A Course in Graduating from Scientology

Given recent vicissitudes in these parts it is not practicable for me to be hosting visitors and engaging in lengthy, uninterruptible sessions.  Yet, the desire for guided tours out of the Scientology philosophical labyrinth continues to be expressed. I have come up with a solution that may be workable given current conditions and apropos given the evolution of what we do.  As noted recently, in essence my coaching or counselling has focused more on connecting dots to get people out of the ‘why trap’ Scientology has so effectively ensnared them into.

I am offering a Graduating from Scientology correspondence course.  It is designed for:

-Those who are Clear or higher on the Scientology grade chart and are not planning on doing any more Scientology OT levels.

-Those who find Scientology still occupies their attention and somehow holds them back from moving on with doing and experiencing new things.

-Those having difficulty correlating the gains they did get from Scientology with the outside world and other philosophies and religions.

-Those wishing to continue with spiritual growth, but who do not want to start from square zero.

The course is organized by reading assignments followed by one to one discussions after each venture.  I call them ventures (Oxford Dict. Definition: a risky or daring journey or undertaking) not because of any real danger.  I am simply highlighting the risk that Scientology contends faces people when they are invited to face and use their minds – something Hubbard once gratefully acknowledged Freud for discovering was not in fact dangerous.  The apparent daring or risk involved is simple – if Scientology is the only road to ultimate freedom, and Hubbard really is the unforgiving God set forth so strongly in Scientology policy, there will be hell to pay for those venturing along such a path. Follow up discussions after each venture will be conducted by e-mail, phone and/or skype as appropriate to the venture and individual.

The course does not prescribe a particular ology, ism, or path.  Instead, it is designed to equip an individual to choose and blaze his own way.  The course does seek to make sense of Scientology at the upper levels and to understand what in actual fact Hubbard was attempting to address. In that regard, following through with the full course requires a fair amount of study assignments.  That might be desirable to those who entered Scientology with the intention of learning the secrets of the woof and warp of the universe, but gave up when they recognized Scientology would not truly reveal them.  For others not so inclined, you may want to hang for the first several ventures which culminate in a break point that is called ‘Cutting To The Chase.’  It might be that you by then hit a point where Scientology is sufficiently contextualized for you that you can let it go and move on.  Others who find it simply uninteresting or lacking in other respects are free to drop out at any stage.

The only pre-requisite is that the participant has read What Is Wrong With Scientology?: Healing Through Understanding, The Scientology Reformation, and Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.

In order to participate, simply set up a hushmail.com account and reach out to me at howdoesitfeel@hushmail.com.

Donations are voluntary on the basis of what each individual considers each venture was worth.

369 responses to “A Course in Graduating from Scientology

  1. Very interesting idea, Marty. It could shorten the process of accepting Scientology for what it was or was not for people who are starting to investigate truth. Coming to terms with it seems to take a very long time without the correct and appropriate references to read. There is so much hate and nonsense on the internet, mixed in with correct info, it was very difficult for me to come to terms with it all. I Just don’t know if people will be willing to be guided by anyone else after their experience in Scientology…..but I encourage you to find out.

    • That is very interesting as well too. Because, as I recall, when I first read my Dianetics back a long time ago, I followed the instructions in it, and word cleared myself through each chapter, read the whole thing and grasped the technology to make it work, BEFORE I ever even heard of a Church of Scientology, or a Sea Org, or a CMO. So, the Church of Scientology is NOT a pre-requisite to one’s understanding of LRH’s philosophy, as a matter of fact LRH tech will enable to SEE for one’s self (if one has not yet experienced it) that if you want to go Clear, the Church of Scientology is the WRONG place to do it at. Hope that helps some! :) Happy New Year! :)

  2. Many need to do this and I hope they recognize the opportunity you offer.

  3. Freedom from fixed viewpoints from the past is probably the state all Beings inherently seek, to have the ability to envision future in a ‘pure’ sense, unfiltered, and so be able to find the path of that vision. Perhaps this course may help swing some in that direction, in particular OT VIIIs, since they have gone as far as they can Bridge-wise and are essentially drifting in the wind at this point

    My opinions of course.

  4. Mary Rathernotsay

    This course sounds like a really good idea. It’s very creative, and has a lot of potential for the studious.
    Just to be sure I understand, one does not need to be Clear to take your course as long as they have read all of your books, correct?
    I am probably in the category of:
    -Those who find Scientology still occupies their attention and somehow holds them back from moving on with doing and experiencing new things.

    It certainly would be interesting. I am going to meditate about it.
    Nothing like a new venture for a new year!
    Happy 2014 to everyone!

  5. Thanks again Marty for this poignant commentary that provides escape routes for the continually increasing number of escaping clubbed seals.

    I’ve found that having been a participant and or observer of your blog/forum over these past several plus years has been the launchpad for my personal emancipation from what is certainly a destructive and abominable cult.

    The insanity of it all continues with deification sites and the utter worship of LRH and every utterance he made all in chronological order.

    I’m actually a better being and man for the insights and influences herein and about. It really is about moving up higher.

    Anyone can benefit from a thorough historical review of this blog. (Take note of the LRH worship route from some of the earlier commentators that could include myself.)

    Don’t get me wrong. I’ll never deny or omit that Hubbard did assemble some really beneficial outlines that work when applied.

    However, Ron is not god, no matter how you spell it.

    • As a continuing comment:

      Scientology, et..al,.. is designed to be an Obsessive Compulsiveness.

      • Interesting comment, Tom. When I was “in,” I developed OCD. I never had it before Scientology. And it faded away completely after Scientology.

        As I think back on it, how could someone not become obsessed with having or not having “bad” thoughts, knowing in the next session you will be asked for missed withholds, ARC breaks, and such?

        It’s like trying to make sure you don’t ever think of a pink elephant — with the command to never think of a pink elephant continually running through your mind on automatic.

        Only it is like “never think ill of COB,” “never doubt Ron,” “never question Ron” (thinking: even where I know from your own education he was off base? — whoops, cancel that, I just questioned Ron; crap, now I have to confess in auditing; but I could have had a worse thought; yeah, Ron was a pretty fleshy looking non-attractive guy — damn — I didn’t mean to think that, I was just thinking I could have had worse thoughts, like hey, was that a big zit or tumor or hickey he was always hiding under those stupid looking ascots? – damn it to hell! — I have to quit thinking of anything about Ron; oh, crap, I’m going to have to write myself up in a KR and route to ethics; I’ll probably have to buy another intensive I can’t afford; why is everything so expensive — donations my ass! — argh!!! I can’t stop thinking negative thoughts; and there’s that stupid picture of Ron on the wall, smugly looking down on us all — no! I didn’t think that; he’s a great photographer and that was a self-portrait; but hey, he can’t shine a candle to really good photographs; oh no! I just invalidated Ron; OK, OK, relax, what does the tech tell me to do; ah, TR0; just be there; let the roiling mind flow away and become silent … sigh; thank God Ron taught me how to stop bad thoughts about Scientology; TR0 is great! Scientology works).

        Think of all the people “in” who are convinced that the normal human solo sexual activity of masturbation is wrong, and that they have to confess about each and every detail of any sexual thought or activity, and even get permission to have a relationship?

        For some of us who are out, we do recognize we had significant realizations and “case gain,” even while we recognize that in some ways Scientology is, for some, the current an adept manufacturer of madness in the mental health field, Szasz and CCHR be damned.

        It may indeed be designed in a way that, intentionally or not, makes obsessive-compulsive slaves.

        • I think a whole thread dedicated to OCD would be broadly useful.

        • “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” – Voltaire

        • FOTF2012 and City Slicker, in my experience I noticed a type of OCD in students, from mild to severe. Some of them became utterly obsessed with the meanings of words. IMO, that was due to misapplication of word clearing and overall study tech. The supervisors who had conceptual understanding of the materials as a whole didn’t create that effect on their students, but many others did.

          That is why I consider word clearing and false data stripping to be an important part of graduating from the ill effects of Scientology – whether the false data came from Ron himself or others.

          In Marty first book (What is Wrong with Scientology), he quoted Jason Beghe as saying “problems created by Scientology need to be resolved with Scientology.” Marty’s own comment on this was to say that the manner the tools of Scientology should be used was “how they were intended to be used upon their creation.” That is the key, IMHO.

          • I see your point Miraldi.

          • Thank you, Marildi.

            So much of human reality is constructed via the mind’s interpretation of input, that people can easily be wrong about what is false or true. My inclination at this point in my life something is only true or false in (for me) a general sense of “the preponderance of credible evidence currently shows …” In other words, it’s all a working hypothesis.

            I found myself reminiscing about being on course. It was easy to spend days (needlessly) on word chains, so I can relate to what you observed.

            Occasionally, I listened to course supervisors pointing students in absurd (to me) directions. One student asking if a book had a thetan or thetans in it. The supervisor said, “well, can you communicate with the book?” The student brightened up with a pseudo-cognition and said, “I see! The book must have a thetan in it or otherwise I could not communicate with it.” The supervisor smiled and walked away. The students false data were stripped.

            Really?

            Being a student, I didn’t want to but in, but I think I whispered, “Hey, look up the word thetan again.” What I thought to myself was, “Geeze. The book is a book, and there are not a bunch of beings aware of being aware hiding in the pages.” (I was aware that one view of matter is that it is “frozen theta” — life force — but not thetans.)

            So where did that leave the student? He may as well have instantly become an animist, believing there was a spirit in everything.

            Heck, maybe I was wrong in terms of Scientology theory — maybe a book is just a bunch of body thetans crammed into each book as the publisher runs the issues off the printing lines, inserting a new cluster of body thetans in that secret step of publishing never before revealed, as described in “How to inject thetans into the ink on pages of books.”

            In “wog” research, things are peer reviewed, objectivity is an approximation based on consensus, and things are expressed as probabilities. While something can be falsified definitively, all truth is tentative. (One exception may be mathematics.)

            So it strikes me that FDS, applied well, could be helpful in any number of fields, as long as one avoids the pitfall of believing that just because proposition A is shown to be false, opposing proposition B must be true.

            • Good post, FOTF2012. I would agree with you that the thing to do is to go with what “the preponderance of credible evidence currently shows.” And logic definitely has its value too. I’m just saying that for any particular individual, the evidence would include that person’s own understanding and experience – whether in the physical universe or otherwise. And yes, people can certainly be wrong, but that shouldn’t make them fearful or stop them from relying on their own truth – which may include direct spiritual perception as well as perceptions in the physical universe.

              In other words, the senior element , IMO, is a person’s own experience on any plane, along with the willingness to change their mind if they later see it differently. Ultimately, the main thing is to observe for yourself, as opposed to accepting the data or truth of someone else – or even the majority, as with science. Like you say, all truth is tentative.

        • FOTF2012, I laughed so much when reading your description of the thought processes. Yes, that is precisely where you can end up. I’d add another aspect that includes compulsively providing the right LRH quote to back up your own “thoughts” or arguments, and feeling the need to disclose your “withholds” to people who really do not need to know. Organisational scientology instrudes on and breaks down your barriers to the point you cannot maintain your own space any more.

          • Glad you enjoyed that, Letting go! It was a little romp down memory lane for me. I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that Scientology breaks down your barriers so that you cannot maintain your own space.

            Scientology tends to take over your mind, your thoughts, your bank accounts, and your life. That is not freedom.

            In taking over these things, Scientology asserts its absolute right — little by little so that you slide down the slippery slope — to know all the details of your mind, your thoughts, your bank accounts, and your life. And if you seem not to be opening up fast enough and in the right way, withholds are pulled, you can be sec checked, and the local reg will even go to your bank with you to see what you really have in there (no kidding, that happens).

            By the time it happens, you have been well indoctrinated that Scientology is the _only_ path to total freedom and the whole agonized future of every man, woman, and child rests on what you do in Scientology here and now today — and the consequences are eternal. (If every second were so precious, why did Ron take time toward the end to write a new bunch of sci-fi?)

            Anyway, the fate of the universe is a pretty heavy burden to put on the several pound brain of a half-awakened primate just recently evolved enough to start figuring out itself and the universe (and I sure don’t mean that as a “man from mud” view — the universe and the reality of our existence is incredible, numinous, utterly fantastic, and in my view, very spiritual).

            So I think the erosion of boundaries is one of the ways Scientology, and cults — and even some mainstream religions — control people. I am reminded of people who left Scientology feeling spiritually raped and very vulnerable because they had opened their souls and poured the contents onto the church’s PC folders and (in some cases) videos.

            By the way, “wog” psychology has good insights and skills on the subject of personal boundaries. Psychology recognizes that a counseling session involves asking a person to let down barriers and open up, and therefore has strong profession-wide ethics to protect both therapist and client. Scientology has a great auditor’s code, but once you are not a Scientologist, it is not clear that you have any protection of that code. You certainly don’t if you have been declared (an SP).

            (Somewhere in all the fun of sorting out Scientology, there is a book of hysterical cartoons to be drawn to help people blow charge — nothing like humor to generate a healthy sort of cognition (as opposed to bognition — anyone else use that term?; it meant a very worrisome realization — like, “oh crap, I forgot to include some key numbers in my Thursday 2 PM stats.”)

  6. Great idea, Marty. If you agree that Remedy B is a valid piece of tech, I think you should include it on the program if the person is having trouble with new subjects, since many people have MU’s and confusions on the subject of Scientology itself – in addition to all the other upset.

    “REMEDY B, 1. seeks out and handles a former subject, conceived to be similar to the immediate subject, in order to clear up misunderstandings in the immediate subject or condition. (HCOB 12 Nov 64) 2. Remedy B is former subject. He’s got the present immediate subject mixed up with some former subject. So now you’ve got to find the former subject and find the word in it which hasn’t been defined. (SH Spec 47, 6411C17)”

    In this case, Scientology would be the “former subject” and the new subjects to be studied would be the “immediate subjects”:

  7. I need to repost a comment by another poster:

    windhorse | December 30, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Reply

    I recently read this quote by Carl Jung … reminds me of the journey that Marty has taken:

    “One cannot live the afternoon of life according to the program of life’s morning; for what was great in the morning will be of little importance in the evening, and what in the morning was true will at evening have become a lie.” Carl Jung — The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche

    Christine

    • I agree Cat Daddy, that was a great post by Christine. Thanks for posting again. The evolution of views on this blog and others, the tolerance for expanding reasoned criticism by the opinion leaders of Scientology’s diaspora is a perfect illustration of Jung’s comment. And gives me hope.

      Viva la evolution!! Up a little higher.

      Happy New Year all!! May it be the best ever.

      And may Marty’s new course find those people for whom it was intended. It is truly kind of you Marty.

  8. Marty ,be careful… there are lots of people looking for your next “wrong” step,and this is it…
    this may look like,all your doing in different way – was just a way to sell another unproven course….
    maybe if you do it – for few people- for free….
    when time pass and they have their “Success story’s” written- then you can do what ever you want…
    this is written in best wishes way…
    happy new year to your family, and you.

    • “Donations are voluntary on the basis of what each individual considers each venture was worth.”

    • There is nothing wrong with Marty making money. We all have to eat. I hope he makes a lot of money for himself, his wife and new child.

      Helping people and making money by it is a perfect combo in my view.

      • I did not say making money is wrong.
        all I wanted to say is :
        if once your baker sold you a invention of new bread,and you find it – bad…
        next time you come,and he says again -I have new bread! , would you buy it ,or would you ask if there were someone who has buy it and find it good… just that.
        I trust that baker was having best intentions,but was his bread good?
        I just ask for some breads to be shared in neighborhood,and after people acknowledge that – it is good bread – make a million of them and sell it!
        just that.
        best wishes to all of you here…
        (just saying – do not do mistakes ,you are fighting against.)

  9. A structured, methodical method of improving (repairing) oneself with assistance as needed. Perfect. One is only as valuable as he can help others, and you are truly doing that.
    I am proud to consider you my friend.
    Thanks Marty
    Mark

  10. Dear Marty

    When I first got involved with Scientology it was because I believed that I was accessing a “body of knowledge” that dealt with life and specifically with the mechanics of the human mind. Through studying the subject I came to accept that it was underpinned with a set of axioms that when understood were indeed “self-evident truths”.

    That was all some 40 years ago, but I still see these axioms as self-evident truths, and the fact that I am no longer a member of the Church has in no way threatened my certainty concerning the axiom on which this body of knowledge is built.

    I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has studied Scientology and has come to the conclusion that the axioms on which the subject of Scientology and Dianetics rest are not, in fact, self-evident. Just one datum that can be demonstrated to not be true would be enough for me to doubt the whole subject.

    I can be contacted at pip_threlfall@yahoo.co.uk

    P.S. I originally wrote this reply to your thread “What Jesus means” but I think it is equally applicable to this latest post.

    Regards
    P

    • There are self evident truths in Scientology Pip. But there are also very diabolical covert manipulations intended for thought control and regimented membership, institutionalized paranoia mixed with “scientific” sophistry principles that alienate.

      Mike Rinder posted a blog on the points of fundamentalism intended to reveal DM. But they also reveal Ron.

      It took me years on my own to separate out the lies from the truth: years!!

      It is this dichotomous combination of information that is the very foundation of Scientology’s self destructive tendencies. And great challenge for the Indies.

      • Dear Brian

        Just because people have EP’s (evil purposes) has little to do with self-evident truths. A hammer is just as effective for bludgeoning ones’ spouse to death as it is for knocking in a nail, but that does not change the self-evident truth that is designed for knocking in nails. Using it as a murder weapon is just an aberration, or not, as the case may be.

      • So true, Brian. Factually, most of what we consider to be “Scientology” is a mish-mash of facts, opinions and speculations culled from all kinds of sources. I read an essay that Ron wrote to his children’s tutors back at Saint Hill, called “Search for Research”. There is an essay of that name on the web but I don’t think it is the same one, so we are going on my 15 year old vague recollections. It was quite important to me at the time because part of my post was to do research, which in my field is considered to be “discovery of new information by testing, correlation of test results” and such. I was astonished to hear Ron talking about it as a Science Fiction writer would, about reading encyclopedias and magazine articles. What about Ron’s fabled research, his voyages of discovery?
        It is sad, but I have come to the conclusion that there was no true research, certainly none of the scientifically valid, duplicated by peer studies kind that we associate with actual science. Perhaps it is based on axioms, but not in the mathematically rigorous way that Alfred North Whitehead approved (his famous book on simple math takes many chapters to come to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 from basic principles).
        We can find a glimpse of his method by looking at the Expanded Dianetics materials, which are preserved in the old Tech Volumes as a series of sessions. Basically he is just trying various procedures to see what works. While blaming any failures on his auditors and taking the credit for any successes. This kind of “research” is very prone to confirmation bias. There is no control. There is no peer review. There are no blind studies. There are the guesses and insights of one man informed by a lot of reading and some haphazard testing.
        I was one of those in the Purification Rundown pilot at the Big Blue in ’80. We got OK from a physician to do it, then did it. Did anybody test us for toxicity or do a urine or blood test after weeks in the sauna at 5000 mg Niacin? Was there any before or after biopsy of fatty tissue for traces of drugs? Did anyone survey us for drug flashback occurrences? No no and no. We turned in a lot of success stories and enjoyed the process immensely (how often in the Sea Org do you get to sit for hours crammed into a tiny “sauna” with scantily clad members of the opposite sex? Never!) but who knows if any actual benefit accrued. If there had been minor side effects they would have gone unmentioned. This was an exciting new rundown from Ron! And of course we all had a big win at the end, when we got tired of it and just decided it was enough. All you had to do to “complete” was write up how you were doing better physically. Of course we all were, because we were getting sleep and off the beans and rice. Easy enough to F/N at the examiner on that, and off we go, rave successes of the Purification Rundown! There are other horror stories of LRH “research” around on the web, but those are the ones I have personal knowledge of.
        So when you begin to have doubts about Ron, as a true believing hard core inner member, it is almost like your whole world is falling apart. If it’s not ALL true, is it ALL false? 100% pure bollocks? All in his head? Of course not! Ron said to take vitamins and recommended a book by Adele Davis, “Let’s Eat Right To Keep Fit”. We used it on the Purif pilot. My Dad used it when we were growing up, and we always had liver once a week and Wheat Germ on our cereal. The sad truth is that Adele Davis died of cancer. Does that mean that we should all eat at McDonalds exclusively and never touch a vitamin pill? NO. Adele Davis’ works were based on the scientific research of her time (60′s) and a lot more research has been done since then.
        The simple but heartbreaking truth is that you have to start over. Examine the truths you live by one by one and establish: is this from Ron? If so where did he get it? Did he get it from someone that did actual research? If so, what are the true current facts about this? What do I believe about it? It is a long, painful process of self-inspection. I feel like old Rip Van Winkle, who slept for 100 years and woke up to a different world. People look at me funny when I laugh at some things, other times I don’t get the joke. It helps to read this blog, Jefferson Hawkins, Jon Atack and others who have been through this. I am sure the correspondence course will be a big help.
        If you are struggling with this, or think I’m lying, fine. Don’t try to do it all at once. Find something you learned from Ron that is not core belief, like how to wash windows or clothes. Do your own research. See for yourself. Sometimes you can guess where he got the information, sometimes not. Just look. If it feels like your world is falling apart, welcome to the club. But just keep looking. There is a whole new world out there and friends to help you through.

