The Story of Scientology Prophesied?

 

L. Ron Hubbard, from Scientology: Milestone One, 3 March 1952:

Science, as it’s been known, has been the collection of data (almost a random collection of data), assembling it into piles of similar data and calling these piles ‘piles of data-ology’…

…You can see how biology, for instance, has dead-ended.  Great study; it was started with a lot of verve way back.  Francis Bacon was quite interested in this.  Lucretius before him was very interested in this. In modern times, it has fallen away from its own definition.  It’s ‘biology’.  It’s sort of a hopeless dead end.  They are not looking toward any source of life, they are just looking toward new kinds and combinations of life that they might discover by happenstance.  The adventure of search has gone out of the field.  Until this day, if you walked into a high school biology class or talked to a high school professor of biology, and you said, ‘How is it that your theories of biology do not carry along with or parallel some of the material in the theory of evolution?  How is that the study of biology does not parallel its companion science, cytology?  Why are these opposite in some respects?’  He would say to you, ‘Oh-huh!  We study out of this text book.’  And you’d say, ‘Well now, do you realize if you went into the laboratory and you picked up a microscope and you started looking at these things – if you did some thinking about this – one of these days you might discover a great big piece of knowledge which would unify all of these fields: evolution, cytology, biology and many others?’  ‘Oh-h-h, no. No.  This is something that is taught in a codified way.’

This is actually the history of any science.  They push out into the unknown, they collect data, they formulate this data around a few theories and then they end.  And they become stultified.  And according to one of the very ancient Greeks, that mixture which is not shaken stagnates.  And they don’t go any further; they stagnate.  And it becomes a codified, specialized subject capable of producing a certain effect in the material universe.  There it stops.

It’s a rather sad story, actually, because it’s the story of pioneers going out into the unknown world of data, phenomena – going so far, blazing a trail to a certain distance, and then one day getting very tired and sitting down and saying, ‘Well all we’ll do now is look at the back track.  And if anybody tells us that all we’re doing is looking at the back track, we’ll protest.  And we’ll say, ‘Well, we have a truth here and you can’t do any more about it, and from here on its all complex and if you went from here on, you’re liable to fall off a cliff.’

355 responses to “The Story of Scientology Prophesied?

  1. “Science, as it’s been known, has been the collection of data (almost a random collection of data), assembling it into piles of similar data and calling these piles ‘piles of data-ology’…”

    Marty, I think Hubbard’s statement (above) is an incredibly uninformed perspective on what constitutes science and the scientific method.

    Hubbard was probably about as far from a scientist or a science-critic as it’s possible to be. I didn’t know him personally, but from what I have read and heard from people who did know him and who worked with him, his concept of hypothesis-testing boiled down to doing a lot of reading what others thought or had done, then throwing some of his own impressions into the mix, trying out his own bright ideas out a few times, failing to collect consistent data about all his clinical trials and failing to analyze seriously any comprehensive data about how his ideas performed in the laboratory, then pronouncing his hypotheses had been proven true and he had discovered truth. Then he bullied others around him to agree that it was, indeed truth and that Hubbard had, indeed, discovered it.

    I’m not saying that some people haven’t benefitted from some of their Scientology auditing. But there are a whole lot of things at play in a therapy session — most importantly the empathy and skills of the therapist and the connection the therapist is able to make with the client. My ultimate test of a therapist and his/her therapy is whether it empowers the client to live their lives the way they want to live their lives, without having to be constantly attached to the therapist via an emotional umbilical cord.

    The longer one looks at Scientology — real Scientology — the iffier it gets.

    My two cents’ worth.

    Just Me

    • Thanks. I think your ultimate test is a good one: My ultimate test of a therapist and his/her therapy is whether it empowers the client to live their lives the way they want to live their lives, without having to be constantly attached to the therapist via an emotional umbilical cord.

    • Just Me,
      Having been trained as a professional researcher, I noticed the
      same viewpoint in regard to Ron Hubbard’s work. However,
      I gave him the benefit of the doubt at least in the realm of
      religion. At the beginning I noticed the lack of adequate
      sample sizes and lack of ability to develop the “null hypothesis”.
      I never heard any discussion of standard errors or “sigma”.
      This was strange to me beacuse I was using the “BioMed”
      pack even in 1980. Statistical analysis was not common,
      but it was used in all advanced research.
      I viewed Ron Hubbard as an independent mind with
      a lot of good ideas. For example, when I read “Self Analysis”
      in 1979, it was far ahead of Karen Horney and all other
      forms of mental therapy. I think that the scientific
      community advanced with their method and many branches of
      science then overtook Ron Hubbard.
      George M. White

      • I think what Otto Roos said in his book is correct. He claims that LRH didn’t develop it, he got it. Indeed it was always clear to me that the sample size was not large enough with his work. Yet, when you take a PC in session, it works out as he described it. It looks as if someone else did the research and LRH somehow got the knowledge. Oddly enough, if you study history of science, you see this happening quite frequently. Someone discovers something in one part of the world and at the same time someone else discover it somewhere else. Maybe it is Quantum Interference.

        Examples are Newton / Galileo / De Vinci or Einstein / Lorentz.

        • Hubbard himself has said that he has been working on this Scientology research project off and on for countless lifetimes on the Whole Track. I do not find this particular notion unreasonable. Of course, I have some reality on the Whole Track and what I would consider to be previous incarnations of Scientology.

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

          • MH
            Very interesting post. Did you ever run into “synthetic karma”?
            If there were previous incarnations of Scientology, I hope we
            were spared from David Miscavige and Tom Cruise.
            GMW

          • Michael, your notion is not unreasonable. However, I feel that this does not apply here. Just a feeling no evidence or reason.

          • EnthralledObserver

            It’s all very well to say LRon developed Scientology over millions of years on the Whole Track, but the problem is that whilst you may believe it is ‘true for you’, that is definitely NOT true for me. It’s too easy to spout off this ‘excuse’ for not having any real evidence and substitute it for this science-fictiony tall tale (whole track). Put yourself in MY shoes and comprehend that if MY reality is actually the truth, then WHERE did Scientology and LRon’s wild ideas that barely resemble widely acceptable science come from.

            My answer: his imagination blended with poor understanding of humanity, science and credibility.

    • L. Ron Hubbard was a brilliant man in the department of Dianetics and Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard was a brilliant man when it came to music and art. All in all he was just a generally OK guy. BUT…how many people can envision spending billions of years searching for his data and upon finding it and applying it, being confronted with endless reg cycles, 18 hour days and no time off? Not many. L. Ron Hubbard was not very good at making the idea an OT world, something to everyone’s liking. But then again, that was another of his policies: “Never desire to be liked or admired”. I don’t mind going Clear and OT, but if anybody THINKS I am doing it to buy David Miscavige birthday gifts for the rest of my life while I earn $20.00, think again. I don’t care what kind of feelings “I might got” over the matter.🙂

    • Psychometry IS a science.

    • >..failing to collect consistent data about all his clinical trials and failing to analyze seriously any comprehensive data about how his ideas performed in the laboratory, then pronouncing his hypotheses had been proven true and he had discovered truth..

      Well, there is some missing stuff in your kit, sir.

      LRH sent out missions with new tech being tested, for decades. Thousands upon thousands of PC folders, with hundreds of hours of auditing, very well-described details about how things were working with the discoveries LRH (and the Group) made in exploring the Theta universe.

      His assistants returned with PC folder after PC folder; with new results of the processes being tested. This is why the Sea Org existed in the very first place: to ensure the results were codified and available for evaluation while the path was being taped, new processes being tested against stringent, refined technical requirements. Maybe there is more to this ‘science’ stuff than hypothesis, conjecture, codification, analysis, testing, procedure, attainment .. but there maybe there is more science in Scientology than the – shall we say, casual – observer might be willing to frankly admit.

      The path, you say? Well, all science must declare a path; else its not really an enlightenment, but rather a tool. In LRH’s case, the path is, across all 8 dynamics, life at Cause. Scientology is the science of Theta becoming Operating Theta. And, in that capacity: it works.

      • Gern, thank you for your comment! it sounds like you were there, in terms of the processes being tested. I appreciate very much your defense of the methods LRH used to test his ideas. There are lots of viewpoints being expressed here on this subject, and it is hard to know the truth.

        I absolutely loved your statement: “Scientology is the science of Theta becoming Operating Theta.” I often have the viewpoint of just being Theta the observer, willing to let others be, do and have whatever they are going to be, do and have.. There are other times that I want to be cause and direct changes. I actually never fully made a distinction between these activities, theta, and “operating” theta. You led me to the realization that I, as an operating thetan, wanting to be cause, use my theta to direct the changes that I want, hence “operating theta”. I would observe this happening, but never had a way to verbalize this concept! Thank you! Many times I was cause over things happening, but didn’t know HOW it happened!

    • The Observer Monitor

      So much truth on this (Hubbard was so unscientific as promoting cigarrettes to counter radiation effects). I will add that many predictions are self-fulfilling hypothesis, and true science (yes, there is false science) implies the encourages of minimizing bias and subjective interpretations for the greater good. When someone study real science, there are many good authors that were contemporary to Hubbard, and there were many improvements on science’s philosophy and epistemology since the 60′. And also many uneducated and uninformed people confuse knowing about techniques with knowing about science. This happens with smart students in science, this happens more with the very unscientific public that are unrelated to real science that Scientology catches up. So, they becomes experts on proving their own belief system and looking what they want (or to be told to look, or to be told to achieve) in life. It’s all confirmation bias. Science is a shield, more than a tool. It’s a shield from stupidity and human error. That’s why many people that identified with the scientific approach acts like filters. They may be afraid of failure or be afraid from others humans and humanity itself (because of the observable experiences), they may be conditioned by this, but they are not worse of those who embrace and enforce irrational or weak belief systems, unproven claims, neverending speculations and fantasy as a shield. So, real science is not only a shield. Its the flashlight in a world full of fallacies and biased tendencies, full of intelectual dishonesty and organized crime (religion).
      The point is actually short: if your beliefs are provable, DO IT DAMN IT, and win a nobel prize (and if you are not for the fame and glory, do it for the smile in the face of the future childrens).
      Don’t blame all the people that were before of you, not even the pseudoscientific author or influencer, if you believe it, you must prove it at least for yourself. But, the problem is that the prove is intersubjective, so to prove yourself by only yourself doesn’t count (that’s another part of Hubbard insanity generating solipsistic faith).
      If you do it that way, your beliefs will transform and won’t be beliefs anymore. You can’t believe in scientific discoveries, you can’t believe in facts. Believe doesn’t matter. And here is the clarification if somebody dares to even think that science is just another belief system. After the reading, contrast it with this blog, other related blogs, and all the comments.

      http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

      PD: I can make an analogy of a blog being the measurable brain (as the body electrical changes), and its conceptual contents will be the unmeasurable content of a “mind” correlated to that brain. What would be its feedback?
      I’m not making science here, but I will state the speculative insight that all charge of all masses you can think of, are cognitive dissonances. Your best friend (your ego) just trying to save you.😀

  2. Yes, it is a tale of Scientology. The moment it got to the point of “what did Ron say?” or “what would Ron say?” And never followed up those questions with “what do you have to say?” or “wth are you doin’ boy? making a leader so you can sleep?” IDK, that’s just how it struck me while in the middle of it and that’s rather how I came to not be in a group scene, at least until I ever find a group that really does think for itself . 😀

  3. That is the stuff that made/makes my brother-in-law consider EVERYTHING from LRH is pure bunk. As a world renowned immunologist who as a post grad at Stanford *discovered* T-cells (actually discovered HOW to mark them) – he would really ask — “what wall” is LRH speaking from.

    Science has advanced so markedly since 1950 we now have many cancers that are curable. We have nutritionists who USING information from biologists are able to put together diets that heal, things like diabetes etc.

    As for the earlier post comments about education — well — there are definitely lectures wherein LRH said that higher education was a waste of time and for SURE if you considered going to college AS a scientologist you were practically shunned.

    I’m wondering how many of the BIG SHOT High rollers have sent their children to college? Most of those big shot high rollers have children buried inside the inner circles of dm … at Int, CMO and IAS. Keeping the whole then glued together through family ties and money.

    Perhaps you had a different slant on this Marty … but to me it just points up how terribly insulated LRH was, not to mention egocentric.

    Christine

    • “… there are definitely lectures wherein LRH said that higher education was a waste of time …”

      I am sorry, but for me it was always clear that LRH said it because he failed higher education. I met however, several geniuses who also failed formal education, and were then able to excel in their field. That is why I always chalked it to a personal opinion, and just ignored it.

      • Yeah, I always thought LRH said it more in a personal sense, not as an ultimate dictum. I believe the man fully respected all modes of exploration and discovery in the realm of knowledge, and find the dis-acknowledgment of his avid engagement in many of the most flourishing fields in human science and exploration rather a pity. LRH *always* had game when it came to learning something new, if that spirit hasn’t persisted in his writings as published today, to the casual student, then I’m afraid something is seriously being missed.

        LRH never once said he ‘knew everything’ .. orrrr… okay, “Scientology is a shot at total-Know”, but do you know what total-Know is, hmm…?

  4. Interesting passage Marty. Thought of Ingo Swan and the research at SRI in the 70s. Possibly the last time someone (other than LRH) formally sought to explore new territories using Scn. Do you know if Swan was doing this while in good standing with the church? If so, was it approved by the church?

    • martyrathbun09

      Where did you get this idea?: Possibly the last time someone (other than LRH) formally sought to explore new territories using Scn. Ingo was a tested psychic before Scientology. His 1996 autobiography attributes no part of his talents to Scientology. Ingo is a classic study in the schizophrenia inherent in Scientology. On the one hand he was validated for his work, to the extent Scientology could promote his involvement as validative of Scientology. All the while he was subjected to incessant sec checks and investigations to determine if he was stealing Scientology on behalf of the psychs and CIA. Ultimately, he tried to forget his Scientology experience and mentioned shortly before dying that it was impossible to know what would happen with himself upon death.

      • Ingo was a tested psychic before Scientology.

        I looked into this Marty, and from my research at least, he wasn’t involved in any of the psychic testing (in NY at the various para-psychological institutes), until after he had gone Clear and done the original OT levels in the late 60s and 1970. (He was Clear# 2231 in 1969.)

        He started being “psychically tested” in 1971 in NY at the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR).

        In the mid-70s, in various Advance! magazines, he said numerous times that it was the Bridge that brought about and improved his psychic abilities (e.g. Advance! issues 21, 44, & 54).

        He also wrote and presented a “Scientological paper” for a psychic research conference in Prague in 1973 (“Scientological Techniques: A Modern Paradigm for the Exploration of Consciousness and Psychic Integtration”).

        The label “Scientologist” was an admitted problem for him though (e.g. he was accused of being a “spy for Hubbard” by the ASPR in the early 70s), and I think he was very dismayed with the way the CoS was going by the late 70s and left in the early 80s (and started taking NED services at Mayo’s place).

        Though you’re right though, by 1996, he wasn’t saying that Scientology auditing is what helped him gain control of “remote viewing”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did this for PR reasons though — most of the remote viewing crowd does their best to keep a huge distance between Scientology and the origin of remote viewing (though there’s clearly a direct link with Ingo and Puthoff developing the original “Remote Viewing Training” program).

        In 1996, Swann still considered the ASPR’s reaction to his being a Scientologist as a “persecutorial event”.

        For those interested, his online “Remote Viewing – The Real Story” story from 1996 (he passed away this past February), can be found here:

        http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/2.html

        Personally, I think Ingo Swann would have remained a happy Scientologist — and done more to link Scientology up with psychic research — if the CoS hadn’t gone so far into the cult direction.

        • martyrathbun09

          Got you. Thanks for posting the link. But I wasn’t referring to SRI and CIA testing. I was talking about being recognized, by testing, by the psychic community. I don’t doubt Scientology helped hone his skills – just as he once acknowledged – but my correction to the misleading statement I was responding to stands. I think we all can do better than attain to cloistered, bitter, and confused as an e/p of a lifetime.

        • Margaret,

          Here’s a link from of one of the incarnations spawned by Ingo you’ve described

          http://farsight.org/

          Using the ‘scientific method’, they’ve concluded some hair-raising conclusions.

        • Margaret, I believe that is true. Sometimes in life one can meet people that were born after 1968 or so that claim abilities most other people don’t have. There can be a reason for that. Especially in some people born after 1979 after NED for OT’s was released. I am not completely sure about Ingo falling into that category, but there are some people that have never really dealt with the church all that much, that seem like pretty OT people!🙂

      • Re: The Idea – Ingo and Hal are the only Scnist (ex or otherwise) that I am aware of that took some aspect of Scn into the lab for research and/or further development, albeit for other purposes. There may have been others and I would love to hear about it.

        Clearly Ingo’s Scn adventure did not end well. Exactly what happened I am not privy to. But, from what I’ve read and heard from people who knew him, Ingo was somewhat of a minor celebrity back in the day.

        I was curious whether he was in the good graces of the church while he was doing his work at SRI? Or, if that sparked the attack and eventual SP Declare.

        That’s all.

        • The CoS (Advance! magazine), in 1973, interviewed Ingo asking how his psychic abilities had developed in relation to the Bridge — Ingo, at the time, said they were solely the result of auditing.

          Also in 1973, Ingo published a “Scientology paper” at a Prague conference — on behalf of the Church of Scientology according to the proceedings of the conference — which attempted to integrate scientology principles with psychic research.

          And in 1974, Ingo was part of a CoS “OT Symposium” (which was summarized in an issue of Advance!) — along with Heber Jentzch, Chick Corea, an educator, and others (all OTs). It was a sort of round-table type of event that came across as somewhat make-shift (e.g. I don’t think there was an audience), but it ostensibly had the purpose of discussing and disseminating how OTs were integrating with various areas of society — science, education, etc.

          I would say the CoS (when it wasn’t being paranoid at least), was in very good graces with Ingo Swann, and fully supported the research he and Hal Puthoff were involved in.

          When the FBI break-ins by the GO were discovered, that probably put a pretty serious damper on Swann’s and Puthoff’s relationship with the CoS (considering that Swann and Puthoff were working closely with the intelligence community on their remote viewing research through the 70s and 80s). I read an article from 1978, for example, where Puthoff publicly denounced his involvement with the Church of Scientology — specifically, because of the GO break-ins. It took Swann a couple more years before he left.

          • martyrathbun09

            Not correct. He was suspect, and subject of intelligence/sec check, surveillance the entire time by the GO – all the while he was tauted in Auditor and in conferences such as you describe. Note in his auditor interview after having completed the entire auditing/training bridge he was doing security checking and XDN.

            • Sadly, I’m not surprised.

              My guess is that in both of their minds (Puthoff’s and Swann’s) — and in the minds of the general Scientology public — what Puthoff and Swann were doing was carrying out “Scientology Five”, as defined in the Scn Tech Dictionary: “SCIENTOLOGY FIVE: Scientology applied at a high echelon to social, political and scientific problems. This requires the earlier levels and a high state of training on theoretical and wide application levels and the personal state of OT.” (Originally from HCO PL 2 Aug 63).

              This was certainly how I perceived these sorts of activities at the time, at least.

              • This is the first time I’ve heard of “Scientology Five” Margaret. Very interesting, I would love to know more.

                I have also been curious about the “murder by auditing” rumors I read on the net. About people who were actually using auditing remotely and by orders, to kill other with cancer or whatever. This comes to mind when I read “Scientology applied at high echelon to social, political problems…”

                • Murder by auditing?? Really?? OMG! the crap people dream up. Hahaha!

                • I have also been curious about the “murder by auditing”…

                  Yowza! Sounds more like Black Scientology Five, if there is such a thing. (Though I guess there’s an inverted version of most any positive thing.)

          • Thanks for sharing this Margaret.

      • The purpose of the sec-check’ing at that period in the Scientology time track was to prevent LRH’s very specific investigation of the nature of the mechanism behind pain/drug:hypnosis from being abused. Many were investigating the behaviour of end-words on a case, and this has very much squirrelled beyond the fringe. Beyond, way beyond, the fringe. The sec-check’s failed to prevent anything; they did, however, provide a sufficient warning to future generations.

        Be very careful that you are not trapped, guarding a garden, without once peering beyond your walls.

        PDH’ing: that shit is happening, big time. On. The. Street.

        It is no longer in the hands of the government. Mobs, mafia, privileged elites: they can run-in end-words on some poor case, just as needle-point accurately on specific MU’s, as anyone else can, blowing charge or running it in. This makes a monster – especially when you’ve got new drug vectors to key-in certain well-known and explored case phenomenon ..

        I would not have changed a single sec-check order on Ingo, for the world. He knew precisely who his real masters were, and what they wanted.

        • martyrathbun09

          Better make sure your bunker walls are fully re-inforced against extra low frequency implant waves.

          • Right, I could do that .. or .. I could just continue Auditing on the 3rd dynamic, as per the plan .. OT Flows, and all that.

  5. I agree with this quote, as well as with the ultimate test quote.

    I think science, when it comes to spiritual matters, has a ceiling, because not all spiritual things can be observed, tested and analysed, MEST-universe-wise.

    Also, the Man and the Golden Ball, seems to be a good SCN prophecy too!!

    • If you believe, like me, that the spiritual is senior to MEST, then the impact of the spirit on MEST is observable. However, like anything else in science it has to be done in baby steps. If a 1960s computer scientist would have seen an iPad, he would consider it an alien technology, yet if he lived through the years from then on, he would have seen nothing unusual about it.

      • Yes, we agree over the seniority of theta over MEST.

        What I think about this, is that a person registers on an e-meter, whenever he produces a MEST reaction. There could be occasions where he wouldn’t have to register on an e-meter. But that would take a really independent from the body being. If the Church made ‘Theta Clears’ and ‘Cleared Theta Clears’ we might know more about it.

        That’s why although I think that SCN auditing can very good (depending on the intentions, know-how and practice of the practicioner), I say one shouldn’t stop his ‘progress’ where SCN stops. It doesn’t even stop where LRH said it would stop. It stops earlier on, in that COS.

        • Spyros,
          I agree with you whole hearthedly. I just want to comment that the e meter is not the only tool at the disposal of the auditor. The main tool is communication. That is where the spiritual comes in.

