Judgment

 

Unfortunately, a judgmental attitude and bearing seems to have become one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Scientologist.  While adopting such a view in itself could be considered stereotyping, the proclivity for sitting in judgment of others – and stereotyping them – may be the one character flaw that makes such labeling stick with Scientologists.

Labeling is a convenient form of denialism.  It is something a person resorts to when that which he or she is confronting or dealing with is too complex or nuanced for easy explanation or understanding.  In the case of Scientologists such denialism is all too often applied  to people.   It is an assignation of blame intended to bring about shame and regret in the target.

It is easy to write someone off as an “SP” or ‘suppressive person’, a ‘pts’ or ‘potential trouble source’, an ‘out-ethics type’,  ‘reasonable’, ‘off Source’, or even ‘squirrel’.  Once you do that, the labeled person is now ‘over there’, a ‘particle’ to be routed to some ‘terminal’ (not even a person really) for special ‘handling.’  The only way out for the labeled is conformance.  In the case of Scientologists that conformance is usually demonstrated by performing labeling of others with a high degree of certainty and alacrity.

Have you ever noticed how those who can label others with a great deal of certainty and alacrity rise into the ranks of opinion leaders within Scientology culture?  And how those who are hesitant to dispense and accept labeling are considered ‘reasonable’ (in a negative sense), patty cake, theetie-wheetie, or worse?

Ironically, such facile labeling is well explained as a personality defect in Scientology Level 4 training materials.  It is called the computation, ‘that aberated evaluation and postulate that one must be in a certain state in order to succeed’.  In this case, by labeling another it puts the labeler in a superior ‘state’ separate than that of the labeled.   It makes the labeler right and the labeled wrong.

But in the long term it winds up destroying the labeler as the label, the fixed stable datum substituted for a being, makes the labeler cease to look, to inspect, to live.   L. Ron Hubbard explained it this way:

The stable datum was adopted in lieu of inspection.  The person ceased to inspect, he fell back from inspecting, he fell back from living.  He put the datum there to substitute for his own observation and his own coping with life, and at that moment he started an accumulation of confusion.  That which is not confronted and inspected tends to persist.  Thus, in the absence of his own confronting, mass collects.  The stable datum forbids inspection.  It’s an automatic solution.  It’s ‘safe.’  It solves everything.  He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never as-ises the mass.  He gets caught in the middle of the mass.  And it collects more and more confusion and his ability to inspect becomes less and less.  The more he isn’t confronting, the less he can confront.  This becomes a dwindling spiral.  So the thing he has adopted to handle his environment for him is the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment.

Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once succinctly noted what effect labeling has on the person so labeled, “Once you label me you negate me.”

To label is part of the depersonalization or dehumanization process.   It is a step in marginalizing classes of people.  Once you recategorize someone from some neutral category like ‘associate’, ‘neighbor’ or ‘fellow human being’ to some negative, judgmental category they become fodder for abuse.  They become powerless to create any effect on the labeler and thus the labeler believes he is more ‘at cause.’

In fact, as noted above it is an hallucinatory state of cause.  It is a synthetic state of ‘superiority’ that one attains by perfecting the practice of sitting in judgment.  In fact, those who engage in it obsessively have judged themselves, and sentenced themselves to a bleak future.

The late, baseball great Willie Stargell once wrote, ‘Judgment traps you within the limitations of your comparisons. It inhibits freedom.’   I find Willie worthy of the final word.

744 responses to “Judgment

  1. Drat — I can never embed or share these right … I’m gonna blame it on my MAC :)

    Just delete the [youtube part or go to youtube — Joan Baez – Prison Trilogy live at Sing Sing. It’s just heart stopping.

    Perhaps we could instead of bickering remember just how blessed our lives are.

    I promise to do better.

    Love,
    Christine

    • Thanks Valkov — you’ve helped me before but I’m seriously challenged on this!!

      • You’re welcome. The embedding will work thus: when you have a link like this – http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Dmsko6oZjG8 (&w=420&h=315%5D), don’t post the part I have put in parenthesis, just delete it. The operative part is this – http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Dmsko6oZjG8.

        When you post just that, it embeds. The “=Dmsko6oZjG8″ identifies the specific video, so anything that you see after that is not needed. Once you get it, you’ll say wow that’s easy! ( I put a space between “youtube.” and “com” to make the link inoperative.)

        It’s easier to show than to explain…… so I don’t know if you will get it from my explanation…..

  2. Marty, good post!

    Nobody wants to be marginalized and labeled. Yet religions have always done just that. LRH developed the system of labeling people , but as many things he attempted to do, the staff and public couldn’t operate with his policies in a sane manner. The rules of the church have become insane so that any critical thought or even a simple disagreement becomes an ‘enemy line’ and those who speak disagreement are pigeon- holed as ‘enemies’ and therefore ‘sps’. This makes ‘handling’ people easy because it is all computation. Now it is thoughts, statements, and Reading which get one into trouble. Reading this blog is considered to be an sp activity! Reading anything controversial about the church is an alignment with the enemy and so if one doesn’t recant and stop reading, one is an sp. It is all so simple.
    In the hay day of news articles about LRH, I don’t remember being told that we CAN’T READ THE NEWSPAPERS. Orgs dissed the papers (as they still do) but there was nothing written by Ron which says public or staff can’t read this or that. The idea was to go to the e/o or the pr to get the ‘real’ story to dead agent IF you felt enturbulated . Now, you aren’t granted the beingness to make up your own mind or to apply the data from the pts/sp course to steel yourself from negative influence. It is really just a tr point. Don’t look is really don’t confront, as you were saying. If the staff and public were too look, they might find some ‘inconvenient truth”

    By the same token, when people label all people still in the church as ‘bots’ it is likewise a degrade to them. The person grouped as ‘blind koolaide drinker’ and ‘robot’ may one day be an independent, as it happens all the time.
    Once upon a time everyone on this blog (with little exception) was ‘a koolaide drinker’ and going into a joker degrader mentality isn’t high toned or anything to praise. I just hope that the Independent movement can continue to rise above the church mentality and forward the purpose of training and auditing and not get into the overt/motivator sequence of action or opt- terminaling that the church thrives on.

  3. AXIOM 53. A STABLE DATUM IS NECESSARY TO THE ALIGNMENT OF DATA.
    AXIOM 54. A TOLERANCE OF CONFUSION AND AN AGREED-UPON STABLE DATUM ON WHICH TO ALIGN THE DATA IN A CONFUSION ARE
    AT ONCE NECESSARY FOR A SANE REACTION ON THE EIGHT
    DYNAMICS.THIS DEFINES SANITY.

    To assign the label of “judgmental” is the exact same thing that is being decried. The above two Axioms apply. They apply because WE agreed to this Axiom, that’s why it exists. It is our consideration that put it in place.

    Taped lecture 23 August 1955, Axiom 53: The Axiom of the Stable Datum lays all this out.

    • Game, Set, Match!

    • In other words, A=A=A.

    • I admire your assumption of the premise of these Axioms, Jim. Would that it were so for all others.

      Alas, we (as Mankind) have not achieved that common postulate as of yet. I guess we’ll just have to go with definition #1 of responsibility in the DN & SCN Tech Dictionary for the nonce: “RESPONSIBILITY, 1. the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics (AP&A).” –LRH

    • This is what I hear:
      Blah Blah Blah. (no offense to LRH or the axioms here)

      This is what I want to know:
      What are your credentials?

      We all know LRH was a raving genius already.
      What are your credentials? (other than cut and paste?)

      What are you saying Jim P. Logan? (P. stands for Parrot)
      We all have cut and paste. Can you tell me your thoughts with your own word?

      Oh and I just have one more question.
      What are your credentials?

    • In case I forgot to ask:
      Jim,
      What are your credentials?

      • He does not respond to a straight question and I get the thumbs down?
        LOL Very ironic. Predictable but ironic. If anyone asks me of my credentials in my profession I pull out my resume and back it up with the evidence of my work history. It is only natural to ask for credentials when people are advertising their services. It is OK to ask in the “WOG”” world. When did it become unacceptable to ask for that in SC? I mean the DM incident should have made it even more necessary to do that. What if I wanted auditing services from Jim? People who blow because someone asks for their credentials are bad news!

