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. 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!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. 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.”


    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.


      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.


      • 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:

        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 –


        • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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


      • 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.


          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.


              • 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 :)

          • 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.

      • 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, 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?


            • 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.

        • 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.


        • 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?


            • 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.”


              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.

              • 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.


          • . . . 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!

  3. 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


    • 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!


      • 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.

        • 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”.


              • 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.


              • 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,

                  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:


                  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:



                • 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.


                    • 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.

                    • Again Mark,

                      Very high theta posts.


                      Drop by for coffee this afternoon.


                    • 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,

                      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


                    • 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!


                    • 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.
                      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, 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



                  • 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.


                    • 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.

                • 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”
                    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.

      • 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.

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


    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.


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

      • 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.


        • 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, 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…..


            • 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,

                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.)



    • 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.

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

    Gonna have his back

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

  7. Marty, if the shoe fits:

  8. 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.

        • 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.

  9. 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.

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

  11. 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.

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

  13. 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).


    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?


    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.

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

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

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

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

  18. 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