          • Alright🙂 I agree with what you said too. The e-meter was just an example. To generalize it a bit more about science: it is about the MEST universe. And if we take the whole body of SCN, it is about all 3 universes. A thetan can have an effect on MEST, sure. But there can be times that he doesn’t or doesn’t have to. How can science be used in such cases?

  6. LRH states that the sciences are dead because no one is shaking the mix.

    He uses this analogy to argue that because he is shaking the mix with Scn, it is an advancement over the sciences.

    Yet, only LRH is allowed to shake the mix, and once he is done shaking, no one else can shake can the mix again.

    The height of hypocrisy, folks.

  7. Margot Diaz Learned

    This is exactly the kind of writing that used to make me spin in my training as am auditor. The generalities, the lack of sourcing information. And if you thought two minutes about what was said you could see it for what it was, complete hogwash. But I got gains in auditing and mostly my pcs did too and that kept me going down this path. There is truth in the tech, but it is awash in bs and that frustrates me.

  8. yes I agree,you can study all you like theory ,take any course you like,good!
    Now apply it in life,get out in life apply what you learned ,well if you can’t it’s all data,threw sciontology I learned to apply practical application,becourse it
    Works for me,it’s amazing ,how the tech works when applied,becourse the tech has been tried and tested,and that’s why it works,and I don’t have to prove nothing to no one.it works!
    Eric.Alexandrou
    Brisbane ,Australia

  9. Hmmm, I’m not sure a great many people would argue with this pessimistic view of Science.

    To be honest, I think it’s quite the opposite. Scientists tend to be rather inspired by the achievements of others, and are free and encouraged to take scientific thought and research into new areas, to test previously held beliefs, to propose new hypothesis, to test these against new data.

    I don’t really see much stopping and only looking back, I see modern scientists standing on the shoulders of those gone by and forging new frontiers.

    It is true that scientists do label themselves, but that’s out of necessity. The field of science is so vast (with new sub-branches emerging each year) that people tend to concentrate in one area of specialty, and might spend an entire career there.

    However, that said, there are plenty of scientists who wonder about a grand theory of everything, or about how different fields may inter-relate – to “integrate” in the term you’ve been using recently.

    The fact that we stand on this amazing crest of new technology which I’m sure is about to change the world in ways we can’t even currently imagine over the next century, is proof of the power of science to look ahead and forge new frontiers.

    Ironically, and as you indicate Marty, given the thrust of this article, it’s Hubbard’s science of the mind which may never have this ability to press forward given the restrictions therein.

    • Sid: .”..there are plenty of scientists who wonder about a grand theory of everything, or about how different fields may inter-relate. – to ‘integrate’ is the term you’ve been using recently.”

      Here’s a video with the biologist Bruce Lipton and physicist Tom Campbell who have done just that – inter-related their fields and in fact independently come to the same unifying theory of everything: As well, there’s a discussion about the “beliefs” of science, which are stated to be no less dogma those of religion.

      • p.s. Readers who don’t have too much time can just watch about 10 minutes of it, starting at about 1:24:30, to hear Tom Campbell sum up how Eastern philosophy and Western science have fully met – through actual scientific evidence of the wisdom of the ancients. And generally speaking, I think it aligns with LRH’s descriptions too. .

        • I agree with most of the video, although I believe it could have been 70% shorter, and it is not presented in a way that would convince a physicist (unless he is already convinced).

          I agree that there is dogma in science. I think that it is fundamentally different than religion. In religion it stems from the attribution of a philosophy to higher power. In science it stems from conservatism and laziness. In science there is no principle to the dogma. It is just the unwillingness to change your mind. It is therefore much easier to overcome it.

          • Yes, it seemed to be sort of impromptu and too long, and intended for a certain audience. But I posted it because it presented a good example of fields of science being integrated. Campbell has other youtube videos that would be more likely to convince a physicist. (I liked the ones he did in Calgary, but I’m not that much of a student of physics either.) In any case, per Tom Campbell (in this video, for one), even Einstein couldn’t get out of the box of the unshakable BELIEF of science in an objective universe, and thus for the last 25 years of his life was frustrated in his attempts at finding a unifying theory.

            • Yes, poor Einstein could not believe in a stochastic univers. Hence, Quantum Mechanics was not acceptable to him. He did pose paradoxes to quantum physicists which helped the refine the science.

  10. There’s deadheads (and d**kheads) in everything. There are also leaders and innovators. Look at the work and results that have been accomplished in DNA that would be included within the subject matter of biology since 1952.
    I think his statements are sweepingly inaccurate and describe only the “status quo” types of the field of biology.
    I think some teacher/prof must have pissed him off at one time or another.

  11. I disagree with Hubbard on this. Science is controlled by universities. There is a constant pressure to come up with something new. You want to receive a PhD in a reputable university, you must create new knowledge. That is an immense pressure on both the candidate and his advisor. Thus, I do not see how any science driven by universities could become stagnant.

    In Scientology, however, there is KSW. You are not allowed to extend the science. Hence, it became stagnant. That is until you, Marty, came along.

    • OK, science is science, and it is tools, and for me it is not holy. It depends mostly in the intentions of the person who uses it. If science had full intergrity as a whole, we wouldn’t be using ancient fuel technology to move. I believe most people now agree that it is not needed.

      Also, if KSW 1 was kept by the COS, there wouldn’t be additions, reductions and other alterations in SCN. I don’t think the COSes problem is KSW 1. The COS does not apply KSW 1. They just bitch about it, to pretend they are ‘on source’. And, as far as I know, nobody forbid anyone from creating his own tech. LRH just said don’t call it SCN, so as to have definite predictable results in SCN itself. That this is not happening now, it is a different story. It is 2013, there is no KSW 1 kept therein that I know.

      • martyrathbun09

        On your statement, If science had full intergrity as a whole, we wouldn’t be using ancient fuel technology to move., I think you make the same mistake LRH did. That we are hitched to fossil fuel has nothing to do with ‘science’, but everything to do with the economics of greed.

        • Exactly, scientists have done their job and found / develop the replacement to petrol. It is now in the hands of industry / government. Nothing to do with Science.

          True that if Co$ has kept KSW we would be in a better shape. However, if they would applied scientific tools, we would have been even better.

        • Hm maybe the problem there was my language (again😛 ). By science’s ‘intergrity’, I didn’t mean they cannot/haven’t invented alternative sources of energy, but rather that either due to pressure or due to co-operation with oil-companies, these inventions haven’t been materialised as they should in mottor engines etc. The problem is they can have bosses, like everybody else. That’s what I meant. Another example would be that medical association who doesn’t allow anyone who is not certified by them to invent some medicine, and claim that it can cure, without going to jail. And big pharma sells it’s stuff very expensively, although they may cost nearly nothing. These guys may not have any interest in science, but do it in the name of science. I’m sorry to mix good scientists with them but ‘science’ is a generality anyway, and in practice includes them greedy guys too.

          • You are partially right there. Unfortunately, science is done inside our society. Something that does not please the funders will not get funded. Like anybody else, the scientist needs to eat, and live. He needs money for his lab to buy equipment and materials. Absent that, nothing get done. It is not greed, but a necessity.

            As for petrol based vehicles, science has already done its job. Alternatives have already been developed and built. It is now out of the hands of science and into the hands of politics and economy.

            Are there dishonest scientist? Absolutely, some will twist results for money, fame, or any other reason. There are dishonest people everywhere. Fortunately, they are the minority.

            • Yes, it can apply to science as well as anything else. It is unfair to accuse a scientist of something, when he wants to help. Like it is unfair to accuse a (good) SCN auditor of something because another SCN ethics officer, doesn’t know what ethics means, and so the whole SCN thing gets the evil cult reputation.

              I only sort of criticized the science generality (I said it isn’t holy) because I have seen it used badly by some. Some time ago it was enough to say “God says…” or “God wants…” to get people to agree with you. Now some say “scientific studies/test show that…”.

              If something is used freely for beneficial reasons, I like it. If it represents ‘truth’, I say if you knew the truth, it would as-is😛

        • Marty and viewers, Here’s an insider describing “the economics of greed”.

          • Interesting facts. Tks – from a citizen of the “OLD” Europe.

          • He is not describing anything, just spewing generalities.

            • Dear simple,

              Name yourself or shut the fuck up.

              You are obviously a disinformation agent. Generalities?

              That’s exactly what you demonstrate.

              As the monetary and financial system continues and increases it’s historic meltdown over the coming weeks, mark my word that the synthetic ‘voices’ like “Simple Thetan” will continue to pop up.

              Some people are compassionate. You are not. Just who are you?

              • And you are a perfect example of a perfect Scientologist. LOL!

                • The “reasonableness” of Scientologists as regards to the SPs around the world has opened the door to DM being able to keep the church under his and their control. Scientology and Scientologists have become complacent with the Political and Financial Status Quo on this planet. LRH was not like that and he abstained from condoning such crimes by governments of big countries around the world. Same is happening with Science and Scientists. That some people come out and speak out about such crimes shows that the burden of those crimes is rather heavy.

  12. This is some LRH that I really like.

    I do feel that the cult has stagnated and I do feel that it would be great for someone to continue research into the realm of OT.

    Whoever that person might be would have to be willing to confront the label of “squirrel” from some of the “loyalists” and the cult (if it were still around).

    I also think that if someone were to continue research into OT they should call it something else other than Scientology. They could say it was based on Scientology. Especially since Scientology is now considered a religion. If there was a ~ Science~ devoted to acheiving OT then it would have to differentiate itself from the “religiosity” that LRH created.

    I do think that keeping the body of tech in tact in one place would only be fair to LRH as it is a workable technology to a large degree outside of the cult. It didn’t live up to the hype, but I know at least that I got quite a bit from it.

    • You are right about one thing Tony, anyone attempting to reorganize the data so it is evolving and staying alive is going to be attacked as a “squirrel” or “out tech” or “out KSW”. Why? Because there are people that did not make it on grade GRADE 4 (Abilities) Moving out of fixed conditions and gaining abilities to do new things.

    • Hi Tony. Interesting this topic about OT research. I think that as far as spiritual freedom is concerned, the only ceiling would be no ceiling. For as long as there is a ceiling, freedom is limited.

      I am personally open to anything which makes being more aware of their nature, for as long as it does it honestly. And for as long as what it delivers is enough freedom to match the value paid (I wouldn’t be willing to sell my house to pay to run out an engram).

      Other than other techs, and other possible techs, there is also the subject matter of SCN OT tech that is no longer utilized (old books, lectures, bulletins). It seems to me like it is not-ised, and that Standard Tech is pretty limited. I have read some really jaw-dropping stuff in issues that are no longer used by the Church. I think it would be very fruitful to study and apply some of that stuff.

    • Tony, you are right. L.R.H. WAS a good man and he made some startling discoveries that offer people a lot of alternatives to “modern day living” whatever that includes.🙂 Dianetics calls pain + unconsciousness an engram. Why can’t a new philosophy call it an “occlusion” so as not to infringe on the RTC? LRH clafified what people already believed to be true about them with the facts. Not really his own, but the facts that presented themselves as he researched.🙂 If I were in the church I would get delcared if I said “Hell, it sure took the guy long enough!”🙂 and it did take him quite some time to unravel the whole thing for everybody. But once he did, where in the world does anyone get the authority to misrepresent these facts to other people for profit? The Church of Scientology would be well received if it sued itself for its own breeches of the technology it claims to adhere to. But that, is another story!🙂

  13. Scientology is a body of data too.

    And it seemed to turn into a series of rules and supposed toos instead of something useful to gain perspective on ones own existence and that of his fellows.

    All that is important is how useful the data is, not that it be protected from other data.

    But that is what Scientology has become.

    Ron was a smart fellow….
    🙂

    • I agree he was smart. He did have to sell himself, so what? Who doesn’t if you are out on the front lines? If I could roll back time, I would take it right back to the point where he did a major withdraw and came up with this idea to hide out on the Ocean. And right there I would have cleaned him up . He started withdrawing right there and continued withdrawing for the rest of his life.

      He never got attacked for withdrawing, he got attacked for reaching. I think the whole withdraw / hide / mystery/ you can’t reach me but I can reach you / disguises and hiding were the beginning of the end. You can not put out good product if you are withdrawing. Because you are no longer LOOKING. It doesn’t matter what your wares are. He replaced himself with the Sea Organization in the marketplace. A group of police. With the purpose “to get ethics in”.

      Let’s face it, it is up to people to monitor their own ethics. When you take that right away from them, you kill them off.

      • Damn this explains a lot. Made me realize that because he had to withdraw he was unable to verify facts for himself. Hence he had to rely on others to become his eyes. DM the alter-machine didn’t exactly serve as an accurate eye. He would see a rotten pickle and report back a fresh doughnut.

      • Well thats kinda the trick with life….

        How do you continue a reach indefinitely?

        You can’t if you are IN it. You have to be exterior to it.

        And that is the PROBLEM of life. You have to be IN it to live it.

        To be or not to be.

        Catch 22.

        Overall I’ll give Ron a solid A for his CONTRIBUTION to the solution to our mutual problem. And his followers a C.

        But what purpose is there to life except to figure it out and transcend it?

        Not much.

        So we are on track and having fun.
        🙂

  14. Marty, keep up the good work. I enjoy your blog very much, and I’m glad folks like you and Mike (and all the other critics) are actively taking up the fight against what to me seems like a clear and present danger to our mental environment.

    I think it’s worth noting the disparity between the account of biology in this excerpt and the actual state of biology (both in the 50s and currently). I’m not aware of any serious conflicts between biology and evolution in the 50s. In fact, the field was enjoying a lot of explanatory and predictive success, and had ‘made contact’ with several other domains where fruitful research was and is being done.

    And it wasn’t long after this excerpt was written that biology allowed for the very unification Hubbard is talking about. I’m referring here to the discovery of DNA, the advent of molecular biology, and the reorganizing of our biological understanding of evolution around a gene-centered view. Today, natural selection and biology are inextricably wrapped up together — the theory of evolution underpins almost all of our modern understanding of living systems.

    I’d also like to join JustMe above in pointing out what appears to be at the very least a gross misunderstanding of science in this excerpt. The collection and collating of data that’s intrinsic to the scientific enterprise is not, usually, random. The non-random, methodological approach is actually baked-in to the process.

    There’s a reason why we look where we do for what we do. There’s a reason why we’re collecting data on, say, the cosmic background radiation, or the distribution of particular suites of genes across the Southeast Asian population, or the results of the high-speed collision of sub-atomic particles at CERN and the LHC. The reason we look where we do is because these are the places where our theories require certain data, where our theories make testable predictions, and so these are the places where we can most effectively falsify those theories.

    These aren’t random data-gathering experiments. On the contrary, experimentation is generally methodical.

    Lastly, I ‘d like to discuss a difference between what you and JustMe have said regarding the ultimate test for assessing a therapist. I think it’s a mistake to place the emphasis on evaluating the practitioner instead of evaluating the theory being deployed. It’s true that a theory can be (approximately) true and yet, through malpractice of some kind, it can yield poor results (which, I think, is in-line with the spirit of yours and JustMe’s comments).

    So in a certain sense, when using the results of practitioner as a proxy for the truth of a theory, one does want to closely scrutinize whether the practitioner was ‘doing it right’.

    But my concern is with the over-reliance of using the auditor results as a proxy of Scientology’s truth-ness to begin with. I think that’s a poor way of evaluating Scn, or any theory in general. For one, it doesn’t allow you to discriminate between unexpressed errors in the practitioner’s mental model of the theory, unexpressed errors in the theory itself, and unexpressed errors in the application of the theory.

    In other words, how can you tell if the experimenter/practitioner/therapist a) understood the theory but misapplied it b) misunderstood the theory to begin with or c) understood and applied the theory correctly, but the theory itself is flawed?

    In the other sciences, we have several safe-guards that help us avoid this problem. For instance, experimenters publish their results and research methods, explicitly, and other experimenters have a strong incentive to follow up and falsify them. The theories deployed to predict and explain said experiments are closely scrutinized, and are rigorously tested across a broad range of domains (in fact, one criteria of a successful theory’s approximation to truth is its ability to ‘make contact’ with other broad theories from various domains and the smoothness of its articulability with these other theories).

    There’s no analog to this, as far as I can tell, in Scn (at least not within Corporate Scn, and I doubt this kind of methodology exists in the independent community). As an outside, from what I can tell the accepted ‘test’ of the explicit description and explanation Scn provides of the ‘laws’ governing the transformation from one mental state to the next… the test of this account seems to just be an evaluation of how someone feels after undergoing treatment and Scn practices (this is how I read you and others when yall talk about ‘the ultimate test’, and from the bits and pieces I’ve read elsewhere this was the pragmatic argument LRH often made — but if I’m misreading yall here please let me know). But one can easily have a false theory but happy patients (look at the social and emotional benefits of religious counseling, for instance, despite the fact that the worldview of any given religious councilor or priest is bound to contradict that of other priests from other religions who are enjoying equally positive results).

    The real emphasis, the real test, imo, is how much contact a theory makes with other theories. Evolution makes tons of contact (it underpins modern biology, it articulates with psychology, and it is congruent with both paleontology and chemistry, to name just a few examples). Likewise, physics. Scn, on the other hand (from the bits I’ve read here and there), directly contradicts many theories which are broad and successful. The mental theory presented in Scn overturns, among other things, our understanding of brain science, our understanding of physics (I know you’ve argued the contrary here), and the insights into psychology that we’ve gotten from the emerging field of cognitive science.

    In short, the fact that an auditor can get a happy patient is not, imo, a sufficient vindication of Scn theory and practice (or any other practice, for that matter — mainstream psychology certainly isn’t vindicated as a theory merely on the merit of the well-being of its patients either).

    I hope all that makes sense. If anyone wants me to elaborate (I realize I put a lot out there and didn’t take much effort in unpacking all of it), let me know and I’d be happy to go into more detail.

    Thanks.

    • Christopher, if you’d like to get an adequate grant from an appropriate source we’ll get you and a control group all trained to avoid a) and b) above and you could have a go a c) “the right way”. Are you game?

    • Christopher, would you consider that the e meter used in the auditing sessions is measuring or at the very least indicating or recording objective data?

      • brian@hiddenstory.com

        Darkest hour, I would say the e meter registers subjective data. Thought, feeling; mind is subjective. Rocks, oceans, atoms etc are objective.

        Just because something registers on the meter doesn’t mean accuracy or truth has been contacted. I believe it does mean that some energy in association with some topic is in evidence. But that association can be mind jumble or it can be accurate.

        It is possible that too much credibility has been given to the e meter. If it reads it must be true?

        I believe much of the space opera, that is fundamental Scientology doctrine, comes from a belief that the e meter registers realities that are in truth associative fantasies.

        Running those associative fantasies (Rons ideas of what to audit) can blow charge and give cognitions much the same as dream therapy can.

        At least in dream therapies the enemies are subjective and GOs are not created to slay dragons and windmills.

        But when fantasies are created into world views and cosmologies, you have institutionalized militarism peopled with Loyal Officers saving the universe from the Evil Over Lord.

        All of these stories of were verified on the e meter. Objective? Not in my opinion. Not in a long shot.

        • martyrathbun09

          You noted, Just because something registers on the meter doesn’t mean accuracy or truth has been contacted. I believe it does mean that some energy in association with some topic is in evidence. You are exactly right. To the degree someone tells someone what the signficance of that registration is, they have entered the realm of religion, and all that comes with it – as we have seen happen with Scientology.

        • Yes Brian, interptetation of data is just that. Can’t seem to stop some people from being outlandish if they want to be but There are standards of coherence with which to judge theories and interpretations as Christopher explicated above and as you are making use of in your judging for yourself here. I dont disagree with your judgement. But My question is about whether the e meter when attached to a person is registering a physiological state and/or event? The same way a thermometer might be said to do so. You say a rock is objective? Why? Because you see it with your eyes, in other words your sensory apparatus registers it. So this is my sincere question asked respectfully and without an agenda – is the e meter a bio feedback device? Does it register a physiological state or event?

          • It registers an associative reaction to a question. It is pure thought or feeling. It is a subjective reflection (memory) about an objective experience ( a five senses perception).

            If the association has direct access to the conscious mind regarding memory, then a person can say, ” Oh my, the reason I feel like shit around Pete is because I broke his thousand dollar vase when he wasn’t around and I feel like crap hiding the fact. I feel better now and I will take responsibility”.

            These are memories from the past that the conscious mind does not have to believe in to know they are the truth; I broke it and I can tell you what time of day, what I was wearing etc etc.

            Ron implied or actually said that he has perfect recall. He gives the incidents in the trillions of years down to the year, month, day, minutes and seconds.

            Here is the test: if you can remember every christmas gift for every year and what you had for breakfast every day of your life since birth then you can tell me what happened a thousand or million years ago.

            When auditing ceased being about the pcs memory and became about Ron’s memory or dub in, minds started to distort.

            When Ron entered into the realm of infinite mind memory (past lives), he had his meter reacting to his deep inner subconsciousness and his conscious mind relied on needle reactions not on conscious memories like the above example.

            Thus if he was trying to solve a drug problem (maybe his own) he would allow the whims of the subconscious and unconscious to weave stories through his conscious mind (verifying realities or fantasies with needle reactions) and called it total accurate recall because he was able to arrive at a point of differentiation between himself (the soul) and the energy that the meter was reacting to.

            The e meter has been given the power to be more important than logic, reason or the conscious mind.

            Does the e meter sometimes accurately reflect past live stuff. In my experience absolutely.

            But I believe Ron got lost in the unconscious and subconscious through following meter reactions.

            Ron was not spiritually or mentally prepared to unravel infinite memory. I believe he became delusional with space opera. And all of these fantastic stories where ‘verified’ by him on the meter and revealed themselves as Sci Fi. Sci Fi was his life. Those archetypal stories lived within him. He wrote them, and then with his incredible powers of manifestation created a religion out of them.

            All ‘verified’ by the meter.

            Dream therapy, the upper levels are like a dream therapy. Archetypes
            masquerading as facts.

            • Post first cup of coffee theorizing:-) :

              The reason Scientology became so successful is because it TAP INTO THE ARCHTYPAL HEROE’S JOURNEY FOR THE POST MODERN STAR TREK GENERATION.

              All the elements of the heroes journey are there.

              Ron is Johnny Goodboy Tyler, we are all Sam helping Froto, Darth Veda is the psyches, Xenu, journalists and press, the common man saving the universe from evil, spiritual enlightenment, OT 3 is entering the dark forest.

