

  3. This repair list reads like something an intelligence agency would ask in a vetting questionnaire – except more thorough! The very LAST place you surely would want a record of your answers would be at the CoM.

    It seems everything WILL be taken down and used against you if ever you should leave…or is this not right, even in spite of behaviour of Church officials, spying etc.

    Can someone tell me what is the point of this list? Is it like a catholic confessional with absolution given by the priest at the end? What is the basis of the authority that gives an auditor the power to forgive sins? Can you ‘self audit’ this list?

    • As people live their lives and work and play with other people, disagreements happen, misunderstandings happen, people get “thrown under the bus” and some people hurt and betray others. Sometimes people compromise their ideals, or are forced to conform to the ideals or mores of other people.

      All of these things can bother people – a person people can have his or her attention fixed on some past injustice, or feel incredibly guilty for hurting someone else, whether done on purpose or not.

      This list is designed to help a person find the areas that he has his attention fixed on, and to help him identify and address the issue. How it is addressed depends on the question.

      These questions are designed to uncover these areas. The list covers a wide swath in order to help the person locate the precise areas that he has his attention on.

      The E-Meter helps the auditor and the person find “charge” on these questions. The person may not (actually, will not) be fully aware of the problem. The E-meter can reach just below the level of awareness to help guide the person to the “charge.” If the person has nothing on the question, the needle would be unaffected, and he would be in a good frame of mind about it. The needle, therefore, should be “floating” – he is fine, and there is no charge on the question.

      But… If there IS charge (of some kind), the needle will react on the question, and the auditor brings it up with the person to address.

      There could be a number of reasons the meter read, and the auditor can help sort it out. The usual reason is that there is something on the question to address. But, it could be that there is nothing on the question, but the person was accused mercilessly on it, and so there is charge there. A competent auditor will help find and resolve the charge, whatever it may be.

      Please note that the person will have charge on a question because they have attention of some kind on it. He will have charge on a transgression because HE knows it is a transgression, not because WE think it is. The auditor DOES NOT JUDGE the person. The auditor’s code is very strict about that – no invalidation of the person, no evaluation of the person or his “case.” The auditor just guides the person to areas of the person’s charge that come up, and helps the person address the charge. THIS IS KEY. And it is missing from Corporate Scn now.

      The PURPOSE is to help the person get over it, to sort it out, and free up the fixed attention on it. By doing this, the person is FREE to that degree from the injustice or his own transgressions of the past.

      Real Scientologists believe that if you own up, fully, to your own transgressions (as you conceive them to be) and take full responsibility for them, you will be a better person, and will be far less likely to commit these transgressions in the future.

      The list could possibly be solo-audited, but if your purpose was to avoid disclosure, it would not work. Just because DM has violated the privilege does not mean that we must change the tech because someone abused and betrayed our trust.

      The auditor, as an authority to the person by dint of being his auditor, and (at least back in the day) as a minister of the church, has the right to forgive transgressions. This list shows that The Church of Scientology used to be in the forgiving business.

      • Thank-you for taking the time to write such a lengthly reply to my questions. You have greatly added to my understanding.

        From the things I have heard on Marty’s blog about the secret video taping of auditing sessions and joking about Tom Cruise’s sessions would seem to me to be the worst kind of betrayal of the auditors code. The official CoS is the LAST place I would be going for this. If the procedure works, then I agree the tech or process is independant of the official channel of delivery. The other thing that worries me about going anywhere near the CoS is getting ripped off!

        I can see that going over something that has ‘charge’ as you put it, over and over again should eventualy desensitise the subject. This process is very interesting. There are plenty of things on that list I wouldn’t want made common knowledge or have recorded by a corrupt organisation.

        Thank-you again for your answers.

        • Thanks, C1010. Glad to do it. One thing: Reviewing memories or incidents like this is not to desensitize the person to them, but to enable the person to uncover and view what it is that is pinning them to it, thereby “blowing” the charge. The mechanics of this is very well covered in the Dianetics books, and in Science of Survival. This is core to what Scientology is about.

          It is NOT about the IAS, the Sea Org, forced abortions, licking bathroom floors, etc. This is why we are all here, and not in the world of Miscavige.

          • From the stories I’ve heard, I won’t be going anywhere near a CoS so that is why I am here too! Too many CoS top people have ‘blown’ so that is enough for me. Building big cathedrals doesn’t impress me either. If I want that I can go to the Vatican in Rome.