    • Look Jim,
      All jokes aside. You have been made here. People have learned to spot posers already. DM gave us the lesson already. C’mon and ease up on this blog! Seriously. Can’t you see? Try to parallel peoples comments and minds. Quoting the axioms to everything is like answering all questions with quantum mechanics and physics. Of course essentially the whole physical universe is just a bunch of matter and the interactions can all be broken down to interactions of quarks. Now just because that can be done and some absent minded people like me might even do that from time to time doesn’t mean it is always practical. The fact that you are not getting this and not seeing that the axioms are not paralleling the minds of everyone here is proof in itself that you are really not getting them. Where is the affinity here buddy?

    • Sanity,1. the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities. 2. a tolerance of confusion and an agreed upon datum which to align the data in a confusion are at once necessary for a SANE reaction on the eight dynamics. This defines sanity. 3. The computation of futures. 3. a balance of creation and destruction is SANITY. The individual is SANE wherever he will create and destroy. 5. The legal definition of sanity is, “ability to tell right from wrong”. 6. The ability to tell differences. The better one can tell differences , no matter how minute, and know the width of those differences, the more rational he is. The less one can tell differences and the closer he comes to thinking in identities (A=A) the less sane he is.

      My note, ” Hubbard ” is an identity.

      7. SANITY IS THE MEASURE OF HOW ABLY AN INDIVIDUAL ASSISTS THINGS WHICH ASSIST SURVIVAL , AND INHIBITS THINGS WHICH INHIBIT SURVIVAL. 8. the degree of rationality of an individual. 9. A man is sane in the ratio that HE can compute accurately,

      MY NOTE: NOTICE. HUBBARD SAYS “HE can compute accurately. He does NOT say “A man is sane in the ratio that he thinks with MY computations”.

      ..limited only by information and viewpoint. 10. an absolute perfection in reasoning., WHICH WOULD RESOLVE PROBLEMS TO THE OPTIMUM GOOD OF THOSE CONCERNED. 11. Sanity is certainty, PROVIDING ONLY THAT THAT DOES NOT FALL BEYOND THE CONVICTION OF ANOTHER WHEN HE VIEWS IT.

      • SANITY IS THE MEASURE OF HOW ABLY AN INDIVIDUAL ASSISTS THINGS WHICH ASSIST SURVIVAL , AND INHIBITS THINGS WHICH INHIBIT SURVIVAL.

        Whose survival?

    • Axiom 54 is lacking as the stable datum one picks is an important factor. For example, the stable datum within corporate Scientology is DM=Scientology. Does that define sanity?

    • I don’t think that “judgmental” as a label is applied in the same way that “SP”, “WOG” or “Degraded Being” are applied, but then again I don’t like any kind of label.

  4. I predict that Marty will announce in a few weeks that has moved beyond Scientology, and is no longer a Scientologist. Perhaps it’s time for the rest of you to “graduate” too.

    • That is OK. if thats where Marty’s at, thats his choice. He never said he was a leader and he doesnt owe me anything. At this point I think it’s a personal spiritual choice. I am still into Scientology and want to practice it the way LRH developed it and I would like to stay connected with others doing that. If anything is lacking on our end it is probably connecting up and carrying on with Scientology (for me anyway). I’ve connected up with some people and gotten some auditing, but I’ve had some serious “other fish” too.

      I think I have decompressed all I am going to. I thought it meant getting away from the suppression and getting your own self back. To me it doesnt mean “decompressing” into some state as determined by someone else. If I’m a liberal atheist and I start taking psych drugs am I decompressed fully? Do I have to carpool with Angry Gay Pope? When I am I done? When I denounce Scientology?

      On LRH I do not have verifiable data on his sanity, temper, flaws or whatever. It seems that he developed Dianetics and Scientology, gave a million lectures, wrote a million books and bulletins etc, started an organization and expanded it worldwide under incredible suppression. I believe towards the end of his life there was a lot of delivery with clears/OT’s and auditors being made and expansion happening. It seems like a good thing to me, but I’m biased I guess. Now 30 years later we are going to say he was “mean” or that the 3rd dynamic tech is a little off, or we would change this or that and maybe LRH was nuts…

      Everybody can believe what they want. I’m just telling you where I’m at. I’ve seen and experienced it to be a workable body of technology and a valid spiritual practice. Also, I think before DM got on the lines LRH really had something built up with the Church. It was really rocking wasnt it? Clears/OT’s and auditors being made?

    • Crashing Upwards

      Briana, this is “graduate” school. Most here use scientology axioms and principles and processes as tools to think or advance. Scientology means the study of knowledge or knowing how to know. One did or does not truly get or understand scientology if they stay stuck inside it. Marty will not be making any announcements. His blog postings demonstrate he has a better than average understanding of what scienotology was intended to give and allow an individual. That is what you are seeing, and its so different from corporate scientology that you think he is moving away. I think he is moving closer. Marty thinks with scientology, scientology does not tell marty what to think. Huge difference.

    • And which planet are you from?

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Briana Volta, your “identity”, who instructed this “prediction”,
      and your “suggestion” “for the rest of you to “graduate” too.”
      emanates from WHO exactly! Spill it, programmed OSA’bot!

      • Li’ll bit of stuff,

        Talk about being ‘judgmental’…. Your comment reminds me a gang-bang sec check experience. That was written like an experienced sec checker preparing to RPF someone.

        Try to discern before you label someone an “OSA’bot” . There are many people who are no longer scientologists, who feel they have moved on and are better for it. That doesn’t make them OSA. Nor does that prediction of Briana Volta’s mean that ‘she’ is a poser and poster for OSA. Some people see Marty changing and shifting his views. That is not a bad thing. That’s personal evolution. Although I am not one of those who thinks Marty will ever announce he’s moved beyond Scientology, I know for a fact that there are some who would like to see him trash the whole subject. The Church of Scientology will not benefit either way, so how does ‘it’s an OSA’bot’ fit into your line of thought?

        The wonderful thing about leaving organized Scientology is that one can begin thinking for him or her self and not be held down by fear induced propaganda and rhetoric and the culture it created. Having one’s buttons pushed requires a different kind of response in order to successfully get a point across. Replying in hate to someone voicing an opinion is, in itself, suspect. There is a thing called A=A=A and I suggest you remember that when you are preparing to be judgmental.

        Instead of reacting like a henchman, it would have been more effective to just reply that you would bet the person otherwise.

  5. Very thanks Marty for the time spent to share these interesting data IMHO.

    I realized then I have surely too much already labelled DM!

    Yeah, looks not serious while typing this, but still, I wonder about those we label “SP” (suppressive persons, or “antisocial personality”).

    Really, I try to keep my “Affinity” for the beings non-ideally created as destructive in my environment.

    Still looks to me hard to do, but I keep trying and hope my understanding of the true nature of the “us” will help me to “de-create” the negativity around I know I have contributed to create, would be only by permitting it to occur.

    Thanks for your help.

  6. Recently Marty announced that OSA agents have been out full force knocking on doors, telling outrageous stories about Marty in an effort to drive a HUGE wedge.

    They should save their money and just let the cat fight and sniping continue on this blog.

    Seriously — Briana Volta’s post is probably the most inflammatory I’ve seen yet.

    There are a few people I know who are somewhat confused by Marty’s recent posts. They are what I consider few “hard-core” indies. However, they aren’t about (at least I don’t think so) to turn their backs on a friend.
    Marty

    I suggest we take a look at a few things:

    1) —- full moon —- has been shown on other message boards to be a catalyst for firefights online. I saw a graph years ago

    2) —- OSA interest in dividing all of us

    3) —- our own personal buttons that get pushed

  7. I just sent this to a dear, near life long friend. I reckon I’m getting bold now, a year of no doubt can do that. Hopefully not stupid but at this point in my life there isn’t much I’m afraid of and I can predict consequences (except sometimes my own foolish actions…).

    I emailed Jan Silber, a near lifelong friend, whom I love dearly incidentally, the ED of Mountain View for two decades, the following; ” … “moreover”, “and that’s just the beginning”, “straight up and vertical”, “and if that’s not enough” … Sherman speak and $50,000 every six months in property taxes alone last 6 years.
    I love you and always will kiddo.”