        • Bruce,
          Thank you for this insightful and valuable essay. Have a great 2014 my friend.
          Marty

        • Hey Bruce, thanks for the post. After reading it I was reminded of a post that Miraldi posted here also. I am meaning to respond to her but I want to give it more time than I have right now.

          Here is her post and here is also the reason Ron has for not verifying anything with the rigors of investigative discipline. He actually tells us why proving things is aberrative:

          “Anybody would know anything that was going on if he didn’t have to prove it. Proof, conviction, is itself a very early level of aberration. As soon as you have to start proving things and convincing people of things, why then you have to get into agreement with them and in order to do this – you have to Alter-is. You have to have something persist long enough for them to see it, so that they can then understand what it is. So in order for them to really understand what it is you can’t possibly put up something that they understand what is, because if they saw completely what it was it would disappear, so you would not have been able to have proven it.” (The Phoenix Lectures, Chapter Five “Consideration and Is-Ness”)

          If this piece of information becomes your procedural aporoach to anything, then imagination can become truth. And it does indeed become “truth” to true believers. Especially if questioning or “proving” the assertions of clears and OTs is an ethics offence.

          We will tell you we will help you think for yourself and be free. And then when you demonstrate that independence we will punish you.

          This data is a sophisticated justification for delusion. And policy for a lazy savior.

          • Brian, I think you’re being too literal. And I sense that you’re mind is made up to see everything Ron says in a negative light.

            • Miraldi, trouble shooting is finding those elements that are the cause of the non working of something. That occurs by looking at the brokeness of something. 
              Scientology is in a very dysfunctionl state. Pointing out how great things are working will not solve this disaster.
              I am focused on those things that I consider to be conceptually causitive in the creation of this mess.

              • IMO, if you were truly interested in bringing out truth, you would not be so heavily one-sided. That just serves to discredit you and defeats the very purpose you claim to have.

              • I am interested in people being free from being brainwashed and suffering the pains of disconnection and the doctrines that created it. And sharing my years of deprogramming. It’s a process Miraldi. Sometimes not so fun.

                • But I understand your sentiment. I truly do.

                • If your interest is to “free people from being brainwashed,” then you should avoid a kind of brainwashing into the reverse mindset, by keeping in mind each point of the following:

                  “Communication lines are severed in this fashion: (a) by permitting so much entheta to flow that the group will close them or avoid them; (b) pervert the communication and so invalidate the line so that afterwards none will pay attention to the line; (c) by glutting the line with too much volume of traffic (too much material for too little meaning); and (d) chopping the line through carelessness or malice or to gain authority (the principal reason why lines get tampered with).” (HCOPL 9 Jan 51)

                  • Or Marildi – An interesting approach to post the L Ron Hubbard policies so that you can be right and make Brian wrong. L Ron Hubbard Policies were primarily used, in my experience, so that one cannot think for themselves and say what they want to say how they want to say it. I think Brian has a right to say what he wants to say and recommend to anyone – if you don’t like it – don’t read his posts. I don’t read yours because I don’t want to think with what “Ron thought .. What would Ron do…” I am not dependent on Ron – he was wrong in many cases – I, along with Brian, have been harmed by what Ron thought and enforced others to think (covertly). A little bit of Ron goes a LONG way, IMO!

    • Pip,

      “Just one datum that can be demonstrated to not be true would be enough for me to doubt the whole subject.”

      I think you are making the mistake, which most people do, whether they are Scientologists or not.

      Scientology is a body of data, and as such, like ANY body of data is chuck full or errors and contradictions.

      Despites of all of his claims, LRH was still trying to articulate Ultimate Reality, as many thousands of sages have tried before him and are still trying to do today.

      The truth that you seek, cannot be LOGICALLY articulated by anybody, just only approximated.

      The truth however is always available to be EXPERIENCED by you.

      I wish you and your family a Happy New Year.

      • Conan, great insight.

      • Dear Conan

        I am not suggesting that all bodies of data are without error; in this instance I am concerned with the axioms of Dianetics and Scientology and am not aware of any “self-evident falsehoods”. Things like “life is a static”, and “ARC=Understanding” appear to me to be self-evident truths, if you know otherwise please tell. I have experienced Scientology and Dianetics and have found them to be true. That does not mean that everything Scientologists do is above reproach – and a Happy New Year to your family too

        • Pip,
          I understand your point. I’m not aware of any flaws in the Axioms.
          Also I personally don’t see Scientology as a science, I consider all of this subjective and just as a guide only, so ultimately I don’t care whether LRH said it is true or not.

    • “I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has studied Scientology and has come to the conclusion that the axioms on which the subject of Scientology and Dianetics rest are not, in fact, self-evident. Just one datum that can be demonstrated to not be true would be enough for me to doubt the whole subject.”

      Pip, see if the following is true for you:

      “Anybody would know anything that was going on if he didn’t have to prove it. Proof, conviction, is itself a very early level of aberration. As soon as you have to start proving things and convincing people of things, why then you have to get into agreement with them and in order to do this – you have to Alter-is. You have to have something persist long enough for them to see it, so that they can then understand what it is. So in order for them to really understand what it is you can’t possibly put up something that they understand what is, because if they saw completely what it was it would disappear, so you would not have been able to have proven it.” (The Phoenix Lectures, Chapter Five “Consideration and Is-Ness”)

      • On the other hand Miraldi, proof is the gold standard for science. I think there is a difference between convincing people and proving something.

        The absolutist feel of that statement does not ring true for me.

        Proof and conviction….. An aberration? Not in my book. Not if truth is the goal. It is possible that OT story delusions can find justification in such reasonings.

        • I think that is a flat out false statement on second thought.

          • Truth needs to be proved to have a conviction of it’s truth. If proof and conviction is seen as an aberration, that is a dangerous doctrine. It demeans the very nature of reasoned investigation which requires a person to seek out and prove to oneself the true nature of something.

            OT says, ” I just made my refrigerator into a bicycle!”

            New Scientologist says, ” wow, really! can you please show me so I can see how real OT’s really operate!”

            OT says, ” you are aberrated for needing proof to have a conviction that Ron’s work is pure science. Don’t worry, keep taking courses. One day you won’t need proof to have the conviction that Scientology works.

            One day you will leave being “reasonable” behind and join the ranks of “scientific believing” .

            And BTW, you could get into ethics trouble for invalidating an OT!

            Better get in line bud! No proof needed here!

            • This is a gateway drug doctrine into La La Land.

              • “A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”
                - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 171

                Then, David Miscavige established beggar units! Ha ha ha ha ha!

                • Quite brutal Oracle, but such genius. I truly believe Ron will get it together. He has such unfinished work. He sparked a dream for many. As dark as he could be, he still did that.
                  In that regard I am grateful.

            • Hi Brian;

              This ‘proof’ stuff reminds me of a story.

              During a reg cycle, two reges traveled 500 miles to see me because they heard I had $2,000.00 saved up; me and my big mouth. Anyway, they came over to my place and we had a good chat. I wasn’t about to give up my two thousand hard saved dollars, (this was back in ’74 or so, when $2,000.00 was a LOT of money. Back then the academy levels cost $200.00 each, the SHSBC was $750.00, just to give you a comparison. It was a LOT of money!) Anyway, they were telling me of the gains they had gotten. One of them was telling me how powerful he was, since he had done Power Processes and I think he was Clear. He told me he could create anything. I had just made a pot of tea, and asked him to show me what he could create. He pointed to the rug beside where he was sitting -I didn’t have any chairs back in those days-, and he told me he created a cup right there. So, I poured his tea into his ‘cup’. Of course, it went on the rug, so not quite such a smart thing, but, I looked at him, he was, well, taken aback, and I commented as I left to get him a ‘real’ cup, that his ‘creation had a leak.’.

              They drank their tea and left without my $2,000.00!

              Then I had to clean the bloody rug.

              • Bob, ha ha ha ha ha lol!! I love what you did!! “your creation has a leak.”!

                I can see you can be an irritant to those with delusive cause. I wonder if he would have let you pour it if it was on his rug lol.

                I remember soooooooo many delusive stories that we would all tell each other back when I was in that cartoon world of scientific-make- believe powers.

                Wait, I feel one coming on now……………. I’m getting a memory of 33 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 5 hrs, 22 min and 6.773211 seconds.

                What? What is that you are asking? Are you asking me to tell you the exact amount of time since I went to the dentist yesterday without looking at my watch. ETHICS!!!! Take him away!!! He is mocking Scientology by asking me to prove my knowingness!! What is true for me is true and that is that is the only integrity! I spent 45 bazillion dollars to know this and now I need a review because of your obsession with truth!!

                SPs…… They are everywhere!! The one’s who ask reasonable questions are from the Reasonable Question Implant Station that reside 200ft under the It’s A Small World ride at Disney. I know they are there. My needle went blip and Ron said so.

                They use the Socratic method to reek havoc on planet earth. Stamp them out we must! The future of make believe is at stake!

                Charge!!!! International Justice Chief………. Ready the punishment rack!! We have another “reasonable” one to help be free from intellectual sovereignty!!

                Ready the cans, calibrate your meters…. Its time for sec checks and brainwashing. No soap needed.

              • LOL!

            • The problem of “proof” boils down to the comment made by Conan. The “Ultimate Truth” cannot be communicated, only experienced.

              Ron called it “Static” or the 8th Dynamic, “allness of all” but it has had many names in spiritual history. There are many levels of truth leading up to the Ultimate Truth. The beauty of Scientology, for those of us who have truly applied it, is the direct experience of higher levels of truth and, for some, the Ultimate Truth. That is the end result of a process that leads to an actual release. That is the only “proof” possible when you leave the field of the objective. These are subjective experiences but in fact do reflect in the attitudes and actions of those who have experienced them.

              My opinion is that Ron and Scientology went off the rails when “OT Power” became the goal. That falls far short of (again my opinion) the real spiritual goal – experiencing (in fact actually becoming) the Ultimate Reality. And, like Ron said in the Road to Truth, it is a disaster to not go all the way on that Road. Well, I think we can all agree that this has been a car crash of magnitude where the ultimate goal of freedom has become ultimate slavery.

              • A Wise fool, thanks for this excellent post. Here is a fitting quote for your handle:

                “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” (William Shakespeare)

        • Brian, for me it comes down to the simplicity of knowingness vs. proof. Proof is basically agreement, scientific or otherwise. When it comes to one’s own personal truths, the agreement of others is secondary and actually irrelevant to what one KNOWS for him/herself. That knowingness one has may be “mere” intuition, and I don’t think science has been able to prove intuition. But for the person who has such knowingness, no “proof” is needed.

          My understanding of what Ron meant about proof being an aberration – “a very early level of aberration” – is that at an early point on the track beings started needing proof, i.e. agreement, instead of just knowing. And in that sense it was an “early level of aberration.” As for conviction, the definition is “a firmly held belief or opinion” – which, in the context of that quote, means fixed ideas, and this too would be aberration.

          To me, science and “reasoned investigation” are at LOOK on the scale, which is a pretty high level of knowingness, but it is still at a level of agreement with the physical universe. KNOW is above LOOK. Actually, you probably would agree that most religious philosophies stress the importance of knowing through direct perception and experience as opposed to accepting others’ ideas or even scientific data – both of which are wholly a matter of agreement.

          • I don’t get it. What is the difference between “belief” and “know”? How does one differentiate between a “schizophrenic” who insists there are voices in his head and a “scientologist” who “knows” he is being pestered by BTs?

            • mwesten, in answer to your question, I would say that, according to the original tenets of Scientology, even a Scientologist would decide for himself whether or not he was being pestered by BTs, to use that as an example. This is based on the early principle of “What is true, is what’s true for you.”

              In other words, just like any good scientist, a Scientologist would be skeptical but open. And that aligns whith LRH’s article on “How to Study Scientology.” Ultimately the person would make up his own mind, based on his own observations.

              • Sure but how is that different to “belief”? I can decide my OBEs in Scientology were exactly that, or that they were hallucinations brought on by various psychological/neurochemical factors. Either way, it is belief. Dress it up as “knowingness” if you will but it is still faith.

                What about the schizophrenic who hears a voice in his head? What of a man who hears God when he prays? Who is “higher” on your scale?

                What of the atheist who featured on Derren Brown’s “Fear & Faith”. (YouTube it!) Through the use of certain psychological processes the individual was conditioned into perceiving what she felt was a “spiritual experience”. Evidence that a person’s “knowingness” can easily stem from delusion.

                Not such an exalted state!

                • Yes, I would agree that knowingness can stem from delusion. So what? Is that going to stop us from striving for truth? We have to start somewhere. Or would you rather just throw in the towel and say, “How will I ever know for sure if I’m just deluded” Personally, I’m not that cynical. ;)

                  • I don’t think it’s cynical to not know. In fact I would put it way above know on the scale. I agree that we have to start somewhere but I disagree we should end there as well. Hence the value of looking outside of oneself, and of scientific method. If we cannot differentiate knowingness from delusion then what good comes from striving to attain it? Surely it would be saner to look, find answers that give comfort to our beliefs, recognising that they are just beliefs and that “ultimate truth” is unobtainable.

                    • Mwestern, correct me if I’m wrong but your post above seems to be putting words in my mouth. Are the various statements you made meant to counter what you think I was saying? If so, it seems to me that you have misunderstood my comments.

                    • You seem to be suggesting that there is a superior state of pure “knowingness” where scientific enquiry and the search for objectivity is of limited value. My apologies if i’ve got that wrong.

                      What we perceive is continually filtered through earlier agreements before we can even begin to consciously evaluate it (we agree to identify certain symbols and pressure waves as language, for example).

                      From day one we learn to make sense of our reality, going into agreements with others to help identify and organise sensory data.
                      The idea that our “knowingness” is free from external influence and agreements (eg. family, school, religious/cultural backgrounds, group-think) seems nonsensical, imho.

                    • Mwesten: “You seem to be suggesting that there is a superior state of pure “knowingness” where scientific enquiry and the search for objectivity is of limited value.”

                      No, not at all. Here’s what I wrote in a reply to FOTF2012 on January 1, 2014 at 5:28 pm :

                      “I would agree with you that the thing to do is to go with what ‘the preponderance of credible evidence currently shows.’ And logic definitely has its value too. I’m just saying that for any particular individual, the evidence would include that person’s own understanding and experience – whether in the physical universe or otherwise. And yes, people can certainly be wrong, but that shouldn’t make them fearful or stop them from relying on their own truth – which may include direct spiritual perception as well as perceptions in the physical universe.

                      “In other words, the senior element , IMO, is a person’s own experience on any plane, along with the willingness to change their mind if they later see it differently. Ultimately, the main thing is to observe for yourself, as opposed to accepting the data or truth of someone else – or even the majority, as with science. And like you say, all truth is tentative.”

                      As an example, science and many individuals may pooh pooh spiritual phenomena, whereas an individual may personally know differently.

              • “Ultimately the person would make up his own mind, based on his own observations.”

                Miraldi, what about a paranoid schizophrenic? It is true for him that the FBI, CIA, Martians and more are after him.

                Just because someone gets blips on the meter and blows negative energy is not proof of BTs. It is proof that there are blips on the meter and realizations are being had. That is all.

                Ron was, in my opinion, quite genius at validating fancy as fact, truth as fiction.

                Proof, reasoned investigation is very dangerous to imaginary convictions.

                • We’re going round in circles. I’ve already given my views on what you state here. And I’m not really interested in us just trading assertions to see who can come up with the most convincing-sounding arguments and repeat them over and over.

                  Honestly, Brian, right now I don’t see a discussion taking place, or the intention to have one. It seems like you are simply taking advantage of any excuse you can find to repeat what you’ve said so many times, and to knowingly put it in the worst light possible – knowing that you are stretching it. That’s my sense of it.

                  • Brian, Marildi:
                    Ultimate truths, and Working truths.
                    If it fixed your sore toe, it’s a working truth. Does it produce a worthwhile product. Occasionally an ultimate truth is needed and produces a worthwhile effect. Knowledge of your connection to others and affinity can improve ones relationships.
                    Evidence of fact is useful when one wants others to see and experience the gains that one has had. BEING RIGHT can creep into this and serves no purpose. “I was right”, the last phrase as one goes down the tubes. A lower harmonic of “I discovered something that can assist you”.
                    Ultimate truths are ‘Interesting’ but spend most of your time on what is producing something worthwhile. Producing evidence has value if you wish to assist others.
                    Mark

          • My simple take on it Miraldi, because I experienced so much delusive cause stories in Scientology, my self included, is that this is one more half baked philosophical concept that leaves so much room for justified delusions.

            And justified delusion are part of the fabric of Ron’s version of Scientology.

            Xenu, Farsec, BTs, All Psyches being murderers and rapist….. All of them!!.

            Blowing is overts, criticism is overts, Dianetics makes clears, 100% standard tech that changes it’s standardness when reality hits, Mayo an SP, We can make stable exterior, I, Ron, went to heaven, Third Party is a law, Mars has implant stations, Hawaii 75 million years ago when it did not exist.

            I can go on and on and on and on.

            It is possible that Ron did not like the idea of proof because proof would be suppressive to his version of reality.

            And it was his version of reality that was bringing in the bucks.

            I sometimes feel very strongly that Ron did not know the difference between his imagination and reality. And this writing on the aberration of needing proof, is an obvious, to me anyway, of a policy that kept his imagination safe from the “suppressive” dangers from reasoned scrutiny.

            • Sorry but I’m still seeing nothing but repetition of as many negative things as you can possible get into a post comment – with no references to support the generalities you put out. For example, you wrote:

              “I, Ron, went to heaven.”

              What is the reference for that statement and the obvious implication you are trying to get across? The reference that I’m familiar with is this one:

              “Well, I have been to Heaven.

              “And I’ve found that Scientologists have been to Heaven.

              “And that everybody has evidently been to Heaven.