            I think there are practical aspects of Scientology which might work and I will read the books you suggest. Hubbard was undeniably clever.

            I wouldn’t be honest to you if I didn’t say that what I have heard about ‘Xenu’ and the ‘loyal officers’ sounds like pure science fiction. In a world of infinite possibility, I can’t absolutely say it isn’t true, but I consider it as unlikely as the flying spaghetti monster!

            There are a number of things I don’t get: one is why it is so expensive. It has all the hallmarks of a major con, which is sad if it is really useful.

            I would be interested in exploring alternative delivery training. Do you know if Marty is going to run pre-clear courses? It sounds like what he can offer now is the higher stuff for people who are already in. I have seen that video by Hardeep Singh ‘An introduction to LRH’ and the freezone in Europe. So that could be an option for me.

            Good corresponding with you! I have been very interested in the subject of Scientology (not just the negative stuff) but very nervous about getting involved with it for all the reasons Marty’s blog exists.

            • Corey,

              Pricing has always been one of those tricky things, with no obvious easy solution. One of the things LRH battled with almost since day 1 was the tendency for so many people to take the subject off the rails and start running crazy process on people while calling it auditing. KSW1 was most likely written one day in response to yet another case of it.

              His eventual solution was two-fold: people take a subject off the rails because they don’t understand it and can’t duplicate it, so he developed Study Tech, KTL, SuperPower and more to handle those technical aspects. The second factor was a very strong QA function (Division 5 Qual) in central organisations.

              These central organizations might have been a good model for the 70s and 80s but now we are in an internet age. Maybe the model doesn’t fit so well anymore. What did happen in the meantime is organizations became top-heavy, DM took complete control and created a monopoly so prices skyrocketed. This isn’t peculiar to Scientology, any monopoly does this whether they sell phone lines, airline transport or auditing.

              Currently there’s a grass-roots shift over to smaller more independant auditors (very much like it was in 50s and 60s) where pricing will settle down to reasonable levels. I expect independant auditors to become the norm, but there will usually be a fee – the auditor wants to make a living too, just like your plumber and doctor. Or perhaps a new business model will develop that no-one has considered yet. Either way, prices will come down, the CoS abuse will stop and achieving Clear (just as an example) should go back to a few hundred hours like it’s supposed to take.

              Pick an auditor or study center the same way you’d pick a plumber – carefully and check out the service offered before committing.

              Alan

              • Hi Alan,
                Thanks for your reply – its really interesting. What you are saying makes sense about the independent auditing. I’d eventually want to get something to do the process as well as you have to earn a living somehow. The key seems to be that you really need to TRUST the auditor…

                I’ve seen Marty’s interview where he was asked by an interviewer about Tom Cruise’s sessions and he flatly refused to discuss the content of the sessions even though he was out of the Church. An exclusive, tell-all interview about Cruise would be a sensation – and worth big bucks. Marty gets 10 out of 10 for staying mum in my book.

                I could do 100 hours probably.

                • Indeed, trust is everything in an auditing session. You can read every blog article on this site and you won’t find a single case of an independant auditor publicly revealing anything mentioned in session. And that’s how it should be.

                  I do want to point out that this isn’t a special Scientology thing that sets auditors apart from other professions – most people take confidences seriously, lawyers and doctors even have laws about it. Auditors tapped into this long-standing tradition too for very good reason

                  I haven’t set foot in a Scientology church in any meaningful way for 10 years, but when I was in, revealing session data was one thing that was completely unthinkable. I can’t speak for the current church though. You asked elsewhere if CoS do use session data to smear people. Sam is your best answer, she’s called CoS on that very thing right here on this blog.

        • As for the secret taping of Tom Cruise’s sessions, I was there for at least two of those at Celebrity Centre International in December 2005. The joking part did not happen when I was there but the observing sure did. Greg Wilhere, Lynn Engen and I were there making sure Ray Mithoff did not screw up.

          • Thanks for the reply Dan – all I can say is I wouldn’t want my sessions taped. If true, joking about a confessional is way out of order in my opinion as an outsider.

            Are you saying that the purpose of observing is ONLY to ensure that the auditor does not screw up (which I assume Ray Mithoff was in this instance)?

          • martyrathbun09

            How many Corporate Scientologists does it take to pull a WH?

            • Pass.

              At a guess, if they were charging $500 bucks an hour my answer would be: as many as possible. If their competence was in question (which is eminently possible from reading this blog) my answer would still be the same!