    I haven’t spoken to her in 2 years now. We’ll see how it goes. Like I said, I’m getting bold and I really don’t give a shit the fall out except on the side of Standard Tech. I love the Tex Mex line in CA since I’ve been here last few years… “we’ll see what happens.”

  8. Pack to the point.
    The problem is not labeling itself. The problem is labeling without good supporting evidence. Such evidence takes time to collect. Some people jump to conclusions too early and call their Labels. Labels can be very correct and useful. If you are looking at a child molester who is proven to be one don’t go running around feeling bad about having to label him as such. For instance if you have children of your own you have to care for, it would be foolish to go: oh people say he is a child molester but they are so Judgmental. I’ll just go ahead and leave him alone with my son because being Judgmental is so ’90s. You see a child molester you act accordingly and protect your group. That is ethics at work!
    Calling people this and that without enough supporting evidence is where the problem is. We all label things anyway all the time. We think in concepts which are essentially labels. It is part of making sense of this physical universe thingy that we have mocked up. As long as we do not assume Judgments are not only fine but absolutely necessary.

    • Should have made it clear that by judgment I meant the action of a label being accepted about someone or something. Of course it is good to keep an open mind with these and be willing to change or dismiss them.
      (Also Pack to the point should have been Back to the point.)

  9. Judge: To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration. To pass sentence on; condemn. To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation. To have as an opinion or assumption; suppose. One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness. To form an opinion or evaluation.

    Identify:
    To prove or recognize as being a certain person or thing; determine the identity of; To consider as the same or equivalent. (also intr; often foll by with) to consider (oneself) as similar to another. To determine the classification of (a plant or animal)(Psychology).

    LRH on IDENTIFICATION, 1. the inability to evaluate differences in
    time, location, form, composition, or importance. ( SOS, p. 153)
    2. identification is a monotone assignment of importance. (SOS,
    p. 153) 3. the lowest level of reasoning is complete inability to
    differentiate, which is to say, identification. (SOS, p.153) 4. Duplicating
    in one space continually, is in itself identification.
    (2ACC-25B, 5312CM17)

    When people pass “JUDGEMENT”, they identify in a monotone assignment of importance.

  10. judg·men·tal (jj-mntl)
    adj.
    1. Of, relating to, or dependent on judgment:
    2. Inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones based on personal opinions or standards.

    nonjudgmental – refraining from making judgments especially ones based on personal opinions or standards.

    Service Facsimile: 6. that computation generated by the preclear (not the bank) to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others.

    Judgmental, carries the PURPOSE of a ser fac.,

    READ THE AUDITORS CODE! IT IS ALL ABOUT NOT BEING JUDGMENTAL! HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN THIS BE?

    EVERY REFERENCE you read and every identifying word is for the PURPOSE of HELPING someone else in Scientology. NOT to judge YOUR OWN case gain or status against other people’s shortcomings. THIS falls into “Hidden standards”. Hidden Standard: 2. is not just a physical or mental difficulty but one by which the p.c. measures his case gains. A case measurement thing used secretly by the p.c..

    TECHNOLOGY AND
    HIDDEN STANDARDS

    A lecture given on
    2 March 1965

    You’ve got in the human race and in the mind, a barrier called a hidden standard. When anyone is critical, they are apparently criticizing against a hidden standard of behavior. They seldom tell you what the exact standard of behavior should be; they never spend much time on this. They just tell you what it shouldn’t be. Your mama and your papa telling you that you were a bad girl or a bad boy very seldom defined for you what a „good girl“ or a „good boy“ was in—when they did, it was some—in some antipathetic definition that would have upset anyone to have tried to have been good that way, you see? Definition of a „good boy“ is somebody who eats spinach.
    So, man doesn’t even have a definition—well, he today doesn’t have a definition of what a normal person is. Well, that’s easy to see how he wouldn’t have this because this character, „normal person,“ doesn’t exist. Read a science fiction story recently in which some fellow was the normal average of the whole civilization, so they elected him president because they all wanted to relax or something and the civilization eventually collapsed. They—nobody knows what a normal person is, but—and that’s easy to see why not. But nobody really knows what a good person is. A good person is something that isn’t defined very actively.

    Hidden standards are merely a collection of nonacknowledged things. They’ve never been acknowledged. So therefore, they’re kind of goofy. You see, if nobody ever agreed with them, never acknowledged them and so forth, why, naturally they’d be pretty nutty. So all these hidden standards are nutty. And they form some of the most interesting bric-a-brac that you ever saw disassociated on one sheet of paper, when you start writing them down. They just don’t seem to bear any resemblance to anything, don’t you see? Well, that’s because they come from civilizations we know not what of anymore. That’s because they come from customs and peoples that we have no contact with. And the person himself has forgotten where it came from anyhow, don’t you see, or who he was when he first collected it.

    In other words, if you’re going to—if you’re going to associate with your fellow being—and we can assume jolly well that you will—if you’re going to associate with your fellow being, why you are then going to have to use a communication formula. And you can work it out any way you want to, it’s going to wind up as the communication formula. You could have it three—way and try to dream it up in seventeen different ways, but you would eventually come around to the same communication formula that you’ve got, which is cause, distance, effect, with intention and attention and so forth, and this can have certain things go wrong with it. Nothing’s going to change about that. And therefore, the material I’m giving you now is native aberration rather than made—up or agreed—upon aberration, and so on. Well, the agreedupon aberration and so on, GPMs and so on, they have a tendency to hold enough foundation so that the bank tends to retain these minor aberrations which collect, you see? And you get a hidden standard.
    Now basically, you’re talking about what is insanity. Well, insanity could be two things. It could just be this collection of unacknowledged things or it could simply be the outright overt commands in the GPMs, you see, to be nuts, which exist, you see, in the GPMs. And you’ve got then a direct source of direct aberration—got a direct source of direct aberration—and then you’ve also got—that’s the GPMs and the basic reactive mind, you see—and you’ve got this other thing which could stem from a native Condition of the being. He’s liable to this type of aberration, see?
    Now, when you get both of those things working together, the GPMs or the basic reactive bank can hold the collected aberrations or nonacknowledged things and so on, in firm position and make them assume tremendous importance and make them quite aberrative. So insanity actually could be defined at first surface glance, don’t you see, as just that collection of things which have never been acknowledged and the person is not in agreement with the physical universe about. I refer you to many years ago; we’ve had many lectures on this subject.

    See, we leave out this comparative thing, we’re now running, you see, the human standard on the—I mean the hidden standard on the person. You follow that? So nobody will then admit that you have reached any state because nobody has ever told you what state you were supposed to reach in the first place. That is to say, amongst your fellow human beings. What state were you supposed to reach? And then the hidden standard with regard to a state, people have a tendency to put the hidden standard in place of the actual standard.
    If you want to know what a state of Clear is, it’s just a free needle, with the tone arm at the male or female read. That’s all the state of Clear is. There isn’t any other standard connected to it. Not today. You see, this has been the test for Clear for many, many’, many years.

  11. Li'll bit of stuff

    Okay, here’s my Li’ll ol’ view for just 2c!

    Previous post–“Christmas”
    Filled with high theta, great sentiments and a sense of real
    community spirit and goodwill. Although you closed with the
    words…”i can say that I am feeling a great degree of equanimity
    and peace.” – this appeared, sadly, to be only short lived.

    Current post–“Judgment”
    Filled with much entheta, angry sentiments, and a sense of
    division, disruption and confusion – more fitting as the result of
    a successful foray by the likes of DM and his OSA minions.

    I have often reflected on your essay, “31 Factors,” feeling that
    you had correctly identified the MAJOR source of disruption
    and destruction of LRH’s Scientology, in all of it’s guises.

    What is perplexing to me, is the duplicity you show toward
    some who most definitely side with you, based on their own
    independent negative experiences, openly shared with us.

    Your blunt refusal to acknowledge countless heart felt pleas,
    originations, and validations, sincerely and earnestly given
    to you, (including my own!), when a simple mass comm’ed
    message, would have sufficed, as a goodwill gesture, smacks
    of complete indifference, and perhaps explains the complete
    absence of a single ” Happy Christmas” from you, in your post.

    Would I be wrong in assuming your reference to Rene Brown’s
    noting, “that when one desensitizes oneself to any emotion,
    one numbs oneself to emotion generally.”? That does explain
    to me, at least in part, where you may be looking / acting from.