              “The Goals Problem Mass implants, which are the apparent basic source of aberration and human travail, which begin with the goal To Forget, were cynically done ‘in Heaven.’” (HCOB 3 May 63)

              Did you note that “heaven” is in quotes? And he goes on in that issue to describe an implant where the implanters deceptively made the place the place where the implant took place look like heaven.

              Unless you have other sources of information, it seems to me that this sort of “criticism” is like many that are repeated by you and others, most of whom are only spewing what they’ve heard but have never actually looked for themselves. Is that what you call the “reasoned investigation” that you are advising others to do?

              Again, this type of back and forth is not of interest to me.

              • Going from quickly one idea to the next is one type of logical fallacy called

                “Argument By Fast Talking: If you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won’t have time to think. This is connected to Changing The Subject and (to some audiences) Argument By Personal Charm. However, some psychologists say that to understand what you hear, you must for a brief moment believe it. If this is true, then rapid delivery does not leave people time to reject what they hear.” http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fast

              • L Ron Hubbard is the only spiritual teacher I know who disses every wise man since history began as being pathetically only “keyed out clear” or Buddha and Christ was just a bit above clear. You claim I am always being negative. I claim that it was Ron who dissed the accumlulation of thousands of years of wisdom by being the “only one” to discover that the after life is simply the torture of implants. 

                I am simply taking the liberties that L Ron Hubbard so arrogantly assumed for himself, in criticising others, by saying to you Miraldi, that this heaven bulletin by Ron is complete bullshit. In it he invalidates the very core of the truth of life itself.

                This writing below is akin with other delusive make believes that plagued the mind of Ron.

                http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/heaven.htm

                • On behalf of every sage, saint and world savior, a position I am questionably worthy, that I have studied under by relationship, scripture or books, and partially by my own transcendent experiences, I am here to say:

                  Every one of these teachers since time immemorial have proclaimed the afterlife to be filled with joy, beauty and freedom to those living a decent life. The meeting with past love ones who have gone before us, the joy of discarding an old worn out body, the lightness of being and the operation of more subtle laws not hemmed in by the narrow confines of the material cosmos gives great hope to mortals.

                  The only afterlife proclaimed by L Ron Hubbard is two fold in it’s arrogant depravity:
                  1) horror, torture, electronic implants with evil aliens 
                  2) the final act of insult and audacious absurdity by commanding the into the ear of the dying person, the last sense to leave the body, to find a hospital and pick up another body to buy more Scientology! Pathetic

                  This one singular afront on the spiritual traditions of all time, this delusional church doctrine, injects a toxic waste into the contemporary dialog of spiritual living that has only one goal:

                  The control of people, the creation of a doctrine which gives L Ron Hubbard “only way status”, and a seriously dangerous dogma that is directly opposed to the perception of the Spirit Light. The Light, for Hubbard, is to be avoided like evil.

                  • The Light for Hubbard WAS/IS defined as evil. The Light for Hubbard was an electronic voltage torturing souls with hypnotic commands of pain and destruction. Not the very substance of Spirit, consciousness and life ItSelf. 

                    This one singular doctrine will be talked about for many years to come. And the nature of the person so repulsed by these principles will also be discussed. The Light perceived within is filled with love, joy, peace, wisdom, inspiration. But tell that to a well trained Scientologist and they perceive you as being stuck in an implant. This is not a theoretical claim by me. I have experienced it many times when I was in the church.

                    L.Ron.Hubbard taught that the spiritual light, the very fabric of life is evil. 

                    • And it could be considered that this doctrine of “proof is an aberration” is a gateway to accepting such absurdities.

                • Brian, you wrote: “You claim I am always being negative. I claim that it was Ron who dissed the accumulation of thousands of years of wisdom by being the ‘only one’ to discover that the afterlife is simply the torture of implants.”

                  I saw nothing about the afterlife in the reference you cite. Ron simply stated that there was an implant in which the implanters tried to make it look like the person being implanted was in heaven. So your post is a very good example of twisting the facts, whether intentionally or by misduplication and misunderstanding.

                  As for your negativity, you keep posting comments with a long string of negative assertions, many of which are as dubious as this one about heaven – but there are too many to be able to practically take up with you. That is the logical fallacy of Argument by Fast Talking, which I quoted the definition for already.

                  In Scientology terms, rather than discussing you are effectively cutting the comm line:

                  “Communication lines are severed in this fashion: (a) by permitting so much entheta to flow that the group will close them or avoid them; (b) pervert the communication and so invalidate the line so that afterwards none will pay attention to the line; (c) by glutting the line with too much volume of traffic (too much material for too little meaning); and (d) chopping the line through carelessness or malice or to gain authority (the principal reason why lines get tampered with).” (HCOPL 9 Jan 51)

                  • Tell me one positive thing Ron relates about the Spiritual Light. Tell me anything he said about the Spiritual Light that all sages talk about.

                    Tell me one positive story of Ron relating about the astral world: just one

                    • Miraldi, I can also be assuming too much here. I am probably assuming that people are somewhat familiar with stories and experiences of the afterlife. I apologize if I am assuming too much.

                      But I must tell you, the data out there, out of the Scientology world view bubble. It is rich with wonderful data about these topics. And the more I was distanced from the regimented thinking in Scientology, I experienced a sort of righteous outrage concerning the false information sold as truth in Scientology.

                      I apologize if I come on too strong for you. But I hope one day you can look back on these interchanges as being of value. This is my hope.

                      Hugs
                      B

                    • Your reply is another logical fallacy called Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis). You evaded my comment about the FABRICATION you forwarded (whether it was yours or someone else’s), where you stated that Ron said he had literally been in heaven. I even quoted exactly what he wrote and then summed it up as follows:

                      “Ron simply stated that there was an implant in which the implanters tried to make it look like the person being implanted was in heaven. So your post is a very good example of twisting the facts, whether intentionally or by misduplication and misunderstanding.”

                      Even if it had been an honest mistake on your part, you should have had enough intellectual honesty to admit that it was a complete misrepresentation. This is an example of how to lose credibility.

                    • Thank you Miraldi for your thoughts

                • Wow. Thanks for the link. Eyes wide opening.

      • Hi Marildi

        Thanks for your reply. I had to read your extract from The Phoenix Lectures several times before I could duplicate what it is saying.

        I think it is saying if one needs proof of something they are already seeing it through a ‘via’ with the consideration it may not be true, which is itself “a very early level of aberration”. I am reminded of scripture where it says less you become as a little child no way will you enter the kingdom of heaven. Children “believe all things” that is quite different to “believing anything”. It is the difference between being childlike and being childish. So yes Marildi that is true for me.

    • Scientology axiom 5: „ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.“
      Scientology axiom 6: „OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES AND SOLIDS.“
      Particles are either energy or objects. Not a very good definition. And not very much true at all. More or less that what scientists of the 50ies did accept as truth.

      • Schorsch, I don’t quite follow what you’re saying. Do you mean to say that the definition of particles is “either energy or objects.” If so, I don’t see that being said in those two axioms. To me, Axiom 6 is saying that GROUPED particles are one category of objects (and that solids is another category). I always thought that “grouped particles” meant such things as a cloud or a pool of water, and these would obviously be in a different category from solids.

        • marildi,
          the word „particle“ is not defined here. But energy is defined as particle and then this same word is used to define matter. This concenpt of energy and matter is outdated today. Energy is not something consisting of particles. Energy can have effect on „particles“ like electrical energy has an effect on electrons. But electrons are not electrical energy. Electrons are effect of this kind of energy. You can also have a look on the Dianetics Axioms. This is pure Charles Darwin „survival of the fittest“. Does not work at all. The Sea Org is an organization that is built around those principles. Sample: AXIOM 10. THETA BRINGS ORDER INTO CHAOS BY CONQUERING
          WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE PRO-SURVIVAL AND DESTROYING WHATEVER
          IN MEST MAY BE CONTRA-SURVIVAL, AT LEAST THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF
          LIFE ORGANISMS.
          Emphasis on the word „destroying“!
          If you want to live in such an „society“ join the Sea Org.

          • Hi Schorsch,

            This is from the Wikipedia article on matter:

            “…A relatively small amount of matter (i.e. having a small rest mass) may be converted to a large amount other forms of energy that can be released, such as kinetic energy (the energy of motion) and electromagnetic radiation. An example is that positrons and electrons (matter) may transform into photons (non-matter). However, although matter may be created (if other forms of energy are converted to rest mass) or destroyed (if the rest mass is converted to other energy forms) in such processes, the total quantity of energy does not change during the process, although some of it can be released or ‘escape’ from the original location of the matter – English translation of Einstein’s paper.”

            • marildi,
              yes. But matter with mass is matter plus energy. Thus anything that has mass (in it, so to speak) can be „converted“ to energy. But a better description would be that from that matter energy is released.
              Einstein e=mc square. m = mass not matter. Today mass without energy is called black mass. Because mass lacking energy can not be measured. Matter still cannot be made to be energy.

              • Okay, I’m sure it’s true that LRH was limited in certain ways by the known data of that time period. However, I think where he stated in Axiom 5 that ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE, the implication was “potential energy.” Even before he wrote the Axioms of Scientology, he wrote the following in *Scientology 8-80*:

                “The basic principle of energy production by a being has been copied in electronics. It is very simple. A difference of potential of two areas can establish an energy flow of themselves. Carbon batteries, electric generators, and other producers of electrical flows act on the principle that a difference of energy potential in two or more areas can cause an electrical impulse to flow between or amongst them.”

                But I do understand your point that the Axioms about particles could have been stated more precisely and correctly.

      • Hi Schorsch

        You have picked on one of my favourite axioms. As far as I can ascertain Science/Physics has not got a definition for energy, and when I first heard Ron say on a tape that “energy was postulated particles in space” it blew my mind. How is that for a singularity, that which is capable of postulating and perceiving.

        Modern understanding of quantum physics talks in terms of the particle being in relationship with the observer that seems to me only a step away from the realisation that the particle is the product of the observer’s postulate. So yes, Axiom 5 is the best explanation of how everything comes into existence and it is backed up by Hindu thinking including ACIM.

        The double slit experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ demonstrated that a photon can either be a particle or a wave or both, in fact some have postulated all matter is nothing more than solidified light. Could it be that I Am is the light of the world?

        • pip,
          the best definition of energy I can dream of is „intention“. If you intend something you create energy. You cause something to change. Anything that has an effect on something is an energy phenomenon.

    • PIP, this is a response to your challenge re axioms:

      AXIOM 28. COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF COMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE- POINT.
      This is only true with words Pip. Only words require space or distance. Actual communication requires no space. Like the quantum leap where an electron jumps orbits without space or time, the essence of true communication exists in a spaceless timeless existence. So this is not true or true only in a material sense.
      AXIOM 31. GOODNESS AND BADNESS, BEAUTIFULNESS AND UGLINESS, ARE ALIKE CONSIDERATIONS AND HAVE NO OTHER BASIS THAN OPINION.
      Regarding goodness and badness, this “axiom” is the very essence of moral relativity. That we cannot establish a cosmic good and only relegate it to opinions is to consider no common standards of decency. If opinion is the basis for good and bad than we are in deep trouble. Much like how Scientology is in. Morality is not based on an individual opinion. It is based on a much grander measuring stick. A universal order not an individual whim. This is Ron’s version of good and bad. Probably why it made it easy for him to treat is wife like a used up rag. It’s just a consideration, opinion, so it must be true.

      • Beauty and ugliness could be considered an opinion. Because it is a judgement on the appearance of something. 

        But good and bad is not an appearance. It is the subject of morals and ethics of which Ron was apparently not interested:

        “I’m not interested in wog morality” and “we are not moralists”
        L. Ron Hubbard

        These are not Axioms. Maybe Ron’s self evident truth. But not mine. Nor are they universally accepted as such.

        • Another thought:

          Universal order is not an opinion. It is not an opinion that gardens need water. It is a cosmic fact. I cannot change my mind and say,”today it is my opinion that my garden never needs water.” That opinion will lead to the death of my garden.

          It is an opinion that I like certain flowers and not others. That is an opinion.

          Ron’s version of Scientology considered no higher authority other than the “thetan’s personal considerations.” 

          It was Crowley’s version of life also. Do as thou wilt.

          And as Ron was not interested in “wog morality” his garden of Scientology is withering like a thirsty garden. He thought the ego/personal desire, was the final arbiter in determining good and bad.

           And what is left in the wake of that shollow and selfish interpretation of ethics, morality and integrity is what we see today as Scientology. Ron is source.

          • Hi Brian

            If by “universal order” you mean absolute truth then you need to look outside the parameters of Scientology.

            Scientology has never attempted to define ultimate truth apart from stating it is UNOBTAINABLE. Scientology is firmly rooted in RELATIVE TRUTH; in fact I believe there is an axiom that states ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE.

            It may be a fact that your garden needs watering but here in England it is the last thing our gardens need since it has rained steadily for the past few days. I am sure there are places in the world where the climate is so temperate that the garden never needs watering.

            I know Alistair Crowley gets a lot of bad press, but I looked up that quote “Do as thou wilt” and the full quote should be LOVE, AND DO AS THOU WILT” said by St. Augustine of Hippo, and that of course is the missing factor in the technology of Scientology. As Ron has said “I have removed the word ‘love’ from the subject of Scientology because of the need to keep the subject true to the discipline of engineering where every word must have an exact definition and since LOVE has no exact definition I am replacing it with the word AFFINITY which we can define.” Without the word LOVE the word THETA lacks meaning since the meaning of the word love is CO-EXISTANCE OF STATIC, and only Theta can co-exist in the fullest sense of the word since not being subject to MEST can occupy the same space.

            Yes in the Church of Scientology Ron is source but that is source with a small ‘s’ as each of us are. Well that is what I realised when I did Level V, just as there is big ‘G’ and little ‘g’ there is big ‘S’ and little ‘s’.

            Love
            Pip

            • Greetings Pip!

              By universal order Pip I am not meaning absolute truth. That is a state way beyond name and form. The static if you will.
              What I mean by universal order regarding good and bad is simply common standards of decency. These are not abstract nor esoteric. It is what my mom taught me.

              For instance:
              1) do not lie (consider TR-L and Hubbard’s fabulist tendencies)

              2) do not steal (consider Ron wiping away any infuences that helped him so that it looks like he is the “only one” who discovered anything

              3) do not harm or cause pain to others ( consider Paulette Cooper, Bolivar, Fair Game. Actual instructions to harm, and institutionlizing the causing of pain by creating courses to learn black ops against our citizenry: the GO/OSA)

              4) love thy neighbor ( consider the word wog, consider the condescension towards other religions and religious teachers, the demonization of Psyches, journalists and anyone who challenges Ron)

              5) being genuine and authentic (consider all of the Scientology front groups that claim to help society that were really created for PR purposes to increase business. I know, I was part of CCHR in it’s inception.)

              6) Loyalty (consider Ron hitting on other women when he was married, betraying Mayo, Otto, Mary Sue and anyone else that got close enough to see through the world savior facade)

              So this is what I mean: To Ron, good and bad were simply opinions of the individual as stated in his “axioms”. And in that regard this “axiom” is not an “axiom” undisputed by truth. Not self evident. I have just disputed it as incomplete at best and a dangerous moral relativity at worst.

              Lacking common standards of decency, which he demonstrated, illustrates to me, that is what he meant. Morals are simply an individual opinion. And Ron’s behavior from time to time, if we have the confront to see it, revealed that the end justified the means. And his means sometimes were unethical, indecent and immoral.

              His actions are what I regard in determining his decency, not the sophisticated rhetoric of decency and scientism that he was so adapt at conveying with words.

              • To make it simple: To Ron good and bad were simply opinions. That is a dangerous and untrue doctrine. And his behavior demonstrates what he meant by this axiom.

              • Greetings Brian

                I am sure your mum is an honourable lady. Having said that, it is SURVIVAL that governs our behaviour in this MEST UNIVERSE.

                For instance:-

                1. Lying is acceptable when protecting the greatest number of dynamics. Such as when protecting the weak in relation to a tyrant.

                2. I know of nowhere that Ron did not give credit where credit was due. In fact in his early printing of his books there would be a list of all the great thinkers of the past that he acknowledged his gratitude to.

                3. One of the Code of Honour is “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause”. If mankind ceased hurting others that would be the end of war. The trouble is differences of opinion over what is a just cause. Some might believe it is a “just cause” to blacken another beings character, who is to be the judge?

                4. Love thy neighbour is the second great commandment and one is only going through the motions until the first great commandment is in place.

                5. Being genuine and authentic is out of reach of anyone who has not fully embraced the first great commandment.

                6. No one is saying that LRH was beyond reproach, he never said he was anything other than a human being, and as such was susceptible to the vagaries common to man living in a broken world, and at odds with their creator.

                Brian the world you long for is the world we all long for it’s called THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN but to gain it we must be BORN AGAIN so that we might be who and what we were created to be – children of the Living God!

                • There are numerous sources that reveal Ron plagiarizing. Maybe you are not aware of them. Have you read, Madman or Messiah, Piece of the Blue Sky, Bare Faced Messiah or surfed the web in search of these things? Stories of people who experienced these things directly?

                  There is a PR face to Ron. Years and years of cover up as to his true nature. A dynamic powerful organization supporting that cover up. Violence against those who dare lift the veil is common place.

                  Once sold, bought and agreed to, it is hard to get to the bottom of it. Because so much emotional and intellectual agreement has been set like concrete.

                  And most importantly, criticism is a mortal sin in Scientology. And criticism of Ron worse.

                  I do not mind me being the object of your criticisms. This is a process.

                  Read these three books, surf the web to verify facts as best you can and come to your own conclusions.

                  But first you must be willing to be an iconoclast to cherished beliefs.

                  Until then, it will always be something wrong with me. That is ok :-)

                  • Clarification: the “something wrong with me” comment is mostly for Miraldi as she sees many flaws in my approach. And Pip, you have kept it mostly about ideas and not personal. I appreciate that.

                    My views have been fashioned over many years. From my own study and contemplation. So to hash out these issues one by one on this blog is near impossible.

                    If any of my ideas mean anything to you I would suggest reading these books. If my ideas are considered just self righteous bunk then that’s fine too.

                    • “Clarification: the ‘something wrong with me’ comment is mostly for Miraldi as she sees many flaws in my approach.”

                      No, it’s not personal to point out logical fallacies and fabrications. But I can understand how it could feel personal if you don’t care to confront the isness that your approach does have those flaws. You could have disputed any one of the points I made in this regard but you didn’t, because you couldn’t.

                    • I’ll try better next time Miraldi

                    • Great, Brian. If it’s truth we want, you and I and both need to be as intellectually honest as we can be. This is from the article in Wikipedia:

                      “Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

                      - One’s personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;

                      - Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;

                      - Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

                      - References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.”

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

                • Gerhard Waterkamp

                  Pip,
                  I think there are a number of logical pitfalls in the points you picked up from Brian. Let me just get through the first three.

                  “1. Lying is acceptable when protecting the greatest number of dynamics. Such as when protecting the weak in relation to a tyrant.”

                  Non-cooperation is different than lying. Lying implies inserting false data, false data can lead to other injustices and harm. Noncooperation is probably a better solution. Any lie, no matter what reasoning or justification adds layers and layers of complexity. The truth is always the better answer and if it would be used for harm, it is better to withhold the truth than to lie.

                  “2 . I know of nowhere that Ron did not give credit where credit was due. In fact in his early printing of his books there would be a list of all the great thinkers of the past that he acknowledged his gratitude to.”

                  Oh boy, you must have missed that Ron is “Source”.