              He masterfully tapped into the collective unconscious of the Star Trek Generation. He gave us all a larger world view than just living a common everyday material life. Brilliant! He was brilliant…………. But he also got side tracked and caught in the dark forest: his subconscious mind.

              The OT levels was him attempting escape from the dark forrest. He did not make it out. It consumed him in the end, and he became caught in a battle with his own thought impressions that he projected as separate entities: the very essence of victimization.

              • Brian, although not from a post modern Star Trek generation, your theory shared about SC tapping into the archtypal heroe’s journey rang a bell with me. I recalled being down this road of thought myself one time a while back…back in August of 2010 as a matter of fact. In response to a comment left by “VaD” on Jeff Hawkins blog, Leaving Scientology, I wrote:

                Your mention of super-humans catapulted me over onto another branch of thought. Since I’m here I figure why let a good branch go to waste so I’m gonna talk about what I’m finding to be existing on this branch.

                Both as a young kid and as an older kid (up to late teens) I was an avid reader of comic books. I had piles of comic books stacked around my room and they were considered by myself to be of great value. The primary subject matter of these comic books were the stories of superheros with super-powers overcoming super-evil villians with super-evil powers. But not all my superheros existed in comic books. Some were on TV. For example, there was this little mouse with super powers. He was called Mighty Mouse and whenever he arrived on the scene, the day was saved. Saved, of course, from the deeds of the evil villians he encountered. Then, on a show called Captain Kangaroo, there was this kid by the name of Tom Terrific and his wonder dog Manfred. Now Tom didn’t really have super powers per se but he was incredibly smart. And, it was his being super smart that allowed him to be a superhero and solve all manner of terrible problems that were happening to people and the environment. And Popeye! Can’t forget Popeye. Just a can full of spinach was all it took for Popeye to become a superhero and save the damsel in distress – his sweetie, Olive Oil. Finally, another prominent superhero in my life (albeit, I had a ridge on the guy) who had no comic book telling his stories nor was he making any personal appearances on any TV shows, was this guy that lived a couple of thousand years ago. His name was Jesus Christ. Jesus was a superhero that had all kinds of superpowers and he fought a very evil villain known as the Devil. So here VaD is what made up my mythos and it is a mythos that has greatly influenced my direction in life.

                When the path I was travelling intercepted one of the paths (routes onto the bridge) that LRH had established and as I came to know him….he soon became my new superhero. But he was not a superhuman. He was a Super Thetan only posing as a human. And LRH and his super organization called The Church of Scientology were battling the evil of the planet being led by the horrible and dreaded PSYCHES. Not only was I invited to join this superhero LRH and his org in the battle for ultimate freedom from evil (not just on Earth but the whole physical universe), I was also told that I too could become a superhero with super powers just like LRH. I too could become OT. This was better than any comic book story or TV show. It was even better than Jesus. This was a kid’s dream come true! I was going to get to be a superhero with superpowers and using my superpowers I would fight evil and save the day! You see, my mythos had totally set me up and prepared me for this. Fascinating!
                ……………..
                Thanks Brian for reminding me of this.

                What is true for the person is true for the person. Even if what is true for the person is an illusion.

          • I looked to wiki for some answer re emeter and what does it measure or register: galvanic skin response (GSR) Wiki on GSR :”The scientific study of GSR began in the early 1900s. One of the first references to the use of GSR instruments in Psychoanalysis is the book by C. G. Jung entitled Studies in Word Analysis, published in 1906.[4] Wilhelm Reich also studied GSR in his experiments at the Psychological Institute at the University of Oslo in 1935-6 to confirm the existence of a bio-electrical charge behind his concept of vegetative, pleasurable ‘streamings.'[5] GSR was used for a variety of types of research in the 1960s through the late 1970s, with a decline in use as more sophisticated techniques (such as EEG and MRI) replaced it in many are of psychological research. As of 2010, skin conductance monitoring equipment is still in use because it is inexpensive (e.g. a galvanometer).”

            What above indicates to me re the subject of this post is that there was and still remains a foundational scientific element to scientology (historically it may have been misused but that is history isn’t it?) as Christopher’s post above ably describes the scientific process – the matching of data and theory – the congruence of theory to other theories – it seems that it is there to be done now correctly if in fact it isn’t being done now somewhere yet unknown to me (I will look).

            Biofeedback instruments can register and measure movement of the sympathetic nervous system. Brian, though these movements may be defined by most people as “subjective,” the movement can be measured. Measurement is as close as science can get to what we call objective. Mind maybe subjective. But any measure of it is objective. If we can measure we can correlate. If we can correlate we can make theory, make experiments, gather more data and judge and look for congruence wth other findings.

            In short, would it be useful to consider the differentiation between “contents” of mind, which is the domain of a spiritual and/or psycotherapy, and it’s “presence,” which is the domain of science…and meditation (dare I say) -meaning those techniques that do not identify with contents, nor seek to generate contents but merely observe what is (which is the scientific approach said to be used by gotama budda who detected through this technique that the nature of reality was a mass of tiny bubbles appearing and disappearing that under closest scrutiny reveal that there is nothing of mass at all only changing, changing moment to moment. Gee, haven’t we all just read something like that somewhere else….recently?

            • Darkest hour, there’s a book called Understanding the E-meter, where you can read all about what the meter reads on and the mechanics of the e-meter itself. Here’s an excerpt and the link to the book:
              ———————————————
              “Now do a “pinch test” on somebody. Set up the meter and get someone to hold the cans. Tell the person that you are going to do a pinch test and then with the person holding the electrodes and the sensitivity set at normal for that person, with the needle visible on the meter dial, give a strong pinch on the person’s arm. Notice that there is a reaction on the meter and the needle moves. This is often accompanied by a rise in tone arm position.

              “You just saw life’s NOW reaction to applied force. It generated energy. If the TA also rose, it was because the added mass caused the carrier wave to be impeded so the tone arm had to be moved higher.

              “Now ask the person to, “Recall the moment of the pinch.”

              “Notice the surge of the needle on the E-Meter dial.”

              “Acknowledge the person and ask for the moment to be recalled again.

              “Each time the person recalls the pinch, you will see the needle react. But it will become less and less as the charge of the incident is as-ised, and with the mass blowing off, you will see that the blockage to the carrier wave is reduced and the tone arm moves down.

              “The reads you see on your E-Meter dial in the movement of the needle are visual manifestations of the shifts of masses, ridges and pictures in the mind of the preclear or actual mental energy which is generated or discharged by the preclear.”
              ———————————————-
              http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

              • p.s. It has lots of pictures, which really help make the principles clear.

              • marildi – It is very likely that the theory articulated in the linked edition of Understanding the E-Meter –
                http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

                — is without merit. As I recall, later editions of the book were edited to delete or substantially change the passage I’m about to quote. The reason will be obvious.

                On page 35 of the book Understanding the E-Meter it states:

                “In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy. The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan “mocking up” (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and by casting them away again can decrease the body mass. THIS TEST HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MADE AND AN INCREASE OF AS MUCH AS THIRTY POUNDS, ACTUALLY MEASURED ON SCALES, HAS BEEN ADDED TO, AND SUBTRACTED FROM, A BODY BY CREATING “MENTAL ENERGY”. Energy is energy. Matter is condensed energy.”

                (emphasis added by capitalization)

                To avoid any possible ambiguity or uncertainty, the text is accompanied by three pictures of a man on a scale where the weight goes down from 180 to 150. We are not talking about someone benefiting from auditing, going on a plan of diet and exercise, and losing weight.

                I”m sorry, but this is nonsense on stilts. If it is not, I really want to see an “actual test” of this.

                One might accept “mental mass” as a metaphor, or a “workable truth,” but to make a representation that such experiment has “actually been made” can lead one only to say, “Prove it.”

                • CommunicatorIC, I have wondered about the paragraph you quoted too as it does seem extreme. But when you then state the generalization that “the theory of Understanding the E-meter is incorrect”, based on that one paragraph, that is quite an over-generalization. The book otherwise is excellent in describing basic principles, including the qualities and abilities of a thetan (spiritual being) and how the mind works. Whether or not “up to 30 pounds” of mental mass can be demonstrated, there is no doubt that the mind does contain mass, and this is objectively demonstrated by the e-meter – which is also well described by the book as to exactly how it works to indicate the presence of mass and the discharge of it in auditing.

                  • Marildia, A number of points, if I may.

                    First, I didn’t say, “the theory of Understanding the E-meter is incorrect.” I instead said:

                    “It is VERY LIKELY that the theory articulated in the linked edition of Understanding the E-Meter –
                    http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

                    – is without merit.”

                    Secondly, you statement —

                    “there is NO DOUBT that the mind does contain mass, and this is objectively demonstrated by the e-meter – which is also well described by the book as to exactly how it works to indicate the presence of mass and the discharge of it in auditing.”

                    — is without merit, particularly given Scientology assumption that mind =/= brain. Your statement also falls into the trap of assuming the conclusion it wishes to prove. If we define and clear the word “mass” as it is commonly understood by both physicists and common people using any regular dictionary — i.e., as something that in a gravitational field (such as on earth) has weight — there is NO evidence that the “mind” (as opposed to brain) has mass, or that E-Meter or needle phenomena are caused or accompanied by a change in “mass” — which should show up on a scale as a change in weight. Where is the EVIDENCE that needle phenomena are caused or accompanied by a change in mass, and thus a change in weight in ANY AMOUNT? Where is the experiment showing that needle phenomena are caused or accompanied by a change in mass, and thus a change in weight in ANY AMOUNT?

                    As I said in my original comment on this,. I could have accepted “mental mass” as a metaphor. I guess one could try to get away with defining the “mass” in “mental mass” in a way different than that commonly understood (i.e., as having weight in a gravitational field). But when one goes out of their way to assert that the “mass” in “mental mass” DOES have weight “on a scale,” then one can reasonably be asked to provide evidence of such weight “on a scale,” and not merely assume it, or assume that because the needle moves there MUST be a change in mass (and weight), and that no other explanation is possible.

                    As for me overgeneralizing, I’ve tried to follow the Second Rule of Happiness and, indeed, be respectful about this, but it probably time that I attempt to impinge a bit more. When I read a book that makes a statement to the effect that the 30 pound test “has actually been made” — note the use of the past tense — I can only conclude that the person who authored the passage was lying or, at best (worst?), incompetent. A test with such a result simply did not occur. A test with one tenth the result (i.e., 3 pounds) simply did not occur. Then why should I trust anything the author has to say on any “scientific” subject? Please note that I refer to “author” because I’m open to the possibility that, despite what it say in the copyright notice, Ron was not the author.

                    • CommunicatorIC, thanks for your response, and I do appreciate your respectfulness and intention to be fair minded.

                      My objection was actually to the part of your sentence referring in general to “THE THEORY articulated in the linked edition of Understanding the E-meter”, which wording does not limit what you’re talking about to the one specific paragraph but rather communicates the theory in the whole book. So even adding “very likely” makes no difference as regards the generality – although to be fair, I should have noted the “very likely” part too, even though it is a separate point.

                      On the second part of your post, I personally have heard of people who have come out of session with their clothes fitting noticeably looser than before session. And one person, by report, noticed such a difference that she went and weighed herself and was 15 pounds lighter. This is just anecdotal, of course, but it makes me wonder what data would turn up if a survey on this subject were made.

                      In reply to the rest of your post, I’ll quote from the book itself.

                      “For the meter to be read, the tiny flow of electrical energy through the preclear has to remain constant. When this tiny flow is reduced due to increased resistance, the needle of the E-Meter movement moves off the dial to the left. This happens because the preclear pulls in mass. This is actual mental mass (condensed energy), and this mass acts as a resistance to the flow of electrical energy from the E-Meter. The tiny carrier wave becomes partially blocked.
                      […]

                      “The tone arm simply regulates how much of the battery’s pressure or voltage is required to push the carrier wave through the preclear. The required pressure or voltage is determined by the amount of mental mass or resistance present in the preclear.
                      […]

                      “An electrical field exists at a distance from, or within, the body of the preclear. The tiny electrical flow from the E-Meter, acting as a carrier wave, which is passed through the body of the preclear, is influenced by electrical shifts and disturbances which occur in this ‘field’.

                      “The preclear is also surrounded by such things as masses, pictures and ridges and an entire record of the past which we call a time track.

                      “What are these pictures composed of? It has been established that this mental energy, such as is contained in a picture, and the energy of Earth or of the electric light company, are different only in wave length. Mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy.”

                      http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

              • In my opinion the chances that LRH read let alone wrote the book “Understanding the E-meter” are rather low given the amount of utter hogwash in it.

    • EnthralledObserver

      It was explained sufficiently, in my opinion, and I agree.

  15. Just Me, I dont believe Ron was uninformed. I thing he knew of exacty what he said. Now with DNA (cytology evolved somewhat) and Quantum Mechanics the science will get down to the truth sooner or later but I get Rons point. Thank goodness we have persons aboard that refuse to let that happen to Scientology because they remember its a science of knowing how to know. Ron didnt NEED to do clinical studies. The important things he spoke of were `self evident truths` as far as I cared. He wrote about what I allready knew and haveing him say it only gave me the certanty and relief that I wasnt the only one. As for the now and then things he wrote and said well, I simply put them in a `pending catagory in my mind` and went on. After study these last few years about the only HCOB I really still have a problem with is the one about a person being bad one lifetime and good the next and then bad the next …. never figured that one out and burned all my books LOL!

    • I found the ref in my PTS/SP pack:
      HCO Information Letter of 2 Apr 1964 `Two Types of People` 2nd pg quote: “So the same being at different lifetimes is good and evil”.
      I dissagree with that but so what. Twas not important. I`ll simply read it again now 20 years later and see what I think now. If I still dissagree ~ so what again.

    • EnthralledObserver

      This is the kind of thing that annoys me. First Scientology is a ‘science’ as an advancement or alternative to psychiatry, then it’s a religion, because it’s easier to say ‘don’t pick on us’ (or a tax break – or both), and then it’s a science because we want MEST validation, then a religion again because our research is missing and apparently why should LRon ‘NEED’ to do clinical studies like every other ‘scientist’, but it’s a science, trust us, because somebody else had the same thoughts as me.
      Seriously, these reasons are void, because two insane people can have similar delusions, but it doesn’t make their delusions real nor healthy, it’s NOT proof of anything at all.
      So, what IS Scientology… a SCIENCE or a RELIGION? I’m seriously confused which side of the fence scientologist actually sit on, it’s like you all keep moving the goal post so you can’t be pinned down to actually categorically admit which argument you’ll be defending for the long haul. Because, quite frankly, there is a separate case supporting each alternative which conflicts with the other’s case.

      • martyrathbun09

        Good point. From my perspective it is neither science or religion. Though it has characertistics of both, it is more accurately – in practice – a spirtual-oriented psychotherapy.

        • CommunicatorIC

          Marty: “Good point. From my perspective it is neither science or religion. Though it has characertistics of both, it is more accurately – in practice – a spirtual-oriented psychotherapy.”

          Therefore, Scientology is not, or at least should be, protected as a religion in the U.S. by the First Amendment?

          Therefore, Scientology entities are not, or at least should not be, exempt from taxation on the grounds of being religious institutions (as opposed to otherwise qualifying as tax exempt charities and satisfying the reporting requirements thereof)?

          Therefore, Scientology entities are not, or at least should not be, exempt (as they are now) on the grounds of being “religious” from a host of secular laws, including for example and without limitation, wage and hour laws, prohibitions against sexual orientation discrimination, prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of physical or medical illness or infirmity (i.e., the Illegal PC rule), exemptions from certain Social Security Administration requirements re: clergy, entitlements to immigration benefits re: clergy?

          Therefore, the use of the E-Meters is not exempt from FDA requirements requirements concerning safety and effectiveness on the grounds that it is a “religious artifact,” and E-Meters are possibly subject to being condemned and confiscated? See Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
          http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/courtfile-2-69.html

          AND

          Court Order

          • martyrathbun09

            Your conclusion couldn’t be more wrong. Read the Court of Appeals opinion you linked to by the august Skelly Wright. It all depends upon the context in which one practices. The church of Scientology – and most of the independent field – is all about religion. They are true believers – they believe as strongly and as sincerely as the most evangelical Christians and most radical Muslims.

            • EnthralledObserver

              LOL… My, my… well that was the fastest backtrack I’ve ever seen anyone ever make.
              Tricky question this one, isn’t it? If you admit it’s a SCIENCE, then you open Scientology to probing questions about the validity of the actual science used and scrutiny of the (absent) evidence and research that claims it WORKS. And then you lose all the benefits religions are instantly afforded(wrongly, I think, but my opinion alone cannot sway the law) by the very nature of claiming they ARE a religion.
              But if you just go with the RELIGION story, then you lose all credibility in the Scientific field because it’s all ‘belief’ and no ‘evidence’, and therefore cannot genuinely claim the success in the way Scientology has been all these years claiming ‘testing, research and clinical trials’ as if it is a science, and this makes it harder to rope people in.

              I personally think it’s a self-help type of therapy born from the successes and euphoric feelings brought on by hypnotism which lacks thorough research and investigation and adequate regulation. It should be afforded no special tax benefits because it’s ‘sold’ to an individual for individual benefits than are intended to be, in some cases, physical benefits, not purely spiritual and can offer no real ‘community encompassing’ charitable benefits.

              It’s a business. So those peddling it should pay taxes and operate under any rules and laws required for other businesses. i.e. they should be made accountable for what they claim are the benefits, and if they aren’t delivered to customer satisfaction – REFUND!

              That’s a pointy and transparent fence Scientolgists are trying to perch themselves on, innit? LOL.

              • martyrathbun09

                Call it what you want. Your obsession with labels will like keep you forever obsessed with Scientology. The reason being, again, the Skelly Wright opinion from the D.C. Court of Appeals probably best and most accurately sums it up.

                • EnthralledObserver

                  That’s a bit rich coming from a man who devotes much of his time to a blog ABOUT Scientology, isn’t it?
                  I’m not obsessed with labels, and my real obsession is Harry Potter, Snape in particular, but I have developed an interest in watching the imminent demise of this thing called Scientology. Labels to me are an identifying factor, not a be all and end all. But you don’t wish to really debate me on that, you just want to shut down a conversation where you might have to categorically place your occupation into a bracket that might subject it to unfavourable tax and accountability laws.
                  Hey, Marty, it’s okay by me that Scientology can be a ‘religion’, as it is if instead you want to claim it’s a ‘Science’, or even a ‘spirtual-oriented psychotherapy’ (which is a business, probably one that would fall under medical), but each of those things in the real world, the one with socially acceptable rules to help maintain the best quality of life for everyone without being at more expense to others than can be helped means that you (Scientologists) must decide which bracket Scientology best fits and ensure that whoever practices it and sells it follow the rules for such a bracket. Otherwise you are taking rights away from others for your own selfish gain. e.g taxes collected for the benefit of the communities, to name just one.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    Your hatred for Scientology is causing you to spout out a double standard on an automaticity. Ironically, Scientology could help you with that.

                    • EnthralledObserver

                      You want, and think, using Scientology can help cure me of my sense of fairness? That’s what I hear you say, anyway, but if I misunderstood, please elaborate.
                      What ‘double standard’ are you specifically referring to? I’m at a loss as to what you could be suggesting is my double standard spouted on an automaticity.

      • I think it is strictly a science. Here is a definition of science:

        1. “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural…”

        IMO one can do, claim or imagine to be able to do anything, but as long as one (the being) is attached to a physical body it is pointless to talk about just the spirit. The moment we have a thought here in this physical realm, we are dealing with with the physical.
        For those who do not agree with that here are two more definitions of science (which do not contain the word ‘physical’):

        2. “systematized knowledge in general”
        3. “knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.”

        (Note to base word ‘system’ in all three)

        The above definitions cover SC IMO just fine. Almost absolutely. Just because scientist make mistakes and fail at the ‘systematic’ routinely doesn’t make science into an invalid approach to know in general.

        OK scientists have a habit of getting derailed but that is because their own false information prevents them from being more systematic. They are just doing their best at being systematic.

        SC is the first science I know of which has taken the “systematic” to a whole new level. To me it is the core essence of SC that LRH realized the effects of false information on us to create human error. Then he worked on putting the “systematic” back into science.

        Word clearing is a form of being systematic. Clearing engrams is systematic elimination of sources of human error. The whole bridge is all about making one being able to carry out more systematic thinking and actions and thereby being able to know more systematically. Being more aware ‘spiritually’ is to be more systematic in understanding ‘what is’. Spirituality may not be an is-ness but the way we perceive it is, as an is-ness. The same can be said for physical. We perceive the physical as an is-ness, but what is physical anyhow? It sure as hell ain’t solid I know that we certainty by now. Just because we perceive it as an is-ness doen’t make it one.

        IMO truly systematic study of the physical will take you all the way to knowing about the spiritual also.

        This is what SC is to me.

        The moment one believes a single word of LRH it becomes a religion.
        I don’t believe anything LRH said. I do as he recommended and accept his words through verification only because it made sense to me to do that.

        Those who stick to this recommendation or do it on their own anyways are into the science of SC.
        Those who don’t, are not practicing Scientology so what the hell does it matter what we call them?🙂
        I prefer not to call them anything.

        I haven’t given up on the word science.

        Just my 2 cents.

        • Wow, this is a great post – every bit of it. And I think everything you have arrived at through your own experience and looking, starting with your ideas about science, was also arrived at by LRH. Some examples:

          “Being more aware ‘spiritually’ is to be more systematic in understanding ‘what is’. Spirituality may not be an is-ness but the way we perceive it is, as an is-ness.”

          Factor 11. But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension points.

          A != A: “The same can be said for physical. We perceive the physical as an is-ness, but what is physical anyhow? It sure as hell ain’t solid…”

          Factor 13. The dimension points are each and every one, whether large or small, SOLID. And they are solid solely because the viewpoints say they are solid.

          A != A: “IMO truly systematic study of the physical will take you all the way to knowing about the spiritual also.”

          From Creation of Human Ability: That the goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own postulates.

  16. Interesting early Morning read. But I do not get the point. Are you saying that the formation of Scientology tech was cut short and that new studies should be added to yield ‘other results’ for if we do not we may all fall off the bridge – cliff? Was the tech not already laid out? Has it not already been proven to yield workable results? Maybe we should all engage in Excaliber (like some of the Free Zone-ers) and detour from Standard (LRH) Tech. Please correct me if I did not understand the writen point of “The Story of Scientology Prophesied.”