    As things currently stand,this is definitely NOT, the kind of atmosphere, conducive to making the group members feel
    needed, wanted, or appreciated, IMHO! Can anything (positive) be done to assuage that? LRH sure had a LOT to say there!

    While I have you to thank enormously, for thoroughly revealing,
    and sharing, the inside operations of what I once considered
    my complete spiritual home,(now turned into an insane asylum) I am also quite sad, that evidently, I have almost nothing to offer
    you, which you find acceptable. I only meant to help! Perhaps
    the following last ditch effort, may offer something of value,
    since it happened to be my profession;—- Personal training!!

    Like you, with your PC’s, I do assume the necessary positive control in following through, with those entrusted to my care,
    (without any deference to their altitude), to meet the desired
    goal/s sought by the PC / trainee!…. Just Professionalism!

    I’m assuming you have simply not had sufficient opportunity for
    complete rest and proper recovery from all the demands you
    have recently had to deal with. Practically speaking,THAT’S just
    not conducive to optimum functioning! So, recommendation? Take that much needed break!

    Fully rested, re-energized and back on song, That’s the way to enter the New Year,Marty,
    Refreshed and Strong! (work > rest & nutrition > recovery = ready!)

    Kind regards,
    Calvin.

    • Calvin, lighten up a bit. Marty is a personal counsellor who happens to write a blog. Dont make him responsible for everything and throw cold water on all the good opinion and reflections and data he shares because you didnt get a “merry xmas”. He is not asking to be anything. He does not owe anything. The blog is a gift, a community of viewpoints. Its not the holy grail and Marty is not King Arthur. Enjoy it or leave it, as you will.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Vicar, take your own advice first, before dishing it!
        Misduplication on your part, lead to your comment.
        a) Are you Marty ?(what business answering for him?)
        b) Are you a qualified nutritionist / personal trainer?
        c) Can you recognize (obnose) SYMPTOMS of overwork/
        insufficient rest/ RECOVERY,inadequate intake of essential
        vitamin B i2, B-complex, calcium and Slow release magnesium
        supplementation, or inadequate essential fatty acids. or water?
        or improperly balanced intake of protein / carbohydrate?
        d) Bluntly have you studied DIET for optimum performance?
        (mental / physical / emotional / energy enhancing effects.?)
        e)Do you sufficiently understand the most serious drawbacks
        of improperly graded / inappropriate exercise for a given
        individual, based on existing cardiovascular health, and
        stress levels, relative to age and personality type?

        If, in the main, you answered yes, to these questions, you
        would have gotten the content, and also understood that I
        actually care about him, perhaps with a little more Physio-
        tech savvy then meets the eye, Get it?

        Natural concern and care for others is one of one of my
        natural attributes, Vicar, so your fears are unwarranted.

        Peace, brother.

        Calvin.

        • Don’t know what you are referring to on the nutritional aspects, but as far as Vicar’s response to your demand that I communicate certain things to certain people, I couldn’t have said it better than Vicar. So, to the extent you are jumping on Vicar for that please get off Vicar.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Thanks for finally clearing up where i stand with you, Marty, It’s taken a full year. I now see, hereby, that this is unlikely to change. Vicar’s contribution / s clearly meet
            with your approval, and I wish him well.

            • Calvin. You clearly have a lot to share with your background in nutrition and personal training. I would think you could have your own blog on those topics. It may be a useful an outlet for you and those who participate. If you already have one, excuse my ignorance.

              • Li'll bit of stuff

                Thank you for your comments, Vicar. My life these
                days, includes the regular confronting of violent
                crimininals For the past year, interacting with warm
                hearted, fun loving friends I have found on this blog, has served as an “outlet” to destimulate from that violence. Like Steve Hall, I tend to wear my heart
                on my sleeve, and that is misconstrued by some.

                When flowing love, admiration, goodwill and offers of help, are rejected outright with heartless cynicism, it’s time to move on.

                I do wish you well, and a very happy New Year 2013.

                Calvin

  12. Brilliant subject Mary.
    The blog is set to go out of 2012 with a big bang.
    May you all have a prosperous and happy new year and let 2013 be the year of new beginnings. “Surprise! The wold didn’t end” is an over beat subject for those expecting/fearing something bad to happen. The level of attention surrounding the end of the wold hoax indicates that people are craving change. If change is what we need who is to say that the change was supposed to be bad? Who looked at the Mayan calender and thought something awful is about to happen? What if change is indeed coming our way except it is a good change? What if 2013 is the year of change where humanity really starts learning from the past? I see wind coming.
    A strong one. Are we going to ride it?

    Thank you for your contributions to humanity and caring attention you have dedicated to this blog.

  13. My apologies. There were a very small percentage of people here that were in a position to sell Scientology to new people or existing people? Yeah, those that had to learn the CDEandI scale. Those that were only winning through desire. Those that could only reach out and cause someone to want change. Those that understood “need of change” .You have to be able to do a lot to manage that. You have to CARE all the way about the person n front of you. You are burdened with the fact that you are the MAKE BREAK point behind this person going north or south. Yeah and, so I can think with the fact that some here are NOT up to need of change with Scienctology. It’s O.K..
    The only identity I have ever had in this whole arena is one of possibilities.
    So I have been set up for many losses. But more wins. I know when people are up to need of change. I gave Obama P.R. “CHANGE” word for P.R. because I hoped people were up to need of change. They were. The people in America were up to need of change and I could see it. Obama won the election because people were up to need of change. Google Obama “Change”. I changed the world with a simple piece of Scientology. But there are people in Scientology that are not up to need of change and this is an issue. Nobody is going to enforce this on you. And it’s alright.

  14. I thought perhaps you might want to revisit what LRH has to say about the subject of Scientology :

    Let’s take the subject of Scientology and let’s see if there’s any
    logic involved with it at all. There isn’t a mathematics that can
    embrace the subject of Scientology, because it is an invented
    mathematics. It’s an invented mathematics that accepts gradient
    scales and “absolutes are unattainable.” And it is a method of
    thinking about things. And it is just as true as it is workable.
    And no truer. And is not, in itself, an abitrary, fascistic
    police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a
    servant of the mind, and servo-mechanism of the mind. It is not a master
    of the mind. Scientology will decline and become useless to man on
    the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t
    do that. It has every capability of doing that. – PDC 20 Formative
    State of Scientology. Definition of Logic 1982 version.

    I’ll repeat the SALIENT POINT (IMHO) — SCIENTOLOGY WILL DECLINE AND BECOME USELESS ON MAN ON THE DAY WHEN IT BECOMES THE MASTER OF THINKING.

    If you have never heard the PDC, find the tapes. Early version as the re-do 2002 has deletions.

    Love,
    Christine

  15. I remember the first time I realized that KRC could be used for limiting and controling others. I was shocked.

  16. The first duty of love is to listen.

  17. What I’ve observed is that the premise of this post is acting as a wrong indication to some, Which is making it difficult to just move on.
    “What’s true for you is true for you.”

    • How do you feel about this statement, Max?

      “In the province of the mind, what is believed to be true either is true, or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind, there are no limits.”

      I find it very useful.

  18. Aftermath. To all.
    Let me start with a quote from LRH (Science of Survival)
    “In this band we have fantastically accomplished actors, who may weep and plead and decry with contempt and disdain, asserting their honesty and their sin¬cerity, and demonstrating them with such consummate con¬viction that even the most critical observer may be unable to detect the slightest falsehood; and yet, in the 1.1, a deep and exhaustive inspection of motivations and goals reveals a snakepit of lies and insincerities, of pretenses and unrealities. Such people can turn on tears and other emotions at will and use the language of highest honour to serve the most despicable ends.”

    “At this level we have murder, by slow erosion, of individuals and the culture, each harmful action being masked with voluminous “reasoning.” Here is the snake¬pit of human behaviour, and from this area comes the venom which will gradually destroy any individual or culture. ”

    Naturally he is talking about 1.1s here. I must admit I have not paid attention to such writings of him a while back. Until I had grown my own reality with the subject. Then I was able to study and penetrate the mindset of this band and finally see and understand loud and clear what LRH was talking about.