              PS (Whats a ‘WH’? Withhold?)

              PSS I’ve just come up to date with Bert Leahy’s videos after he ‘blew’ the squirrell busters. Awesome video!! One can tell he doesn’t know that much about Scientology yet they’ve managed to really piss this guy off. I think they’ve made a very powerful enemy there. His video ‘Scientology flirtin with disaster’ is creative and cryptically disturbing. Stupid squirrell buster assholes. In the UK I’d get a restraining order on them.

      • Solo-audit this? Forget it. Nowhere in this HCOB does it say that this list can be solo audited. (It would have “solo auditors” in the routing fields, if that were the case.)

        Its a two-terminal universe, and Ethics repair is not something an individual is going to be able to do on themselves.

    • You can’t (and shouldn’t) self-audit this list. It really is very important to have help in finding the answers to these questions.

      The purpose of this list is in the title: to repair failed or wrongly handled Ethics actions.

      And no, its not supposed to be an ‘intelligence gathering’ exercise – the purpose of Auditing is to give the individual more control over their own lives, not the other way around.

      Perhaps you don’t know what Flows are? I suggest you clear this up, if you want to understand what is so extraordinary about this rundown. The ‘flows’ are already well-described in Scientology materials you can find elsewhere, and I would encourage you to seek out the definition of this term and understand it completely, if you want. Needless to say, what you do to others, and what others do to you, what others do to others, are intimately connected when it comes to repeated cycles of harm or help.

      Absolution does not come from the Auditor; its the person doing the rundown that ends up absolving the situation. The Auditor is only there to assist the person in finding the answers to these questions.

      • Thank-you for your reply and taking the time to answer my questions. You are correct, I don’t have a clue about about ‘flows’. I’m sure I can find out what these are so thanks for the steer.

        At the end of the rundown it says ‘by the power vested in me..’ refering to the auditor, not the subject? So in essence what you are saying is that the subject has to forgive themselves of transgressions. The proof that his has happened is that there is ‘no charge ‘ on the e-meter?

        Interesting stuff.

        • The Auditor is acknowledging the completion of the repair action with this statement. “By the power vested in me” really just does mean just that the auditor has heard the results, acknowledges the injustice and incorrect ethics handlings, and thats that. There won’t be any further actions (outside the session), and whatever was revealed is forgiven in the session. Its very important that the PC know that nothing revealed in the session during this action is going to impact them outside the session – this is Standard Scientology.

          • Thanks Nonono, one would hope that is really is confidential. Can you honestly say now that the CoS has NEVER used information gathered in a session against a person after that person has left the Church?

            There seems to be quite a few claims around that they have done so.

            • I’m pretty sure for every case where the policy was violated, there are about 10,000 cases where it wasn’t violated.

              That is to say, I do believe that the current Church management has allowed itself to go vastly squirrel and off-policy with regards to priest/penitent confidentiality, without question, but also the humble fact remains that a whole lot of Trustfulness has been granted, and delivered, between PC’s and their True Auditors throughout the decades – which we of course do not hear about.

              No question, it is an utterly disgusting situation that people consider it unsafe to go in session with an Auditor in the Church these days; it only took a few bad incidents to create this condition. Its terribly unfortunate, and for us Scientologists indeed very sad, because so much has been gained by Auditors and PC’s over the years which, clearly, is being ignored in this discourse.

              I would hope that you one day see what I’m saying as true for yourself. Its a wonderful, fantastic thing, to be in session with someone you truly trust, and make the real gains of Scientology, together, really.

  4. Marty,

    Outstanding job !

    Suppressed technology recovered and made widely available.

    Pretty easy to see who’s really playing the Birthday Game for blood.

  5. Talk about a withhold of Vital Information!

    From the looks of it, it appears that this list could be done very early on in a person’s sojurn up The Bridge. Not only would you get a being with major abberations out of the way, most likely they would also experience the ultimate truth of themselves (exteriorization). AND be able to function as a productive group member with the context of a Production Organization.

    IN 1978!

    Now, WHO would not want to have that, or allow others to have that?

    Prepare to deliver…..