    • martyrathbun09

      I’m quoting L. Ron Hubbard, and implying the idea conveyed seems to have been prophetic for the very ‘science’ he created. Your comment seems to be implying validation of that idea.

  17. Marty

    Yes, a sad story indeed, and how prophetic.

    The really sad part is that he had already seen the pitfall but marched his organizations right into it anyway, and there they wallow.

    Eric

  18. I agree with the very first comment on this thread by JUST ME,

    I’ll add my own two cents:

    In twenty years and possibly a thousand hours of listening to LRH lectures (some several times over), the overwhelming observations I have made are as follows:

    1. LRH spent perhaps 90% of many lectures talking about himself and his experiences/adventures. The legend of LRH was the dominant theme. Terms he used, like Wog, as well as stating that most of mankind is just above meat bodies and that we Scientologists are the upper one tenth of one percent, served to elevate him above most of the simple cavemen of earth. This is how one creates a cult, by the way. Or a religion. (kinda the same thing, actually).

    2. It was his way or the highway. The whole track sounds like it was quite depressing, violent and arduous as he described it. The future track will be much the same if you don’t exclusively do his Bridge To Total Freedom, which he claimed was apparently the first time in this entire universe that anyone had safely found the way out. Quite a statement to make, seeing as how there are probably trillions of entire galaxies out there. He must have some serious frequent flier miles built-up by now. Taken literally, he is basically saying that he knows the exact history of trillions of planets, spread over countless hundreds of trillions of light years’ distance, over hundreds of trillions of years’ time. Excuse me while I light up another joint and think this one over.

    3. Most other ‘ologies and their creators were something to be either frowned upon or chuckled at arrogantly. This is both 3rd party and dead-agenting. It serves again to elevate LRH and isolate him as “source” (whatever that means). It also serves to welcome in the “don’t look” culture one currently finds in the church.

    Amongst all of this, I had occasional wins. But I’ve had better wins excelling at art and music, frankly.

    LRH was brilliant and compassionate and productive and arrogant and elitist and possibly delusional, all within one 74-year lifetime.

    But, he victimized no one. We are all cause and I do believe that we must give our agreement before we can be duped.

    • martyrathbun09

      We are all cause and I do believe that we must give our agreement before we can be duped. You sho’ got that right.

    • I think, If everyone were simply happy with their Scientology experience, it wouldn’t really matter what Hubbard’s outpoints were. We focus on these to explain the mess we have today.

      It was possible and even probable for everyone to be happy with their Scientology experience at one time. I was there. I saw it for myself. There was a place and a way for everyone to be winning in the game. He did have it right at one time.

      It is perfectly O.K. to take what was bringing people joy and keep it moving. I have listened to some of his tapes. They were all different. It is no mystery as to what were his opinions, attitudes, and ideas and these are easily distanced from advice on the tech.

      Just like one can’t be duped without contributing to it , one cannot lose what one owns, unless one decides to give it up.

      Miscavige has turned Scientology into a business corporation. He has managed to close many gates. But it is not possible for him to undo the good already done. Or the good that will still be done.

    • EnthralledObserver

      “But, he victimized no one.”
      I might agree that he victimised no adult individual. But he victimised plenty of children who should have had protection and been allowed to mature to adulthood and therefore be capable of adult reasoning before they gave their own informed agreement.

  19. All the bitching and moaning about LRH being full of crap stems from a failure to recognize the outpoint of DROPPED OUT TIME. He was addressing things as they were in 1 9 5 2, for Christ sake! Interdisciplinary science didn’t get cranked up in earnest until after that.
    From http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/6.3/spier.html
    “In the early nineteenth century, many of these scholars were multidisciplinary, or perhaps even interdisciplinary, but without knowing it, because at the time of course these terms did not yet exist. Alexander von Humboldt, for instance, called himself a ‘naturalist’, yet he was interested in subjects ranging from the sky to human history, while the ‘naturalist’ Charles Darwin was as good a geologist as he was a biologist. Over the course of the nineteenth century, however, the growing body of scientific knowledge led to the ever greater differentiation of academic studies. While more and more specialisations were defined, academic knowledge became more compartmentalised, which resulted in the disciplines with which we are all familiar today. In the real world, everything has remained connected with everything else. As a result of the ongoing ‘disciplinification’ of universities, however, this important insight, familiar enough to Alexander von Humboldt, was lost.
    “It would take until the 1980s before a few dedicated scholars again began looking at the past as a whole. This was probably no coincidence. By the middle of the 1970s, the current scientific paradigms of the history of the universe, the solar system, the Earth and life had all become accepted within mainstream science. As a result, some innovative US scholars, including the geologist Preston Cloud at the University of Minnesota, the biologist Siegfried Kutter at Evergreen State College in Washington State, and the astronomers George Field and Eric Chaisson at Harvard University, started synthesising this knowledge. They offered university courses and wrote books on the science-based history of everything, with emphasis on their own specialisations. Then, a few years later, the historians David Christian and John Mears (Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA) began designing their ‘big history’ courses.
    “Over the same period, the call for interdisciplinary approaches became stronger. Scholars became increasingly aware of the fact that although universities had undergone a process of ‘disciplinification’, the world out there had not. It was increasingly recognised that our world was more complex than had been realised before, and that the application of a variety of disciplinary approaches to tackle single problems could be quite successful. This recognition appears to have been caused partly by the fact that the world was becoming more complex as a result of human action. But there may have been more to it than that.
    “As I see it, the call for interdisciplinarity may also have been an unplanned effect of the Apollo moon flights of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The views of the Earth as seen from space, most notably the so-called ‘Earthrise’ photo made by the astronauts of Apollo 8 from lunar orbit, had an enormous impact in this respect. On the Earthrise photo, the Earth is seen rising above a stark and forbidding grey lunar landscape. This was the first time that human beings had watched the Earth from a distance as a blue and white ball swinging through space. It is well known that the images of the seemingly fragile ‘Spaceship Earth’ provided an enormous impetus to the fledgling environmental movement. It may well be, however, that the Spaceship Earth pictures also stimulated the upsurge of interest in interdisciplinary studies, since scholars could suddenly see for themselves that in reality everything is interconnected.
    “The early nineteenth-century all-round scientific pioneers had one major advantage: they were not yet much hindered by institutional boundaries. More recent generations of students of nature and human life, by contrast, have had to deal with universities parceled up into a great many disciplines. Today, as a result of decades of efforts to promote interdisciplinary studies, it is perhaps not longer so difficult to engage in such projects. Nevertheless, even in the present time, interdisciplinary studies in the form of theoretically-integrated approaches are still rare.”
    In fact, one could argue that LRH’s earlier work and his connections with JPL may have even been a catalyst for interdisciplinary studies:
    “With the advent of atomic weapons . . . more than a few from Astounding circles would join Ron at the Hollywood home of Robert Heinlein for discussions on ways of inspiring a peaceable space race instead of a nuclear arms race.”
    http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page76.htm

    The C of M may have stultified the subjection, but application of the TOOLS of Scientology (Study Tech, Data Series, TRs, etc.) knows no bounds.

    • A couple of clarifications are needed here, Graduated.

      By 1952:
      __ biology and chemistry were already being coupled together in a relatively new field called molecular biology.
      __ quite a bit of cell biology was understood (ATP’s role in the energy exchange in cells had just been discovered less than a decade previous).
      __ DNA had already been proposed as the mechanism behind chromosomes and inheritance (although it would be another year before we knew about its structure and a year or two still before we directly observed it).

      Not to mention the fact that within a few years biology would make possible the modern understanding of Darwin’s theory of natural selection (by revealing errors in the replicating process of DNA as the fundamental mechanism of action).

      In the face of all this, LRH proclaims biology as stagnant? Leaving aside his outright lie that biology, as understood in 1952, was at odds with cytology and evolution, how are we to reconcile his assessment of the state of biology with its actual state at the time?

      PS. I’m pretty sure that, the history of interdisciplinary studies as a university curriculum agenda notwithstanding, big names had already been talking about the unification of the sciences for a while. Ernest Nagel, most famously, who made it explicit in his 1949 ‘The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences’ and his 1961 ‘The Structure of Science’. But Francis Bacon, Spinoza, Leibniz, and even Kant had been talking about it in one form or another. Einstein and his cohorts had been laboring for a while to unify gravity with QM. And as mentioned, molecular biology had already formed as an interdisciplinary approach to chemistry and biology. So whatever the case may be, I’m skeptical that it had to wait on someone taking a picture of the Earth from the moon… or for LRH to make false claims about biology and science.

      • Yes, skepticism is a good thing and there are exceptions going back to Greek times, but exceptions don’t make the rule. And in the world of 1952, there were specialists as locked into their own paradigm just as fervently as any cult member. Even today, there are quantum physicists vehemently resisting the fact that consciousness is the source of matter – another concept Hubbard promulgated even way back then over the jeers of his contemporaries who also “knew better”.

        • I would like to add that what LRH published on the subject in 1952 did not necessarily reflect his view of the scene extant at that time, but of the scene as he saw it when he was perhaps 20 years old himself, when he went off to college. In 1952 LRH was what? – 40, 41 years old. I venture he wrote of ‘science’ as he saw it or thought it was, in the 1930s, not the 1950s. And I imagine at least some of his thoughts about ‘science’ resulted from his comm with others. He associated with many writers, including the leading lights of “The Golden Age of Science Fiction”.These were people like John W.Campbell Jr., AE vanVogt, Robert Heinlein and many more. These were bright and knowledgeable people, who, as writers, were curious and researched many scientific subject areas in order to write with versimilitude.

          But I think much of his basis for his opinions was his own first-hand experiences in school, which would be the 1930s, and then his associations from the 1940s.

          I am reminded of my 10th-grade Biology teacher in 1960, a Bostonian one of whose pet peeves was ignorant people who mixed Greek combining forms with Latin combining forms. OCD, anyone?

          This is exactly the case of the word ‘scientology’ – it combines a Latin combining form with a Greek one! 🙂

          The ‘biology’ he taught was from ‘textbooks’ which were likely themselves quite dated. How often are textbooks revised, and how many schools have the latest most current editions?

          It seems to me, that what most people think and know of ‘science’ is what they learned in schools from textbooks, and often has little resemblance to what folks actually working in a scientific field think or know. A 1950s graduate will not have the same views as a 1930s graduate, or a 1970s grad. ience” cvollects

          I think much of what Marty quoted is not far off the mark. “Science” collects facts, tries to organize and eventually make sense of their collections.

          And what we refer to as ‘science’ is very far from an integrated consensus reality. I think it is best looked as a set of tools we use in the process of discovery, which is also what ‘scientology’ is properly viewed as.

          • EnthralledObserver

            This resistance to ‘research’ was prolific in his work. It is evident in the differences between the first edition of Dianetics and later versions. He was always far too ready to spout off about his opinion derived from his minimal understanding about a subject before actually checking the most current facts/research findings (or even doing his own properly).

            • Well, OK EO. I’m not sure how my post relates to LRH ‘researching’ anything at all?

              My point was that if he was at all like anyone else in the society, his opinions were based on a mix of soures, some pretty up-to-date and some likely out dated, depending on when he had contact with any educational system in his own life.

              I’m not sure what you thought I was saying?

              In any case, since you have in the past posted that you had no intention of actually learning anything of the philosophical side of scientology, I can’t give you very high marks for your approach to ‘researching’ any subject.

            • Enthralled Observer, I am not aware of differences in Dianetics editions Please say specifically what you are referring to.

              • p.s. I’ve only heard of relatively inconsequential differences such as changes in paragraphing and the Synopsis being moved from the back of the book to being placed in the front.

  20. Typo: “subjection” should be “subject”. (Hey Marty, how about turning on the comment editor setting in WordPress?)

  21. Marty, I love your Blog. I have gotten much case gain from reading
    for a year and a half now. As far as dead ends in Science Im not eager
    to put heads on a pike or pronounce a subject dead on arrival.

    I worked on a National Science foundation Funded Project years ago . Long story short my results bucked the establishment and were so divergent it shook the cage to put it mildly. I had my project canned by the NSF and I was out on the streets, nobdy would hire me after discovering my past job and paycheck. Being turned on a spit over a fire appeared not so bad.

    L.Ron Hubbard was way ahead of his time,It goes with the territory
    that he bucked what was the popular view. Im glad he navigated the waters to achieve what he did ,there is a lot more to know Im sure of that.
    probably Biology also. Keep pushing the envelope and not be afraid to have
    dscoveries that are Off the Reservation.

    Well done Marty

  22. Ooh, interesting.

    Ill admit my first thought when I read this quote was about a tenuous grasp of science, but I think to focus on that alone is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    The point is stagnation. Its knowing that there is more to do, but resting on the status quo. And on that point, LRH is correct.

    Heres an article from a psychiatrist discussing stagnation in therapy:
    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/05/ramachandrans_mirror.html

    “Of course I knew the significance of the mirror. Of course I knew how to do it. I just never did. It never even occurred to me to do it…. Not just me, but it also never occurred to the ten years of doctors she’d seen in her life. Absolutely every single doctor knows about the mirror. Not one tried it.”

    Scientific discovery is replete with examples of men making this mistake – sticking with the status quo and not pushing boundaries that they KNOW are there. Clinging to existing knowledge in spite of the swirl of changing facts around them. To do this is dangerous.

    Martys point, which I believe is that this is happening/happened to Scientology, certainly seems to fit – a religion that prides itself on honest perception failing to see its own increasingly insular and fundamentalist interpretations of LRH.

    Id say what LRH describes is, in part, our old friend the Ego, and this idea of clinging to an ideology is a major part of our inability to adapt to life efficiently. And is something anyone with a degree of consciousness should fight.

    Intriguing post Marty

  23. Consider what you wish about this. Scientology is not a new discovery that LRH came up with 60 years ago. It is something that a very strong being put together from the work that many of us have done over the ages.
    Many of us have worked together or apart over many lifetimes to solve the human situation. The overt acts that we all have committed across the ages make David Miscavage look like a baby throwing his rattle out his pram.
    We have been doing this for a very very very long time.
    People like Marty and Alan Walter and David Mayo and Bill Franks and John McMaster and Mary Sue and Bill Robertson and many others have been intertwined in so many lifetimes. I have to include David Miscavage in that list as I have some vivid recalls of his participation in a research project some 75 million years back.

    • Spare me …

    • You are right about one thing, I have crossed paths with many people I recognized instantly in Scientology. The names above were not part of my list. I had crossed Hubbard’s path before, when he was Hubbard.

      I have wondered about the degree of restimulation and madness I have seen turned on in this group. Of course, I am the “spectator, dilitante , curiosity seeker” in much of it. Not the highest caliber of thetan in any of it.

      But if someone gets keyed in by seeing a baseball bat, and one takes that up in auditing to clear someone, why wouldn’t some one take up Scientology as an item of restimulation to run? Because it is said to be “NEW”.

      But there is a paramilitary organization very oddly mis placed with in this theater of exploring the super natural. I am highly suspect. This is a HUGE outpoint. A para military organization with in conditions and forces flowing through the super natural????????????? That’s like hooking the Attorney General up with Aleister Crowley to open up a new adventure.

      Para Military really does not fit snugly with the super natural. The only common purpose they both have is to BYPASS. One is down in the enforce band and the other is up at curiosity and desire. It is very very rare to find the supernatural elements involved with op terming. You have to give up a lot of power in one dimension, to spend in another. It’s a very tricky form of bankrupting a thetan.

      I suspect there is an earlier similar Scientology on the track.

    • Ralph Hilton,
      Much Metta (loving-kindness) to you.
      George M. White

      “Our conception of substance is only vivid so long as we do not face it.
      It begins to fade when we analyze it”

      A.S. Eddington – Reality

  24. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    I’ve a dream :

    Some young people trained as class 8 and having co-audited up to oT 8 going into universities and studying sciences.
    What will happen then ?

  25. Here’s a video that had quite an impact on me, positively, Marty.

    About 8 minutes Sit back and listen. Is there an entity called ‘god’?

  26. Sure ! The full story , unvarnished would make me the President of the Liars Club for Life except for the fact that everything I say is the truth.
    I did make my Magnus Opus based on what the establishment thinks is Batshit crazy.
    Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

  27. Oh the irony.

    It is interesting how most comments appear to defend or argue Hubbard’s findings on “science”. I like trees but I enjoy the woods much more…😊

  28. Some people could wander around in the wilderness for 40 years and still not want to leave, even if they were standing right next to an exit sign.

    To quote that great philosopher Auntie Mame: “Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!”

  29. Ron is quite elitist and arrogant here. Discounting the continuous discoveries that science always reveals for the benifit of mankind.

    The only reason I can surmise for such behavior is a mega inferiority complex.

    The need to make others look bad so that he looks big.

    This trait is the essential trait of Scientology: only way, only true knowledge of the mind, only way out, only true knowledge of the spirit.

    Scientology a science?

    I have revisited a tape I used to love to listen to: The Role of Earth. It is on the net.

    It is inconceivable and completely impossible for me now, to equate Ron with having or honoring any true scientific discipline, when the contents of the tape ‘Role of Earth’ is considered indisputable truth by him.

    With the smoke screen of an entertaining intellect, words, sophistry, a dilettante comprehension of science, indisputable charisma and charm, passion for researching mind, willing naïve students, partial understanding of eastern and western esoteric thought and practices; he waves a magic wand and discounts biology and material sciences for not discovering the spiritual nature of existence.

    Could someone who spoke and recorded ‘The Role of Earth’ even remotely be considered to have resolved the riddle of Spirit ? Or be considered scientific by anyone’s standards?

    And if you are unnerved by my statement, I am only affording myself the opportunity to express myself about Ron, in the manner that he does towards any other body of knowledge that he feels competes with his imaginary uniqueness.

    May all sentient beings be happy! Including Ron!

    • But thank you Ron for all those procedures that bring people to awareness of spirit and happiness

    • “Ron is quite elitist and arrogant here. Discounting the continuous discoveries that science always reveals for the benifit of mankind.

      The only reason I can surmise for such behavior is a mega inferiority complex.

      The need to make others look bad so that he looks big.”

      Brian, In case you haven’t given it any thought, YOU seem to have the need to make Hubbard look bad. That seems to be a need of many people these days. It is very easy to make someone look bad. It’s a lot harder to walk a mile in their shoes.

      Hubbard was an extraordinary. I am only too glad to hear his thoughts and ideas.

      • On psychometry and it’s uses.

      • Oracle, Ron said:

        “You can see how biology, for instance, has dead-ended”

        “It’s ‘biology’.  It’s sort of a hopeless dead end.”

        Also he religated an entire population of teachers, professors, and biologists to a demeaning denerality of scholarly robots.

        And Oracle, you said I have a need to make Ron look bad.

        To me the word ‘make’ means to create. Here is the reason I responded the way I did:
        It was Ron who was ‘making’ biologists wrong. I did not ‘make’ Ron wrong. Ron is wrong.
        Biology is the study of life forms not consciousness, the spirit, the mind etc.
        Biology has not come to a dead end. Biologists are continuing to make discoveries like polio vaccines etc. for the benefit of humanity.

        What he is basically saying, in my opinion, is that these subjects and their adherents are not as advanced as me (Ron) in pursuing new discoveries about life.

        I do not understand how the dismisal of entire subjects and their adherence can be so easily glossed over as me making Ron wrong. Lol

        It may very well be, that some of his demeaning communication styles have become that aspect of being a Scientologist that society is repulsed by.

        I did not make Ron wrong here. Ron is wrong.

        Thanks for responding Oracle. I could not gloss over his blatant condescension of entire subjects and people as Ron accomplishes so effortlessly with an air of ‘knowing.’

        The end result of the conscension is that ‘he knows’ and ‘they don’t’

        And that is the essential quality and personality of Scientology as it has been.

        We learn from teachers. He was a teacher.

        • Brian, A common error people make when exploring Scientology is that when they read something Hubbard wrote, or they listen to something he said, and they think he is talking to them.

          They never met the man, never came face to face with him, he has no idea who is listening to some lecture or reading something he wrote once. Yet, they feel he is responsible for getting the conversation “just right” for them.

          You get these bible thumpers saying, “Ron says……..” Well, he said it but he did not say it to them. They hallucinate that they have had some conversation with him. He was talking to someone when he wrote KSW. But for sure he did not suggest the lives of every man woman and child on this planet depended on some bible thumper or even me. And I don’t know what pissed him off that day or who. It just wasn’t ME.

          During his lectures, he was talking to people, but I wasn’t one of them and either were you. No need to take others to others conversations personally. If he had been having a conversation with you, I’m sure it would have been very different.

          • His lectures are “others to others” recorded conversations. When you watch television and you see people talking to one another, do you also chime in with disagreements or comments? Some people do you know. I’ve seen it. Well, the conversation is a record of THE PAST others to others conversation. It already happened and you were not there when it did.

            • This is a recording meant for everyone. It has no words in it:

            • His lectures are recordings of his thoughts and convictions. I am responding to his words as he says them and means them, from my point of view.

              • Actually, you are not responding as he says them. That was half a century ago. You are responding to an “others to others” recording.

                I just listened to the recordings made by Jackie Kennedy in 1964. It was clear she changed her mind about things only a few years later, by her support of the feminist movement.

                • EnthralledObserver

                  Then EVERYTHING Ron ever said or wrote is NOW OUTDATED and worthless to modern audiences, because he might have changed his mind by now had he not died. Gotcha, thanks.

                • Oracle, If I never heard the name Ron Hubbard or Scientology,and read this post by Marty, I would not have responded with this view so readily.

                  My response is to a tone that Ron uses, a definite style of communication, that I observed as a student of Scientology for many years and as a Sea Org member. I use to go to Celebrity Center on La Brea and listen to tape after tape after tape, for weeks and months and months. PDC, Whole Track Tapes and on and on.

                  My response is an informed observation, according to my directly listening to Ron. And my post is the sum of my thoughts and feelings from those years, not just from this one post about science and scientists.

                  The bane of the Scientologist-elitism, was learned. Just like you see so many Scientologists smoke. Just like the Indies only acknowledge Buddha or Lao Tzu (Ron approved -other practice- sages) , Just like you won’t see Scientologists doing yoga (exercises). Ron says ,”eat your hamburgers” or “vegetarians are dramatizing being eaten” so you won’t see Scientologist vegetarians.