    I have gained a great amount of resentment on this blog by calling out a single 1.1. People calling me out who I don’t even have an issue with. My target pretended to blow in a final attempt to make me look like I am still standing like a bad bully. In reality he is still reading you can rest assured. Just not posting to make the blow stick on me. Make note that I am still here and I am still curious as to what his credentials are?
    I mean if you were looking for a plumber and you asked for his credentials and he then blew instead of answering would you be suspicious?

    I’ve listened to many stories of ex SC people over the past decade. I do not have such experience myself as I have never been in the church.
    As the number of these stories grew in my mind I had one particular question getting louder and louder:

    How did SC get so derailed when LRH new so much and he was so onto 1.1s?

    Here is my theory:

    LRH was not very fond of 1.1s. He said things like: it is safer to sleep with an adder then a 1.1 and that we would be better off if they all got picked up and shipped off to an island.

    Not too pretty of a picture. At first I have dismissed these because it is harsh. Then I started wondering and realized that this is the unhandled case!

    You see LRH was trying to tweak the tech until it was able to handle everyone. But no matter how he tweaked it people still need to want to get better in order for them to be helped. The 1.1 does not want to be helped but will be ready to pretend so. This created the catch 22 band. The band that can’t be helped. This is the unhandled case of humanity.
    And this is what brought down SC IMHO. Our unpreparedness and optimistic blindness to 1.1s is what brought down SC.

    Now of course who am I to suggest a solution? I am just some guy I know.
    But think about it! 1.1s are part of humanity whether we like it or not. We have to take responsibility for them. They don’t see the big picture but we do. If the tech can’t help them then we have to! How?
    By spotting them and not falling for their trickery. By willing to look and confront instead of staying quiet. By warning our fellow men of the eminent danger. By keeping together and acting as one on this matter. 1.1s undermine our societies. Don’t take my word for it. Read Science of Survival. The solution to the unsolved case is education. Educating people to be able to spot 1.1s will allow them not to become pray.
    When you don’t speak up about them you grant them and their case beingness.

    Am I too harsh? What I am saying is not what is harsh. The case of the 1.1 is what is harsh here. And when you address one it is like following a wasp with a swatter and keep missing until you get back to the hive following him. Then all the wasps from the hive come at you. All because you dared to follow one particular subject and not give up.

    Have you noticed the noise just one of them created because I called him off. In the process of exposing him I became dirty as his case spilled all over the blog. And now many of you think I have beef with you. I don’t!
    If you feel like you have beef with me then do me a favor. Look at my posts before and after the dispute and ask yourself: do I still have beef with this guy or is it someone else’s charge?

    You may wonder where did all this charge and sparkle come from? I have been called angry, black and white thinking, OSA all because I have confronted a single 1.1. I can assure you that the charge is not mine. I am on OT IV and am an Ls completion. I get the tech. I live and breathe through it now. It is the tech that woke me up and made me dare to take a serious look at 1.1s. Have you really taken a good look?

    For those still fond of Jim: Don’t worry he will be back. But I won’t be making noise again. I’VE POINTED ONCE, NOW IT IS SOMEONE ELSE’S TURN! He blew before. And came back so it’s not like I am predicting the future here. Blowing off is just another tool for him that can be used to make the other party look bad. Don’t believe me? Look at what LRH said in SOS again. Life may not be black and white for decent people but it is for a stuck 1.1. They appear to be friendly on the surface and caring but on the inside they are plotting and scheming. They will convince and sweet talk you into getting into business or a relationship with them and then betray that trust. Inside they are very dark. Outside they appear very light. There is the source of black and white.

    Exposing a 1.1 is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Many of you may know this better than I that a true 1.1 tends to be a no case gain situation. They also have lots of charge built up due to their lies and betrayals. When you confront them what happens? You bring them upscale by communication right? What is above 1.1?

    1.15 Unexpressed Resentment
    1.2 No Sympathy
    1.3 Resentment
    1.4 Hate
    1.5 Anger

    A 1.1 moves slow up through these bands because they are stuck at 1.1.
    If you understand the tone scale then you know that regular people move freely up and down on the scale in relation to reality. A 1.1 however is stuck at 1.1, It’s not like normal people can’t hit the band of 1.1 occasionally. They can get brought down there easily just by confronting a 1.1. He made me have to come down there.

    So you communicate to a 1.1 more and more and slowly he starts moving up the scale. Then all the covertness starts coming off and you get …. well you have seen what you get. Fireworks!

    At this point I will offer my apologies to Marty for creating all this noise.

    I just had to as I think people will keep falling for the same trick over and over again unless we all become familiar with reality. Part of reality is that 1.1s DO EXIST in considerable numbers. LRH knew this and SC still got brought down by a single 1.1! Just remember that and ask yourself: do we want to continue underestimating them.

    I see the recovery attempts and the regrouping of the Indie field. It is very noble and I am all for it. But we must address the mother of all problems.
    How do we not go down again because of 1.1s?

    Now I am done. I have said my piece. It is up to every one of you to see the truth. All I can do is ask you to re-read science of survival and give it some more attention. Not too much. Not too little. Just the right amount of attention. Spend some time looking at 1.1s and then decide for yourself.

    And remember that the it is not a good sign when people blow just because you ask about their credentials.
    I am still awaiting the answer curiously.

    • Just one more thing.
      Why do we study history? To learn from the troubles of the past and to avoid them. But are we really learning from it? I though we are but if that was so we would have to be doing something differently than in the past.
      LRH is timeless but the SC which was lead by him is history. It has been taken apart by a single 1.1. Ripped to shreds and turned into a personal piggy bank.

      Ask yourself this:
      What are we doing differently now, here in present time?

      I am in the same boat as the rest of you except I might have a louder voice.
      Why?
      Because LRH’s message and my particular life events caused me to look closely. Because it concerns me greatly that the place I have put my children into is full of 1.1s and the very group of people who’s teacher spotted 1.1s and documented them so accurately is incapable of handling the truth about them.

      I mean just look at this mess I had to get into just to expose one.

      I would like to share the optimism of others but that is not the path that was lined up for me apparently. The way I see it is that we are doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. And you know what that is right?

      I don’t want my children NOR your children to grow up unsuspecting and get taken for a ride. This isn’t even about me or you! It’s about a higher dynamic.

      • Well if I had to judge from the thumbs down some of you don’t mind to have your children ran over by illusionists. That is concerning. Very concerning. There are people out there who do nothing but look to get without exchange. The thumbs downers might just be some of those?
        That would be in alignment as those who only care about self do not care about others really even if it is their own sibling. They will pretend to do so but in reality they don’t. So good t-downing!

  19. To a large degree I think that people who wernt through the corporate Scientology experience picked up a lot of fixed ideas that they were never really allowed to analyse for themselves as to whether or not they were real or true for them. Now, even as an Indie or whatever they assert their fixed ideas as truth.

    • Very good point. One I have to give some thoughts to in order to grown more patience towards those over restimulated on labels and Judgments.

      • Fly on the wall

        impatience is often a sign of self-importance.

        • Thank you for that eval

          • Fly on the wall

            You obviously have the gift of high capacity when it comes to intelligence and expression. Sometimes that becomes its own trap. We all should at least give cursory reflection to warning signs left and found along the way.

            • Thank you for the compliment. I don’t make the same mistake twice. I need to go easier on people even if I have very good reason to be bent out of shape. But you know once in a while a straw breaks the back of a camel.

  20. Looks like the poster above your post – “First Rule” – says he was never in the Church. Yet he became a busy “1.1” spotter – and true believer – just by reading LRH writings and listening to LRH lectures.

    The problem is not only the organization, it’s the subject, the teachings.

    That’s what those who’ve “graduated” from Scientology, and are no longer Scientologists, have realized.

    • I don’t agree. There is such a thing as simply “graduating” from the grip of the groupthink that has usurped corporate Scn. One does that by spotting the blatant departures from the subject by applying the subject to what’s observable and to one’s own false agreements with it.

      Scientology is the only subject that delivers any means of caustively and knowingly managing quantum mechanics, the unified field of consciousness (the whoop and wharf of reality itself, subjective and objective).

      Those who left the subject and are “no longer Scientologists” never really understood that and are therefore still stuck in their own “Matrix” on a victim flow and therefore still have to graduate out of it with now no means of doing so. They may have taken the Blue Pill at some point but then opted for the Red Pill. That’s not graduating. That’s a flunk.