                  “3. One of the Code of Honour is “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause”. If mankind ceased hurting others that would be the end of war. The trouble is differences of opinion over what is a just cause. Some might believe it is a “just cause” to blacken another beings character, who is to be the judge?”

                  Exactly, you are making the point. Rather than applying once opinion when there is a just cause. refrain as much as possible to harm others.

                  To introduce another stated datum ‘absolutes are not obtainable’. The “universal rules” Brian has learned from his mother are not swords that divide a world, but more like a compass that gives you a direction you can follow. And they are much more reliable to point to growth and wisdom than ‘do as you wilt.’

                  • Thank you Gerhard. And I’m sure my dear mom thanks you from her astral vacation. I owe her much.

                    And again, thank you Marty for allowing dissent. You and Mike are really doing good here: for many.

                  • Hi Gerherd

                    I take your point on 1. Although I could envision a scenario where one failed to give a person’s whereabouts away by saying they did not know where they were, but that is not saying I condone lying.

                    2. Ron is Source of Dianetics and Scientology although I think I would prefer the word FOUNDER. I was born into a Christian Science family where Mary Baker Eddy is definitely the founder, irrespective of whether she was a plagiarist or not.

                    3. Interesting I see you change the word HURT to the word HARM. The Code of Honor specifically uses the word HURT, and in that context I wouldn’t want to go to a dentist who was paranoid about HURTING me.

                    I thought the datum was “absolutes are unobtainable”, that is so true it makes me go weak at the knees. The reason that “absolutes are unobtainable” is that they are a FREE GIFT given by GRACE which is UNDESERVED FAVOUR, that is why you cannot just reach out and grasp them. They are like delicate butterflies that you can only hope will come and land in your lap.

                    I agree “do as you wilt” is the road to nowhere but I thought we had established it should read LOVE AND DO AS YOU WILT, or maybe LOVE GOD AND DO AS YOU WILT

            • Thank you, Pip. I’m glad someone pointed out that people have alter-ised (similar to what they do with Ron’s statements) Crowley’s “Do as thou wilt.” I haven’t taken the time to find the quote but I’ve read where he stated that this was to be applied by spiritually evolved beings, who would naturally apply it towards the greatest good.

              However, on your point about love, unless I misunderstood, I think you are mistaken where you indicated that the concept of love meaning CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC is missing in Scientology. I believe Ron said something to the effect that the reason he didn’t want to use the word “love” itself was that it has too many meanings and would thus be confusing (similar to his choosing not to use the word “spirit” or “soul” because people would assume other meanings than what he meant by “thetan”). In fact, the highest level of Affinity is CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC as per this Axiom:

              AXIOM 25. AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

              • I should have included the rest of the above Axiom:

                “By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale.”

              • Hi Marildi

                Thanks for your reply and thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity in what I wrote regarding Love and the co-existence of static.

                Axiom 25 is most interesting and of course co-existence of static would be the ideal state, but what exactly do we mean by STATIC. The factors commence with “Before the beginning was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect”. This is beautifully put but I ask myself what is this cause that existed before anything existed. Ron wrote an article in and OT magazine where he was saying (and I paraphrase) you can understand something to the ‘enth’ degree but until you know its BEINGNESS you don’t really KNOW IT. And so I ask myself “what is the beingness of this first cause, this static, and my conclusion is LOVE.

                I find it helpful how a cross-section of bible translations put it “Before anything was the word already existed, and the word was with God and the word was God.” The bible goes on to state that “God is Love”, from this is revealed that the nature of this first cause is LOVE, and is indeed our true nature.

                I like your point about Ron replacing the words “spirit” and “soul” with the word THETAN but this has led to some confusion amongst Scientologists, for just as Spirit and Soul are not necessarily the same, neither is THETA and A THETAN. Just as Spirit becomes a soul when it locates in MEST a true static has no matter energy space or time, but when it postulates itself into a location it accrues mass. Hence SOULS/THETANS have mass, whereas SPIRIT/THETA has no mass.

                Experiments have been done to weigh a body immediately before physical death and right after, and it has been recorded that there is a weight loss of half an ounce or some 20 odd grams, maybe this article will be of interest:-

                http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

                I think Ron mentions it somewhere.

                • Hey Pip, our thoughts align once again. You wrote, “Hence SOULS/THETANS have mass, whereas SPIRIT/THETA has no mass.”

                  That’s my understanding too. In *Handbook for Preclears,* Ron writes “By theta is meant the static itself,” and in the Chart of Attitudes (which is in the same book) at the top is written “Static (Spirit).”

                  As for thetans, in the *Phoenix Lectures,* Ron states the following:

                  “A thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static. He has practically no wavelength. Actually a thetan is in a very, very small amount of mass. From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago – a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces! Who made these experiments? Well, a doctor made these experiments. He weighed people before and after death, retaining any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all, and he found that the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces and some of them 2 ounces. (Those were heavy thetans.) So we have this thetan capable of considerations, postulates and opinions, and the most native qualities to him – in other words the things which he is most likely to postulate – are these qualities which you find in the top „buttons“ of the Chart of Attitudes. ‘Trust,’ ‘Full Responsibility,’ etc.”

                  I so agree with you that there has been a lot of confusion among Scientologists about the terms theta and thetan. Talk about crashing MU’s! How basic can it get? I have commented before that there should be a blog where the terms, principles and tech can be discussed and sorted out. Probably a lot of the criticism about Scientology is due to basic confusions and missing data.

                  • Marildi, I could kiss you – well that’s presupposing you are a lady – and even if you are not you still deserve a brotherly hug. It’s such a good feeling when Thetans agree together.

                    I have just returned from a Quaker meeting that I attend on a Sunday morning. It is like an hour of T.R.0. The thought occurred to me this morning how similar it is to the purpose behind Scientology.

                    In a Quaker meting they gather for worship with the intention of becoming a “gathered meeting”; put another way they arrive as individuals (thetans) with the purpose of becoming ONE (a gathered meeting) THETA. For them that is ‘the bridge’.

                    I realised this is what THE BRIDGE is all about in Scientology, to move from A THETAN to THETA, from “the love of understanding” to STANDING UNDER LOVE.

                    I agree! most Scientologists know there is a bridge and know where the bridge starts, but are unclear where it ends. They need something more substantial at the other end than a “star burst”. Understanding is all very well but without LOVE we become “as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”.

                    Love and A.R.C.
                    Pip

                    • “…put another way they arrive as individuals (thetans) with the purpose of becoming ONE (a gathered meeting) THETA. For them that is ‘the bridge’.”

                      Wow, Pip, that is beautiful. Wonderful to know about it. Yes, I am a lady and I could kiss you too! For all your comments and for who you are. Thanks for the comm! :)

                      Love and ARC,
                      marildi xxooxx

      • Yo Brian!

        My response to your response to my challenge! Granted words are a very common aspect of communication but even most words are communicated through the action of compelling an impulse or particle. In fact I cannot think of a communication medium that does not involve an impulse or particle. Words start out as thoughts which are then turned into words which are then transmitted by impulses or particles; even a bullet says “you are my enemy”, tell the folk in Afghanistan that they are not particles. Communication always requires space and time. If it does not require space and time it is called COMMUNION.

        We know that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time (that’s regular physics) so for communication to occur there must be distance however large or small that distance is. True communication is a contradiction in terms, all communication is relative. True communication would be COMMUNION – CO-EXISTANCE OF STATIC.

        Again Axiom 31 is a great self-evident truth. Scientology has never claimed to be other than “moral relativity”. Every man-made religion suffers from the same malady; man can never establish a cosmic good that is why religions have been at each other’s throats since time immemorial, even more so with the Church of Scientology because it considers itself “the religion of religions”.

        God is the only agency that is in a position to judge what is good because “only God is truly good” Mark 10:18.

        You have hit the nail on the head “we are in deep trouble” precisely because goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion. This is a self-evident fact mores the pity.

        • I have experienced states where particles are simply the calling cards of thought. Emanations if you will. I have experienced communication that had nothing to do with space or time.

          I have experienced communication that was instantaneous, no time, no distance, immediate and perfect. Like the quantum leap.

          Communication with distance and space is a definition of material communication. That is true. But to say that this axiom as written by Ron is complete in understanding all levels of communication is false. It is incomplete in conveying the true nature of communication which takes no time or space. That is my experience. And my hope in having people question the “perfection” of Ron’s reality.

          • Hi Brian

            As far as I know Ron has never said his reality is perfect, in fact when asked in the film “Introduction to Scientology” ‘why Scientology?’ his reply was ‘because it works’.

            As for a complete understanding of communication, as per the axioms there cannot be UNDERSTANDING without COMMUNICATION plus Reality and Affinity. Perhaps when A.R.C. has expanded to infinity UNDERSTANDING becomes TO STAND UNDER – the willingness to be AT EFFECT.

            • I realized that 100% standard workability was a PR claim after Dianetic Clear and Natural Clear was announced.
              Up until then Ron said the road was complete. All one had to do was get on the bridge.

              The grade chart has been changing and changing and changing. Equating this constant change with standardness and workability is cognitive dissonance IMO.

              That is not to say that great gains were not had by people in the process of looking within for answers while using auditing.

              What works in Scientology or any therapy is a willingness to look within and a decent loving therapist. There are many many workable therapies.

              So the claim of workability is really not so special. And, there are many times Scientology processes do not work.

              Claire Hadley, on Tony’s site, illustrates this when taking us “up the bridge.”

  11. Marty,

    I am not Clear. I was born into Scientology but never did anything beyond read books, listen to some lectures and do a few Div 6 courses. Nonetheless, my attention is stuck on Scientology and I want to get it off and move on.

    I have read all three books and will be happy to read them again in a new unit of time.

    Can I take part too, or is Clear and above a requirement?

    • Sure.

    • Hi LG;
      Well, if the subject has had such an influence on you with so little exposure, maybe you should check it out a bit more, there is a very great value in the techniques. I don’t think you’d regret doing so, especially since you are not doing it in the CofS, but out where real Scientology exists. Keep in mind that the ‘Scientology culture’ is not Scientology.

      Best of luck to you.

  12. “if Scientology is the only road to ultimate freedom, and Hubbard really is the unforgiving God set forth so strongly in Scientology policy, there will be hell to pay for those venturing along such a path.”

    Ja,Ja,Ja. Very funny!

    I’m currently completing my own little course of study. As soon as I’m done with it, I’ll drop you a line.

    Thanks for caring Marty, and I wish you and your family a wonderful New Year.

    Happy New Year to everybody!

  13. - show quoted text -
    Scientology attract and scientology trap, $cientology extincted and $cientology died, when the truth arised.

    If lies hadn’t existed $cientology hadn’t existed.

  14. What a good idea. I’ll bookmark this and forward it to those I meet on my travels through the internet, that seem stuck but wanting to move on. After a few conversations, it’s pretty easy to tell who those people are.

  15. Happy New Year everyone!

    May 2014 be a year of personal miracles, good friends, freedom and lots and lots of fun!

  16. I think it is worth a try. I would consider checking it out. I would suggest that some of the readings include works by Hassan and other experts on how to disentangle one’s mind from a cult (getting the body “out” is easy; getting the mind “out” of something like Scientology can take years or decades).

    Of course avoid places like Cult Awareness Network which was bought out by Scientology after they drove the bonafide CAN into bankruptcy through harassing lawsuits. But do make those taking the course aware of the many ways that Scientology creates masks to hide behind — CAN, CCHR, Narconon, Applied Scholastics, WISE, Criminon, Volunteer Ministers, etc.

    Would there be guidance on how to get off Scientology mailing lists, what to do (even if just internally in terms of acceptance) about the PC folders and the confidential materials that Scientology holds as an unstated threat against “apostates” and other practical tips? What laws might one rely on for protection? How to find attorneys if needed? What to explain about the big blank period of years on your resume? How to capture transferable skills on your resume without sounding whacky? (You wouldn’t want to say “have great ability to not-is bad things and keep on moving” or “can be there for hours without blinking or reacting” but you can capture things like “well-experienced in stressful work situations handling complex projects under tight deadlines with limited time and resources.”

    Just thinking that it would be great if somewhere there is a comprehensive practical guide in addition to the mental and spiritual and philosophical reorientation to freedom. I’m sure your thinking is way ahead of me on this. Best wishes on this!

  17. This blog in itself has been a good exercise in graduating from scientology. Your offer to extend personalized direction and advice on a safe, one to one basis, is a bonus for those who want more and are ready. All you can do is extend the offer. A generous way to end the year. May 2014 bring you and your family much relief, joy and satisfaction.

    • I agree, Thomas. This blog has been of immense value and help to me personally in sorting out any number of discordant internal cognitive dissonances! The blog is a sort of Scientology repair rundown :-)

  18. Great idea! Very generous of you to share what you have learned in this way. I would put myself in category #4 “Those wishing to continue with spiritual growth, but who do not want to start from square zero”. I’ll be in touch.

  19. Are you still planning to write a book on the subject of graduating from Scientology? I am eager to read that book, as well as the two other books you’ve outlined on previous blog posts.

  20. As we all go into the New Year (some are probably already there as this blog has readers all over the world).

    I’d like to share one of my favorite prayers — attributed to St. Francis of Assisi but apparently it is only 100 years old of so.

    Doesn’t matter — they are words to aspire to — and frankly I believe Marty is a damn good example of living this prayer. (there are others obviously as well but it’s my New Year’s message to Mosey, William and Marty) :)

    Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
    Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
    Where there is injury, pardon.
    Where there is doubt, faith.
    Where there is despair, hope.
    Where there is darkness, light.
    Where there is sadness, joy.

    O Divine Master,
    Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
    To be understood, as to understand;
    To be loved, as to love.
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
    And it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
    Amen.

    Be safe all of you and do what it takes to bring joy, light, hope, faith, pardon love and peace into your lives.

    Love,
    Christine

    • Very theta, +1 and amen.

    • Blessings to you Christine. Thank you. I love Francis. May this year be the best for us all. And thank you one and all for challenging me. Thank you Oracle, Margaret, Miraldi and all for voicing your heartfelt views. May all of our goals for spiritual growth be crowned with the laurel wreath of success.

      And thank you Marty and Mosey for the work you are about to embark upon.

      Love to all and joy to all!!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

    • The O Divine Master part was very sexy!

    • In 1990, when we were decompressing from Scientology,
      my wife and I spent several daytime hours with the Franciscan Nuns
      in our local monastery. I spent weeks reading about the life
      of St. Francis and reciting the “Ode to Brother Sun”. Thanks
      Christine for the fond memory.
      Much Metta,
      George M. White

  21. Philosophy begins when one learn’s to doubt one’s beliefs, dogmas and axioms-Socrates

    A man could be changed by reason and education-Voltaire

    It is dangerous to read a subject before we have thought about it ourselves. When we read another person’s think we merely repeat his mental process-Schopenhauer

    Thus Marty, a change is needed and your guidance is accepted.

  22. Happy New Year to the Rathbun Tribe! Thank you all for being here and being clear! XXXXXXXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO May the red carpet roll out for everyone in 2014. The Year of Light, Birth and Balance! This year was made for you and me!

  23. one of those who see

    Happy New Year everyone!! May 2014 bring more enlightenment, kindness and freedom. Lets take a moment and think of those, who going into 2014 are separated from friends and family due to the evil practice of enforced disconnection. May those they love see through the lies and reconnect in 2014.

  24. I left the SO in the late 80′s. What a MindF@*& that was. For a very long time I felt alone and endured all the negative crap that comes from within whilst those without constantly worked at manipulating my life and my thoughts. A few years ago I made a big change of location that put me close to a family member who has been in the SO from practically the beginning – and is still there. I was asked by this person what I had read on the net or seen on telie. The way in which this question was asked led me to believe something big was/had happened. This was about the time the press was just starting to get brave and articles were bobbing up about Scn celebs. My curiosity led me to Marty’s blog.

    Over the last few years the articles and comments on the blog have been a constant source of inner relief. Marty’s books and the blog comments satisfied all my questions about what the hell had/was going on at the top as well as answering a plethora of questions relating to The Bridge and materials. About a month ago I got myself several of the books from the recommended reading list. I read part of the Tao Te Ching and felt a big change from within. The change was big enough that I put the curious little book down, deciding that if there were more changes like this about to occur I had best let things settle a bit. I picked up “The Meaning of Life” by Victor Frankl. Little did I know the biggest internal change of my life would come from this one. I was such a tortured soul. It’s a wonder never became an alcoholic or took some sort of drug legal or otherwise. In a way I suppose I have Scientology to thank for that. How weird is that? I am now into the first few pages of “Buddha’s Brain” by Rick Hanson with Richard Mendius. I cannot comment yet, but I admit I am a little excited. I was given “Essential Wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita” as a Christmas gift and although this is not part of the recommended reading I look forward to this too. My desire to explore is a new experience and I am thoroughly enjoying it.

    It is here I wish to give my gratitude and thanks to Marty and everybody who has contributed to this blog. 2014 has already been the best year ever.

  25. Marty, as mentioned above somewhere, this blog is a good place to get bench sitters off the bench, which is why I’d like to encourage you to consider putting this blog into book form. I’d help in anyway I could, so would others.

    I don’t know … maybe you don’t really grasp how valuable a service you have provided here for those CofSers and x-CofSers who really want to find out what the hell happened and consequently get de-PTSed; it is the best source of true data by far, all in one place.

    Your course sounds as if can fill a need and I am looking forward to seeing it’s results.

    • I agree Bob. this really needs to be done Marty. There is nothing else that
      explains what happened in detail as well as this blog.

  26. Happy New Years to you both and your families.

    Good luck with everything.

  27. This Movie will awake your inner child.

  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

    “Ethics, also known as philosophical ethics, ethical theory, moral theory, and moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, often addressing disputes of moral diversity.[1] The term comes from the Greek word ethos, which means “character”. The superfield within philosophy known as Axiology includes both ethics and Aesthetics and is unified by each sub-branch’s concern with value. Philosophical ethics investigates what is the best way for humans to live, and what kinds of actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances. Ethics may be divided into four major areas of study:[1]

    Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
    Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
    Applied ethics draws upon ethical theory in order to ask what a person is obligated to do in some very specific situation, or within some particular domain of action (such as business);
    Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people’s beliefs about morality;

    Ethics seeks to resolve questions dealing with human morality—concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.”

  29. My grandfathers favorite song performed by “an old sou”l”named Amira

  30. Happy New Year to you and the people you love, Marty.
    God bless the routes you go – always.

  31. Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.

    Mark Twain

  32. Long film is long

    But Hubbard tapes are log too

    Here is a film

  33. Can you still stuff things away in your head because they do not align with your believe in LRH ?

  34. I’m in!

    I’ll email you!

    All good wishes to all for a wonderful Year!

  35. YOU CAN’T MISS THIS!

    “Why do you need to understand why I’m on a public street talking?”

    Check this OUT! This is what I’m talking about! LFBD! This man is making sense. This IS New York!

    • WORSE P.R. EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • This is the way it goes now. The people in the Org did NOTHING but cut this guy’s comm and run a CAN’T HAVE on him.

        Info? “You have to go through channels”

        Photos? “Not allowed”

        Fresh air and space out side? She had to run out on the sidewalk, continue to cut his comm and run a can’t have on him on sidewalk space!!!!!!!! Then she generated conflict!

        WHY do these people act like an oozie machine gun is pointed at them when someone has a camera? It’s like walking into John Gottie’s social club in little Italy!

        See, if I can see it, why can’t they? We both read the same stuff! So, is it the reading materials or the people?

        What is she going to sell this guy, the comm course? His TR’s were better than hers! He had to sort out her confusions!

        He walked in there looking for some enlightenment, he was curious.