                  Elitism and condescension toward society in general, was his style of communication. And a psychological imprint that Indies and X Scientologists are finding out doesn’t serve them anymore. In fact it never did.

                  Every now and again I still have to dump some old junk I agreed to. And it has been 31 years.

                  That being said, this blog of Marty’s has put me in touch with great love and compassion for Ron. And for that I am grateful.

                  He was one wild ass crazy mofo that lived “HUGE” to quote Trump.

                  And he gathered together a generation of truth seekers and put them on the path to liberation. No effort is lost on the road to Freedom.

                  God bless you L.Ron Hubbard! May your dream of Total Freedom be yours evermore. And also for those who were and are your students.

                  You ain’t done here! Ya’ll got some unfinished biz on this mud ball of crazy dreams.

                  I can see it now, Ron a young man getting into session years hence and originating to the auditor, “I am L Ron Hubbard.” Then he gets sent to ethics and offloaded as a Type 3. LOL, it may be his karma. But maybe not -:)

    • I don’t recall the Role of Earth being positioned by Ron as some scientific treatise – more of a frank telling of the significance of this planet in the broader galactic political scheme of things as he considered it to be. Waking up in a body in pawn at some point would certainly give it subjective credibility and discovery of a destroyed alien base on Mars some scientific credibility. But short of that, I agree – it’s a hell of a good yarn.

      • Graduated, the Role of Earth type of stories are the very stories that are the zenith of Scientology auditing.

        History of Man (what to audit) OT 3,4,5,6,7 etc are not different from Scientology. They may be different from running ARCxs, Overts etc on the grades, but these very stories are the highest known proccessing called the OT levels.

        For some reason, Scientologist, in my opinion only, hide from these subjects when questioned by a journalists/press/interviewers.

        You can see and feel the squirm in their face and talking. Total avoidance.

        I have never heard a Scientologist say, ” yes I believe in the Fifth invader Force, Marcabians, flying alligators, snapping your fingers and someone’s teeth fall out (clam), boxed glycol beings.”

        They will agree that auditing can help a person be more cause etc, but the very epitome of Scientology dogma is always avoided. Why?

        In my opinion it is because somewhere deep within: we know why and don’t want our reasoning powers being associated with fundamentalist fantasies that can give the onlooker a bad view of Scientology and possibly think we are bonkers for living our lives dedicated to these Sci-Fi beliefs camoflouged as a science.

        • Brian, what do you think of this remote-viewing study that was conducted to investigate an anomalous high resolution image of Mars that suggests artificiality:

          http://farsight.org/demo/Mysteries/Mysteries_1/Mysteries_Project_1.html#.UXNBbrXvtgk

          • Miraldi, I am all for it. I have experienced it myself from time to time.

            There is a fine line between accurate intuitive soul memory and delusive subconscious mind impressions. How many Mozart’s did you meet in Scientology who got standard tech? If you do not grant Ron infallibility then it is possible that some of his memories were inaccurate as far as truth is concerned.

            Because I think the Fifth Invader Force is delusional does not imply, by me, that metaphysical subjects are bogus. I have had too many amazing things happen to me as I am sure most of you have had too.

            • Brian: “If you do not grant Ron infallibility then it is possible that some of his memories were inaccurate as far as truth is concerned.”

              I agree, and I don’t grant Ron infallibility, but I was trying to make the point that some of what he said about Mars might have seemed far-fetched and delusional and yet here are these remote viewers giving possible credence to his seeming “delusions” about Mars.

              I posted the shorter version of the video by mistake. But if you went to the farsight.org link I posted you would have seen the full version, which is several minutes longer. The additional minutes start at about 10:00 on the longer version, and at about 11:40, there is a summary of the remote viewers’ perceptions, which were the following:

              – The domes are artificial
              – Subjects work inside the domes
              – Technology
              – Original builders are ancient
              – Current inhabitants do not fully understand the technology
              – Missing spare parts
              – Enormous power generating technology
              – Intense light flashing from domes
              – Sense of despondency among inhabitants
              – Hardship assignment
              – Subjects apparently cannot return home, and they knew that when they accepted the assignment
              – No extraterrestrial content to the RV data
              – Subjects could be human
              – Origin unknown
              – Possible “black” military operation
              – Possibility of decoding error
              – New information is speculative since it is not yet verified

              Here is the full version:

              • Miraldi, I will watch today

                • Great!

                • Very cool Miraldi! But I am not sure the significance to my posts. This guy is honest. He says it is speculative. Ron’s space opera was never an implied speculation. People spent money to run this stuff. It was understood to be Ron’s infallible recall. And unquestioningly understood to be your memory also.

                  • I have close friends who are leaders in the UFO field. My questioning Ron’s space opera does not at the same time discount the many revelations from credible people that there are more creatures lurking about than simply humans from earth.

                  • Brian, you wrote above, “He says it is speculation”. That is misleading, stating it as a generality like that. The context was “New information is speculative since it is not yet verified,” The “new information” refers only to certain data – that perceived by the remote viewers for which there is currently no physical evidence (such as photographs) and thus it is considered speculative until and unless physical data can corroborate it. See MaBű’s post below which elaborates on this point and other clarifications as well, with regard to remote viewing protocol.

                    The significance of the video to your posts was that although you stated “it is possible that some of his [LRH’s] memories were inaccurate as far as truth is concerned”, you yourself seem to not be open to the other possibility – i.e. that what LRH stated may have been accurate. You referred to them as “fundamentalist fantasies” and “Sci-Fi beliefs”. That seems to me to be just as much assumption as the opposite – the opposite being to assume his memories were accurate. How many times in history have things that sounded outlandishly incredible at the time turned out to be true, including the notion that the Earth wasn’t flat.

                    The key point of the video was that the physical data, the NASA photographs, match the perceptions of the remote viewers as to the existence of an “artificial” (i.e. not geologically natural) structure on Mars. Those remote viewers were highly trained and experienced with extensive track records and they majorly agreed on this point. So it seems to me that there is a definite possibility that LRH’s statements about stations on Mars, incredible sounding though they were, may very well have been accurate. That’s all I was trying to say.

                    It does seem that the OT III story, although it seemed to be true for some people wasn’t true for everybody, and I recall a post comment of Dan Koon who said that LRH wanted a pilot done to have pc’s go straight from OT II to NOTs, but DM never made that happen. So that’s one part of the so-called “Sci-Fi” tech that LRH would probably have revised,

                    • Scientology was supposed to be a science. Not running memories that may or may not be true. From basic courses to OT 2, the L’s and other logical processes based on the pcs known capacities and memories, the pcs own personal knowledge was addressed.

                      From OT 3 on up was Ron’s memory or dubbed in imagination. And since it was a crime in Scientology to invalidate OTs, OTs became a mocked up personality with missed with- holds out the wazzoo because they never attained what the grade chart said they did.

                      Scientific sophistry (plausible but fallacious argumentation) is not science.

                      The upper OT levels is where Scientology became a belief cult on par with other popular belief cults.

                      Test:
                      1) Snap your fingers together and see if you can make someone have teeth trouble.
                      2) Show someone the OT 3 data and run some on them. See if they die or get pneumonia.
                      3) Cure blindness ( Ron categorically stated auditors can do this)
                      4) Exterior with full perception was an OT level EP, when the bridge was considered complete and standard before it changed and wasn’t.
                      Scientology has never made a stable exterior.

                      Also, Ron said Jesus was an implant, Psychiatry is the source of all crime on the planet, All the trappings of civilization are from R6………… all….. a dramatization!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL!!!!!!!!

                      Here is what Ron says about psychiatrists from Freedom Magazine 1969,

                      “Crimes of extortion, mayhem and murder are done daily by these men in the name of “practice” and “treatment.” There is not one institutional psychiatrist alive who, by ordinary criminal law, could not be arraigned and convicted of extortion, mayhem and murder. Our files are full of evidence on them.”

                      This info came from Ron. The same man who created OT3. Yes created, not remembered………. created. Albeit he believed it himself.

                      On Tony’s blog right now there is a women who was in the GO and was in a meeting where two murders were being planned. Check out Underground Bunker.

                      I knew an auditor at the AO in the 80s who told me one of her pcs originated a with-hold of killing or being told to kill someone.

                      The truth is coming out. The beast is loosing power. The internet is smashing sacred cows left and right. Time for burgers.

                      Some of Ron’s intentions were not benevolent.

                      And the delusional fighting of cosmic evil as written in the OT levels is the very inspiration for crimes against humanity that was given the OK by the Old Man in Bolivar.

                      Research and think Damnit!!!!!!

                    • Brian, how do you know with such certainty that “From OT 3 on up was “Ron’s memory or dubbed in imagination”? From the data I have, those levels – when auditing with tech in – have produced phenomenal gains in pcs. As I see it, that isness alone, conflicts with the idea that it was nothing but “Ron’s memory…”.

                      Even if it’s true that there is no evidence of Ron having done much if any research on pcs as regards the upper levels, what about the idea that there are other ways of finding truth, such as by means of remote viewing and the like – i.e. direct knowledge. If indeed there is no such thing as time, such methods would be valid tools – that is to say, the data would be there to be uncovered via direct perception.

                      That may not be science, but I get that LRH was never one not to change his mind on what he earlier professed if he found it wasn’t workable or if he found something more workable. And the things you listed under “Test” were largely things he stated in the earlier years of research. As for your references to OT III on that list, I already noted above (citing Dan Koon’s first-hand knowledge about Ron requesting a pilot eliminating OT III), Ron himself seemed to have changed his mind about it.

                      Even as regards his original intentions of only using scientific methods of research, he may have changed his mind. And he wouldn’t be the only one in both ancient and modern times who has the viewpoint that science isn’t the only way to go, and possibly not even the best way to go. Ron basically stated that at as far back as 1952, in Scn 8-8008, where he wrote that logic and science were at Look on the Know to Mystery Scale, and that direct perception (at Know) is senior – IF one is up to that level of ability.

                      Actually, it’s not that I’m trying to convince you or anybody of anything, because I truly don’t know or even think I know. And I’ll admit that I haven’t done a ton of research about Ron, but the amount I have done was enough to tell me there is so much conflicting data that I came to the conclusion the important thing to focus on – at least for me – is the potential value in the tech, which is tremendous per data I have on various flows.

                      Whatever LRH may or may not have been guilty of, and what his true intentions were in those various deeds, is in any case beside the point of the workability of the tech. And thus the research on improving the tech is much more important than concentrating on researching the outpoints, whether real or not.

                    • I for one would have been extremely disappointed if LRH had pulled OT3 from the lineup because it is too out-reality for the general public.

                      I doubt he ever would have. Kowtowing to the opinions of popular culture on Earth circa 1980 or whenever, was not Ron’s style.

                      As to the “reality” of OT3, all I have to say to the naysayers is, it’s in there, boys. Or something very similar. Anyone who has audited people for any length of time probably had one or two run into it while still on some lower level. Pre-internet too, so the person had no clue what the level was about.

                      I thought OT2 was mostly a crock when I “read” it. Then I RAN it, and it felt like gobs of electric charge were flying out of my space. Really, truly incredible. Never experienced anything quite like it.

                      Laugh at it, invalidate it, make nothing of it, insist it was all a con or fantasy of Ron’s. But there’s something there, folks. The stuff works. That is why, no matter hard you critics try (I’m referring to the LRH bashers amongst us), regardless of what (deservedly) happens to Miscavige, you’ll never kill Scientology.

                    • Publius, thanks for bringing up the fact that auditors have had pc’s who ran into the OT III data without their having had any clue about it beforehand, and also for making the same point I did – that in fact there must be something there or the auditing wouldn’t work to bring about the gains it does.

                      And I wasn’t at all thinking that LRH might have pulled OT III from the lineup for the reason that it was “too out-reality for the general public”. The idea I got for why he might have done so was that the NOTs tech would perhaps more efficiently take care of the issues addressed at OT III, and would fit pc’s in general better.

                    • Miraldi, my opinions are circumstantial, based on things Ron has said throughout the years that are ridiculous (psyches being the source of crime and everyone of them a murderer etc. etc., and this post about biologists. And I can write pages of this ).

                      If he can be so confident in such foolishness, then due consideration for reason and common sense would strongly demand doubt in the credibility of metaphysical things unverifiable by common understanding.

                      Also, my own personal experience in my own spiritual development as well as a vigorous study of many sages and paths have informed my opinion about Ron.

                      I have concluded, for myself, some basic theories regarding cult characteristics-

                      1) the teacher claims a uniqueness that no other teacher has ever revealed.
                      2) they claim being the only way
                      3) they harm critics for the greater good
                      4) the claim to teach you independence and then crush you for demonstrating it
                      5) they are condescending to those outside the group
                      6) critical thinking is considered dangerous and must be destroyed for the greater good

                      These traits and the false notions that have been associated with the Church of Scientology make a strong case for doubting certain claims that are unquestioningly accepted by cult members.

                      Organizations are a shadow of the man who created it. There are many shadows here.

                    • Brian, you should at least state correctly what Ron said. The statement you yourself quoted didn’t refer to “psyches being the source of crime and every one of them a murderer”, i.e. he wasn’t speaking of “psyches” in general – he specified “the Institutional psychiatrist”. Not that I’m justifying even that as a broad statement, but you’ve just demonstrated an example of how data about Ron gets twisted and made into something distinctly different.

                      But again, I’m not prepared to argue the pros and cons of Ron’s statements or actions – or, more importantly, IMO, the intentions behind them, including the intentions behind the cult characteristics that I believe you correctly listed. I will admit that those characteristics, no matter what the ultimate intention might have been, did backfire and harmed the purposes of the original philosophy. And the quote in the OP does seem to be a prophesy of Scientology.

                      However, it just happens that I recently reviewed the book Understanding the E-meter, published in 1982, and noted a paragraph which indicates Ron wasn’t just ignoring and dismissing everything that was going on in science, as the 1952 quote in the OP might suggest. I think this is a good example of why we shouldn’t draw overall conclusions from particular things Ron said at particular times. Here’s that paragraph:

                      “The January, 1979 issue of Omni magazine published a short article on the behavior of atoms together with a photograph of the first color films of the atom. The picture showed a blowup of some uranium atoms magnified 15 million times by an electron microscope, yet what was seen, baffled the scientists who had done the filming. instead of seeing a bunch of static particles, what they saw, in their own words, looked ‘more like liquids than metals.’ They found that atoms just weren’t sitting still but were shuttling back and forth, leaping in and out of the carbon depressions that supported them. They were completely astonished and had no way of, explaining the phenomenon. They did not know the simple fact that matter is composed of condensed energy.”

                    • Miraldi here is one big fat virtual hug from me to you, in celebration of the fact that we can even talk openly like this without fear of harm by GO,OSA etc.

                      This in itself is more valuable than even our respected views and arguments. Freedom!!!! to discuss!! I am smiling.

                      Thank you for engaging me in this touchy subject.

                      My view is from someone who was an 11 year Scientologist and blown for 31 years who has increased every day my passion for spiritual liberation since then. It is my view.

                      We have both given our best honest realities and understandings and not descended into personal attacks. I am grateful.

                      Maybe that is what it is all about.

                      Warm Regards,
                      Brian

                    • “We have both given our best honest realities and understandings and not descended into personal attacks. I am grateful.”

                      Yes, Brian, we can take a win! One big fat virtual hug back.🙂

              • Some clarifications for those who are not familiar with the remote viewing protocols.

                In the remote view protocol, the remote viewer doesn’t know what is the target, (s)he is just given a set of coordinates of the target. So, in the Mars remote viewing project, the remote viewers didn’t see the photographs before the remote viewing sessions.

                Marildin: “- New information is speculative since it is not yet verified”

                Given a coordinates of a target, the remote viewer gets perceptions of the target, which he describes the best as (s)he can. Part of what (s)he describes can be verified as real of the target, part can be verified as not real (of the target), and part cannot be verified whether or not it’s real (of the target). The latter (the part that cannot be verified whether it’s or not a good match), in the remote view jargon, is called “new information”.

                Marildin: “- Possibility of decoding error”

                Decoding errors occur when a remote viewer perceives something that is real at the target, but the description of this perception is not entirely correct. The perception is real, but the description of it is only partially accurate. For example, if someone describes a city with tall skyscrapers as a mountain range, that is a decoding error. The perception is correct in terms of the topology, but the characterization of it as a mountain range is incorrect. Also, if a person places trees or animals in a barren natural landscape, that is a decoding error. The perception of a natural landscape is correct, but the conscious mind added things that it thought would be normal for a natural landscape.

                • MaBű, thanks so much for the further clarification! The two points you took up were precisely the two that needed explanation as their meaning was not as apparent as the other points on the summary list. I even thought about posting a partial list and leaving them off of it as they might be confusing and misleading, but I didn’t want to appear to be hiding anything – especially since those points don’t actually affect the overall results of the project. But I do hope anyone interested watches the full version video (the second one I posted) as it is pretty compelling. Again, I think this is a good example of how LRH’s seeming radical statements may very well have been true!

  30. I read LRH’s article and groaned. This is one of those ases where his reach exceeded his grasp and where he assumes truths that are simply not true. The progress in just biology, in just my lifetime, has been incredible! Evolutionary biology, human genome, genetic engineering, exobiological theory, and tons more.

    So shame on LRH. It is this kind of writing — this kind of BS, really — that makes it easier for many to dismiss all of his claims, including throwing the baby of truly effective techniques out with the bath water.

    I felt a little disappointed that this article would be posted, thinking it might be intended as a validation of LRH. Then I read the title of the post again and made the connection:

    “And they don’t go any further; they stagnate. And it becomes a codified, specialized subject capable of producing a certain effect in the material universe. There it stops.”

    That’s it: What happened to Scientology is just as was prophesied by LRH.

  31. Actually, there’s A LOT of biological research devoted abiogenesis. They just drilled through 800 feet of ice in Antarctica to draw an early earth water sample, for example. A lot of energy and time is spent trying to find and understand the moment that why and how random protein strands stuck together and started forming thinking, deliberate organisms. Biologists can’t ignore the evidence provided for them. And they don’t draw conclusions – to do so is an argumentum ad ignorantiam – it sounds pejorative, I know but it’s boiler plate language when talking logic or science. So please don’t flame me !!🙂
    In any case, because of that . . . we just take little steps to know what the source is. Nothing is future proven or disapproved. And since it took us 100,000 years (according to Francis Collins, who developed and administered the Genome Project – and who remains a devoted Christian by the way) to get this far . . . . who knows what we’ll find. spiritual or something else?

    Ach – I went on. Sorry I just meant to say, “Ya too, biologists are working on it!”

    That being said, the study of instinct is mindblowing. Where is it? How do ants know how to lay worker ants instead of soldier ants. How do they know that they’re meant to cut up leaves, take them back to the colony, make a special room in which they will be fermented to produce the fungus that the colony lives on. And the biologist who traces that to its demonstrable origin will be awesome. Even Hubbard said thought had mass.

    • nicola, I think this video gives some answers and also supports LRH’s ideas:

      • Marildi – thank you for this series of links you have posted. They are informative and inspiring.

        • Darkest hour, thanks for the ack! Glad you appreciated them.🙂

          I’m really amazed at the amount of informative and inspiring knowledge you can find on the internet. And although I like to read too, I really like the greater amount of “life” that videos have.

    • And how does a squirrel (the animal) with his tiny little brain, learn how to bury for himself dozens of nuts in the ground in various places and then, when he’s hungry, remember each place where he’s buried a nut? Instinct, possibly? Fine, then, what is “instinct”? And how is it that this same squirrel manages to be the exact grayish-brown color of the barks of the trees he inhabits?

      “A hundred million miracles are happening every day”. That’s a verse from the song of the same title, from the musical “Flower Drum Song”.

      Biology has opened and will continue to open doors to observing WHAT happens, and I’m sure its very interesting and informative, within the study of biology are there answers to what puts in motion? I don’t know. But for me, THE questions are, “Who designed all of this incredible perfection, and how and why does it continue?

      Although, speaking of perfection, in the film, “Oh, God”, He, played by George Burns admits that he made avocado pits too large🙂

  32. When I was born, about in the middle of the last century, biology and cytology were already well-established sciences, as were physics, chemistry and others. Far from stagnating, each of these fields has continued to make breakthrough after breakthrough for my entire life, and they are still innovating today.

    However, what Hubbard said about the sciences appears to describe exactly what has occurred in Scientology. New spiritual research within the CoS is not just stagnant, it’s in rigor mortis.

  33. Brian writes: “But thank you Ron for all those procedures that bring people to awareness of spirit and happiness.” I like that. Who cares after all about the ups and the downs and the trivia in LRH life… Im not a Scientologist, yet Im not much interested in all the trivial stuff the media says about Scientology, but rather in the fact that L.Ron Hubbard came up with a way to elevate people’s spirit and to help them find happiness., and that this way, decades after this death, is still valued and practiced by many smart people. That in itself is remarkable.

    Happiness is in such scarce supply these days on the planet, and there is so little available to elevate mankind. Whoever has something valuable, new,. or timeless to offer to accomplish that should be afforded the greatest respect and consideration, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not.

    There is something left of that attitude in India, where the “Holy Men” are paid respect regardless of who they are, and what they teach. It may be disappearing in the big cities, but its still there in small cities and throughout the countryside. I remember traveling in Sri Lanka in the late 70s with my teacher, the local policemen would all come and bow down to him. They did not really understand who he was, what he taught, but to them, he was someone that had a solution to help elevate people and the planet, and therefore, they felt they should pay their respect. They did not compare him, they did not judge him, they just paid respect. Humbly and sincerely. I saw it with my own eyes.

    I like that simplicity and innocence and wish that people like Ron Hubbard, and with him, all religious and spiritual leaders, were given the same innocent respect, without judgment, just a simple appreciation, from the heart. Imagine if all the religious and spiritual people did this for each other regardless of creed, and affiliation, across all currents, movements and religions? A simple shift in attitude could trigger such a groundswell of harmony on this planet!

    • EnthralledObserver

      *scoffs* And with LRon we shall honour and respect Jim Jones too, I suppose?

    • “There is something left of that attitude in India, where the “Holy Men” are paid respect regardless of who they are, and what they teach. ”

      Thank you Paul, I’m with you on this one. People of India do not have issues with humilation for the most part. Going up the bridge is a very humiliating experience. You do not have a release without some humiliation in front of it (unless you are doing the L’s, then it is possible) .
      Scientology is really not for people that can not experience personal humiliation.