      • Crashing Upwards

        I do not agree with Briana either, but I also think you have settled into some judgement’s of your own. You state the following ;
        “Scientology is the only subject that delivers any means of causatively and knowingly managing quantum mechanics, the unified field of consciousness (the whoop and wharf of reality itself, subjective and objective).”
        Your dogmatic statement delegates every other spiritual school of thought or training to “also ran” status. Thats pretty presumptuous and unlikly. That’s the attitude and belief that one is fed in Scientology and which keeps one trapped. Unless one has studied and trained in every other discipline and found them wanting, the statement is misleading and misguided. And if one had studied every other school and discipline, it would still only be a true statement for that persons viewpoint. And there are some schools which i am sure are off the radar all together, and will not be casting their pearls in front of you.

        • You state, “. . .you have settled into some judgement’s (sic) of your own.” You are correct. That is my judgment. You then elucidate your judgment of my judgment as “dogmatic”, “fed”, “keeps one trapped”, “misleading and misguided” and could only be true – after thorough knowledge of all other alternatives – as someone’s judgment. :)
          I do not question Briana’s right to make judgments. I take issue with her conclusions, as you have mine. However, I am willing to change my judgment, if you can enlighten me on a better, more comprehensive and workable subject for caustively and knowingly managing quantum mechanics, the unified field of consciousness.
          I await your judgment on better path to freedom.

          • Crashing Upwards

            As i said, ” Unless one has studied and trained in every other discipline and found them wanting, the statement is misleading and misguided.” I do not pretent to have studied and have knowledge of all other systems so I can neither rank scientology as the ” only one” or #10 in relevance. Your the one who is staking a claim so unless you have studied all systems, your claim is hollow.

            • Crashing Upwards

              Let me put it another way. If you had followed your claim about scientology as the”only subject…” with the words “that I am aware of”, then its fine. A little moderation in its claims would have done scientology a lot of good in hindsight.

              • Yeah right! Name a better way.

              • So, it’s not really the relative factualness of my statement but my lack of equivocation. Although, like you, I don’t profess to be proficient in all such subjects, I have looked into those with any real promise extensively – which is why I can be unequivocal. The one that comes closest is Buddhism, but it lacks a reliable methodology for achieving the state of Bodhi. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

                • Crashing Upwards

                  Graduated, a/k/a First Rule, not that it matters, I agree with you that the methodology is what gives the “tech” its value. Buddhism is the obvious closest practice and the founder acknowledges that. It has some methodology, but does not have the exactness of application. If managing quantum mechanics is your mecca, scientology :”tech” certainly would be right up at or near the top of most lists. But in and of itself, it has not shown to result in a better, more stable, more powerful being. So where does the potential value of any “practice” or “methodology” truly lie? The student? The teacher?. The “Tech”? I would say the student is the most important. The rest will come.

                  • Crashing, you stated, “But in and of itself, it has not shown to result in a better, more stable, more powerful being.” If by “it” you mean Scientology, there are many here that would attest that is just dead wrong as they’ve personally experienced much betterment, more stability and great power as being. I know I have. But if that has not been your experience, what are you even doing here? Just hoping to join in on a gang-bang bagging on the subject? There’s plenty of other sites for that sort of thing. That’s not what this forum is about. Fine, so Scientology is not for you. Move on and good luck.

                    • Crashing Upwards

                      Graduated, when you said scientology is the ONLY subject …..(caps mine) you got my attention. Thats all. And I should have used the term “consistently” in my earlier response as to the results achieved by scientology.
                      I very much want scientology to continue to be available to help people. And that option has been put in grave danger. This blog is part of the solution to keep the channels of delivery open. Scientology can still be a part of what makes this world a better place. Though its role and potential has been very much diminished from what it could have been, its still has pro-survival potential in the right hands.

                  • Crashing Upwards. It does matter. I do not post as anyone else. Never will. Never have. Even now that I have managed to gain some opposition (or worse) I will not change my posting name. I am who I am and if I should be wrong about something I can have that.

              • So, it’s not really the relative factualness of my statement but my lack of equivocation. Although, like you, I don’t profess to be proficient in all such subjects, but I have looked into those with any real promise extensively – which is why I can be unequivocal. The one that comes closest is Buddhism, but it lacks a reliable methodology for achieving the state of Bodhi. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

                • Crashing Upwards

                  I not only do not profess to be proficient in all subjects, I do not even profess to know the existence of all subjects. That is my point. Before you were introduced to scientology, you didnt know about scientology. And today I would suggest there are practices you still do not know about. And you may never know if you stop looking.

                  • Do your Bridge. You can sit there all day on your little “MT, Olympus” and ponder other things forever! Demonstrate the ability to finish the Bridge and then “look” around.

                    • Briana Volta

                      Jay, you sound like me when I was 19.

                      A lot of people have done the Bridge, auditing side and training side, both.

                      They are no longer Scientologists.

                      You would not approve of their views.

                      Would you mind if I asked how old you are?, and when you first became involved with Scientology?

                    • Name them! I;ll bet they are full of crap. I ran into a few of these so-called people who did both sides and they could not even pass a basic checkout on basic material. Your general statement as been noted.

      • You say that Scientology has found “a means of causatively and knowingly managing quantum mechanics.” That’s pretty impressive.

        How is it, then, that Scientology has yet to find a means of managing a sane group?

        The vast majority of the most experienced people, who had been involved with Scientology, are no longer Scientologists.

        They are not victims, nor have they “flunked.”

        They are free.

        • Briana,
          I agree with you – it’s exceedingly impressive! By your comment I can see that you are among those who never really understood that. Without that singular and overriding certainty (omitted data), I can understand your abandonment of the subject (even though without that certainty there is still much treasure to be discovered), assuming you were ever involved. I can also therefore understand your (incorrectly included) call for others to make you right by doing likewise.
          However, you then assume facts not in evidence:
          1. That Scientology “has yet to find a means of managing a sane group” (falsehood by omitted data).
          Scientology includes an extensive methodology for maintaining group sanity, which had produced a worldwide network of organizations and the fastest growing self-help religion on Earth until that methodology was usurped, within corporate Scientology, by a destructive earlier practice of nullification and domination. You should read this blog and Marty’s books and find out why. It’s a fascinating case study in group dynamics.
          What you don’t like about “Scientology”, I would venture, is what’s not to like about that usurping earlier practice, not Scientology itself (assumed identities are not identical). On that, we could agree.
          2. That the “vast majority of the most experienced people, who had been involved with Scientology, are no longer Scientologists”.
          If you mean are no longer “corporate Scientologists” I might agree with respect to the “most experienced” Scientologists based on the stats Marty posted yesterday on the home page, as it appears the majority of them are represented here or are frequenting this blog. Certainly, the trend for the most experienced appears to be away from Scientology, Inc. due to its usurpation. But there’s no empirical way of measuring that nor those who still consider themselves Scientologists even years after ceasing participation in Scientology Inc. (falsehood by assumed identities not being identical, omitted data, incorrectly included categorical assumption and conjecture).
          3. The above renders your closing assertions unable to be substantiated. However, if one does not know and use the methodologies of managing the unified field of consciousness or the correct methodologies for managing group sanity, I wonder how free they can really be.

          • Scientology has been less than sane – to put it mildly – since I first was involved in it, and that was in 1969. It was a cult then, even though, at the time, if someone had said to me, “Scientology is a cult,” I would have passionately disagreed.

            Read old issues of the Aberree magazine (1954 – 1964) for a look at Scientology in the old days. The same patterns were there.

          • In all the years, I’ve never seen any anti-Scientology mouthpiece attack the Data Series. Perhaps you just demonstrated why.

  21. Not long after I left scientology – I became involved with a small fairly esoteric group that followed the teachings of Carlos Castaneda. I went to one of their retreats, became a “member” and then we would meet on a forum – not unlike this … (not the same either :)

    I learned many things from this group but mostly I learned that “calling someone out” as First Rule did with Jim Logan is deadly.

    Whether I agree with her/him or not isn’t the point. It just doesn’t work.

    Here’s only ONE reason why — there are lots of people on this board who know each other OFF the board and phone or Skype. Therefore, there are conversations that are missing from all of us. We assume we have the complete picture but it’s far from the case.