        Just given can’t have’s and someone trying to push him down into the enforce band! “You can’t film on this sidewalk”.

        CA RA ZYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

        • I figured it out. Missed With holds. Those Scientologists KNOW ain’t nobody going to come in there and buy one of the new 6,000 emeters or a fucking Patron or 100 grand for three L’s, or accomos at Flag or humanitarian status’ or buy real real estate for David Miscavige and Tom Cruise.

          They know these people ain’t going to buy cruises on the Freewinds and “SuperPower” at the new mecca cathedral.

          They make this guy wrong for KNOWING something is an outpoint and refer him as a DSA particle because he knows how to know and misses their with holds all over the place.

          Why the fuck ARE you there in Harlem David? To get people interested so they can figure out the big can’t have that will be run on them up the line when “they don’t make it” according to your current standards?

          This is what I mean when I say YOU SET EVERYONE UP FOR A LOSS!

          Sorry for posting this across two blogs, but this is EXACTLY what I ahve been trying to point out FOR YEARS, and it is right here! Finally! Right here on video to see for yourself!

          Trust me what I tell you, that in 1972, if this guy had walked into the New York Org in 1972, someone would have cared enough about him to offer him a seat, offer him a drink, offer him a free service, give him an emeter test, and answer all of his questions. They would have cared about this guy, respected that he cared about his community, and REACHED instead of shooing him out like a dust particle and referring him to DSA for CURIOSITY!

          This video was a relief for me, because I was this guy in 1972. And I WAS HELPED.

          This video was a relief for me, and it also made me cry.

          This guy REACHED. And he was blown off. This is what I am talking about. The books were the same back then. People could understand back then. People cared about the people in front in front of them back then. People were HAPPY when someone came into an Org back then, they did not RECOIL!

          You look at this guy and you see his potential his reach, his honesty,his ethics presence. This guy would have been highly desirable in 1972 as a walk in. This guy has promise. The staff in the Church leave me wondering what Scientology they are in today that I never found out about.

          • And don’t want to know about.

            Marty and Mike bought the Scientology back down to the streets.

            This is where it belongs. Not in castles in the sky. It can not survive outside of the grass roots. It belongs here with us. And it belongs with the 4000 auditors in the Nation of Islam.

          • You asked, “Why the fuck ARE you there in Harlem David?” Answer: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/funeral-for-a-friend/

            • Thank you Marty Rathbun.

            • Jean-François Genest

              Also, the May 2012 issue of Ebony magazine (I love Ebony) had a good article about the church of scientology of Harlem, written by Nicole Hutcheson. The issue must be available from a library near you. It had the Honourable Michelle Obama on the front cover. I will try to obtain an electronic link.

              • Jean-François Genest

                Over-and-over, Marty has been mentioning transcendence and integration. If there is one place where these can happen, it is on that street right there.

                • You know what’s funny? I listened to everything that guy has said on all of his videos. He is in mystery, that’s all. He can’t think with how Dianetics could align with religion. Well, Dianetics is NOT a religion. And nobody has pointed it out to him. That’s the difference between Dianetics and Scientology. There is no Church of Dianetics. For everything that guy has had to say on his videos, I had a very simple answer, or, a question I could have asked him, that could have prompted to shift his view enough to shed some light on his current inventory of think. And these are very simple conversations anyone crossing the thresh hold into this adventure should be able to explain. And here he is, walking into yet another center, with very, very elementary straight forward questions. And what does he get? “Give us your name and number and we will have our attorney contact you.”

                  It is really SOOOOO bizarre!

                  • O.K., here’s just another simple one. “Dianetics didn’t come from the great Mohammed.”

                    Well, either did chicken wings. Either did the subway system. Either did disposable diapers. Either did the coat you are wearing but you aren’t rejecting that.

                    These are things that may be of use or value to people as an aside. The idea that there is “only one” useful being on this Earth that you need, that is going to fulfill every need and want doesn’t evidence itself in his own life.

                    He could be talked with pure reason right through a doubt formula. Someone could expand that doubt formula into an area where he could even become more trusting of another race.

                    The truth is nobody at the Church has cared enough about this guy or granted him enough beingness or respect, to have a conversation with him. They are not INTERESTED in him.

                    He, like all other forms of motion on the street, are menacing particles. Or dangerous impressions. Or further south.

                    From ORG series 23.

                    (HCO PL 16 February 1971,

                    Lines and Terminals)

                    There is a scale concerning Lines and Terminals.

                    ASSOCIATED TERMINALS

                    SIGNIFICANCES

                    FALSE TERMINALS

                    MISDIRECTED LINES

                    WRONG PARTICLES

                    FALSE SIGNIFICANCES

                    (Rumors)

                    MYSTERIOUS TERMINALS

                    CHAOTIC LINES

                    MENACING PARTICLES

                    DANGEROUS IMPRESSIONS

                    NON-EXISTENT TERMINALS

                    NON-EXISTENT LINES

                    NON-EXISTENT PARTICLES

                    UNCONSCIOUS IMPULSES

                    THE CHAOS OF UNHAPPY NOTHINGNESS

                  • I think where they know they will stumble is on the entire premise of his discourse, Dianetics is used as non-religious bait to switch all who enter into the Scientology monotheistic cosmology. And yes, as per your other comment about ‘source’ this is where Scientology and NOI will ultimately conflict.

                    • That makes sense as to why the staff act so with holdy. The Dianetics methodology belongs to anyone that owns the book though. Anyone in the Church harassing someone in their home for using Dianetics is way out of line. If you paid for the book, even in a used book store, the knowledge is yours to use.

                      If you were auditing someone on Dianetics when the Squirrel Busters showed up, harassing you, for using Dianetics, that is straight up off the law books criminal.

                      There is a Dianetics group out in California that has been a legally registered group for decades. The Church did try to close them down and failed.

                      http://ca-da.org/

                      Anyway, the E.D. of the day org Harlem said there has been a lot of negative publicity.

                      The “Squirrel Busters” have done more damage P.R. wise for negative publicity that the Guardian’s Office ever managed. And this would set off an alarm for anyone seeing those videos. And that guy has seen those videos.

                      Not to mention the leader of the Scientology Church managed to get a restraining order on himself. In Texas no less, where they handled that criminal Warren Jeffs. Oppressive cult leaders have not been able to avoid justice in Texas.

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

                      David most likely wasn’t reading the newspapers at that time.

                      I think Farrakhan has done a brilliant job keeping the power and control in his court and knowing his rights.

                      The NOI has grown continuously and made itself safe pointed and accepted without one P.R. flap in decades while Miscavige’s numbers have dwindled, his churches are empty, there is revolt and P.R, flaps and legal flaps spread across the planet. Noise noise noise as a result of his wild stupidity and domestic abuses and rip off plans.

                      Marty, the MAGNITUDE of what you have taken on to handle down in Texas is staggering. A true David and Goliath story. You are the cornerstone of the Scientology civil rights movement. Civil rights are rudiments. Knowing your rights is like having your ruds in. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any. If your ruds are not in, you can not advance spiritually. A major WHY on why staff never make it. Read but do not get it. And it has spread and bled all across the public arena.

                      This is why you see Scientologists that can not communicate or think with or use the knowledge.

                      This is why when someone appears on the scene in the Independent Movement and begins to violate people’s civil rights, it is like a giant red flag. They are only knocking out people’s ruds and setting them up for more losses with the Scientology.

                      Thanks for all that you have done and continue to do.

                    • I think that (at least originally) Dianetics and “mental health” was the right reality level for the average person and would attract his interest. After that, he could be introduced to the spiritual principles of Scientology. I wouldn’t call it bait and switch, just a workable way to gradiently reach people.

              • Thanks Jean, I looked everywhere for it. Miscavige must have sent a mission out to squash it. Did find out the author won a journalistic award for the piece though. I’ll find the issue on Ebay and pick it up.

      • Jean-François Genest

        He is AWESOME !
        He is erudite, sincere, and the org’s staff CAN’T HAVE that. Must go via OSA. The org’s staff are total losers. OSA is Department 20. Such encounter is a Div 6A business. The staff are off org-board, OFF SOURCE !!! ;-)

        At the end, the Executive Director mentions that there’s been a lot of bad publicity recently. Well !! Now is your chance to show the world that all is good. Take him in, show him around, ANSWER THE PUBLIC’S QUESTIONS !, show the course room, explain what goes on in an auditing session, pinch test, etc.
        But NO. You need to make an appointment with our CIA representative. She needs clearance. Quick! Telex the Assistant PR Aide and A/Invest Aide OSA East US! Boy, they suck.

  36. Jean-François Genest

    Great idea sir !
    Happy New Year Marty, Mosey, Baby, Chiquita, deers, and all !
    Peace to you! , and confusion to the vicissitudes.

  37. I think Tommy Davis could do with your course, Marty.

    I just read his deposition…I guess he’s so rich he got himself a lifetime supply of Kool-Aid.

    I guess he never read about camels and needles.

  38. Hi everyone! I just thought I would let you know that we have a guest, Ms. Lynn Shape, OSA Agent for The Church of Scientology!! Let’s everyone give Lynn a warm welcome. According to page 105 on the deposition Ray Jeffrey conducted, Lynn Shape is the OSA agent that monitor’s this Blog. So, Lynn, why don’t you introduce yourself and tell us what got you interested in becoming a Scientologist? Were you going to be an auditor? Was it exciting to join the most ethical group on the planet? How does that seem to you now? We would all love to hear from you!

  39. Marty Rathbun can you tell me why I like this video in spite of what I KNOW

  40. Marty, since your blog is so full of recently exited members, I’m curious on one point I’d like to take this opportunity to survey.

    My survey question to people who’ve gone public with their names, is has the fear of consequences in your opinion shifted permanently, historically, so that today there is LESS fear of posting with one’s name?

    (In years past, anonymous posting with anonymous monikers were way more the norm, than today, and this is in my opinion due to just a huge flood of courageous intelligent ex official Scientologists just speaking out and facing the fear of consequences.)

    (I presume the answer is overwhelmingly yes, but I just wanted to semi officiallly ask, and on this blog, where many dozens of people post with their names or sign their names toay, which is a huge up statistic all it’s own, in a way, of change for the better as regards the subject of Scientology.)

    I think your postings periodically Marty, asking people and letting people “go public” is still a healthy think to validate those people for doing!

    Thanks for your several years of being so public Marty!

    On the course, maybe just a listing, a nice simple syllabus of books, ought be a sub part of your proposed Extension Course offer.

    • Chuck,
      I think you are right that making oneself known is more prevalent. I did promote that for some time for the specific purpose of making the OSA terror network ineffective (too many folks being overt leading to tipping point where Scientology inc no longer has the resources to stem the flood). The other purpose is to get those no longer lurking out from under the shadow of OSA induced fear.
      Marty

    • HI Chuck,
      “My survey question to people who’ve gone public with their names, is has the fear of consequences in your opinion shifted permanently, historically, so that today there is LESS fear of posting with one’s name?”

      My survey answer is yes.
      Having been out for over 25 years, I never had any fear. In fact, I
      found conversations with staff and former staff very interesting. Would love
      an interview David Miscavige.
      Much Metta,
      George M. White

  41. “if you really want to enslave people give them total freedom” L Ron Hubbard

  42. Micheal Hobson I want you to shine your light on this one

  43. I think there are a lot of diversions and refusals to confront the obvious going on here.

    Dianetics IS an integral part of Scientology, and it has been used as a non-stop bait & switch operation, since the 1st time Hubbard released it in 1948 as Dianetics: The Original Thesis.

    1) Hubbard was not capable of actually delivering what he promised in the book. He was not even physically set up to produce it. He sold the idea of clearing without having any real capability to delivery it, at least not widely.

    2) Further, when LRH got to work on it, he was incapable of getting the advertised results, uniformly and across the boards, not by any stretch.

    3) Hubbard was not a doctor nor a psychologist, he had not even graduated from college. He was a Sci-fi writer for haven sake! So to assert any claims of scientific methodology behind and before his 1st release of Dianetics is fraudulent and actually absurd.

    4) He compounded the felony with tall claims of medical and psychological healing. Hypnosis and Narcosynthesis experiments carried out by a Non-licensed individual and/or by a bunch of mysterious doctors?

    Let me reiterate 1-4 above: Hubbard widely sold the idea of a Science of the Mind, which WAS NOT THERE, and of results HE COULD NOT DELIVER.

    5) Dianetics was positioned as the manual for the human mind, a no-nonsense, self-help guide for the common folks. Non-religious, non-authoritarian and free from academic or any kind of dogma.

    6) Dianetics was positioned as a materialistic science of the mind. The reactive mind is clearly presented as being part of the body’s cells and enmeshed into various organic systems. Even the analytical mind was posited by Hubbard as being possible in the higher portions of the brain.

    7) All of that might have been fine with the Academia of his time, except that Hubbard had been into the O.T.O. and had his Affirmations only a few years before. Not enough TIME had passed between his Magic days and his new found medical and scientific angle.

    See the time line:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmations_(L._Ron_Hubbard)

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

    Let me translate 5-7 above: Hubbard sold a MATERIALISTIC SCIENCE of the Mind, while knowing full well that it was all about the SPIRITUAL and MAGICAL view of the Mind.

    True, shortly after in 1951, Hubbard admits his failure with Dianetics, and begins to tell the truth no only about his actual results, he also formulates more realistic discoveries of what the mind actually is, and a more truthful description of what a clear could be. Those discoveries would later be part of the theory behind NED.

    But here is the catch. Hubbard MANDATED that Book One be forever marketed, as-is, as his top come-on dissemination scheme. Really? What about The Milestone One Lectures, why not at the least, mandate they be sold and studied along with Book One?

    Even better, why not stamp Book One, as mostly WRONG DATA? I’m sorry I fucked-up, please read only this part and ignore the rest as complete crap that does not work.

    And also see this WARNING: we are a religion now, it will cost you, and we are going to own you, and you will follow exactly what we say or else. And by the way I’m SOURCE now.

    Scientologists are so confused and so used to this bait and switch, at all levels, that they can’t detect it anymore.

    • “Let me translate 5-7 above: Hubbard sold a MATERIALISTIC SCIENCE of the Mind, while knowing full well that it was all about the SPIRITUAL and MAGICAL view of the Mind.”
      True. And he was quoting/recycling the best experts, Freud and Jung.
      By doing what he did he got the most attention and book sales.
      Bait and switch is often said about his ideas. This was the original one.
      But one may consider the intention was benign.
      The idea that life is primarily spiritual and non material is a valid idea.

  44. I just realized something. History or keeping history isn’t important in Scientology, onley appereances and acceptable thruths.

  45. I hope the judge in Texas has security assigned to him from the police.

  46. Geeze Chist, no wonder David has the best and the brightest customers sec checked every six months. With the skeletons he has in his closet, he needs a fucking walk in closet. A BIG walk in closet!!!!!!!!!!!

  47. There was a lengthy discussion of “proof” earlier in this blog post which I missed, but which led me to look into the subject. Here are some things I found:

    “… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”

    Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

    “If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part.”

    Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

    “A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.”Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
    “It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.”

    Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

    “What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear ‘proof’ mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes “strongly supported by scientific means”. Even though one may hear ‘proof’ used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms ‘proof’ or ‘prove’ in this article.”

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

    So it seems to me that folks demanding “scientific proof” are standing on quicksand at best. Applying this to LRH, at best exceptions can be found to his statements, many of his statements can be falsified, which itself does not mean there is no truth at all to them. Demanding “proof” is to me little more than the fallacy of “appealing to authority”. As Einstein said, what is required is a “general validity”.

    As far as LRH “dissing” or invalidating all previous teachers and teachings: well he first credited them, then apparently reversed himself. I’m sure y’all can think of reasons why he may have taken this tack; most any “guru” I ever heard of present themselves as the “source” of whatever truth they are disseminating; as far as dissing teaching that came before didn’t the Gotama Buddha essentially do the same thing? The doctrines he developed were a repudiation and correction of virtually every earlier Hindu school of philosophy.

    And in Christianity, the New Testament is essentially in tone a reversal and repudiation of the Old Testament which replaces a philosophy of punitive control with an attitude of Love?

    I think it would behoove folks arguing about these things to open themselves to the 3rd Force, the Holy Reconciling.

    • I think it would be up to each individual to decide whether or not LRH viewpoints and tech were a worthwhile pursuit. I believe it should not be pushed on others, and that others should not be made to agree there is anything good in the tech until demonstrated, though.

      • I’d like to add that given a variety of people’s experience (people who do not fit the cultural norm), one should approach LRH tech as one would any other method of tampering with the mind, and preferably learn how various disciplines have (empirically) understood it to work.

      • LG, I believe this is pretty much how LRH viewed it too. At least in the beginning.

      • Very smart.Good for you Letting Go!

      • With respect to THE INDIVIDUAL, all it takes for the tech to be determined as being a worthwhile pursuit is for it to be demonstrated to ONESELF.

    • Fine piece of writing, I enjoyed reading it.

    • Excellent, educated contribution to the discussion, Val.

      Btw, I’ve missed your knowledgeable input. I thought maybe you had broken the blog habit for good. Anyway, glad to see you pop in once in a while at least.

      • Thanks marildi. I have almost broken the blog habit. It’s pretty much all been said, over and over again. Spending a lot of time on Facebook for variety.

        • It’s pretty interesting that you and I are both on the verge of breaking the blog habit. Or at least cutting back on it. You’re so right about it having all been said – over and over. Amazing.

    • I have an announcement to make.

      A statement was made here by Valkov that is absolutely false, and clearly shows a crashing misunderstanding in critical thinking skills. This statement needs to be exposed and corrected.

      Valkov wrote:

      Demanding “proof” is to me little more than the fallacy of “appealing to authority”.

      Demanding to see the evidence or proof which supports a claim that someone has made before you except that claim is absolutely NOT an “appeal to authority”.

      An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy where a person says that the reason something is true is because someone in authority said it was true – i.e. “4000 angels can dance on the head of a pin because the Pope says so”.

      The reason this is a logical fallacy is because an authoritative position is not evidence which supports the claim for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And so using the Pope’s statement – because he is an “authority” – as evidence which supports this claim is not logical. It is a common mistake in thinking which people often make. That’s why it has been catalogued and named as one of the common logical fallacies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

      Learning these common logical fallacies can be invaluable for anyone who has been involved in Scientology.

      For Valkov to say that asking for evidence in support of a claim, or as he puts it “demanding proof” is the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” is completely false.

      Asking for evidence which supports a claim so that you may examine that evidence, test its soundness, and see for yourself whether the claim is true is purely logical. It is something that if we all had done more of in Scientology, fewer people would have been harmed.

      Studying and practicing logic and critical thinking skills are a very important way to combat Scientology lies and abuse – for yourself and for others. Demanding to see the evidence or proof of the claims that L Ron Hubbard has made is *exactly* what everyone should do to stop the lies and abuse which has resulted from unskilled thinking.

      This has been a public announcement for the value of logic and critical thinking skills for anyone who has ever been involved in Scientology.

      Thank you for your time and attention.

      Alanzo

      • Poor timing, Al. Story of your life, eh? See Sid’s post which appears right after yours, on the difference between “evidence” and “proof”.

      • Why Al is here enturbulating this blog: After staying away quite a while, I posted a New Year’s message on Geir’s blog. Here was Al’s reply:

        “Valkov!
        I never thought I’d say this but Thank God you’ve arrived!
        There’s no one here to challenge my points or to call me a dumb-ass any more!
        Please help!
        Alanzo (:>
        PS: Happy New Year!”