      I think maybe this was something Hubbard could not experience, humiliation. The “let’s put everyone else’s ethics in” was a platform of “higher ground”. When he was being chased for not paying taxes, criticized for various marriages, having rocks thrown at his ship, and reduced to sneaking here and there and everywhere.

      I personally do not think it is healthy to humiliate other people. The idea of having ‘ethics officers” you have to report to is a nanny service. Very humiliating. However there is a lot of truth in that a person must go back and do a contact assist on their time track and face up to things one was not ready to experience or that one caused others to experience that was done with discomfort.

      In the culture the Church has become, in addition to the humiliation one must face about themselves, there is compounded “group humiliation” that has become CUSTOM and TRADITION. This is too much force and sets people up for losses. This isn’t healthy and has proven to be a source of decay within that society that still can not be confronted socially and cured. The Church simply denies it all. Like a theetie wheetie P.C..

      • The “Take it Easy” is the only workable approach with Scientology. I am only grateful that when I first started meddling with it, I was in a group of people that were not interested in overwhelming others with force, class, status, uniforms and humiliation.

        http://www.eyeneer.com/video/rock/the-eagles/take-it-easy

      • oraclem, I personally did not ever experience this type of humiliation via Ethics in the Church. My personal experience with Ethics Officers has each time been positive and helpful. Some Ethics Officers I’ve had have been incredible people who have used Ethics Tech on me with great tact and lots of ARC. Please don’t hate me for saying this as it is my own truth about my own experience, that Scientology Ethics for me was nothing like what you’ve described.

        Now, I’m NOT saying that I don’t believe that Scn Ethics has not and is not being used in some areas to totally degrade and humiliate people. That this has occurred and that this continues to occur, and that it has ruined and scarred good people is OBVIOUS to me because there could not POSSIBLY be so many different stories with time, place form and event if this were not true.

        But then, from my view, as re this use of Scn ethics to abuse, deceive and degrade, this wouldn’t be Scientology being applied because the purpose of Ethics is merely to get Tech in, and in my view, anything else is an arbitrary and counter intention to what LRH says its supposed to do – at least, the LRH that I myself have read.. Again, please don’t pile on me for what is possibly a viewpoint based on insufficient LRH data. I’m just sharing my own experience of having had very good helpful Ethics terminals who never made me wrong and made it safe for me to say what was really going on with me so that I could on my own determinism take responsibility for what part I had done right and what I had done wrong, and so I could do a real, workable handling to get me out of the soup. And nothing was ever forced on me; my agreement was always obtained. Of course, I’ve never had a sec check so I don’t know what THAT’S like – anyway, as Polly-Anna -ish as it may sound, that’ my own truth as re Scn Ethics. My disagreements with the Radical Church of Scientology are severe; they just don’t happen to be in the area of my personal experience of Ethics cycles.

        • Also I should add that I’ve never been in the Sea Org🙂

        • Auqa, my charge is on others to others flows. Frankly, I don’t have a lot to complain about either. The entire two or three times I was sent to ethics I told the “ethics officer” to fuck off. That I would handle my own ethics.

          Let’s see, I was sent to ethics once for being late for a session. She wanted to assign me liability. But I was the only P.C. the Org had so I insisted I was asset. When she didn’t buy it I walked out of the Org and the entire HGC was chasing me down the street to bring me back. I finally permitted myself to be led into session. Silly incidents like that.

          Once I went to a movie with a Scientologist. Someone in the theater lit a joint. That always happened in Manhattan. The person with me reported himself to ethics the next day for not leaving the theater (and reported me too). I got sent to ethics , told I would have to leave the theater the next time someone lit a joint. How did I handle that? I did not invite another Scientologist to go to the movies with me.

          I didn’t even get sent to ethics when I said I was leaving the Sea Org. I was out on the street the same day and gone. Nobody said anything.

          I just did not agree with any of it. The whole justice system and those golden rod flyers. The kangaroo courts….what a load of kiddie drama.

          • Here we go, OM, once again on the same page.

            I was at a (rock) concert and the person in the seat next to me offered me a toke on his joint. I politely refused, and the thought that I needed to do anything else never crossed my mind.

            I must have mentioned it somewhere along the line, because I found myself in front of an ethics “officer” who wanted to know why I didn’t tell the guy that drugs were bad for him or else remove myself from his presence (and all the smoke that was permeating the air).

            There was no F’ing way I was giving up that seat! I won’t bother mentioning what concert, where or when.

            I more or less told the ethics officer to F off and the matter was dropped.

            That’s how stupid it can get sometimes! And anyone who puts up with it needs their head examined and/or grow a pair.

            • Laughter! Well, that was MY issue. I had PAID for the ticket so I had a right to watch the movie! I guess Scientologists didn’t go to many movies in New York, because I can’t recall ever going to a theater to watch a movie in Manhattan and someone not lighting up some weed in the theater. You could smell it but you certainly didn’t get high from it. The fear about it at the Org was just terrible.

              The whole fear of drugs is a little weird to me. If they got rid of all of them, next it would be something else that people would need to “stamp out”. Right down to sugar. There was a sugar fear run too for a while. Then it was perfume….the list kept growing. Next the television sets and phones had to go. Some books were banned. Fear fear fear. Who the hell wants to walk on egg shells?

          • oraclem, Thank you for your candor in sharing your own ethics experiences, and much LOL on your handling as re the possibility of joint light up in a Manhattan movie theatre – good on you for that one. Also I’m glad you weren’t hassled in ethics when you left the Sea Org.

            That said, totally got it on your charge being on what others do to others. I have it too, majorly. There’s no way I can be part of any group in which this sort of savagery is practiced or excused, in any faction of it, not for any goal, not for any purpose. This kind of barberism has to be limited to the Sea Org, meaning within the Sea Org amongst themselves, and then their dramatizations to CL V org staff. I would be happy to see the Sea Org abolished in my lifetime, that’s how much I can’t stand it as a group (but not as individuals, just the whole para-military thing, the whole loftier-than-thou, no-effect-on-me-total-effect-on-you -and -you-have-to-respect-me-because-I-am-a-Sea-Org Member valence always turned me long before I had any data at all of what an SO member’s life was like. Back then I didn’t know this was a valence and they creeped me out just for this alone. Today from all the reading I’ve done of countless stories, I know the truth about the humanity, the sincerity, the caring, and dedication of these people, and I have to wonder if it was LRH who wanted SO to be so outwardly cold and unyielding or can we thank that the Dwarf for that? But then, I’m veering wildly off-topic. Peace.

            • Sorry for so many typos but you get the concept !

            • I had a similar feeling about the group and what people did to one another. I figured if I agreed with any of it, that would mean I would be willing for it to happen to me.

              I didn’t agree with any of it, it was all ridiculous. A grown single woman sent to the RPF for having sex? I think she was 30 years old! Her boyfriend too! Staff members that had been working 20 to 30 years suddenly declared SP’s? Pregnant women tossed out on the street? None of this was “justice”. It wasn’t even ethics. It was something really creepy that made the people involved in it seem really creepy too.

              Do you realize in the “wog world” people live on an honor system that works most of the time? I mean like 99.9% of the time. Everyone is responsible for keeping their own ethics in, until they don’t.

              Scientologists are among the most ethical people I know. Anyone that has some sense of “Karma” is usually working things out for a better tomorrow. We don’t live on a planet full of rocket scientists. A lot of “stupidity” is classified as “out ethics”. That is a subtle form of injustice. A lot of people are carrying a lot of burdens. There is plenty of room for mercy. I think we need more of that, and less of the meddling in other people’s math equations.

              • Do you know there are five people out here mocking up the Church all over again? Out Here!

                We have one guy that has bought a boat and is starting his own Sea Org.

                We have one guy who has appointed himself Inspector General of Tech in the Independent Movement, and has declared everyone but himself a squirrel. He works full time on comm eves and declares.

                We have one guy who claims he is “ON A MISSION” to put ethics in on the Freezone. Although he doesn’t work for anybody but himself.

                And we have one person out here establishing the I.A.S.! Selling “Scientology Group memberships”!

                You can make a clear that just mocks up a brand new reactive mind.

                And you can pull someone out of burning house only to watch them set the new place on fire.

                These are all LEARNING DISABILITIES. Even “wogs” know you shouldn’t beat up on people because they have LEARNING DISABILITIES.

              • OM: We don’t live on a planet full of rocket scientists. A lot of “stupidity” is classified as “out ethics”.

                We do live on a planet where a lot of people are still asleep. They live their entire lives asleep and a person asleep can appear to be quite stupid as well as ‘out ethics.’

                Father Anthony DeMello, in the short video clip below, begins to hint at this. He completes making his point about five entertaining hours (many videos) later. Back in 2001, listening to this full presentation while on vacation and driving down the road, he was the shoe horn that slipped me, not out of SC, but out of the church. It was nine years later when I stopped identifying myself as being a Scientologist.

              • OracleM, agreed on everything. The Sea Org is one extremely sick parasitic group wherein can be found the roots of the cancer spreading throughout Scientology. LRH created it as an expediency and it solved some problems for him for a while, but that was then. Today is is wholly a parasitic group which contributes nothing to Scientologists and which must be contributed to,while it uses those contributions to nurture, protect and glorify a vicious punk. Good riddance to the Sea Org…

  34. “But thank you Ron for all those procedures that bring people to awareness of spirit and happiness.”
    Nice of you to mention this, Brian.
    And this is really the point, isn’t it?
    Anyone who posts here can bitch, whine, piss, and moan about Ron said this, Ron did that, Ron is a nut, Ron divorced his wives, abandoned his children, drank alcohol, smoked, was mean to people, was overweight, was a recluse, a charlatan, whatever.
    But at the end of the day, EVERYONE who posts here with the exception of a very few have improved their lives greatly as a result of applying or having applied to them the procedures developed and/or organized and codified by this “awful”, “discreditable”, “unscientific” “lunatic”.
    Many continue to use these procedures regularly.
    So, in my opinion, complaining about LRH’s real or imagined shortcomings, for most, is just like complaining about Marty’s blog and then continuing to post here.
    Most people are like camels on the desert.
    No matter how much they complain, they know how to find the oasis.

    • Spot-on, Brother. Well said.

    • Thank you for saying that, Espiritu.

      I’m all for free speech, but the LRH bashing gets really dull. Anyone hear of “ad hominem”?

    • Yes , I agree Espiritu . But the point , I think is to know that Ron had a chip on his shoulder when it comes to Science , and from there we can think better with whatever he says . The fact that the tech can help so many people who want it is a given .
      While in the Church nobody is allowed to bitch and moan or discuss fine points of philosophy or science. While studying the basics , my husband and I were not allowed to go to the practical room to help each other with concepts or whatever we wanted to research and study.
      So to better understand Ron , weaknesses and all , is what most people are struggling with , but in the end it is always better to know and be able to talk about it .

      • Well,if you wonder why Ron might have had a chip on his shoulder about “Science” take a moment to notice that you capitalized the word “Science”. Why? Grammatically, there is no reason to capitalize it. But people tend to revere anything which is heralded as “Science” or “Scientific” without questioning it too much. There have been some pretty awful things developed by people who call themselves “scientists” as well as wonderful things. Personally, I think that Ron was an amazing scientist but he didn’t particularly covet that label due to some of the bad company included under that heading. But I don’t think that he had anything against scientists who developed things that helped mankind. And incidentally, it is not even an absolute requirement to have a college degree to be recognized as a “scientist” by other “scientists” or be published in “scientific” journals.

      • Just a mention regarding naomi’s course experience ~ I was allowed to go to the local library during course hours and study anything that was not covered in the course materials or the org library. So I had a different experience ‘1991 International Training Org, LA CA.

  35. Very good subject Marty.

    A while back (I think at OT II) I came out of a session an said that I think scientists are almost as bad as religious fanatics. (You know, the G Bush kind) Then I had an episode of almost glee like laughter about it. (I could feel the charge blowing)
    Now I think some (or many) scientists are actually in worse condition than certain religious fanatics. At least many religious people only have one basic basic fixed idea that there is ‘A God’ governing it all.

    Many scientists get really desperate and want to find some corner stone they can call absolute known. (The idea that there could be a higher intelligence than them seems to overwhelm the fuck out of many) They pick something like the speed of light and then build everything else on that ‘known’. The more they have built on this assumption the harder it is to get them to see it otherwise.

    Can you blame them? I mean they were really in the need for something stable to build on. A foundation for their 50 story structure.

    I’ve learned that it is not a good idea to mess with such beliefs.
    If you manage to shake the ground of their beliefs, they can get mighty upset. Scientists and religious people alike.

    By now, I came to think that in science if you really want to get to the bottom of things the only stable things you should build on is the fact that you should not build on anything stable. Forget the idea of foundation. Just figure the damned thing out in its illusive/fluid shape. The moment you ‘solidify’ something enough to stand on you are heading in the wrong direction.

    • “Forget the idea of foundation. Just figure the damned thing out in its illusive/fluid shape. The moment you ‘solidify’ something enough to stand on you are heading in the wrong direction.”

      There seems to be truth to that, but what are some examples of how it would be applied practically?

      • Practical application would be to have crazy thoughts like: judging from how solid the physical universe appears; to arrive to the conclusion that it is indeed very non solid in nature. Another example would be to be able to think with everything in terms of relative-ness.
        Which is what LRH was referring to as viewpoints. In other words to be able to think fluidly with what we know without the need to solidifying anything we observe into a stable ground to build onto. This is only possible when we have observations from multiple viewpoints and we acknowledge the viewpoint to be nothing more that that, just a viewpoint. The idea is to threat each observation as-is, for what it is, and not read more into any of them. Then connecting these we can make (postulate into existence) a prediction (logic) about a future viewpoint’s arrangement (result).

        In other words the practical application is done by not getting overwhelmed from having to think with just plain observations that we.
        The urge to assume more than the absolute minimum we can know for sure is strong. When we can resist that, then we can really think objectively and freely.

        This sounds a bit weird when I re-read it but that’s as close as I can get to explaining. I hope it makes some sense. It’s not easy to put it into words. (For me at least)

        A perfect science example would be the one that was posted here about a week ago. The spooky effect of A photon going through two slits at the same time. When I see something like that my mind goes into a different direction (at last), away from the flock of mainstream scientists. Instead of accepting the mind-fuck theory (Excuse the language but that’s what it is IMO) I question what we know about these so called photons. Perhaps they have read more into the phenomenon than the absolute minimum they should have.

        That’s kind of what I meant.

        • A != A , thanks! Except for the last paragraph about the two-slit experiment, I think I got all that you said. (In fact, I was once kidded about being “the flogger of frames of reference”🙂.) And I think the basic principles of Scientology come down to the same idea you have, at least per my understanding of them. So I suppose that’s why I tend to think of Scientology as “a stable ground to build onto”, paradoxically – because it too is telling us to be “light on our (mental/spiritual) feet”. Anyway, it’s a semantics thing and, as you say, not easy to put into words, but you did a good job of it!

          As I indicated above, I didn’t quite understand what you meant by the example you gave in your last paragraph, where you said, “Perhaps they have read more into the [double-slit] phenomenon than the absolute minimum they should have.” Can you explain a bit more what you mean by that, or let me know which earlier post you were referring to?

          • Actually that was a major cog for me as I wrote it and I didn’t elaborate as much on it as I could have. (So thanks for asking on the first place because it caused me to have a cog)
            Since then my better half told me there is (or are) TRs that actually address this issue.

            What I mean by assuming the absolute minimum is best described with an example:
            Let’s say I am looking at a round pot in a museum. I see its shape and art work but I can’t walk around to see it from all angles because it is locked in a cabinet with glass on the front only.

            As I look at it, the tendency of my mind is to predict. Based on the nice round shape and continuous artwork my mind may create (mock up) a complete pot in my mind but in reality most of the back (of the pot) could be missing. I am in a museum after all looking at ancient stuff that might have been glued back together. To read the absolute minimum into this observation would be to acknowledge nothing more than the fact that I can see a half pot. (more or less)

            I don’t claim to be able to think/observe like that all the time but this cog sure as heck made me get one step closer to such state where I just simply don’t assume anything. Which would essentially just be total as-is.

            I hope this makes sense.

            • A! = A, yes, what you say makes sense. And I think your better half is talking about “obnosis drills”. Here’s an excerpt from a bulletin about it:
              ———————————————–
              The title of this article starts with an odd word: obnosis. It’s been put together from the phrase, “observing the obvious”. The art of observing the obvious is strenuously neglected in our society at this time. Pity. It’s the only way you ever see anything; you observe the obvious. You look at the isness of something, at what is actually there. Fortunately for us, the ability to obnose is not in any sense ‘inborn’ or mystical. But it is being taught that way by people outside of Scientology.

              How do you teach somebody to see what is there? Well, you put up something for him to look at, and have him tell you what he sees. That is what is done in an ACC [Advanced Clinical Course] class, the earlier in the course, the better. A student is asked to stand up in the front of the classroom and be looked at by the rest of the students. An instructor stands by, and keeps asking, “What do you see?” The first responses run about like this: “Well, I can see he’s had a lot of experience.” “Oh, can you? Can you really see his experience? What do you see there?” “Well, I can tell from the wrinkles around his eyes and mouth that he’s had lots of experience.” “All right, but what do you see?” “Oh, I get you. I see wrinkles around his eyes and mouth.” “Good!” The instructor accepts nothing that isn’t plainly visible. A student starts to catch on and says, “Well, I can really see he’s got ears.” “All right, but from where you’re sitting can you see both ears right now as you’re looking at him?” “Well, no.” “Okay. What do you see?” “I see he’s got a left ear.” “Fine!” No conjectures, no tacit assumptions will do. Nor are the students permitted to wander in the bank. For example, “He’s got good posture.” “Good posture by comparison with what?” “Well, he’s standing straighter than most people I’ve seen.” “Are they here now?” “Well, no, but I’ve got pictures of them.” “Come on. Good posture in relation to what, that you can see right now.” “Well, he’s standing straighter than you are. You’re a little slouched.” “Right this minute?” “Yes.” “Very good.” You see what the goal of this is? It is to get a student to the point where he can look at another person, or an object, and see exactly what is there. Not a deduction of what might be there from what he does see there. Not something the bank says ought to go in company with what is there. Just what is there, visible and plain to the eye. It’s so simple, it hurts.
              ———————————————-
              (from HCOB 26 Oct 1970 III “Obnosis and the Tone Scale”)

              Thanks for reminding me of this piece of tech – I need to use it more and do less assuming!🙂

              So then, as for the double-slit experiment what do you “obnose”?

              • Than’t for that reference this is exactly the subject I am onto.
                The more I do so the more I think that if I could really free myself from past and future assumptions almost close to an absolute, I don’t think there would be anything else left to do as far as case goes.

                What I see with the double slit experiment is a convincing looking professor presenting one hell of an assumption.

                What I don’t see is equally important. I don’t see anything in science which would make me want to entertain such ideas as a single photon going through two holes at the same time.

                Instead I tend to look and question if we have assumed too much about photons. Starting with the fact of their existence. I think the assumption that what they think is a single photon is in fact a single indivisible entity is what is false.

                • A != A, I think there can be an extreme in either direction. There can be too much assumption, definitely. But, on the other hand, even science uses hypotheses and logic as a tools for discovery of new knowledge. The following is a paragraph from Scn 8-8008 that I think is relevant:

                  “Logic is a gradient scale of association of facts of greater or lesser similarity made to resolve some problem of the past, present or future, but mainly to resolve and predict the future. Logic is the combination of factors into an answer. The mission of the analytical mind when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to be the objects one is observing: thus, one can know their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or ‘known law,’ bring about logic.”

                  So I would say that when it comes to assumptions, as you stated from the beginning, the trick is to be fluid.

                  • I have no idea how this “Than’t” got there instead of “Thanks”.
                    There I go assuming again that what I typed what I meant🙂

                    Logic is a very important subject.
                    LRH does touch on the prediction nature of logic.
                    This may look like an over simplification but I now see logic strictly as a prediction process.

                    • In using logic to predict “tomorrow”, you might need to first figure out what happened yesterday as part of figuring out what’s happening today – which you need to know in order to figure out and predict what’s going to happen tomorrow.

                      But you’re right – each step is essentially prediction. Thanks for the interesting viewpoint. Not an over-simplification at all when I think about it.🙂

        • A !=A your description of the knowledge that can come from multiple view points without an attachment to solely one’s own is one definition of vipassana meditation sometimes translated as “insight” meditation. The insight is actually the multi view sight that you begin to have as you loosen attachment to self and gain compassion for others. You then actually start to see from the other(s) point of view. This grows your wisdom. So here is compassion and wisdom moving together like wings …(ack Windhorse!)

      • Owww I loved this one Marildi. Is it LRH? It’s what I discovered in my own case. The thing is that all things that persist are -at least partially- lies…so if you take them as basis you can’t head towards truth. And since all basis that IS, is like that, then better have no basis. It’s like when he said that one should run out SCN too –SCN isn’t truth itself!!

        • Spyros: “The thing is that all things that persist are -at least partially- lies…so if you take them as basis you can’t head towards truth.”

          Correction: You can ‘head towards’ truth, for as long as you think you aren’t truth. Just don’t confuse the basis with truth.

          • Marildi, an example that I thought about this is that is all your thinking is based on logic, then you cannot head further away from logic. According to LRH The Qs are senior to logic. According to me, some things can just come out of nothing🙂

        • Spyros, I think I already answered some of your comments in my reply to A! = A. I agree with you that Scientology scripture isn’t “truth” in the sense of “actuality”. But words can be, as they say, a map of the territory (i.e. of the actuality), so I don’t think you and I differ on this.😉

          As for what you said here: “According to me, some things can just come out of nothing”, what do you think of this excerpt from 8-8008 (section on “Thought, Emotion and Effort”)?

          “Operating on a highly self-determined plane, originality is a simple thing to attain. What is called will-power, then, could have two manifestations: the first would be actual self-determined thought; the second would be a result of an enforced or inhibited thought.
          […]

          “Ideas, when in the form of self-determined thought, exist above the level of 40.0 on the tone-scale and extend down into the action band.”

          • Yep, I agree with the quote too, Marildi. For as long as one considers self placed in space and time (considers self part of MEST) by definition, ‘he’ is other determined. Also, have you found a definition for tone 20? It’s very interesting.