  6. Well, 34 years! Babies have had time to be born and grow adult. Adults have had time to die. Like a certain amount of OTVIII from de maiden voyage who didn’t get their next level in this lifetime! One has really to believe he is dealing in eternity to hold some vital tech from being used for such a long time. (Like Mark 8 meters also). This contradict very sadly the “buy it now”. When it is about giving money it is NOW, not in 35 years! DM is keeping this as ammunition to have something to show. And to have it, you’ll have to pay full price and beyond! Careful use of resources!
    And he’ll get admired because he’ll be the one who is deilvering it! None will notice the added time…
    Hey, it’s pretty easy to audit, anyone who can fly a rud can deliver that rundown. A bit more difficult is to do the CS 53 to fning list (not a 3 swings!). Needs to be at least 5 graduate. And it might complicate a bit when to be delivered on a pre OT.
    Marty or any advanced auditor, would you check it with Not’s tech at each question or only when it seems needed ? Or it doesn’t really make sense to use Not’s tech on this particular RD…?
    Really would need a good training center. To be able to say again “this is the session”. And give and receive again case gains.
    Otherwise to audit that list seems as simple as drinking a glass of water.
    Actually just reading it and some locks are blowing.

  7. To use the phrase of another, I was gobsmaked upon seeing this and recognizing the date of its origination.

    Not only was this spectacular piece of tech created and then suppressed for 33 years, it was developed smack in the middle of LRH’s discovering of the NOTS tech.

    Another example of LRH’s brilliance. He recognized and distilled a tremendously beneficial handling for all upon his understanding of upper level materials.

    This is the same thing he did with the L’s . Truly remarkable. Ron, I am again in awe of what you have provided to mankind.

    To Miscavige; it has been a terrible year to date for your and yours. It just got much worse by a significant factor. This undoes your treachery and lays bare your crimes to each person who sees and reads this HCOB. For those that run it; there eyes will be opened, their hearts unburdened and their folders filled with your name as the found item. This is your legacy. Bask in it, it was earned.

    • It’s no small thing to realize that this man, David Miscavige, withheld this vital rundown from the world, while ostensibly being in charge of Keeping Scientology Working.

  8. Thank you!

  9. I think Miscavige does “deliver” this list – in reverse. He must have sat down and worked out the best way to create the charge associated with each item on this list, then implemented it in full. In my last 20 years in the SO, ethics/justice became ever more arbitrary, punishment-oriented, random, manipulated, misused, abused, wielded as weapon, wielded as an executive reactive dramatization, applied by the MAA so the MAA could look good to seniors, applied neither for the benefit of the individual or the group, applied with destructive intention, and applied to as to make sure that whatever LRH said on the subject was violated.

  10. Awesome, Marty – thanks for unearthing this.

    What is amazing about this list is that it shows what the essence of Scientology is:

    One person being helped by another in an auditing session. That is the pure essence of it.

    I love the pre-reqs – Full DRD, and a C/S 53 to F/Ning. And THEN you fly ruds to F/N before starting. It is obvious this list is meant to handle the long term issues. (To the lay people, this means that the person is squeaky clean on any current situations that the PC may have his/her attention on).

  11. Thank you Marty!

    I read the beginning of the list several hours ago and charge is still blowing!!

    And for the first time since many years I have some reach for auditing again.

    Future looks bright :-)

  12. The guy that would suppress the ERL from broad delivery has so many overts that he must be terrified that those run on it would expose him and ultimately destroy him utterly.

    Hidden Terror of Others?? He might as well have painted “I, David Miscavige an a Raving SP” on a billboard in hollywood. The fact that this list has been suppressed tells all the story there is.

  13. “What is true for you, is what you have observed yourself”

    Never being a Scientologist, I have never understood this oft-quoted Scientological pillar.

    The quote is predicated on the idea that we (humans/thetans/etc) have perfection of observation. However, imperfection is now and until our death at the root of our being.

    To attempt a quick philosophical proof: For this quote to have any real meaning, there are two dependencies 1) the “data” our physical senses sample from the physical world must be without flaw, and 2) our cognitive interpretation of said data must also be without flaw. Clearly, neither suppositions are correct. Therefore, the quote has no real meaning.

    Why? Uncountable uncontrollable factors can and do negatively impact both our sensing abilities (visual, auditory, somatosensory, and the like) and our subsequent high-level cognitively-driven classification of (already flawed) sensed data.

    The only salient conclusion based on the above is that this quote can be and is used to make one feel better about not confronting potentially ugly truths about one’s self. Just repeat this as your mantra, and any uncomfortable unconfronted thought will melt away. Cognitive dissonance just doesn’t stand a chance.