        Like a forgetful dummy, I responded to this. Not only did I respond, but I took him up on his request and posted the video from the Wizard of Oz, of the Scarecrow singing “If I Only Had A Brain”, characterizing it as “Al’s song”.

        It was all downhill from there…… For those interested in learning more about the “Al and Val Show”, here’s a link to that subthread over there -

        http://isene.me/2014/01/01/why-this-blog-is-suppressive/#comment-56041

        • Hi Val.
          Got me going today.
          We are all dumb asses in some area or another. There are several instances when I stated some opinion or thought and got called out on it. I took another look and found that I was in error. There were other times when someone said something idiotic and it helped me realize how stupidities are created and propagated.
          All communication is valuable to me. Y’all keep it up.
          Mark

    • You are of course correct. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

      The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is actually EVIDENCE, not proof (I believe the “proof” thread started because someone quoted Hubbard on the subject. He also, one imagines, was confusing the two).

      Given that Hubbard claimed Scientology to be a “technology” based on scientific principles with repeatable results (KSW), then I think it’s fair to ask to see the EVIDENCE.

      Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of experimentation or observation, and is required by the scientific community in order to gain acceptance. An example of experimentation would be a clinical trial, where you can measure the difference in outcomes between the treatment and control groups.

      If the Independent Scientology movement wish to lift Scientology from the gutter into mainstream acceptance then empirical evidence is going to have to be produced. Simply saying “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it” is not going to cut the mustard, when the subject in hand is so toxic in the public consciousness.

      • Thanks Sid. I qualify what you say at the end only by pointing out that the methods of dianetics and scientology are inarguably “empirical” as regards results in a person’s experiential, “subjective”, or “inner” world. These depend on the ability of a person to observe his own internal experiential world, and are corroborated by meter readings. It is the same with meditation or other “inner” practices. For example, meditation can result, fo rthe person’s own observation, in something like “I feel calmer and more optimistic more of the the time since I started meditation.” On th e”outer” side, the person can be hooked up to encephalographs, heart monitors etc and his experience is, and has been, corroborated externally. The results are repeatable and both inwardly and outwardly observable in many cases.

        The bad press (the church or cult of) scientology has been getting will no doubt deter some people from trying it, but independent auditors report getting many new people to try auditing anyway. Just as in the beginning, word of mouth is effective, and that is all that should be expected.

        • You seem to be saying that aside from cardiac and brain activity, there are no outwardly detectable signs that someone has been “moving up the Bridge” – they have no additional capability that could be noticed or detected?

          You of course are aware that this is very different from the results claimed by Hubbard for both Dianetics and Scientology.

          I would be interested to hear from any Scientologists on whether they agree with Valkov’s perspective.

          • Sid, I don’t think Valkov meant that the type of thing he mentioned was the only way additional capability can be detected, but that it is just one of them. And it was probably smart of him to point that type out because things like improved ability to communicate are a lot more difficult to “measure” than physical universe quantities.

            • marildi you are right. Also, Sid apparently missed my central point, that there are “inner” and “outer” manifestations of some events; ie an experiencing subject may report that he feels a twinge every time he bends his finger, while an outside observe may report hearing a “pop” every time the first person bends that finger.

              Beyond that, my post was about the possibility of repeatedly inducing an experience, along with it’s externally perceivable correlates, across a field of human subjects. And that this kind of thing is also testable.

              Some people proceed to go ahead and do such things; others sit around and debate whether they can be done at all. Many of these discussions about scientology have devolved to that level, kinda like people sitting around saying “What wall? Prove there is a wall there! What’s your evidence?”

              In fact there is ample evidence of this kind of repeatability throughout the studies of psychology and hypnosis.

              • Pertinent post!

              • In other words, one can observe in either or both of 2 directions – towards the “outer” world, and towards the Inner” world. These can both be objects of observation. At the present time, the observation and study of the “outer” has been given predominance and importance for some time, especially in the West, and the inner “subjective” realms have been rather neglected. This is an imbalance. In some parts of the East, it was reversed – over there they focused on the “inner” to a large extent, for a long time. Thus the lack of material improvements until the East collided with the West. Nowadays the West has been importing some of the East’s “mental technology”.

        • Hello Val.
          After a certain release or level, would an individual be able to walk up to someone and tell them what change they have in their pocket. This would be evidence of a valuable ability that others would want and be willing to work for. This is something I have seen only temporarily in others and occasionally in myself. To me, this is evidence that 1. these abilities exist and 2. Ron was never able to fulfill his promise to develop processes which make these abilities stable. I have posted my opinion as to why this is so and am working on the problem. It may take a day or two or more.
          On another note, empirical evidence exists of DMs deeds and intentions. Scientology, as a subject, will be salvaged as this evidence is disseminated.
          Mark

    • Hi Iamvalkov

      I actually started this “discussion” but originally it was not that I was looking for “proof” but rather had anyone found the axioms of Dianetics and Scientology not to be “self-evident”. No one has so far been either able or willing to refute the self-evident nature of the axioms, on the other hand two or three people have confirmed that in their view they are self-evident.

      I had not come across the “3rd Force, the Holy reconciling” (what would we do without Google!) now I know what it is I am definitely into it! To reconcile Religion and Science is my raisen de’tre although I prefer to express it as LOVE and UNDERSTANDING.

      I am currently reading “The Mystery Experience” by Tim Freke which I was first made aware of by Conan on the ‘What Jesus Means’ post. http://www.themysteryexperience.com/mystery-experience/ It is a must read for every Scientologist who is struggling with a Love/Hate relationship with the Church.

      I looked up that site “Scientific proof, scientific evidence and the scientific method” and found the answer to “what is the scientific method” most interesting. As per the article it is

      1. Make observations
      2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations
      3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis
      4. Search for confirmation of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step 2.

      It seems to me this is exactly what Dianetics and Scientology does if properly applied. Take for instance Axiom No.12 “The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled”. I love this axiom, and it goes further than conventional physics goes, which only says “two objects may not occupy the same space at the same time, but adding what happens when they do, in my book is pure genius. Anyone who has ever been involved in a car crash can verify the truth of this axiom.

      Equally it has been long known that “a trouble shared is a trouble halved”. It just goes that little bit further to say a trouble duplicated is a trouble as-ised. To me this can be verified by “the scientific method” as above.

      The reason I introduced the subject of the axioms is, it is my firm conviction that to be free of the oppressive element in “the tech” it is not a matter of “Moving On Up a Little Higher” but going all the way, and realising that NOTHING IS WRONG WITH SCIENTOLOGY. That’s right, nothing, but ‘nothing’ needs to be written NO-THING. Please read A Buddhist Tale at

      http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm

      • Hi Pip, thanks for your comment. I’m actually not sure how I feel about the “self-evidence” of the Axioms, however many people don’t understand that an “axiom” is a statement that is accepted without any proof at all.

        The one about “2 things(objects) may not occupy the same space at the same time” – well, LRH qualifies this by saying essentially “2 IDENTICAL things may not”, does he not? But in traditional physics, I believe it is stated that even dissimilar objects can not occupy the same space at the same time, no? At least in the science-fiction stories I have read, this was sometimes a plot factor, because if it happened there would be a massive conversion of matter to energy, ie a GIANT explosion! The matter involved would be annihilated, the way I got it….. I suppose that could be considered an “as-isness” occurring, but I woudn’t want it to happen to me!

        • “LRH qualifies this by saying essentially “2 IDENTICAL things may not”, does he not?”

          Here you go, Val, a couple of applicable Axioms. Note that in the first one, it says “ANY” universe.

          AXIOM 12. THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO
          SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME
          SPACE. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT
          DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART
          THERE-OF IS NULLED.

          AXIOM 20. BRINGING THE STATIC TO CREATE A PERFECT DUPLICATE CAUSES THE VANISHMENT OF ANY EXISTENCE OR PART THEREOF.
          A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space,
          in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy. This violates the
          condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes a
          vanishment of the object.

          • AXIOMS, 1 . the Axioms are agreed-upon considerations. They are the central considerations which have been agreed upon. They are considerations. A self-evident truth is the dictionary definition of an axiom. No definition could be further from the truth. In the first place, a truth cannot be self-evident because it is a static. So, therefore, there is no self-evidency in any truth. There is not a self-evident truth, never has been, never will be. However, there are self-evident agreements and that is what an axiom is. (5501C21) 2 . statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences. (DMSMH, p. 6)

            • Hi Marildi

              I do take your point. However we talk of “a self-evident truth” that is one of many. I suppose they are really TRUTHS; there is a vast difference between A TRUTH and THE TRUTH. The scripture says “know the truth and the truth will set you free”.

              To know a relative truth will set you relatively free. To know the truth (ABSOLUTE) will set you absolutely free.

              Love
              Pip

              • Hi Pip,

                Right you are. I think that definition of Axioms, which was actually a tape excerpt, was meant in a certain frame of reference and should be interpreted in that context.

                Love back :)
                marildi

          • Thanks marildi, but my point was/is that 2 dissimilar objects, say, a brick and piece of wood, cannot occupy the same space at the same time, although neither one is a “perfect duplicate” of the other……

            • Got it, Val. But I don’t read it that way. The Axiom quoted states that “two spaces, energies, or objects must not occupy the same space” – and I don’t see that dissimilar objects are excluded in that. (Do you:?) However, it does go on to say that WHEN the two objects (or energies, etc.) ARE identical – meaning there is a perfect duplicate – then the apparancy is nulled. That would be the case in auditing when charge (energy) is as-ised.

        • Hi Val.
          I had a little bit of trouble with the Axioms from the start. Couldn’t put my finger on it at first, but it started to be come clear a few years ago. All the ‘rules’ of how things are, how things work, what happens when etc.etc. were invented, thought up by someone and everyone else said “Sounds good, we’ll go along with that.” That’s not to say they aren’t important and can be ignored.
          If you are locked in a cage with only a hairpin, it would be very important to know exactly how locks are made and how they work. Someone designed that lock and built that cage. It would be quite possible to build a cage differently and even design a better style of lock, but you need to know how this one is put together. Once you are out of the cage you might say “Cages don’t bother me a bit, they are easy to get in and out of. Actually it’s kinda fun.”
          Ron mentioned, but didn’t fully explain and didn’t put the proper grade weight on the fact that the rules of universes are absolutely necessary to know and understand, but are not truly basic and can be subject to change.
          As I have said before, “In order to escape the foibles of this universe, one must master it fully.” One will become the bad effect of that which he is not fully hatted in.
          You may know this already. Just wanted to clarify my thoughts.
          Mark

      • I actually started this “discussion” but originally it was not that I was looking for “proof” but rather had anyone found the axioms of Dianetics and Scientology not to be “self-evident”. No one has so far been either able or willing to refute the self-evident nature of the axioms, on the other hand two or three people have confirmed that in their view they are self-evident . . .

        There is nothing “self evident” about L Ron Hubbard’s Axioms. I am quite happy to demonstrate this to you.

        Lets start with Axiom One. Perhaps you can tell me how anything can be considered, postulated upon and have an opinion formed of it in the absence of both anything to consider, posutlate and opine about and the time in which to do the considering, postulating and opining? Axiom Three fails the “self evident” criteria on the basis that it treats “energy” as a substance when any High School pyhsics student will tell you “energy” is actually a “property” like, say, “height”. For example, it is perfectly okay to say “something is made of steel” whereas it is invalid to say “something is made of height”, My favourite Axiom is “Space is a viewpoint of dimension”. This is an utter logic FAIL. First off, it fails on the grounds that it provides insufficient subordinate clauses to define the term. Next, how can “space” be a “viewpoint” of anything and how is that “self evident”?

        The crazy in those first four Axioms is just delicious because it completely undermines the entire concept of Scientology as having even the slightest basis for any sort of philosophy, never mind any scientific validity. Accordingly, the only “self evident” aspect of the Axioms is that some very heavy thought control has been applied to anyone who finds them to be “self evident”. It wasn’t for no reason that L. Ron Hubbard mandated that such “control = income” because, if you can get someone to agree on the Axioms, that person has been successfully sent hurtling down the runway which leads directly to the person telepathically duplicating Xenu to Body Thetans – provided, of course, sufficient funds are available to ensure the person’s arrival at that destination.

        • Crepescule:
          Good name. “The coming darkness.”
          When I first read the Axioms back in the 60s, I recognized them as entirely sensible as they apply to the large common universes. Time gave me a bit of a problem as it didn’t seem like a primary definition. Time was begun before there was anyone to agree with. It was simply the intention to continue existing. The ‘rate of change’ came later for the purpose of physical existence.

          The axioms are necessary to understanding your relationship with universes but it must be kept in mind that they are secondary considerations.
          Mark

          • Mark, you wrote: “Time was begun before there was anyone to agree with. It was simply the intention to continue existing.”

            Is that saying something different from Axiom 7?

            AXIOM 7. TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST.

            • To continue as self, Theta, is primary to particles and space. Each thought, consideration, postulate, idea adding to and sometimes piling on top of another constitutes continuance. It is prior to the physical universe. The laws, axioms, rules of the universe need to be learned in order to have a choice over them but they should be put in their proper place and perspective.

          • Good name. “The coming darkness.”

            Heh! I’ve always wondered if it wasn’t LRH’s little joke to precede so much of his scripture with that. It was always his ruse to warn people about the very thing he was subjecting him too. I mean, who would ever suspect the person who tells you “the only way to control people is to lie to them” is immediately about to commence lying to you? I imagine he must have had a few chuckles knowing that the more times people read his stipulation on understanding the meaning of words the further they moved into his twighlight world of made up words.

            When I first read the Axioms back in the 60s, I recognized them as entirely sensible as they apply to the large common universes. Time gave me a bit of a problem as it didn’t seem like a primary definition. Time was begun before there was anyone to agree with. It was simply the intention to continue existing. The ‘rate of change’ came later for the purpose of physical existence.

            Ummm . . . there no known universe in which energy is a substance so I’m not too sure how entirely sensible your sense of recognition was. And, yeah, the “time” issue is insoluble for Axiom One, thus requiring dub-in. Some Scientologists confuse dub-in with “conceptual understanding” which sort of confirms the solipsistic maze required for “graduation” in the subject. Your work-around to the “time” conundrum is novel and seems to rely on the unexamined belief that “reality is agreement”. Trouble is, that belief is a bit like that “what’s true for you” rabbit hole in that both “as-is” when examined with critical thinking.

            The axioms are necessary to understanding your relationship with universes but it must be kept in mind that they are secondary considerations

            Sorry, you lost me here. I was seeking to help Pip Threlfall by discussing an alternative view of the Axioms and their relationship to Scientology rather than going all cosmic on the issue. You have piqued my interest, though. If the Axioms are a secondary consideration, what is the primary consideration when considering your relationship with universes? I guess it comes down to what your definition of “universe” is. If a universe is “a whole system of created things” then my Christmas stocking could have been a universe which seems a bit silly, really. I’m going to assume you were referring to “universe” as meaning the “cosmos”. In which case, have you seen any evidence that there is more than one? That would be incredible.

            • Crepuscule:
              I have been directing most of my work recently to examining my very early whole track experiences. This area holds most of the basic opinions, ideas, considerations if you will, that has directed my life since. I then go up the track and find related incidents that confirmed or conflicted with those earlier fixed opinions. Using the attitude described in the Tao, and the technique of Mindfulness as laid out on Vinaires blog, I allow inconsistencies to unstack without filters or effort, although in a methodical manner.
              The ability to look in present time without fixed opinions, so called filters, forgotten reactive conclusions, is something I discovered while doing TR-0, oddly enough. Being methodical at the same time is something I have developed. I have become aware of some interesting abilities.
              Of course if you don’t agree or ‘believe’ in pre human whole track, then this is just an interesting story, Enjoy. I have written several papers on my experiences. Drop me a note if you would like to see a couple.
              MarkNR@hushmail.com
              Mark

        • Nothing “twlight” about Crepuscule’s analysis of the first four axioms here!

          Sun Blazing Fully, I say.

          Often for a Scientologist, the term “self-evident” meant “must not be questioned” when it came to the Axioms. If it was not self-evident for you, then your reactive mind, or case, was getting in your way and you must clear your bank before the axioms would be self-evident to you. The hint was always that if it was not self-evident to you, then you were an aberrated, low-toned person who could possibly be an SP if you kept questioning the Axioms!

          This is protection and enforcement of the ideology, and it is found in any ideological group such as christianity, communism, nazism or Scientology.

          The Axioms of any subject should ALWAYS be the things that are questioned and tested the most because axioms are the premises upon which everything else is based. If you accept axioms as self evident without questioning and testing them rigorously, then you can be setting yourself up on a very rickety structure that will collapse on you – as Scientology is now collapsing for so many people.

          Learning logic and critical thinking skills is the answer to setting things up on solid ground so that your life is less likely to collapse. “Losing Your Religion” is not fun, and it should be avoided by skillfully and courageously questioning and testing things fully before you accept them.

          Alanzo

        • Crepuscule, Ron also stated that the Axioms were not “self-evident’ but were actually agreements (see Tech Dict definition of Axioms, which I posted in the earlier part of this sub-thread). A regular dictionary may define an axiom as being self-evident – which is understandable since fundamental agreements do appear to be self-evident. I believe that was the idea Pip was expressing.

          Axiom 3 about energy was already discussed and another LRH quote was given indicating that the implication intended was POTENTIAL energy.

          As for “Space is a viewpoint of dimension” I think you may have misunderstood it. Would it make sense to say that “space is the consideration that there is dimension”? (If so, then you my have been using an inappropriate definition for “viewpoint” and/or “of”.) And I believe that concept is the same as what Einstein and scientists have expressed as regards the mind being inseparably connected to matter, energy, space and time.

          • Oops. I left out the word “other”. It should read: Einstein and other scientists.

          • Marildi wrote:

            And I believe that concept is the same as what Einstein and scientists have expressed as regards the mind being inseparably connected to matter, energy, space and time.

            Sorry Marildi, but I have to ask:

            Where did Einstein and other scientists say this, and what exactly did they say?

            Alanzo

            • Al, I didn’t word that very well. I should have said that Einstein and others have expressed the same BASIC concept, with respect to the physical universe being determined by the mind. Here’s a quote from an article I found:

              “One of the biggest mysteries concerning physics today is the role of the observer. The world of the mind has captured the imaginations of some of the biggest giants in the world of physics… and with good reason. We learn that the observer must play one of the most important parts in what we call reality. Hence, a physicist is compelled to say, ‘the mind is reality,’ and in this chapter, we will investigate why physics is driven into believing this statement.”

              http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19133.0

              And here’s an Einstein quote for you:

              “Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.” – Albert Einstein

              • Hi there Marildi, Alanzo.
                This is not exactly central to the conversation, but I saw Einstein and have to ring in. I have watched several docs. about him and read a few books about him and his work. It seems TO ME that his greatest ideas and the basis for his most important work were formed during his long late night discussions with his first wife while they were in college. He became an excellent mathematician and worked out the particulars later but this was the time of actual discovery and creative thought. She may not have been only the catalyst, but the actual source of the basic ideas of relativity.
                Behind every great man is a woman, leading him to greatness.
                Mark

              • Thank you very much for these, Marildi.

                I will look them over and discern whether they actually apply within the context of our discussion, and the claims you made. And if so, very well done to you for referencing them.

                As always, you have delivered an admirable and intellectually honest response, and have demonstrated yourself as an attractive and formidable force in presenting the benefits of Independent Scientology.

                Again, sweetheart, well done to you.

                Alanzo

          • . . . As for “Space is a viewpoint of dimension” I think you may have misunderstood it. Would it make sense to say that “space is the consideration that there is dimension”? (If so, then you my have been using an inappropriate definition for “viewpoint” and/or “of”.) And I believe that concept is the same as what Einstein and scientists have expressed as regards the mind being inseparably connected to matter, energy, space and time . . .