            • Spyros, tone level 20.0 seems to be the optimum position on the tone scale, per LRH. Here are some quotes from Scn 8-8008:

              “The optimum position for the thetan is considered to be 20.0 which is the point of optimum action.”

              “At 4.0 responsibility would manifest itself in terms of action where roughly half one’s environment or space had been selected for randomity and for which one would take no responsibility. At 20.0 responsibility would be 50 per cent of the total energy existing.”

              “Then, on auditing, he commonly drops from the FALSE TONE of the BODY-PLUS-THETAN scale and into the true tone of the thetan. This is actually the only self-determined tone present — the actual tone of the thetan. From this sub-zero he quickly rises up scale through the entire range as a thetan and generally settles at 20.0 and in command of the body and situations. The course of auditing then takes the preclear, quite automatically, down from the FALSE TONE of the BODY-PLUS-THETAN scale to the actual tone of the thetan. Then the tone of the thetan rises back up the scale level by level.”

              • Thanx🙂 There is another, a bit more extended and ‘unreal’ description in the 8-8008 lectures (PDC) that I mentioned below. You know I like the really crazy stuff😛

  36. You’re so right about this being the history of any science. We used to say we were knowing more and more about less and less: a descending spiral from the pioneers of a science formulating and proving the general laws, down to generations of students finding pettier and pettier topics for their Ph.D theses. Genetics descended from the high theta of individuals like Gregor Mendel and Barbara McClintock down to the pettifogging contents of the current issue of Journal of Heredity.
    There’s also the temptation to say that once a subject has been researched, it can sit in leatherbound tomes on the shelf until someone wants it. No way! Knowledge has to be known by someone. It must be kept in the light of consciousness, discussed, applied and re-evaluated or it will die. Go back to the books after a couple of centuries of neglect, and if they haven’t been lost they will probably be unintelligible as the language and cultural context will have changed.
    And the old church has made the same mistake, pretending that having books, CDs and underground vaults full of engraved steel plates is the same thing as having knowledge.

  37. But I do think that as we move forward we are seeing as a society that Science and the Spiritual are going to get together more and more… and then life will get really a lot more interesting.🙂

  38. I would like to quote something from „hymn of asia“. I did read it back in the late 70ies. I cannot remember it word by word so I cannot quote. I think I lost my copy. But as far as I remember Ron did point out how and why Scientology could end. Something like „if you behave I might tell all“. I back in time did interpret it the way: if we or a single person misuse the gains we have had with applying Scientology. Can you see any misuse of power? Those that misuse it on a regular day to day routine are not doing that because they are sitting in a trap. No, they are in a trap because they intentionally misuse Scientology.

  39. I see your opening post as LRH positioning other knowledge as nonsense.
    And his ideas as supreme. This is PR to put it mildly!
    You have commented how he rubbished datums of similar magnitude
    to compare with Scn datums. I liked that viewpoint.

    • I don’t know if you are analyzing me or what. My only comment was the title – which asked whether the passage prophesied Scientology’s ultimate route.

      • My answer is:
        to the extent that people inspect Scientology and try it out and find out for themselves whether or not it is true for THEM, then no, that passage will not foretell the future of Scientology.
        But if most people “believe in” Scientology and follow procedures robotically without personal observation of and responsibility for the results produced, then the answer is yes….for them.
        Skeptics and believers are both very similar.
        One begins by assuming the negative and the other assumes the positive.
        Neither one first observes and only THEN computes.

      • Certainly not.

        Those with more fundamentalist leanings probably won’t change and the path described would apply I believe. An example is one who has successfully been delivering NOTs for a decade or so wanted this listed on a certain website. She had access to 2 class XIIs as senior C/S or mentors. She was told to do lower conditions for asking. She had not done the required courses in COS. The organisation giving such a statement didn’t deliver such courses or know anyone who did.

        On the other hand Mr Clearbird has discovered a way to address GPMs.

        http://completeyourbridge.org/

        I was a guinea pig in its development and I thought it very interesting.
        It uses, or did then, Effort processing,Creative processing and repeater
        tech. Three of our most powerful tools.

        If we look at the state of cleared theta clear this can not be created as
        yet expect perhaps in wild sporadic states that aren’t stable. Possibly such states can only be reached if in a discarnate state.

  40. “To love another person is to see the face of God.”
    ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables

    This is really, the only thing I have “total certainty” on.

    I am only a witness in this theater.

    I am a weak link in domination.

    And I will not apologize.

    I am going out my own way.

  41. Marty, I will agree that this is prophetic as regards to Scientology as we have come to have it especially within the Church.

    However to me LRH was foremost a mystic. It became a religion (and there is a writing of LRH somewhere about mysticism and its difference to religion, but I can’t recall where I read it) for the benefit of the many. As something comes down from the mystic level to a level of religion it becomes more blunt.

    Science has done the same as many scientists are pioneers, disagreeing with the status quo going ahead and shaking things up.

    I wonder who can shake all this in Scientology. The upper OT levels are stagnant and don’t produce real OTs as we have all come to see and agree. There is either mistakes or inability to fully apply the data and yield results. And of course there is always scope for advancement. True mystics and researchers only could do that. I don’t think anyone would argue that this is a current scene of things and that Scientology is stagnant as to the upper levels.

    • Theo,
      Here it is;

      From the Time Track of Theta/Milestone series of lectures, the Hubbard College Lectures of March 1952, Tape #27:

      “…because whenever a religion- you see, a religion is different than a religious philosophy, very different – a religion is that thing which is given as a package to a people about which they are not supposed to reason, and under thought and duress is used to control that people onerously. And you find many of these religions are completely bare of aesthetics. And then when they come up to higher levels of action, they actually get up toward theta for a while, and then they will slide back into a MEST religion wholly. They very seldom rise up. That is why an individual is almost never a mystic and a religious person at the same time. We need differentiation in those categories in order to understand that anything used as a control mechanism is the MEST universe.”

      • Τhanks Conan, I believe always LRH was a mystic… and there is going to be more. No civilisation can move on without mystics. I think we can differentiate between Ron the Mystic and the CofS.

        • Hey guys I’ve been reading a little Einstein. Was Einstein a ‘scientist’ or a ‘mystic’? Here are some quotes:

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

          “The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why”.

          “Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.”

          “Invention is not the product of logical thought, even though the final product is tied to a logical structure.”

          “It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.”

          “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

          1926- “Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.”

          http://www.sfheart.com/einstein.html Also,

          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

          Einstein basically believed that ‘science’ without ‘religion’ were each, without the other, like the sound of one hand clapping.

          He thought, spoke and wrote quite a bit about it.

  42. Marty,
    Great post as usual, you are running a nice process on this collective insanity.

    The above prophesy is possible and inevitably because we chronically cling to Data, we always tend to fall for the system, the structure and the words.
    The idea seem to invariably take precedence over living beings.

    We are apparently in a pathological need for a belief system. The mind and the universe seem to be too fluid, too random, too impermanent, too chaotic for us to confront.

    A successful approach to the mind, to self, to Scientology has to be alive, fluid, and adjustable to the times and current conditions.

    In my view our approach to the subject is as important as having the correct technology. Both must be present in order to obtain lasting benefits of its application.

    What happened to Scientology is not surprising, nor unexpected, it is the recalcitrant arrogance of Scientologists, insisting that this body of work is apart and above any other datum in the universe what makes Scientology stultified and a caricature of itself.

    • “We are apparently in a pathological need for a belief system.”

      Just as when you feel physically unstable for whatever reason you grab on to something ridgid to hold yourself up against gravity so as not to fall, so ridgid belief systems/ideologies are grabbed onto when beings are experiencing lack of balance ” inside” themselves.

      What I know is that the distinctions people draw between the physical and psychological or spiritual, between what is “inside” them and what is “outside” them is a false conception and accounts for the imbalance and need for rigidity in all domains, inside and out.

  43. Yesterday I did have to visit Burger King as I forgot my lunch. On the street I noticed a Buddhist Monk behind the corner. He noticed me too. We greeted each other and after he came around the corner we smiled at each other and knew we had been friends a long time ago and will be friends for a very long time to go.

  44. gretchen dewire

    I just went to Bruce Lipton .com and listened to him in a discussion with Wayne Dyer. Science and spirituality meet. Definitely science is moving forward at least in that arena. Check it out, very uplifting.

  45. “Scientology is not a faith or belief system”. From the NEW Phil Spickler videos.

  46. Tatiana’s special thanks to Marty:

    TECH outside COS: New Clear!

    Tatiana Baklanova shared a link.
    15 April

    To whom it may concern. Success Story.

    Today I have attested an achievement of a new state of being – I am CLEAR.🙂

    And you know, what I like the most about this state? That finally I can evaluate myself out of liability on the first Dynamic where body, mind and spirit were liability to each other – all not knowing their posts, not having good communication within, from there into the state of a new-born spiritual being happily doing (I will rename it accordingly to my perception of it) new-existence steps.

    There is a peace at home – within me, as I have a clear understanding, new state of awareness of who I am in regard to my body , mind and spirit. I am not only at cause and in-charge, as a spirit, but in high ARC with my mind and body. That makes me organized into a one happy team, where mind and body know and respect the captain, who in my turn knows who it is, where it is going able to lead the team, and DESERVES to be respected by the other team players – the smaller selves. When I as a spirit make now a postulate regarding my 1 dynamic, it is not getting bogged in doubt of questioning, or argued and fought by my mind or GE soul, or lost in the confusion of not knowing – who is to listen to whom and where, and who suppose to do what. It was not a fun game to play at that lower 1D Ethics condition, believe me. But now the light is on! )))) I would describe my state of awareness as a new viewpoint as a spirit, that is aware of its true nature enough to have a clear view. I see myself (spirit) my team – mind and body and reactive mind (!) (never planned to get read of that not so bright, but honest and courageous creature within me :))), and world around with a clarity that makes it easy to make and execute Ethical decisions. It feels natural, I am back home where things are in places, tools aren’t flying around the room, team is trained and I am ready to operate freely on a first Dynamic and actually already do. ))))

    The Dianetics Certainty Special Intensive helped me to connect the dots and to get the overall picture of my state “into focus” so I have a greater certainty on my new state.

    There is so much more to say if I wanted to really make it visible to you – my STORY of success. Because it is not a one time jump from “black” to “white” becoming a Clear. It really is a gradual increase of awareness, accordingly to in-life action to deserve the awareness progress. It really is a journey, a lot of things I did and made in and out of session that ether slowed me down or speeded up, distracted or brought back onto the path toward the state achieved. There are so many beings that supported and helped me on my birth into existence as a Clear, starting with a previous human representation of me who got cleared in my last life time – boy, he deserves a lot of credit! I was flying through rehabing lots of cognitions on touch and by inspection, that he worked hard for to gain. I have to thank my parents and teachers, all people I was learning from – good and bad, smart and not so much, high and low tone – they all helped me to get here where I am. Of course my special thanks to Ron Hubbard for providing the Tech, to David Mayo who really wanted to help and did a lot helping me too, Phil Spickler who provided the wisdom that brought joy and smoothness to my ride. I thank all my auditors, starting with a first book 1 auditor Larisa, all auditors I had in the church and out – Misha Priv and Dexter Gelfand (Grage 1), Marty Rathbun (Grade 2 FPRD style), Rey Robles (Grade 3 & 4), Dexter Gelfand (Presence 4), Ron Fitch (Life Repair & DCSI).

    To me the most life changing gains and wins where on Objectives, Help part of the Grade 1 and most of all – Grade 2 (!) – after that level I went Clear as the mechanism holding the Bank in place – “motivating” me into holding it there – vanished, I exteriorized from it first and then from the body and got suddenly interested in how it was doing and by what rules it was operating. I started to learn about the food etc… The ARC with body went up. Then I was dancing around the condition I was in not been fully aware, having not enough clarity about the state. Something there were remaining unclear. Presence 4 Identity handling was a huge step forward, as I experienced a split from the GE soul – animal like greedy creature fighting for its own survival by any means (!!!), and me – spirit that wants to live by sense of ethics and not caring too much about survival. Those two splat apart and ARC was immediately created and started to grow between me and GE.

    I can not say enough good words about my last auditor – Ron Fitch. He is just AWSOME! His ability of creating a space for you to fill it in with itsa and his understanding is encreadable.

    My special thanks to Valery, for being here and holding together the org– making the delivery of Tech possible.

    http://community.freezone-tech.info/freezone-Alameda

    I would also like to mention the Ethics help from Mary Freeman that brought me back on the Bridge from which I felt. And the C/S help of Dan Koon that really made it possible to get started in the field. Thank you all!!!! :))))

    Love you all,
    Tatiana Baklanova, Clear.🙂

    • TO
      Any Idea what “Presence 4 Identity” processing is?

      Never heard tell of it in LRH tech.

      Eric

      • It is another form of psychotherapy dealing with identities from what I could make out. Anyway, if it helped her in some way more power to her!

        It seems like some side processes perhaps aligning with Idenics / research or therapies developed by Alan Walters. On the Idenics web site it says: “Idenics is not a rehash of some earlier methodology.” But if you look through it, it clearly is, so I assume the disclaimer was necessary for safety reasons.

        There are former Scientologists who branched out into their own areas of interest and focused in certain areas, then had to reinvent and redefine or reconstruct a form of therapy they could apply and live with, with out being wholly crushed and crucified by the Church of Scientology for not paying taxes to Int Management. Whenever you get these “squirrel with hunts it is always about MONEY. Someone else wants the MONEY MONEY MONEY.

        Yes, the Church of Scientology produces “squirrels”. A “squirrel” is the product of the Church of Scientology also. They attack it as if it has nothing to do with them. It was CREATED by them. No ownership. No responsibility.

        This “squirrel” taboo is meant to stay within the confines of the Church. As the Church is SELLING a BRAND.

        Out here in the Independent / Freezone Movement, people only have private practices and civil rights. The Church’s domination over others ends at their own front doors. If you want to calculate how much power and control the Church has over this planet, calculate the square footage of their buildings. It’s that small.

        When you find them up in your front yard or out on your street, they are hallucinatory about where they can be cause over life and their rights to dominate others. Then they come off really creepy as it is easy to view the outpoint.

        • Why do you think David Miscavige is OBSESSED with square footage? His “power” is proportionate to square footage he controls.

          Now, nobody REALLY owns land in America except the government. You can buy a home but the government rents the land to you under the banner of “property tax”. You don’t pay that, they take your home away. So “home ownership” is illusion.

          Church’s are tax exempt, for now. Unless they are LEASING the building. If they are LEASING, they must pay property tax. David is collecting these taxes now by making the public buy the builodings for him and then he LEASES the buildings back to the Org and becomes landlord. There is an entire LANDLORD operation going on inside the Church, probably illegal. Given that the Org should NOT be taxed by the government why should it be taxed by Miscavige? Scientologists are getting a break from the government, but NOT from MISCAVIGE.

          As you know, laws are made changed or dismissed by congress. David’s power is still dependent in congress’ whims. He has a very fragile, very limited power.

          http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/06/08/california-churches-could-lose-property-tax-exemption/

        • OT

          Thanks for the info.

          Eric

        • Well folks, I believe it (don’t know what to call ‘it’ – (the broad mainstream dissemination of consciousness-raising tools?) has begun in earnest! I was Googling for “Presence4 Identity” and came across this instead –

          http://presence4life.com/

          Anyone for “being there”? I haven’t watched their videos, but it sounds like they are promising to deliver a stable EP similar to that of TR0. At a pretty high price, though, and like the Stephen R.Covey thing, slanted towards business people. I think we will be seeing more and more of these kind of things, since the CoS has totally lost it’s teeth for attacking ‘squirrels’

          I have no idea if “Presence4Life” is a spinoff, but you can be sure it will end up on the COS” list of “SP groups”. Or maybe not even, by now.

      • Narrative therapy
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Narrative Therapy is a form of psychotherapy using narrative. It was initially developed during the 1970s and 1980s, largely by Australian Michael White and his friend and colleague, David Epston, of New Zealand.

        • Phil

          Oh… OK. Pretty much some other form of therapy it seems.

          When the information regarding Presence 4 shows up somewhere I’ll have a look and see what they are handling and how.

          Eric S

    • Congratulations Tatiana!

  47. Tatiana, that is AWESOME! I am so happy for you! And for the world!

  48. Marty thanks for bringing up Lipton. I like his distinction between the conscious mind and subconscious mind. And yet my sense is that there is one more realm—let me elaborate on this.

    I appreciate Lipton’s views about the evolution of higher mammals bringing forth a new level of awareness which he calls “self-consciousness,” or the “conscious mind”, an important evolutionary advance.

    I also resonate with his explanations that the beauty of a conscious mind is that we can use it to focus on some specific point, such as thinking about what we will cook for dinner, while simultaneously relying on our subconscious mind to handle mundane tasks safely like riding our bike without crashing into a car.
    I have ridden big motorcycles for years, and seen myself many times deeply absorbed in thoughts while zigzagging through traffic. Looking back later at what happened, I had witnessed a subconscious force taking care of safely operating the bike while I was thinking ahead.
    I also follow Lipton when he says that we have tons of learned behaviors or beliefs inherited from other people, such as parents, peers and teachers, the media and more, which often do not support the goals of our conscious mind. Clearly, our subconscious mind carries a lot of luggage which not only influences our behavior, but also plays a significant role in determining our physiology, health, well being and fulfillment.
    Lipton singles out a unique ability of the conscious mind: to give free will, which to him includes the ability to overcome programming (although, from what I see on TV these days, this ability is infrequently exercised…:). On the other side, to be fully and constantly conscious requires a constant effort, as we have a default switch within myself which will turn on the subconscious mind the second I’m not paying attention.
    It’s a wonderful gift that we have dual minds… as Lipton puts it, if we had conscious parents and teachers who served as wonderful life models, and If our subconscious mind were programmed with healthy behaviors, we could be totally successful in our lives without ever being conscious..:)
    My sense is that, in addition to these two minds, there is one more realm in every person. And this realm is the heart. And in this heart there is a thirst. An innate thirst for fulfillment, love, peace, harmony. And this thirst does not manifest and express itself through thinking and thoughts, but becomes known as a feeling.
    My sense is that from time immemorial, this thirst in the heart has driven search, quest. It In this thirst, there is a longing for truth and perfection. This heart compels us to look at a sunset, it makes us feel attracted to light, beauty, love.
    To come back to Marty’s point in this article my sense is that the risk of decay is always present, if we handle the key of our consciousness to the subconscious mind.

    The subconscious mind is stuck in the mechanics of the moment. It is finite, mortal, a product of matter. The conscious mind, I see as the engine of material betterment, The heart, I see as the gateway to fulfillment and immortality. Three realms, each separate, meant to live in peace and harmony, and to steer our life with the proper hierarchy of priorities.
    My sense is that the heart is meant to be king. The conscious mind is meant to serve the heart. The subconscious mind, I believe, is meant to execute what the conscious mind needs done,. More or less.

    Sadly so, priorities, more often than not, are confused, and the roles and hiearrchies are upside down.. The subconscious mind often runs the show, the conscious mind often serves the subconscious, and the very existence of the heart gets forgotten. Romantic love ends up being seen as the place where the heart manifests.

    Foe me, the beauty is that, as long as I am alive, I can establish in my life whatever order of priorities I wish. I can choose to live from the heart and align the rest around that.

    That’s good news!

    • martyrathbun09

      Great news. I think Scientologists might bridle at his notion of the conscious and subconscious; but they will be impressed with his journey to discovering that consideration or intention is senior to the mechanics of matter, energy, space, including genetics.

      • Hihihihihi what you said Marty reminds me of a ’58 lecture about radiation, wherein he said that they had a project (that ceased) to put people in a position from which they could mock up their own bodies, so that they wont be the effect (of stuff like radiation).

        (Yes, I am bad boy that I don’t give refferences. Sorry, no materials available right now. If you demand proof, gimme time and I’ll seek in a while😛 )

    • I am also not from a background of scientology inc nor am I an ist or ologist of any kind. but have been drawn with interest to the independant scientologists because similar practices to my practices and also due to the forming wisdom that is accumulating due to “experience.”

      Still it is like seeing another country where some words seem familiar but do the mean the same thing? I only enter into communication here because Marty ‘s blog said “Integrate!” – integretion is inherently a two- way street. Then he posted about Taoism and that the land from where I come. So I felt it was okay to enter with communication.

      Still there are words…like “tone” – I have a meaning for that word but would not presume that it is the same as a scientologists. You introduce the word “heart” – for me this is deeply connected to tone. Tone is a vibration – the tenseness or looseness of the “string” communicates a specific sound. Because tone is a series of contractions and relaxations. The heart is a muscle, a bundle of strings that sets a general tone for a beings body ( it can be more complicated if there are “withholds” tucked away in different places because that sets up a series of compensations all of which interferes with the hearts general tone and in a larger sense – the capacity of the beings ability to have harmony, both inside and out.

      Thank you for bringing this word and for its resonance.

      • Darkest Hour

        Interesting look at tone. This concept probably covers a similar phenomena, but from quite a different viewpoint.

        In Scientology parlance here is generally what we mean by “tone”, as used regarding people. It is a reference to “emotional tone”.

        L. Ron Hubbard codified an Emotional Tone Scale. The stripped down version goes like this:

        40.0 Serenity of Beingness
        4.0 Enthusiasm
        3.0 Conservatism
        2.5 Boredom
        2.0 Antagonism
        1.5 Anger
        1.1 Covert Hostility (often just referred to as “1.1” )
        1.0 Fear
        0.5 Grief
        0.05 Apathy
        0.0 Death

        “High toned” would generally refer to tones above Antagonism, “low toned” refers to tones below Antagonism.

        If you want the full list of “tones” that L. Ron Hubbard has put on this scale you could probably find it through Google under “The Tone Scale in Full”, or “The Emotional Tone Scale Expanded”.

        Hope this helps.

        Eric

      • Darkest hour, your nickname reminds me of a metal band.

        Scientology being a spiritual thingy has given a spiritual definition to the word ‘tone’ meaning the affinity of the spirit, but I have read that it is a vibration too. The faster the vibration, the more the affinity, the ‘higher’ the tone level. I’m no scientologist either, I am a former one, but I have found much good in it, so I’m still interested to chat about it.

        Speak freely. As far I know, fanaticism is frowned upon in these lands.