    • You have got to be kidding. What a load of gibberish, the sort of thing that comes from the confused mind of perhaps an academic in the English Dept. All dressed up to sound “logical” although what it really is, is jargon-driven attempts to obfuscate.

      I will try to make my response as easy to understand as possible. Here’s the deal: to suggest that the quote “what is true for you, is what you have observed yourself” is “used to make one feel better about not confronting potentially ugly truths about one’s self” is 180 degrees from the truth.

      One way to describe Scientology is that it is a set of tools that ENABLE one to “confront potentially ugly truths about one’s self”.

      Only if you see those “ugly truths”, whatever they are, FOR YOURSELF, can you become free of them.

      You can listen to a “learned intellectual” from, perhaps, the Psychology Dept. offer HIS reality on YOUR Truth 24x7x365, and you will continue to wallow in your “ugly truths” until the cows come home.

      • Sorry, I should not have included so much sarcasm in my comment above. Instead, what I would suggest to Wisher: someday when you have a little free time, find an auditor with a private practice in your area, and give auditing a whirl, see what it’s like for yourself. Then perhaps re-evaluate your comment about “not confronting potentially ugly truths”!

        • Except for the apology, P, two brilliant comments. Though perhaps the “sorry” was just clever use of irony.

    • Wisher

      I can see how you have come to your conclusion.

      Unfortunately you seem to be missing a vital part of the philosophy behind being able to make such a statement.

      L. Ron Hubbard, within only a couple of years of publishing “Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health,” came to a very basic conclusion which lies behind everything that L. Ron Hubbard developed after that . This is the postulate that the most important aspect of a being’s existence is his SELF-DETERMINISM. The entirety of Scientology is aimed at the achievement of this for beings.

      When a being has lost his self-determinism, and to the precise degree that he has lost it, he has lost control of life. The more a being accepts other conclusions than his own, for whatever reason, he becomes less able and more the effect of his environment, and the people around him. He actually gives up some of his own ability to exercise reason toward the pursuit of optimum life for all, until eventually he is basically just flotsam and jetsam in a world that he feels he no longer has any say at all. Usually by that point he is dead, or certainly feeling dead.

      So we come to the postulates that to be healthy and sane, a being needs to “keep his own council”, maintain his belief in his own honor and integrity, and pursue his own goals, in his own way., He needs to be self-determined.(expanding naturally to pan-determined as a being becomes more aware and more able.)

      You may well disagree, but the “truths of science”, or mechanics, or even popular agreement, or anyone else’s opinions, hold secondary importance to a being’s self-determinism. These things should, at best, be tools for a being, not his masters.

      At least that is how I see it, and it has served me well.

      Eric S

    • Wisher
      “What is true for you, is what you have observed yourself”

      Never being a Scientologist, I have never understood this oft-quoted Scientological pillar.

      ===

      I see you never understood. It has to do with dogma versus knowledge. We aren’t expected to just belief something because we read it or were told it. We are expected to think with it, see if we find this to be true and real, see if we find it to be valid – and only then to decide for ourselves that it is true. To many, the writings considered dogma are accepted with blind faith, that is the opposite of know what is true for you.

      How easy it is to confront has nothing to do with it. We are individuals with out own experience and viewpoint. We are not robotic cogs in the wheel of some machine. We can and do think for ourselves.

      Does this now make sense to you?

    • Wisher:

      Tell us Honestly – Have you bothered to study (in earnest, not cursory glance) the Books “Scientology: A New Slant On Life” or “Creation of Human Ability” wherein the concept of the “Three Universes” – one of the very most fundamental principles of Scientology – are propounded ?

      These are the Three Universes – One’s own personal universe, The Other Guy’s Universe (of which there are as many instances as there are other beings and The Physical Universe (which is held to exist by way of agreement between oneself and countless Other Guys) . All manner of trouble can be seen to arise from the confusion of phenomena occurring in one of these three Universes with phenomena occurring in another of the three.

      Efforts to enforce what is True in *one’s own* personal universe to be accepted as Truth for another in *their* personal universe is one of them. Another is confusing what is True in *one’s own* personal universe as being necessarily true in the *Physical Universe*.

      Most of Scientology is aimed at helping a being sort out these Three Universes. Many other practices (Psychiatry for example) deny the very existence of one or more of the Three Universes.

      You, Wisher, seem to have adopted such a practice as the foundation of your world view. What a pity.