            Even with your emended wording, the Axiom concerned still makes no sense in that it carries within it the implicit assumption that a “consideration” is able to create “dimension”, an assumption which defies reality. Just because something is considered does not mean that it comes into existence. The Easter Bunny and DC8-shaped UFOs are two good examples of that. I can see easily how using LRH’s definitions deliver a veneer of coherence to the subject and that’s probably why Captain David “Blackheart” Miscavige has done away with wog dictionaries. However, re-defining words using non-standard meanings amounts to a logic fallacy, informally known as “shifting sands”. That same fallacy apples also to your emendment in relation to “energy”. I prefer not to abandon logic as it remains my most loyal “stable data” but let’s assume (for a second or two) that your version is valid. That would make it an Axiom of marildiology and not an Axiom of Scientology which, of course, is a repeat of the earlier mentioned fallacy as it relates to this particular discussion.

            Also, it must be remembered what was going on with LRH around about the time he wrote the Axioms. He was deperately trying to derive respectability for the subject by linking it variously to science, philosophy, and religion. He was a skilled wordsmith and knew exactly what the word “axiom” meant when he used it. Now, all these years later, I wonder if he might not have been wiser to have called them “Articles of Faith”. Instead, he had to resort to reframing the term in his own dictionary so that it proved more suitable to the poor sod stuck in the course room in one of those infinite M9 loops.

            While I’m not very impressed with the Scientology default “you are wrong” tactic by suggesting I have gone past an MU, I do thank you for engaging in the high crime of verbal tech. Ten internets and two copper rods to you, sir/madam.

            • One of the definitions of “axiom” is exactly “an article of faith”, a proposition accepted without proof.

              There are other illogicalities in your post, too.

            • Crepescule, with regard to “reality” please see my reply to Alanzo above.

              As for MU’s, it may be true that people have used the notion to make others wrong, but this is beside the point that one can get a wrong idea by not understanding how a word is used.

              And you may call me Ms. marildi. :)

              • p.s. I forgot to mention that I don’t necessarily agree with everything Ron came up with. The verbal tech issue is one example. I think that what can be gained through discussion is worth risking the possibility of passing on false data. And false data can always be stripped off.

        • Hi Crepuscule

          “There is nothing ‘self-evident’ about L Ron Hubbard’s Axioms” that surely has to be your opinion!

          Axiom 1 is LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC; it says nothing about “considerations, postulates, opinions, so I really don’t know what you are talking about.

          My own take on Axiom No1 is LIVING IS WHAT LIFE DOES; all living is involved with MOTION hence that which lies behind LIVING must also lie behind MOTION. Hence LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

          Axiom 3 has nothing to say about energy being a substance, physics freely admits it doesn’t have a clue what energy is, if you know better please tell! Axiom No5 tells us exactly what energy is “postulated particles in space”. Quantum physics has almost come to the same conclusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

          Well at least we can agree with Axiom No4, that it is our “favourite” but it seems for different reasons. I use Axiom 4 every time I park my car. I am always looking for two dimension points that have sufficient “space” between them in which to put my vehicle. Without the dimension point of the car in front and the car behind there would not be “the space” to park my car.

          A Self-evident observation is that if the Axioms were not self-evident no one would ever join The Church and if they ever left it would be because they hadn’t understood the Axioms in the first place. There is only one valid way out of the CofS and that is to be thrown out. But if one has really understood the Axioms they would continue to endeavour to be reinstated, but not at the expense of violating the Axioms. Scientology works, period!

  48. Hi Marildi

    Something I miss a lot is not belonging to a group that I truly can identify with, like back in the old days at St Hill when we had this common goal of “help Ron clear the planet”. Well believe it or not I still believe it is possible, but maybe more like “go ye into all the world and preach my gospel”.

    With this in mind I would like you to read this little Buddhist tale and let me know what you think. http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm

    Love
    Pip

    • Hi Pip! Thanks for posting the link to that wonderful tale. My sense is that it expresses the bottom line on this whole subject of truth. :)

      Btw, it just so happens that a while back a Buddhist friend of mine recommended that buddhanet.net website to me, and I had intended to check it out but forgot about it. So thanks for reminding me!

      Love,
      marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        I am so glad you like that little Buddhist story. I came across it one day while meditating on NO-THING, and typed nothing into Google. This is of course THETA – PURE UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, the essence of PERSONHOOD that precedes BEING.

        If only LRH had started the factors with “Before the beginning was PERSONHOOD and the entire purpose of personhood was the creation of effect. In the beginning and for ever is the decision and the decision is TO BE”. This way it makes it quite clear that THETA PRECEDES THETANS and LOVE precedes UNDERSTANDING = ARC.

        • Hi Pip. Like other philosophers, LRH had the great challenge of trying to express basic truths with words that would be understandable.

          As for using the word “Personhood” (rather than “Cause”) I would be interested in which definition you had in mind. Thanks. :)

    • You want to help Ron the Satanist to clear the planet being a Christian ?

      • “Flow power to Source” doesn’t mean towards God

        • Hi Cat daddy

          I am not sure what you mean by “flow power to Source” is that the same as “support your power source”?

          You cannot “flow power to God” for God is all sufficient and in need of nothing. You can however receive power from God, it’s called “being filled by the Holy Spirit”

      • Hi Cat daddy

        I am not a Christian, I am a “follower of the way” and that way is the way of LOVE. Whether Ron Hubbard was a Satanist or not is not for me to judge. I learnt a great deal through studying Dianetics and Scientology. In fact if it had not been for Scientology I would probably have got stuck in Christianity, but then if it hadn’t been for Scientology I would not have got involved with Christianity in the first place. I wouldn’t have done that if I hadn’t been expelled from the CofS which is when my world fell apart and I heard a voice that said “You’ve sold your soul to the devil” and when I surrendered the voice said “Jesus Christ is your saviour”.

        So yes I had sold my soul to the devil and yes Jesus Christ is my saviour, but that makes me neither a Scientologist nor a Christian. Jesus Christ is the way of LOVE and Scientology is about UNDERSTANDING so I now use understanding to encourage people I meet to follow the way of love, and a central part of that is RECONCILIATION, firstly between MAN and his MAKER and then between man and his neighbour and if that neighbour happens to be L. Ron Hubbard or David Miscavige it makes no difference.

        Love and A.R.C.
        Pip

        • Thank you for your answer, Dianetics is to much underbelly for me, primal fears and not much love.

          With regards Niels

          • Cat Daddy, you have reminded my of one of my favorite LRH lines, which happens to be from DMSMH. It’s the last line in this paragraph:

            “It is usually discovered that when both partners in a reactive mind marriage are cleared of aberration, life becomes considerably more than tolerable; for human beings often have a natural liking even when no sexual selection has been present. The restoration of a marriage by clearing the partners may not bring about one of the great loves that poets strummed about but it will at least bring a high level of respect and cooperation toward the common goal of making life worthwhile. And in many marriages so cleared it was discovered that the partners, beneath the dirty cloth of aberration, loved each other well.”

            Is that a beautiful line about love? “…beneath the dirty cloth of aberration, [they] loved each other well.”

            • Miraldi,

              Thanks for posing the quote on clearing, deaberrating marriages.

              I did not hear that one before.

              It is a very good one.

              But it only half of the equation.

              It is not as simple as Hubbard makes it out to be.

              There is missing data in his comm.

              The couple still need to be educated with getting along skills.
              And the like.

              Similar to the training side of the bridge.

              There is a whole body of data on that does not exist in scn on that subject.

              The prudent, diligent and competent student (couple)has to search that out and learn it on his and her own.

              And it only works if the couple are operating on the same operating data.

              That they go to the same school.
              Read the same books.

              And even best to do it together.

              Then they can sing from the same hymn book and from the same page and on the same line, in perfect harmony.

              The bible is the best place to start and that is only the beginning.

              Then they could quite easily “bring about one of the great loves that poets strummed about”.

              Dio

              • Nice post, Dio.

                I don’t think LRH claimed that he had a monopoly on all knowledge in all subjects of life. And even though he did claim to have discovered the basic principles, he still said there was no monopoly on truth.

                At least in the early years, LRH in fact encouraged searching for knowledge wherever it was to be found. In the 60′s he gave the study lectures about how to study any subject. And in the Reality column of the Chart of Human Evaluation (1951), at the highest level of 4.0, he wrote:

                “Searches for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality.”

                • Miraldi,

                  Thanks for your ack.

                  Hubbard certainly did not say that he had a monopoly on knowledge.

                  And yes you right about the chart of human eval.

                  But my point was that in the quote you posted it implies the idea that if couples are cleared that they can have good relationships.

                  That is only true to a point.

                  He should of mentioned that they need relationship training (education) and getting along skills training (education) before they can have a powerful team relationship. That would of only taken a couple of sentences extra.

                  Two ordinary people can do do about 2 or 3 x amount of work (creation).

                  A well matched, well hatted, and well trained, (well educated on the subject of getting along and working like a team, etc.) couple can do about 10x amount of work (creation) or even more, even exponential in some good cases.

                  Dio

              • Love and romantic relationships have many, many factors both physical and spiritual. In addition to being a 3rd Dyn. activity (a group of 2), it is also an 8th Dyn. endeavor (a group of 1) and a 1st Dyn. activity, pleasure for self.

                It would be foolish of me to say I have it all worked out, but I have isolated one of the primary factors. It is not dry and clinical, but rich and wonderful.

                An essay is forthcoming.

                Mark

                • Mark,

                  I ack your effort on the essay.

                  The best thing to do to keep updated on my solo clearing work is to join the TROM discussion group list:

                  http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom

                  Nothing much yet.

                  But as soon as I can get what I have written up, I will post it.

                  But reading the TROM book is necessary for best understanding:

                  It’s all here:

                  http://tromhelp.com/

                  Dio

                • Mark: “An essay is forthcoming.”

                  Bring it on!

                  • Well, here it is,, LOVE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS. THE 2ND DYNAMIC. Again, let me interject this disclaimer. “It would be foolish of me to say that I have it all figured out.”

                    There are a thousand factors which apply to and affect this area. Blanketing, partnership, control, reproduction, reactive urges ad infinitum. But the single underlying basis for all of it is oneness with Theta, life, completeness, an effort toward native state.

                    “We are as a shattered glass, striving to be again complete, wanting for the bliss of perfection.”

                    From a previous essay:
                    ARC: Comm. is particle flow over a distance. Perfect comm. would be perfect duplication over zero distance. Reality is agreement, looking and seeing from the same viewpoint. Zero distance. Affinity is a desired distance. Perfect affinity is, again, zero distance. Perfect ARC is occupying the same space, oneness, being the same individual, being one individual.

                    But here we are, now, a bunch of individuals, separate yet interacting. Once in a blue moon we meet someone who we can be less than completely separated from. As ARC grows and distance decreases, the desire to experience that near oneness with all is directed toward that individual. That desire to be complete again, even for a moment is very basic to us all, to life. Expanding one’s self, being more than a single body is an ability and experience long suppressed and nearly forgotten. You learned, after much practice and effort, how to put up imagined, pretended barriers within yourself in order to have interaction, randomity. To be able to not know something. Those barriers, after time, became individuals. They were once you. They still are you, but you forgot how to be yourself as a whole. The barriers you once invented are now solid walls.

                    Every now and then we see a chance to cross a wall and experience the love which is life complete. To be what you once were which is love itself.

                    Many things have been said about love and there is much more to be said about it. But it all descends from separation and oneness of beingness. The bliss of approaching wholeness again.

                    I have an exercise which can help bring much spiritual joy and clarity. I will write it up.

                    Love, ARC, Mark

                    • Mark, thanks so much! I look forward to your exercise write-up too.

                      I noticed that you wrote “NEAR oneness.” Tell me if that would go along with what LRH had to say in this excerpt from *Creation of Human Ability*:

                      “This was the process which told me that we are not natively sprung from one ‘common body of theta’. If you run Separateness, accentuating the difference in unity of a thetan from other thetans and things and spaces, he continues to gain in tone. If you run this process in reverse, how he is the same as, or is connected to various items, he continues to dwindle in tone. By handling this latter process one can press a thetan down into the rock-bottom state of aberration. We have long known that DIFFERENTIATION was the keynote of sanity, and that IDENTIFICATION was the basis of aberration. This fact is utilized in processing by running separateness.

                      “It can be concluded that the thetan is an individual separate from every other thetan and that he has never been part of any other thetan. There are many ‘phony’ incidents implanted on the track whereby an individual is made to feel that he is a result of explosion having occurred to a larger body. He is also made to feel that he was at one time ‘whole’ and is now only a splinter of himself. This is only an effort to reduce him. He has always been himself, he will always be himself, down to a time when he is entirely identified with this universe, at which time he would no longer be himself simply because he would no longer be conscious.

                      “It seems that the ‘only’ [‘only one’] aberration can occur by ENFORCING Basic Truth [= a Static, per Axiom 35]. Here we discover that the individual, being separate, is then FORCED to be separate, and so develops a complex of the ‘only one’ and tries to fend off the rest of the universe from himself and finally merges with it with his impossibility of fending it off. All you have to do is accentuate truth and force it home as another determinism in order to create an aberration. There is some basic truth, then, in whatever is wrong with a thetan, and of course the basic wrongness is that he is not a static.” (CoHA)

                    • Hello Marildi:
                      So good to have an opportunity to speak with you about such an interesting part of life. Through your insight, it leads us to one of the most basic and vital subjects.
                      Individuality, separation, and oneness. Theta, Thetans, and origins.

                      Ron said by your quote: ” If you run Separateness, accentuating the difference in unity of a thetan from other thetans and things and spaces, he continues to gain in tone.” and “We have long known that DIFFERENTIATION was the keynote of sanity, and that IDENTIFICATION was the basis of aberration. This fact is utilized in processing by running separateness.”

                      This is an excellent example of the brilliance of Hubbards research into rehabilitating and freeing a person. And we have perhaps the greatest error he ever made, affecting millions. He was absolutely right about individuality, which completely masked the other half of the truth to him.

                      We are individuals, absolute and resolute in our own purpose. We are self owned and complete unto ourselves. A unit with our own past and path. We are also Theta, total and unbroken. Let me rephrase that. YOU are Theta, life, consciousness of all. And you and you and you. You are one assumed viewpoint of Theta. Life, theta, can be looked upon as a single unit for this conversation. You have also become one individual, as complete and self contained as Theta itself. As I said before, life is infinity. Half of infinity is still infinite and infinity itself. With infinity, every piece of the whole is equal to the whole and is the whole in full.

                      This is a concept which is difficult to grasp, yet is known inherently by all. Knowledge we have been withdrawing from for a very long time. Even to the point of implanting others (and ourselves) to hide the fact. Ron’s error was finding that processing toward oneness and unity, it suppressed individuality. But in discovering the nature of individuality ALONE, the true nature of love and affinity was lost. His path was from that point sealed.

                      I said “We are all as a shattered glass…” Try this. Take a ream of paper sheets. Now glue them all together. We are one solid bundle, inseparable. We are also individual sheets, each one itself. We are each the whole bundle and each one sheet. We are both, simultaneously.

                      This concept never fully clicked with Ron, in fact he had thoughts and evidence to the contrary which became a fixed opinion. This is evident in that he was plagued by BTs till the end, thoroughly blocking his ability to see his, and our past with clarity. Once this knowledge is gained fully, stuck and unwanted communication lines disappear as a problem. He figured out a technique to get the OT-3/7 problem off your back for many, but he never finished the complete problem, and so was never able to achieve the abilities that were glimpsed in the 50s.

                      We have the luxury of decades of experience and hindsight. Let’s use it. Love, it turns out, really is the answer. Now let’s ask the right questions.

                      ARC, Mark

                    • Mark,
                      You: but he never finished the complete problem, and so was never able to achieve the abilities that were glimpsed in the 50s.

                      Me: As usual, your posts are always sensible, intelligent, objective, and (as much as possible within your means and efforts to find it) partial to only what is the highest truth possible.

                      It is important to always see issues from inside the forest and outside the forest. And from all sides of the forest.

                      You state the most important point in the statement that I quoted above.
                      In other words, Ron’s goal of making a homo novus.
                      It was actually a effort of research into the subject and the goal of making a homo novus.
                      Ron was a complex person. He was exceptionally intelligent and able.

                      He was at the same time extremely aberrated and insane and evil.

                      I can see the big picture that necessity is the mother of invention or that such extreme aberration and well above average intelligence is the motivating factor for such research into such goals.

                      In other words it takes one to know one. In order to figure out how to over come aberration it requires being aberrated.

                      His efforts often became derailed, by his own aberration, and necessity to experience the evils he did in order to find solutions to the problems.

                      His efforts also became derailed by the aberration and low theta mass) of his group. He became effect of the group entheta.

                      The intelligent thing we can do now is see and understand the big picture and glean his work for as much as possible to learn as much as possible to build a better bridge.

                      Dennis Stevens took the reins or line of research further and developed TROM.

                      And similar to Ron’s work, Dennis’ TROM is still full of aberrations and his case, and needs to be gleaned and improved, by competent individuals to be workable.

                      The biggest room in the world is room for improvement.

                      Knowledge is not static.

                      What was true yesterday, is not necessarily true today.

                      Dio

                    • Hi Dio;
                      You remind me that sometimes I need someone to bring me back to earth when my head gets stuck in the clouds. Not sarcasm. I have thought and even written along the line of your comment. Sometimes I need to be reminded of long sought knowledge, already found.

                      An example. Most Scn. case work involves ‘tricks’ developed to take charge, stress, mass off of a person to bring him to a point where he can eventually view the actual source of the errors. To regain the most basic willingness to change ones mind.

                      But these ‘tricks’ have proven absolutely necessary to unburden an individual to the point where he can begin viewing the more basic truths.

                      To put your message into my own words: One must fully understand the trees in order to find his way out of the forest. And yes, in order to rid someone of the obsession to be human, you must first assist him in being a better human. A gradient.

                      That is half the equation.

                      The other half is having some idea of the basic truths. If one is walking out of the forest and sees a road to Jerusalem, and another to Sodom, which path do we follow? Being on the right path AND taking the right steps, avoiding potholes along the way. Both factors are necessary to a successful journey.

                      Many have discovered some truth. Several have developed helpful methods. Few have put them together in a workable system.

                      Thank you for reminding me.
                      Mark

                    • Again Mark,

                      Very high theta posts.

                      :))

                      Drop by for coffee this afternoon.

                      Dio

                    • Dio: “Drop by for coffee this afternoon.”

                      Might be a bit of a drive. I’m here in the heart of dixie. What part of the country you stayin’ at?
                      Mark

                    • Mark,

                      Roughly about two hours north of Niagara Falls and Buffalo, and about an hour south of Toronto.

                      Four hrs north of Detroit.

                      See you soon. :D

                      Dio

                    • Oh, Dio, also:
                      I have to agree on many points concerning Ron and furthering spiritual knowledge and methods of enlightenment.

                      He was brilliant, yet flawed, as are all of us.

                      His body of work, along with his staffs, is immense and detailed. I was fortunate enough to see this one important point.

                      His work showed that processing toward individuality brought one upward. Processing toward oneness, identity, brought one downward. I believe the error was individuality AS OPPOSED TO connectedness. It is true that as engines of creation, what we most have in common is case, bank, our reactive past track. Our differences define us. But our connection is where lies love, compassion, empathy Recovering this area of knowledge cannot be accomplished by reducing individuality. It must be revealed, not ground out. One is not half himself and half theta, he is 100% theta, and completely an individual. There is no dividing line or part this and part that.