        • “Speak freely. As far I know, fanaticism is frowned upon in these lands.”
          What a delightful comment.
          Thank-you Spyros

        • Spyros

          Hi

          About “tone” being a vibration… Yes, that seems to be the case. The finer the vibration, the higher the tone. I have also found that different tones seem to also have different characteristics. Anger seems to be quite a jagged wave, compared for instance to Conservatism.

          Curiously enough, when one is in a particular “tone”, if one simply makes the wavelength that they perceive finer and shorter, they are likely to find that they have come up in tone.

          I have also come to think that emotional tone is one of the key ways that the entities that are most directly in control of the body and its functions, communicate. That and blanketing the area with a picture facsimile of the desired state.

          An interesting side note here. It seems that the spirit is often caught up in this game of using facsimiles to control too, which leads to many of his difficulties. When a being (spirit) uses pictures to attempt to control other life entities, and he believes that he has been successful, he comes to believe that, since he also considers himself to be a life entity, he also can be controlled by pictures. This opens the door to allowing other entities to control him with facsimiles, or as a worse case, agreeing that pretty much any facsimile, from anywhere, has the power to control him.

          I also figure that it is emotional tone that triggers the endocrine and hormonal changes in the body, and conversely, that the state of those hormones within the body are expressed in the emotional tone.

          Anyway, just some thoughts.

          Eric

          • Hi Eric! Thanx 4 comm

            I agree with what you said about vibration. I read that tone is vibration/wavelength in the ‘rout to infinity’ and the ‘pdc’ courses. I also read that one can spot a person being on various points on the tone scale on the same time (he differentiated between the tone of the theta+body and that of the thetan alone and another thing which I don’t remember) and it makes so much sense to me now! I understand why I couldn’t raise my body’s vibration higher than a certain amount –it would dissintegrate! Tone levels above 4 are not theta+body levels. I’m sorry to invalidate you, but getting a job wont send a theta+body to tone 20. Tone 20 (action) is when a thetan is able to generate unlimited amounts of energy at will (as per PDC) A tone 30 (postulates) would postulate that into existence without having to generate it.

            Anyway, I found that my tone, as spirit, was not at all what I perceived from my body, so I no longer invalidate myself for that. The body’s wavelength is very low.

            I don’t know much about the entity’s wavelength. I think they are mostly asleep, untill they wake up by the dictator of the body. That’s why a good practice in the 50s about them, was to not put any attention on them.

            As for the effect of the tone level onto the body, yes I think that there can be some effect, but I think it isn’t an absolute, because I think that consideration>mechanics and tone is a mechanic too. A tone 4 could get his body in a bad shape too, if he caused so.
            🙂

            • Oh and of course, the best tone from my point of view, is no tone at all. As that is closer to basic truth aka static. I don’t wanna spoil the fun, so I’m saying no more.

              • Hi Spyros

                Yes, that is all pretty real to me.

                If you consider that a body has many thousands of life units working together, and clusters of cells or specific functions seemingly being controlled by various levels of body entities, (GE et al) it is no surprise that one gets a few mixed signals.

                Thanks for the chat.

                Eric

        • Spyros, thank you.

    • Paul

      I think you would find that the philosophy of Scientology is pretty much aligned with your views on that. We use different words but the concepts are quite similar.

      As you have suggested, the “subconscious mind” often seems to be running he show, the “conscious mind” trying to explain away the resultant behavior, and “the heart” ( we would equate that concept to Theta) often pretty much “asleep at the wheel”.

      In Buddhist tradition, techniques of meditating seem to be the technology that is widely used to reestablish the proper roles of those three elements.

      The philosophy of Scientology also addresses this.

      One of the main things that Ron Hubbard did was to develop drills and processes that are designed to assist one in putting those three areas of consciousness into their proper perspectives. Scientology Auditing is a broad spectrum of such tools, organized on a gradient approach.

      Ron Hubbard isolated specific phenomena that hold the misalignment in place, and the auditing at each level is designed to specifically handle one of those phenomena.

      I suspect that you would find auditing quite fascinating, both in its approach, and in its results.

      Eric

  49. Breaking news from Tony Ortega, albeit with an alternative title: Independent Scientologists file declarations in support of Garcias in case vs. Church of Scientology
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/04/22/garcias-respond-to-scientology-youre-a-big-ripoff/

  50. Marty thank you for the clarification about Lipton and Scientologists being “impressed with his journey to discovering that consideration or intention is senior to the mechanics of matter, energy, space, including genetics.” This is Scientology language, but after reading so much, I’m starting to be able to follow what is being said!. Thanks again.

  51. Eric S. thank you for the clarification, I understand what you say. I do believe that auditing is fascinating in its approach and results. Ive tried many things in my life, been a disciple of Muktananda in the late 60s, Maharaji /Prem Rawat since 1972 and was in psychoanalysis for years. One thing I’ve understood is that whatever one practices, one has to do it in depth, and fully, really, for results to manifest, i.e spiritual tourism rarely bears fruits. So my sense is that for me at this time what works best is to have a primary practice, which is the techniques of Knowledge of Prem Rawat, which I practice, and “corollary” interests, Scientology being one. Also I’m getting old and don’t have the energy I used to have…I’m not sure I could find the strength within myself to dedicate fully to two paths at the same time. But … never say never.. clearly I’ve gotten and I’m getting a lot from what I’m reading about Scientology and L Ron Hubbard. Let’s see where this leads..
    Cheers Paul

  52. MaBu
    Thank you for kind words and for the funny cartoon, which made me smile.
    I was able to understand what was being said in spite of my limited Spanish!.
    I have been aware of the expremie site, which you bring up, but never spent much time there as, in contrast to Marty’s site, I see there little interest to move up and forward. What I read there is mostly bitterness rehashing things that happened decades ago, and it does not make me feel good. Life cant be just about that. For some reason that I do not understand many people posting there not only have turned their back to Maharaji and Knowledge, which I can understand, but also to any kind of inner search or practice, and seem kind of lost rejecting both any kind of religion or spirituality while being also anti-materialism. I wish them well, but dont experience there the stimulation and inspiration that I see on Marty’s blog. As Eric S. said, our terminologies are different, but in reality we speak about the same things, the same experience. So I go on the web to sites where, regardless of terminologies, people seek and share with a tolerant, inclusive spirit, that’s what I find exciting!.

    Thanks again for the kind words.
    Paul

  53. Off topic but I want to say it.

    It was just bought to my attention the declaration of Marty, for Luis Garcia and his lovely wife, with their legal burden.

    I want to thank Marty, Mike Rinder, Mike Laws, Jason Beghe, for assisting with handling all of this legal suppression over the last four years.

    For organizing legal representation, writing up reports, providing valuable information and assistance people so desperately need. For spearheading the fundraising and legal efforts for any legal victory won out here in the last four years.

    For helping people bridge out of the desert. Getting them safe pointed.

    For standing on the witness stands as valuable sources that carried real weight.

    There are only a few people standing in the position to be of POWER and influence in these arenas because of who they are, where they have been and what they have seen. Who they have come to know, along their long road to truth and personal discovery.

    And those people have risen up on every occasions where they could help pave a NEW road of Freedom and Truth.

    To them, and to those here that helped, that cared, that bravely stepped forward, that contributed and assisted these things which assist survival, I thank you.

    You all truly do deserve REAL humanitarian awards.

    And for those very few of you that have used this evolution as a license to harm attack and suppress others, grand stand yourself, line your pockets, improve your status, knock others in the dirt, and generally profit off of other people’s misery in this sad situation, FUCK YOU.

    • And for those of you who chose to generate conflict, wallow in sadism, and pull the rug out from under whoever you could behind the mask of “love for Scientology, religion, mankind and L. Ron Hubbard”, FUCK YOU TOO.

      • WWll. Anyone that has had the luxury to study history knows that Hitler made his bed on “common enemy”. Sterilizing the weak minded, the alcoholics, the disadvantaged.

        These “witch hunters” and “squirrel busters” and “OSA STAFF” and “Bible Thumpers” and “Masters at arms” and “Fanatics” …really? What fucking “arms”are they master of? Those people are not licensed to carry arms! Masters of fucking NOTHING! But ser facs! Are the reason Hitler was able to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people including children. DED DED EX.

        This is really fucking discouraging when you people still can’t LEARN!

        You people are the making of SS camps, gas chambers, witch burnings. It’s what you live for. I am sick of the fair gaming and abuse you people generate.

        “Let’s KILL OFF BLAHDY BLAH…..! Let’s kill…”whatever….” “The squirrel! Let’s punish SOMEBODY,…. ANYBODY!”

        You people are sick mother fuckers. Sadists. Can’t go another day with out blood shed. You got NOTHING from all of your years in Scientology. NOTHING. Because nobody else can change your mind about your fucking hobbies to humiliate other people but YOU.

        • “We would rather have you DEAD than incompetent” was Hitler’s policy.

          We have STUPID people running around in this society who will kill socially and on any other level thinking, breathing, living on this. What standards of “competence”? Who’s standards of “competence”? Hidden standards, fixed ideas… If you KILL off everyone who does not have an IQ of 160 who the FUCK is going to wash your car? STUPID people buy into this shit! They won’t go plant potatoes, but they will kill off any farmer that is feeding them as “incompetent”. Because he is digging in the dirt. Then they starve. The “oh so competent ones”.

          There is some serious fucking stupidity here within the Scientology movement.

          • If ANY of us were as competent as Hubbard we would not be propitiating for the next “open door to to Freedom”. So when he says “We would rather see you dead than incompetent” he is talking about US. DUH! NOT your brother. YOU! YES YOU! YES ME! DUH! We are ALL on the same page! DUH!! If you think you are on some higher page than the rest of us YOU ARE TRIPPING!

          • Yes Oracle, it’s this irony of the perpetrator (the emperor type) who blames his victims for being his victims, and then his punishes/controls them some more because it is bad to be a victim😛

            • Nobody has title to this planet YET. It is here for everybody on it. Everybody that is here, has a right to be here. No need to go “killing off” people who do not live up to one’s “standards”.

              People that are out qualed for Earth? Laughter!

  54. A peculiarity of Scientology is that instead of adding more things (theories and other considerations) if practiced, it reduces things –charge, pictures, problems, ‘cant’s, various stuff.

    So, from my perspective, Scientology is succesfully practiced to the degree that it does that. If it adds more, then it works less.

    Even in the case of a positive gain –such as a gained ability, in my opinion nothing is gained. The potential of a thetan is there. The ‘can’t’ or some other portion of case goes out, so the ability appeares to be ‘gained’.

    For this reason I can’t honestly label it as a science. Phenomena can be observed, data are logically structured and to some degree, end phenomena can be predicted. But, I think science deals with existing things –isness, and rearranges them to achieve something. Scientology on the other hand is about making things disappear.

    I cannot label it a religion either, for I have read that it is a prerequisite for a religion to have a dogma. Hubbard said to not believe him and to ‘find’ own truth with processing. So then, no dogma.

    Maybe the label of philosophy would suit Scientology better, as it is a wider, more unlimited field. Buddhism was philosophy before it became a religion too. And a little Plato that I know resembles Scientology’s basics, too.

    I personally like the idea of not associating Scientology with science, because it then makes it seem more unlimited, and so then makes the Scientologist seem more unlimited to himself –less of a middle class PTS. Really, I don’t like realism in Scientology. Has/can something be prooved? Who cares?? Certainly, not me. I only want to ‘proove’ it to myself. If I know that I can do/experience something, I wouldn’t be too free, if I needed to aprooval of another.

    I think that gaining of a more realistic point of view in Scientology resulted in considerations which made fairy tales such as the anti-psychiatry activism, believable. Has anyone read in Scientology that a cycle of action ends with counter-creation? Isn’t protesting counter-creation, not-isness? Isn’t it being more at effect?

    The way is through truth, ARC, KRC, and the rest of the basics. That’s why they are ‘basics’ because all the rest is BASED on them.

    • …and without the realistic point of view, we wouldn’t have the SP and the unethical and the downstat and the squirrel witch-hunting either. Because the ethics officer would know that he/she couldn’t be too irresponsible, too much out of ARC, and he would know that he wouldn’t make anyone better by discipline –counter-creation. To take responsibility for another, is not realistic at all. Moreover, to bring about change to some 4th dynamic is-ness isn’t realism either. Realism says things are real and so they were and so they will be, because logically blah blah blah. But we are supposed to put that out of the way. If bank is agreed upon, doesn’t make it less of a bank.

      • The emeter is scientific. But did you ever think about the fact that your “overts and with holds” depend on the building you are in?

        If you walked into the Catholic Church and you were getting sec checked over there, you would have different reads on different items.

        If you sit in the F.B.I. building, you would have different reads than if you were sitting in the Church.

        If you are sitting in the I.R.S. building, you have different reads than if you are sitting in Church of Scientology.

        If you are sitting in the police station, you have different reads than if you are sitting in the Church of Scientology.

        Nothing scientific about that.

        • There ya’ go again.
          What a smarty-pants you are.
          You have such a cool way of spelling things out.
          L-O-V-E it.

          • You know the people that are putting up these “hate” web sites? Fair gaming people in the Independent Movement? Did you ever think about the fact that they are rock slamming all over us? Yes, they are rock slamming all over the place! All you have to do is read the emails and posts they publish and create. But they don’t think of it as an outpoint because they are supposed to have a license to be rock slamming on us. If they were rock slamming on Miscavige it would be an issue. Since they rock slam on us “squirrels” it’s not a problem!

            • Yes, you are so correct about the O/Ws matter –and I add that this applies to all kinds of charge. If you don’t create that charge, the meter then logically, has nothing to read (I don’t mean to create and hide it). Stimulus response is a limited theory. The purpose of SCN was to put it out of the way, not use it to make people read.

              I haven’t seen any such hate sites, but now that you mentioned it I may duplicate and see them😛 although I may as well change my mind about that too.

              • I used to think that ridges…pictures…generally bank stuff, were stored somewhere, and if I put attention on them (as in the case when I was asked a question on the meter) then that charged stuff jumped up, and then I interacted with them (below my awareness) and they read on the meter. No no no no….also, no. Fortunately, not.

                Remember that theory that mental mass could make one’s body heavier? Well, if that mental mass was always there, without the thetan creating it there, how could then that body become heavier? Obviously, he didn’t have that mass, he weighted 80kg (sorry I’m greek, so ‘kg) then he created that mass, and so he weighted 85 afterwards. Case is not there by itself.

                • I don’t know much about mental mass. I guess at one time I could have had it with me all of the time. Somehow something shifted though, and I find I have to return to a location, an actual location, to bump into it. Like as if I dropped it in places and it still sits there. At this point it seems more like it was actually in locations and I shifted continuously to the locations, where it was, as opposed to being in one place and having it all with me. I know that sounds wierd…………

  55. I get some guilt when I put there a problem to deal with, in public, nowdays that I discuss about Scientology. I feel like I ask form others to put that problem there, and admit that it exists. I do it to resolve it, but nevertheless I think it isn’t very well alligned with my ideas about what Scientology is. No matter my good intentions, it is nevertheless perpetuation of case.

    We can (hardly) figure out the past, or better as-is portions of it. But I’m thinking why put it there in the first place, as something that can have an effect upon us? I wanted to post something funny about the COS, about how it misinterprets Scientology, and others believe it, and get messed up. But why should I do it, if others aren’t messed up? What I think/have charge about ‘others’ is my case too, isn’t it?

    I’m proposing to myself, that maybe it is better to see what I do next. To start from a completely blank present time and plan the future and experience it in present time. I don’t agree with the idea that if I don’t do something, something bad will happen to me or ‘the world’. If somebody originated that in session, you might run it as PTP(?) I think that a way or ways to resolve something can exist, but aren’t necessary, if the thing to be resolved isn’t there in the first place.

  56. Gern Gaschoen: Very interesting defense of LRH’s scientific research: “LRH sent out missions with new tech being tested, for decades. Thousands upon thousands of PC folders, with hundreds of hours of auditing, very well-described details about how things were working with the discoveries LRH (and the Group) made in exploring the Theta universe.”
    Point made: He did research. However were his test subjects paid to be in his clinical trials? In clinical trials the test subjects are usually paid and are informed. I suspect that the reverse is true–that the test subjects paid to be guinea pigs and didn’t know it. How is that right? It really just doesn’t add up. Am I missing something?

  57. This is in response to marildi’s post above regarding the e-meter and mental mass at:
    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/#comment-263912

    I think we exhausted the software’s ability to nest responses. 🙂

    Two points. First, I simply don’t believe it, BUT I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by EVIDENCE after a controlled experiment. I would not, however, accept survey results for something like this. It is a matter of look, don’t listen. What matters is not what people say, but what IS. Thus, I would accept the experiment outlined in the book. That is, somebody is on a scale, undergoes auditing, does he gain or lose weight? Or somebody is weighed, immediately undergoes an auditing session, is thereafter immediately weighed using the same scale, did he gain or lose weight?

    Secondly, you quoting the book in support of the theory articulated in the book is not persuasive. It is circular reasoning,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

    AND/OR an argument from authority,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    I don’t have the references handy, but I clearly recall Ron cautioning against arguments from authority in his early books, including Dianetics and Science of Survival. (I’m sure the point was also made in HCOBs and HCOPLs) The point is that one cannot say that an empirical, testable, falsifiable statement about “real world” — external reality — such as someone gaining or losing weight — is true simply and only because of words written is a book, or a THEORY articulated in a book says it is. One can’t prove a theory is empirically valid simply by citing or reiterating the theory. A controlled experiment is required.

    For word clearing: Falsifiability:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    • CommunicatorIC, you wrote: “…I simply don’t believe it, BUT I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by EVIDENCE after a controlled experiment. I would not, however, accept survey results for something like this.”

      That is a fair statement but I also want to point out that I only said a survey would be interesting. And, yes, this is a testable/falsifiable point and a controlled experiment could be done, which in a way might be worth doing. But even if it turned out that such large amounts of weight change were not found to occur, that would be beside the significant point – which is that the e-meter does measure mental mass even though such mass may only be in very small quantities.

      The e-meter is basically a potentiometer, which is a valid scientific instrument that measures the change in electrical resistance that any change in mass brings about. Exactly how a potentiometer works, and specifically the e-meter as a potentiometer, is also described in the book Understanding the E-meter.

      In an earlier comment, I quoted an excerpt describing the pinch test, which is a simple proof of change in resistance (in other words, change in amount of mass) that occurs in relation to thoughts, and my understanding is that this test has been done successfully many, many times. Even more significant is the fact that there have been countless sessions where the changes that occur in the resistance readings on the e-meter do indeed indicate changes of mass occurring for the pc.

      Look back over this exchange between us and you’ll see that it started because I had recommended a book about the e-meter to another poster who was interested in it and had questions. You then made a statement that inadvertently came across as discrediting the whole book, although you were only referring to the data in that one paragraph (as regards large weight/mass changes). I didn’t think it was okay to let that go by as it misrepresented the book as a whole and also could have discouraged the other poster from reading it. However, I really wasn’t interested in discussing the e-meter in a lot of detail, but rather to just give a reference that does so and let the person decide for himself. Thanks for the civil discussion anyway.🙂

      Btw, as regards the “software’s ability to nest responses”, when there is no longer a “reply” button on a comment you want to reply to, what you can do is to click on the reply button on the e-mail notification of that comment. That will bring up a new tab or window that gives you a box labeled “Leave a reply to [name of poster on whose comment you hit the reply button]”After you write your reply and push the “post comment” button, your post will appear under that particular comment you are replying to. An alternative to method is to simply go to the nearest post (above the post you want to reply to) which does have a reply button. That method isn’t as good as the email notification doesn’t show correctly which post the reply is actually in reply to.

      Cheers, marildi

      • Now we get down to the crucial issue. The crux of the matter. You state:

        “The e-meter is basically a potentiometer, which is a valid scientific instrument that measures the change in electrical resistance that any change in mass brings about.”

        You assume that a change in resistance can be caused ONLY by a change in mass, and that therefore a change in resistance NECESSARILY means there has been a change in mass. That is not correct.

        Just because a change in mass could result in a change in resistance doesn’t mean that it is the ONLY thing that could cause a change in resistance.

        It is important not to confuse something which is SUFFICIENT to cause a particular result with something that is NECESSARY to cause that same result.

        As someone who has been trained, you know this. The PC squeezes the cans, the needle reacts. The PC loosens his hands, the needle reacts. The PC inhales, the needle reacts. The PC exhales, the needle reacts. The PC holds his breath, the needle reacts. The PC’s hands sweat, the needle reacts. The PC’s hands become dry, the needle reacts.

        Add to this material that is outside the text and the training of most Auditors — i.e., the fact that the PC’s body generates its own electric current for, e.g., the heart (as measured by an EKG or ECG) and brain waves (neural oscillation as measured by electroencephalography — EEG). MANY things can affect this current — and thus the needle. A change in mass, while potentially one of them, is not the only one by far.

        Nobody thinks, and there is no evidence, that an EKG or ECG varies because the heart is “changing mass.”

        Nobody thinks, and there is no evidence, that an EEG varies because the brain — or the “mind” — is changing mass. An EEG demonstrably varies with one’s thoughts. Show somebody a picture of their favorite food, the EEG varies. Show the person a picture of a horrific accident, the EEG varies. No change in mass necessary.

        The body is a highly complex bio-electrical system. The current, resistance and voltage measured at different points is always varying — unless one is body dead.

        Again, one can’t persuasively support an empirical theory simply by reiterating the theory, or citing the text. That is circular reasoning.

        Finally, I have to turn to the issue of scientific credibility. Whoever wrote that the 30 pound experiment has “actually been made” was either lying or unknowingly spouting nonsense. Why, then, should I believe a word that person has to say about science or a scientific result? Did not the person ruin his own scientific credibility? Did not the person effectively Dead Agent himself?

        • Body reactions are very much taken into account in auditing and can be differentiated from changes in resistance due to mental mass increasing or decreasing. There is theory as well as drills that teach the difference. You apparently have not done much if any auditing or you would know about all lthis from your own personal experience and not just because it’s written in books. E-Meter Essentials and E-meter Drills are two books that take up the subject of body reactions. But again, it’s not my intention to carry on with a debate when I’ve learned that what is needed by anyone sincerely interested in the tech is simply to study the theory and then put it into practice and see for themselves if it’s true.

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