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

    • “The quote is predicated on the idea that we (humans/thetans/etc) have perfection of observation.”

      In furtherance of the points that Mr. Hobson (and others) make:

      Actually, I would say it it predicated on the idea that each of us has our own observations …. whether they be flawed (or incomplete) …. or not.

      One could “proof” that (as a premise) this way: a circumstance occurs – for sake of argument let’s say it’s an automobile accident.

      There are five observers, all in different locations, each observing some portion of the incident. No one person observes the entirety of the incident in it’s totality.

      Five different points of view, five different observations.

      Whatever detail or aspect is observed by one individual will be quite real for him (therefore “true” …. according his observation) … but if that same detail or aspect is unobserved by another, it will or may, to a greater or lesser degree, be somewhat unreal (and therefore somewhat “untrue” or less “true”…. according to his lack of observation)

      This, of course, opens the door for disagreements amongst observers.

      Now, it could be that the latter individual, not directly observing this particular detail or aspect directly, is able, at a later point in time, to make other observations of conditions that allow him to, through the use of logic, computation, and experience to derive what had (likely) occurred and come to some sort of conclusion about it …. however, despite that, even this result may possess some degree of unrealness – by virtue of no actual direct observation of the detail or aspect.

      Additionally, should more than one party observe some detail or aspect jointly, it will likely be held as “true” by the both of them in common – but even then there may be minor differences in what was observed – since the individuals involved did not view the incident from exactly the same point of view.

      Were these individuals to then attempt to enforce, under some manner of duress, their “truth” onto someone who had not made the observations they had, does it seem likely that this would in any way raise the ability of the latter individual to make his own observations ?

      Or might it impede or even reduce it ?

      It seems to me that it could be said that there are at least three types of “truth”:

      1. Many personal “truths”, each one of which is unique to a particular individual.

      2. Another “truth” which, by default, is unshared with one self (this is composed of sum total of all the “truths” in No. 1, other than one’s own personal “truth”)

      3. And a “truth” which is (potentially) shared and held (to a greater or lesser degree) in common (this we know as The Physical Universe)

      Now, an interesting question arises: assuming the above premise (of the Three Universes) is correct for the sake of argument, which “truth” out of the three above has the potentiality to be the most “real” and the most “true” for any given individual ?

      As Mr. Hobson correctly points out, it is really necessary to at least know and understand the basic theory of the Three Universes, in order to have enough familiarity and truck with the matter to understand and appreciate the statement which you find fault with ……

  14. Off the fence

    Well, obviously this list was created by LRH because he was aware of the widespread ethics abuse that had been, and was going on at that time. Possibly he realized himself that he was a bit heavy handed. It’s great to have. But equally as important would be to stop all of the overzealous, abusive ethics actions that continue to this day. Nothing worse than being punished for trying to help. Looking forward to the day when “this list was unnecessary”, comes up more than not.

  15. Chris Johnson

    So awesome to see this blog linking to that particular “sekrit” document!

    Raise your hand if you remember the “Scientology vs. Scamizdat” crusade from the 90’s. For those who remember, this latest development is ironic beyond belief. Bravo!!

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

  16. This list will help a lot of people!

    It has been sad to see how the subject of Ethics has been perverted in the current Church. An intelligent use of the Big Three: Ethics (“rationality towards the highest level of survival for the individual, the future race, the group, and mankind, and other other dynamics…” Science of Survival), Code of Honor (Personal Integrity Course for $25) and the Way to Happiness by themselves can give amazing gain.

  17. OMG!!! That rundown is AWESOME!!!
    I was so laughing just reading along. And the R-Factor, oh my goodness.

    No way in HELL David Miscaviage would EVER let ANYONE EVER say those words in “HIS” church. Hell no! Talk about ending the endless Sec Checks at Flag! HA! This is the “End of Endless Sec Check” right here!

    BLAM! Hot damn. Kudo’s to whoever tucked that in their shirt late one night and snuck out with it!!!

  18. Many thanks, Marty.

    And you didn’t even require Gluteus Maximus Patron or Ideal Morgue donations for the release of this list!

  19. Your opposition is BIGGER than you.

  20. Additional Note:
    To make sense of these criticisms you really need to look at them within the context of the surrounding questions, and the other correct uses within the document. Many are perfect as you would expect, but there are just too many outpoints here.

  21. Pingback: Miscavige’s knee-jerk SP declare miscalculation (Part 3)

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