                      I believe on this one point, he took a wrong turn, but it was a decisive turn that defined his direction thereafter. From overwhelming evidence, his particular aberration left him predisposed to this particular change in direction.

                      This does not discount most of his other work. Without his and others work, I could not do mine. It was his and others successes that are leading me to his errors. The luxury of hindsight. The work continues.

                      ARC, Mark

                    • Very well said, Mark!

                      Dio

                    • And also.
                      From a quote on this site earlier:
                      “To overcome your enemy, make him your friend.” In Christian terms: “Love thy enemy.”
                      This ties in directly with my previous comments.
                      THIS IS KEY TO A FINAL RESOLUTION TO THE OT-3, OT-7, BT PROBLEM, WHETHER REAL OR IMAGINED.
                      To get rid of other influences by separating from them is to lock them in. These comm. lines are held in place by separation.
                      Mark

                    • Mark, you really answered my question! This area has had my interest for a while because so many of the sages throughout history, as well as various people I know personally, including you, have expressed this viewpoint of Oneness. And that conflicted with what LRH concluded from his research, which seemed valid. But you seem to have resolved the conflict. You wrote:

                      “We are individuals, absolute and resolute in our own purpose. We are self-owned and complete unto ourselves. A unit with our own past and path. We are also Theta, total and unbroken…This is a concept which is difficult to grasp, yet is known inherently by all.”

                      In my better moments, I have had an intuitive sense of what you wrote in the above, and in my own words commented that it seemed to me both the individual and the Oneness were true. As you put it, “both, simultaneously.”

                      Here’s the highlight of your post, IMO: “Once this knowledge is gained fully, stuck and unwanted communication lines disappear as a problem.”

                      That sounds like the basis of a new tech, bypassing the tech on disembodied spirits, and perhaps other tech too. Have you come up with any ideas yet of how this particular “knowledge is gained fully”? Or is it a “byproduct” or result of any truly workable tech?

                    • p.s. Your wording of “NEAR Oneness” also seems to align with the following definition of Affinity from the Tech Dict: “in its truest definition which is coincidence of location and beingness, that is the ultimate in affinity. (9ACC-10, 5412CM20)”

                      Your write-up also made me think of Tom Campbell’s and others’ experience with what they jocularly refer to as “out-of-body sex” – their metaphor for an intimate sharing of one’s energies with another and you become One, but only “for a while.” Tom talks about it in this short video:

            • Yes that last is beautiful in itself.

              What Scientologist mostly forget that the reactive mind is not the unconscious mind.

              It may a small part of it.

              Alsoo not every dispute comes forth out of “abberations” or evenn “service Facsimili’s” and not every Service Facsimili is bad some help, even some abberation in a population keeps life intresting, You have a Game than to play.

              In my opinion you can curve the unconscious mind to help you in life YOU CAN NOT GET RID OF YOUR UNCONSCIUS MIND

              Without you couldn’t even fuction

              • Cat Daddy: “What Scientologist mostly forget that the reactive mind is not the unconscious mind.”

                Well, they shouldn’t forget it, since that is exactly what is stated in Scn. There are parts of the mind that run the body, for example, which LRH calls the somatic mind.

                The Game idea is also expressed in Scn. You are so smart, CD. ;)

                • Well between the. Somatic mind and the Concious mind there is a 3th part of the mind that is mostley hidden from Scientologists. It is the part of the mind that holds autamatisms and routines. Let’s call it the Routine mind in keeping with Scientology Idiom.When you write or say Scientology Acronyms full out they give you hints.

                  Training Routines: Like TR car, the learning of driving a car, firs it is in your conscious mind and it slowley becomes a routine.

                  “The thetan builds a machime hides it away and forgets about it”

                  It hides it in the Routine mind. This part of the mind is the tool of hypnotists and hides alsso what scientologists call the reactive mind. Unhelpfull automatisms or automatic “hidden away reactions”

                  But it can alsoo consciously be worked with to be furnished with helpfull routines and automatisms like the learning of Kung Fu

                  CD

                  CD

                  • Hi, CD. What makes you think the part of the mind that holds automaticities (or automatisms) and routines is “hidden from Scientologists”? That goes back to 1950, DMSMH.

                    “A training pattern is that stimulus-response mechanism resolved by the analytical mind to care for routine activity or emergency activity. It is held in the somatic mind and can be changed at will by the analytical mind.”

                    MACHINE, 1. an actual machine in the mind, (like ordinary machinery) constructed out of mental mass and energy, that has been made by the individual to do work for him, usually having been set up so as to come into operation automatically under certain predetermined circumstances. (Scn Abridged Dictionary)

                    • I would not place them in the “Somatic mind” If the somatic mind alsoo contains basic functions as breathing, fear fight and flight, hunger, and such.

                      If the Somatic mind in Scientology does contain automatisms than what of the basic functions I mentioned. Alsoo you can not change all of your automatic behaviour at will, that is a myth and sounds way to easy.

                    • CD, I understand what you’re saying, Actually, in the somatic mind there are both voluntary and involuntary levels. The following quote is from the book *Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought*:

                      “The Somatic Mind:
                      The third portion of the mind is the somatic mind [the other two are the analytical mind and the reactive mind]. This is an even heavier type of mind than the reactive mind since it contains no thinkingness and contains only actingness. The impulses placed against the body by the thetan through various mental machinery arrive at the voluntary, involuntary and glandular levels. These have set methods of analysis for any given situation and so respond directly to commands given. Unfortunately the somatic mind is subject to each of the minds higher in scale above it and to the thetan. In other words, the thetan can independently affect the somatic mind. The analytical mind can affect the somatic mind. The reactive mind can affect the somatic mind. Thus we see that the neurons, the glandular system, the muscles and masses of the body are subject to various impulses, each one of a lower order than the next.” (FOT)

                    • Thank you for your explanation, I approach these issues mostley from Psychology, Psychiatry. You think I am smart but I just translate Scientology terms intoo “Psych”terms and Psych”terms intop Scientology terms.

                      Thetan becomes Self or Ego just to make it an easy translate.

                      Book 1 holds some intresting Psychology. I often say Hubbard was a good Psychologist.

                      My gift to you

                      Dramatization roughly translates as Behavioral Re-enactment.

                      http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk/

                    • Thanks for the gift, CD. :)

                      I’m glad that you have such an interest in the mind.

                    • Marildi, I am glad you can think outside the box too, I play with this material and I get exited when I see simularities between practices, be it Buddhism, Scientology, Psychology or even Christianity and the other religians

                      Meditation is now a real advice by Psychologists in dutch healthcare for whom it may help , as some other techniques,

                      Psychotheraphy as in “Talk Theraphy”is long gone from the Health insurance package.

                      Mindfullness has been making it’s way in mental healthcare..

                      That said Most of our Psychiatrists always have been Jungians rather than Freudians and I think that’s a good thing.

                    • CD, I feel exactly the same way. When all different seekers come to the same conclusions, I feel more confident that truth has been discovered. Ron himself said there was no monopoly on truth – at least in the early years!

              • Hi Cat, haven’t talked to you in awhile.
                As you may already know, the reactive mind, in it’s narrow sense, along with the other machinery we carry around, was built as a convenience, a tool to do work for us. Actually, in it’s earliest stages, as a kind of toy to play with, like one of these household robots that clean your carpet. A novelty. It appears to be a separate entity from oneself, along with the somatic mind and such machines, something to be gotten rid of. The actual problem was when you forgot it was really you the whole time.

                This bears saying again as it is data of magnitude. It is all you the whole time. As it became depended upon by your own decisions and by suggestion and coercion by others, it became a problem. Before that it just wasn’t a problem. It could be created and discarded any time.
                Mark

                • I had time to think. You aproach things from a far more spiritual plain. That can reap vast awards in life.

                  I think that you still feel pain when you bump your knee agains the coffee table

                  • Cat:
                    “I think that you still feel pain when you bump your knee against the coffee table”
                    Mark:
                    Yes. but not like it used to. My step mother once had to have a filling, She told the dentist to try it without the anesthetic. He said OK.. She said it kinda hurt but it wasn’t that bad. The thought of that was completely beyond my reality. Now I understand.
                    Mark

      • Ron the Satanist? See? Every set of eyes sees differently .

        The fact that there is so much disagreement is only evidence people have become more themselves. That in itself is a product.

  49. I just had to look up something in Dianetics 55 and instead came across this interesting datum.
    :
    Evidently DM did not read this book.

    Quote:

    One of the most significant differences from man to man, is the degree to which he is willing to be pan determined. The man who has to forcefully control everything in his vicinity, including his family, is not being pan determined. He is not being self determined usually, mush less pan determined. He is not being his family. If he were his family, he would understand what they are doing and he would not feel that there was any danger or menace in their going on executing the emotions or emanating the emotions which they do.

    But, anchored down as one person, rather obsessed with the damage that can be done to him, an individual is apt to launch himself upon a course of heavy, solid super control of others. Now let’s take the person who is SD and PD in the same situation, and we discover that he would have enough understanding in the vicinity of his family and others’ families, and with this understanding would be able to be and experience as the remainder of the family, and he would find out that he actually could control the family with considerable ease.

    The oddity of it is that force can control down into entheta- to enturbulation- but that PD controls upwards into greater happiness and understanding since there is more ARC present. You have seen individuals around whom a great deal of peace and quiet are obtained. Such individuals quite commonly hold into sanity and cheerfulness many others in their environment who are not basically stable or SD at all.

    The individual who is doing this is not doing it out of obsession, he is doing it simply by knowing and being. He understands what people are talking about because he is perfectly willing to be these people. When he falls away from understanding what they are talking about he has also fallen away from being willing to be them. The willingness to understand the willingness to be are, for our purposes, synonymous.

    Continued on page 105 of my 1961- 1968, reprinted in 1971 – hard cover edition.

    It would also do a world of good if everyone were to start from the beginning and carefully read every text book that LRH wrote.

    Nothing would get rudiments in better. As well as get everyone into alignment.

    It is like getting a breath of fresh air, after being in a stale dungeon.

    Dio

    • Ditto, Dio. To get stuck on the few questionable things he said and did is to lose the enormous wealth of wisdom he brought.
      Mark

      • Agreed, Mark.

        I can’t imagine functioning without the enormous knowledge and wisdom he contributed to the world.

        He was a thinker, researcher and organizer and intermediary and presenter extraordinaire.

        The enigma is that he was almost equally insane and a madman, as much as he was sane, brilliant and an asset to the world.

        Dio

        • Perhaps an example of an attempt at integrating the Holy Affirming, the Holy Denying, and the Holy Reconciling?

        • Thanks Dio.
          I believe that a significant problem with Ron after ’67′ was that he never fully resolved the BT problem, whether real or imagined. Several Ind. Auditors have good success at handling the uncertainty and BPC that many encounter, but not in resolving the actual problem. Many throughout history have been troubled by demons, most from the type described in book one, but some of the OT-3 type.
          I am fortunate that it hasn’t been a significant problem for me, perhaps because of a few related understandings early on, and I have made a couple of discoveries that could possibly help others, But he and many others were very much hampered when attempting to view the whole track directly, without a via. Till the end he was using tricks to erase mass and the mechanics of case. This produce various release states but do not handle the actual fixed conditions and free one completely from one’s self.
          When one really sees the simultaneous shared and individual nature of the whole track, many things suddenly become crystal clear. Until this is understood fully, one cannot clear up the vast number and complexity of implants. This is primary to free one from the body.
          After that is a huge number of things to go over, such games universes and such. Lower Grades for OTs would be a big step in the right direction for several exact reasons.
          Mark

          • Mark, I ack your reply.

            I am doing TROM now.

            Your post makes me wonder If the stuff/problems you mention on BTs can be handled on TROM?

            Have to wait and see…..

            Thanks,
            Dio

            • Hello Dio.
              I worked with TROM for a short while and decided that, for me, it needed an experienced CS. I have since made some inroads in to how I handle incidents and processes, thanks to KHTK and Mindfulness as described in Vinaire’s blog and Stephen Mitchell’s version of The TAO. Directing my attention to a particular area and then ‘allowing’ inconsistencies to unstack and display themselves without effort has proven very fruitful. It has also given me the ability to release BPC when I don’t find what I’m looking for.
              Please let me know how it goes and any advices you have. Perhaps the time is near to take another stab at it.
              Mark

              • Mark,

                I know what you mean.

                I know about KHTK and mindfulness, but do not know what is in any detail.

                By trial and error, it appears that i have developed something similar to what you explain to unstack with no effort.

                I combine what I have learned from a lot of different areas.

                So I am making headway. (At least I think so.)

                Regards,

                Dio

    • Dio:
      Thank you much for posting that section from Dia. 55. It is not only interesting but important in many areas of life and auditing. The willingness to experience and BE others is basic to so many things. It becomes very real as one learns and progresses. It is the correct angle to look at Pan Determinism.
      Mark

  50. Made a new friend, Derek, Ex Sea Org member, he my bro now

    Gonna have his back

  51. Sorry Marty, we Anons can’t forget:

  52. Marty, if the shoe fits:

  53. The teaching goes on, for those not stuck in elementary grades. Hubbard has been dead for almost three decades. Not sure about you, but I have learned more about social intercourse since he died than when he was alive. By how people have carried on in the game he recommended.

    Don’t think it is really cool for me to share that info too far. If everyone would learn for themselves we would not rely on teachers we could then blame.

    It is not easy to dedicate so much love and interest and be rewarded with so much hate and animosity. I know that.

    • Ray Charles family all suffered. His children suffered neglect, his wife suffered humiliation, his lovers suffered abandon.

      Yet I know, he was very capable of loving all of them without surrendering himself.

      • I think Hubbard loved that way.

        • I am sure the psychiatrists will come up with a name for this someday.

          And then people will be understand it, us, me. And some mercy and sympathy will be afforded for our handicaps.

      • Oracle, so glad you didn’t stay away. You are a breath of sanity in a sea of turmoil.
        An individual is made up of different parts which can be viewed and experience independently. I have a brother who has some bad qualities but I still love to have late night discussions over a couple of beers with him. Some call me a great guy but I have been a bit of a scoundrel at times. View each part as is in present time.
        Ron was a Son of a Bitch. Ron was a great man. Both statements are completely true.
        Mark

        • Well, I didn’t stop listening to Ray Charles after I read his autobiography. He was a real heart breaker. And a business hard liner. Didn’t matter how long he knew someone and worked with them. If he got offered more money someplace else, he threw the whole crew under the bus and shifted.

          His music is still good.

  54. To any “still-in” who might be wondering whether the shocking stories about David Miscavige could possibly be true, you may be interested in the following quote from Ricardo Cedillo.

    He was one of the 20 lawyers on Scientology’s side yesterday, in the Comal County Courthouse, in New Braunfels, Texas.

    Cedillo is an attorney for CSI who is trying to keep CoB out of the harassment lawsuit being brought by Monique Rathbun against the church and David Miscavige.

    He said this yesterday to Judge Dib Waldrip:-

    “It doesn’t matter if my client has a black heart, what matters is that it’s a case of religion.”

    Remember that the next time you are asked to make a donation to the IAS, or disconnect from a loved one.

    • David going into Texas on his domestic terrorism rampage reminds me of a story from my past.

      I was delivering a package to someplace WAAAY out in Queens and had to take the subway from midtown Manhattan. I arrived in Queens very late at night / early wee hours of the morning.

      Back then, the buzzers in the older apartment buildings were so loud, if you buzzed someone, everyone in the apartment woke up and so did all the surrounding neighbors in adjoining apartments.

      We carried around little pebbles if we were late nighters, and would toss them at the window if we were coming to visit to avoid waking everyone up.

      I arrived at the building and forgot what apartment number I was supposed to buzz.

      I looked at an apartment in the front of the building that had a light still on on the second floor. I thought I could get whoever was in there to open the window and give me some advice or directions in the building.

      I began throwing little pebbles at the window, and continued to do so for about ten minutes. Tossing them a little bit harder each time. Finally I tossed one and I heard the window crack. EEEwww!

      A minute later the front door of the apartment building swung open and a man shot out and ran up to me and started choking me.

      I figured out real quick I was in a different neighborhood far far away from my home turf, where they didn’t like pebbles being thrown at the windows.

      • Mary Rathernotsay

        It seems that you’ve led an interesting life, Oracle. And you are a good story teller. I’d like to hear more someday.
        In spite of some things I’ve witnessed myself and in spite of everything I’ve read both in books and on the Internet, I am the most shocked by that interview that you posted (earlier on this blog) with Bill Franks. The tale in particular of how the 12 year old Canadian boy was driven psychotic with the Introspection Rundown after imprisonment on the Apollo, but worst of all, was then off-loaded in Morocco. How do you take a 12 year old boy from Canada and then off-load him in Morocco?
        I do not recall ever hearing Bill Franks interviewed before, but I recommend that everyone listen to his interview. I just cannot believe that I ever contributed in any way to such an evil organization. Worst of all, that this evil is still continuing to this day. Thank God we have some sanity with Judge Waldrip. I can only hope that this (court case) spells the beginning of the end to this black hearted organization.

        • Yes well, Bill Franks used to beat his staff at D.C. Org, including his wife. Also.

          I was a P.C. there and an auditor (my auditor) and a reg (my reg), actually bailed out of there and came back to New York with me. They both went on staff at C.C.N.Y. and were very happy to work without getting punched in the ribs. And my former auditor (still a good friend) didn’t have to watch the C/S, Jeannie Franks, Bill’s wife, get slapped around in the C/S office.

  55. Marty Scientology is setting up a religious bait (and Switch) trap

  56. Scientology say what a former church executive and his wife call harassment in a Texas lawsuit was an exercise of free speech.

    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/01/09/Scientology-lawyers-Church-did-not-harass-former-executive-and-wife/UPI-46331389303507/#ixzz2q60fjJEx

    Thank you David. Glad you have set this standard and we hope you stand by it when the tables are turned.

  57. Marty, here is another way to bring perspective into the Science/Myth/Belief system which Hubbard stuck Scientologists with:

  58. Marty,

    In light of new revelations, which now show Scientology recommending psychiatric evaluations:

    The above clip from Joseph Campbell is a wonderful summation of the what, the how and the why of Mythology, and its effects on humanity.

    It is possible to deconstruct Scientology and put it to good use, if Scientologists can get over all the religious symbolisms, metaphors and indoctrination, and bring themselves to a parity with Hubbard and view Scientology in its proper context.

    As far as where Scientology is heading, is not totally unpredictable, as LRH injected quite a bit of Mythicism, and over the years built a true Religious Belief System, not unlike the major monotheistic cults (Thanks Marty).

    http://stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

    Scientology is filled with all these idiocies of good vs evil, personal and group salvation, future damnation and sci-fi descriptions of Heaven and Hell, etc. And of course with LRH in the self-appointed role of Avatar and savior of the human race.

    Hubbard made a point throughout many of his writings, to coax Scientologists into assuming an active role in his vision of a universal epic struggle, no unlike the one described in many of the ancient cult’s religious scriptures. So is it any wonder that things would turn out this way?

    http://www.truthbeknown.com/attis.html

    So here we are, 60 years after its launch as a “science of the mind, Scientology is reduced to a caricature of an apocalyptic cult and turned into a psychiatric lookalike.

  59. Pingback: Scientology: Witnessing and Prohibiting | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  60. Pingback: Scientology, Science and Squirreling | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  61. Pingback: Scientology and Obsessive Causation | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  62. Pingback: Awakening from scientology | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  63. Pingback: Scientology and Intuition | 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