    I’ve gone back and slugged through these messages and for the life of me have NO idea how First Rule would jump on Lana (who he insisted was Jim) UNLESS there were conversations with others off this board. It just doesn’t flow.

    Moreover, Jim has been gone from this board as a regular poster for awhile — and First Rule must have been lurking for a long time OR had the patience to read through this blog the entire blog to come up with his/her opinions.

    In other words — I consider myself of moderate intelligence and I’m positive I’m missing some part of the scene. It’s just not all here.

    THAT said — I doubt that First Rule is OSA – but heck what do I really know :)

    Happy New Year

    • Christine,
      I know who First Rule is, now. This last “aftermath” post has put many pieces together. Still, I apply the Data Series and no blinding flash of insight will go unchecked, so to speak. There are strings to pull yet. (Re: the “OSA” bit, for one, as the “First Rule” has apparently revealed me to the “wold” (sic) as an “OSA implant (sic- plant)” as well as the oddity (DS 11) of one of the cluster having had a recent visit from “OSA” and apparently being in “good standing” – which is an interesting li’l item all in itself.)

      I agree with Calvin. OSA IS on the blog, either by hook or by crook, directly or indirectly.

      For the record here. Up to this point I made a single comment in the 600+ remarks, and a single reply to a response to that comment.

      Lana is Lana and very much a self-determined being. She is her own advisor, she keeps her own counsel, and she selects her own decisions. (She’s also an Australian woman, and if any fool thinks I have the power to sway an Australian woman, they should write up the hat as a new Bill Roberston OT Level because that’s quite a feat and should be part of the wonderous world of OT Level MX.)

      For the most part, I was in session, or on study for the “imbroglio”. I also helped Lana and one of the Pre OTs here getting service, lay out a fence line in the hot Aussie sun when we had finished auditing for the day.

      Lastly, and not because it is of much importance, but again, “for the record”, I have myself used the voting system, maybe 6 times, since its inception here. I can recall a thumbs up for Alex Castillo’s post on his production as an Evaluator, a couple for Mike Rinder’s pithy and hilarious commentary, and one or two for some of the lower brow, crass comments. I have not used it on any of my personal posts or any of the posts of First Rule, The Oracle or oraclemysticism. Not once.

      Jim Logan
      (occassionally and by mistake having posts under “momrath65″ as I failed to notice the change in the wordpress sign off. I did have my image, a factual photo from 2011 taken in The Courseroom at the Supervisor’s desk.)

      P.S. “First Rule”, I am fully trained and interned at Flag and said internships completed under those PERSONALLY trained by L. Ron Hubbard, or those they trained. I have done the courses, including the drills per the Fast Flow materials for the most part having done the Student Hat (including the full words lists of the PRD, on my own, and Method One W/Cing) for ANY service I deliver and most recently have done the checksheet again for the NOTs pack, this time in the superb checksheet put out by “B” for “Class IX”, having previously done the original NOTS Co Audit checksheet from the original NOTS auditor training at Flag, several times(at least four) through (alas, “only” out here in the field). I have also done the Flag Qual OKs on all basic actions of auditing, including TRs, metering, Two Way Comm, etc., et al. All of this was subsequently REDONE at Int in 1986, before DM’s coup at the Base. I have personally trained thousands of people in Scientology, including getting some of the very first LRH passes on the Hard TRs course done at Flag in the late 70s (which course was run under Mission and began the evolution to gain the Clay Table Processes of the later Pro TRs course.)

      I am mid the BC, second time through the materials and up to November 55 in the full chrono study of this subject. I am at a case level of Solo NOTs.

      I have studied the extant Ls materials and consulted with at least two Class XIIs on their validity and who is qualified to deliver such in the field. I was on the Int Base Tech Heirarchy with two other Class XIIs.

      Contrary to what you as First Rule and one other, have posted on this blog, I was not at any time the “qual sec” at Int. I was a Cramming Officer in the Dept of Review, and one of four Cramming Officers that were part of the best Qual unit I have ever worked in, bar none. This was unmocked by David Miscavige directly.

      In the past year and a half, I have personally worked to get some 20 plus auditors back in the chair, trained a Supervisor, gotten half a dozen people onto and/or through Solo materials and onto and/or through OT I-III and or NOTs. In the past few weeks I have also gotten, now 8 people back onto auditor training and/or into session either giving or receiving.

      That should answer the “question”.

      • Jim,

        I’m not really clear about your reply. My point was that this First Rule/Jim/Lana/Oracle blow up with a little Calvin two cents thrown in seemed way over the top to me. I had no idea where it was coming from and seemed to have more intensity than just not liking or liking the thumbs up and down bit.

        Thus I posited that perhaps others — not you and First Rule, or Lana and Oracle, or Lana and First Rule (in other words those involved in the upset directly) — but others, like you and Steve, or Steve and someone else had developed comm cycles (WHICH IS OF COURSE FINE) off the board.

        Your “answer” to First Rule about your training is clear and direct. I’m not really very good with metaphors, nuances or hints. Thus at times you and I seem to talk past each other. I think you are more poetically oriented than I (perhaps your music training?) —

        In any case, seems unfortunate that we as a group seem to have ended the year with what appears to be division. I say we should welcome everyone — even the OSA agents and OSA bots and see IF we can use communication as a universal solvent.

        I’d rather use communication than a bow and arrow but how knows maybe a windhorse with a singing bow can effect some change

        Happy New Year.
        Christine

        • Christine,
          Happy New Year to you too!!

          Not to beat this dead horse, but, to be clear, I did not respond or comment on anything First Rule or The Oracle posted, in the some 100plus posts between them. Neither did I “coach” or participate in any other poster’s comments. I had some communication via email and/or Skype on the tenor and indicators of the “imbroglio”, yes. But minimal and for the most part on the Opening Piece and almost an aside on the oddities of the various data (i.e., the outpoints as per the Data Series, I having in terms of “credentials” the original OEC/FEBC, at Flag, twice when I was a youngin’.)

          That’s the long and the short of this thread, on my part.

          • Hi Jim

            Got it. There was so much going on that I didn’t remember you commented about the axioms and First Rule then went into his/her rant about your credentials.

            In any case, my suggestion is that the moderator limit the comments to 20 so that those of us over 50 can remember what was said … I mean shifting through 600 comments is a luxury only available to the horribly addicted and unemployed or pretentiously self-employed (me) — (j/k)

            Stay well.

            Christine

      • Jim, forgive me for throwing in my two cents. I wanted to say how stupid it was for “first rule” to demand your credentials when you have them in spades. Rather than dead-agent you, he dead-agents himself. Who does that? Either they do not know you or they just want to enturbulate.

        • and if he/she was following this blog for years, they would know you very well, if only by your postings. Why should they pick now to call you out with such vehemence. Follows the blog for years, never posts, but has an abundance of opinions as well as attacking you. Time to vote.

  22. 600+ comments, thats a force. Is there anything cos that comes close to this level of comm?

  23. Diversity of viewpoints is an asset. A bunch of people who agree on *everything* is a formula for stagnation and rigidity. 600+ posts on the topic of Judgment – that’s pretty lively and interesting, and it doesn’t need to be brought to some amazing conclusion that everybody agrees with, because ‘just kicking around an idea around’ has value and validity in itself.

    Vive la différence

  24. Pingback: Thanks For Participating | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  25. Labeling is obviously something needed, to communicate, but labeling that is hurtful and wrong, is just “out list” and “wrong indication”, and things like TRs and the ability to think, with words, and find for oneself a more satisfying label when hurtful labels sting one, is something one figures out.

    Think for oneself, and I found just getting more literate, and seeing how language vocabulary learning, and just expanding one’s learning and educaiton, is a simple long range helpful path.

    When I think of if I were still a Scientologist, I just think of the great repair lists, like the C/S 53, Green Form 40XXX, and think about reading the wins on the walls in the old Garden Room HGC, the original Case Cracker subsection of the HGC at the Flag Land Base.

    Out list handling, off those two correciton lists, to me, is something I’d grant of Hubbard’s tech.

    Theoretically, I’ve always seen the freezone and independents, as sort of the fallen between the chairs ARC Break team people, doing the job that official Scientology long ago failed to manage.

    It is important, to read LRH’s final writings, and ARC Break team handlings, were a brief strategic “push” in 1984, but because top management was being found out, as the “who’s” for all the ARC Break causing, it kinda makes sense that the ARC Break handling only safely occurs outside the official movement.

    Anyways, I chose to leave Scientology altogether, and return to just the world of reading, learning the language more, seeing how the world deals with defining itself, criticizing itself, and defending their ideas. I find really good writing, NY Times, NY Review of Books, seeing how the smartest minds in the English language deal with life with words, more therapeutic to me, in sorting out the hurtfulness that occurs in Scientology, as compared to being endlessly audited on the C/S 53, Green Form 40XXX or the L4BRB.

  26. Graduated,

    The more I learn, the more I am convinced everyone is saying the same thing, ultimately! I see your point now. It is hard for me to get into the mind set of giving up my personal responsibilities to myself and others – regardless. My ‘perception’ is on the abdication of responsibility of individuals in the Co$ (if that were ever present), and I apparently think that is the “why” as well as the solution. You are getting into (duplicating and understanding) a smaller mind-set (and I guess I will have to get used to doing that myself). You are saying that the military aspects of the Sea Org is the “why”, and removing those is the cure by which to establish individual responsibility. I am saying there is something else more fundamental than that, and the cures are various, but all aimed at the individual’s perceptions or conceptions of his role-to-play. I hope I’m not just stuck in a service facsimile or something of some sort! I’m looking at what you are saying, and I’m confused. (And I’m posting this as-is so my confusion is visible.)

    One thing (of many) that caught my eye in your first post in this discussion was the identification of the absence of personal responsibility in the Co$. I’ve seen that all over the place, including sessions. I think we are in agreement that is the “problem” (as I would phrase it). I’m not sure the solution (as I would put it) is removing the military aspects. I would certainly hope so, because that would bode very well for us all.

    Carcha.

    • In the Data Series, which is the best methodology for sorting through confusions, LRH says that when you are looking for a Situation, go big. But when looking for a Why, go small. You are right in that the overall issue is with respect to the individual’s perceptions or conceptions of his role-to-play. That becomes ameliorated, nullified and replaced by groupthink. Groupthink is the antithesis of personal integrity and responsibility. It inverts the Dynamics and keys in that part of group bank (the only thing all thetans agree upon) which says that the group is everything and the individual nothing (see KSW). It is patently obvious that groupthink is the problem (the Situation). We are tracking on all this.

      But what’s the hidden factor that allows for groupbank to overpower a corporate culture that included the most highly evolved safeguards and methodologies to prevent groupthink?

      It would have to be the imposition of a culture that was designed specifically to get people to relinquish their personal autonomy, individuality and common sense to do things they would not ever otherwise do on their own, things contrary to their own moral code, and upon command, for the purpose of nullification and domination of others.

      That latter culture of force and threat is not present in the Indie field, which is the only reason those with a command of the subject are gravitating here and therefore why we have a forum to even have this discussion.

      • That is 100% right. That is why LRH put a Bridge there. That is why it is the proper gradient to get out of the 4th dynamic trap. That is why he said in 1968 in the HCOPL Section 3 Prerequisite that one must do the Briefing course to be successful in your journey up the Bridge. Most of the people that I saw while I was staff in the FSO who whined and complained and were big babies were all not trained to any great degree. I have even seen some real nuts in the Independent field deliver N/OTs and OT III without those requirements. Many who said they did t need that training are dead now or not doing well in life. Now there wiil be some people who are exceptions but that is mainly just a bunch of PR. They stupidly “think” that since they are doing well money wise, that things are just great. But when I have gone over their true conditions on each dynamic and so on they have not even made it to “first base” as a Thetan Train! That’s the long and short of it.

        • OT 3? I’m curious. Did you have that “unreasonable” attitude and “fixed glare” before you did OT 3?

          Some people think that OT 2 and OT3 should no longer be done.

          Something about violating the Auditors Code.

          • You did not give me the names. I don’t give a rats ass what other people .think as regards how the bridge is done. anyone saying that is ignorant of the subject..

      • Graduated,

        I’m clear on what you’re saying. And I’m thinking it all over. It’s too weighty and I think eventually a too personal discussion to carry on in this format. You’re more trained than I am, and I’m going to end up saying something or another that is inconsiderate, I fear. E.g. Can there be more than one “why”, applying to different aspects of a situation? Wouldn’t “religious trappings” fall under the same “why” as Naval militaristic culture? Many identify Miscavige as the “why” but I definitely see how the absence of the Sea Org culture would have made it much more difficult for him to justify his actions, but the same could be said for “religious trappings”. Anything that encourages thought and looking is “good” in my book, and this discussion has done that, and I will take up the Data Series. So you’re a good man, and thank you for this discussion and explanation.

        Best,
        Carcha.

      • Brilliant, Graduated.

  27. Final thoughts.

    My tips to avoid a rocky road on the bridge or in any other field of study. (take it if you find it to be true or leave it)

    1. The illusion of knowledge can only be spotted by those who already have that knowledge to an adequate level which allows them to see. The reverse of this is that those who are in the ‘not know’ can’t tell if a person presenting themselves as knowing truly know or just pretend to know. This is why the illusion of knowledge is easy to achieve. (I speak of experience. It is good to have someone watch your back who knows)
    2. For this reason verification of credentials by those of comparable or higher knowledge level that which one is attesting to is highly recommended.

    I didn’t invent these but I found them SERIOUSLY overlooked by many (including myself in the past) which is why I am sharing them. Contrary to what some may believe about me at this point due to my little ‘rant’ I have the most sincere intention for helping others.

    I have to focus on business matters now so I wish a Happy new year to all!
    First Rule,
    Over and out.

  28. Dear Marty,
    First of all Happy New Year to you and Mosey!
    I am in awe by this post: rarely does one see so much BPC get discharged in a blog.
    I tried to follow the thread as carefully as I could but I had to gloss over some parts. This was mostly due to the fact that your initial post restimulated quite a lot of BPC in me. Because I wanted to give an analytical response to your post, I decided I would read what the other’s had written, to see if I could get my wits straight again.
    I believe now I can articulate a few concepts — LOL!
    Firstly, I have been subjected to a lot of intolerance in my carreer as a Sea Org Member; I was a young gay man, in the closet, who, each day, became less and less incapable to hide the rather obvious elephant in the room: I am gay!!!! This brought about a lot of intolerance my way, of course. It did not matter that despite that fact I had a lot of other quallities and abilities. Like one of the people who commented above, my own hidden standards got in the way.
    Secondly, for a very short time, I allowed myself to align with the internal group-think and started to be very judgemental myself. This was after my graduation from the RPF. I can still remember how exhilarating it felt to be “part of the unreasonable upstats”. This all came crashing down when I realized one day that I am, always have been and will always be gay. At first, I underwent a rather extended period of shame-blame-regret; then I left the Sea Org and started to live in the “wog world”, the one place I have always labeled as the place where the “DBs” live. You can imagine my surprise when I found some really incredibly free spirits out here. They helped me decompress and regain a modicum of self-respect back.
    Thirdly, it is most unfortunate that the subject of Scientology be labeled in any way — it is only data after all, only knowledge — and these are labels, too!
    This brings up a cog of sorts: labeling and judgement are inevitable. We may not like them (or we might, as the case may be), but we surely will never stop labeling and judging. I believe that this goes a bit beyond the Ser Fac materials. What concerns those materials more is how we respond/react to the labeling and judgement. Yet, it would be very wrong to prohibit labeling and judging. In fact, anyone can judge and label me to kingdom come, six ways to Sunday and till the cows come home and I will give consideration to that label or judgement as a free expression of someone else’s viewpoint — something that I value a lot in my life — while, at the same time, have an unshakeable certainty of my own spirituality and intelligence, which is the one thing I have honestly gotten from Scientology.
    Finally, I want to end this free-thinking comment with a final statement: I regret nothing of my past in the Sea Org and in Scientology. It made me the very tolerant, fairly serene, hopeful, intellligent, learned, gay man I am today. As far as I am concerned: “DM? Check-mate!”

  29. Pingback: Sitting In Judgment | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  30. Pingback: The Psychopath Test | Moving On Up a Little Higher

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