Scientology Culture

Henry David Thoreau’s description of mid-nineteenth century American culture could serve as a fairly accurate description of Scientology culture today, in my opinion.

Thoreau:

It is remarkable that the highest intellectual mood which the world tolerates is the perception of the truth of the most ancient revelations, now in some respects out of date; but any direct revelation, any original thoughts, it hates like virtue.  The fathers and mothers of the town would rather hear the young man or young woman at their tables express reverence for some old statement of the truth than utter a direct revelation themselves.  They don’t want to have any prophets born into their families, – damn them!  So far as thinking is concerned, surely original thinking is the divinest thing. Rather we should reverently watch for the least motions, the least scintillations, of thought in this sluggish world, and men should run to and fro on the occasion more than at an earthquake.  We check and repress the divinity that stirs within us, to fall down and worship the divinity that is dead without us.  I go to see many a good man or good woman, so called, and utter freely that thought which alone it was given me to utter; but there was a man who lived a long, long time ago, and his name was Moses, and another whose name was Christ, and if your thought does not, or does not appear to, coincide with what they said, the good man or the good woman has no ears to hear you.  They think they love God!  It is only his old clothes, of which they make scarecrows for their children.  Where will they come nearer to God that in those very children?

168 responses to “Scientology Culture

  1. It sounds to me like Thoreau was having a bad day. Someone was using those “ancient revelations” to stifle his reach. He comes close to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in my opinion, to make his otherwise valid points about original thinking and the divinity within.

    • and I understand your correlation as well, that the scientology orthodox culture uses the “authority” of LRH to quell thinking, just as Thoreau had ancient teachings used to quell his own or that of others. Whether LRH was right or wrong, we do not need to make him wrong to grow. But the church seems to need to make others wrong to hold on to its position.

      • I agree Apprentice, wise thoughts.
        Adopting or attacking blindly ancient revelations or ancient wise men, or anybody else’s revelations for that matter… does not make one original or wise. It is just reactive, which means departing from REASON.
        Are we to make all past wise men wrong, just because so many people are not that wise yet, or even stupid, And are still not connected enough to themselves to be original? That, I think, will be a mistake.
        Moses, Jesus, Guatama/Buddha, Lao Tzu, Gurdjieff…Ron Hubbard (God forbid..-:)…I would take what they had to give which I think is useful, and use these to help people (including myself) become more original, more themselves.
        And I will give these people due and honest credit, and not bother too much with the rest. If that is what is meant by “evolve and integrate”
        Marty, and it is positive, then great, I am in.
        Hemi

    • Thoreau is addressing unquestioned, uninspected blind belief. He is not dissing ancient revelations, he is making comment on revelations only being made by ancient people and not by contemporary ones.

      He is commenting on sheeple mentality and victrola like parroting of scriptures without the deeper understanding or personal revelations.

      Blind faith and blind adherence to limited understanding of scripture is what he is addressing.

  2. Huh? I’m sorry, but I’ve looked back at Thoreau’s statement above several times to try and figure out what you’re talking about. What’s baby in the bath water that is almost thrown out?

    • the baby is the ancient revelations

      • IMHO, that’s really not the point of the essay, which I found to be brilliant and incisive.

        That ending “They think they love God! It is only his old clothes, of which they make scarecrows for their children. Where will they come nearer to God tha[n] in those very children?” says it all.

        That is _exactly_ what Scientology is doing. It’s what every religion does when it locks in dogma, makes true believers, and leaves the true believers in a position of trying to pound the square peg of reality into the round hole of their mistaken beliefs.

        Either society moves on around such “true” beliefs like a stream flowing around a rock, or the “true” belief is a big enough rock to dam up the stream and stop the flow of life, and give us things like inquisitions, witch burnings, blockage of science, fair game and disconnection, paranoia of “entheta” (characterized as anything critical of Scientology) as a thought-stopping control device, and slavery masquerading as freedom in true Orwellian style.

        Even Hubbard threw off some of his own old clothes. He “canceled” fair game (wink, he canceled only the use of the term in an ethics order), he may have retreated from his homophobia somewhat, and he backed off of his sexual control of non-SO members (in a cancellation order in the late 1960s, I think).

        And I feel it _is_ necessary to understand where Hubbard got it wrong as well as where he got it right. He was dead wrong on some scientific fundamentals (radiation, speed of light, supposed freight trains on Venus, etc.) and in his allowing Crowley-ism to creep into some parts of Scientology (the Scientology cross, referring to Crowley as his friend, reference to the Crowley tarot deck with the fool and the alligator in a lecture and so on — forever leaving Scientology vulnerable to allegations that it is an irreligious religion that stems from worship of the “dark side.”

        Hubbard wasn’t honest about his war record, his supposed injuries, his motives for starting a religion, or even the number of times he was married.

        If someone cannot face the facts about the founder and the founding, I suggest he or she has not adequately mastered TR-O, is out of valence, is busily not-ising and as-ising (hence perpetuating lies) and is holding a huge service fac in place.

        One can actually use that which is useful in Scientology to rise above the prison of true belief and organizational lies.

        In the end, like all gurus, Hubbard died. He won’t be coming back. He won’t be able to speak further or clarify his words. And now Scientologists have to decide if they will (a) be a rock in the river that life flows around and past, leaving them as an archaic notion of a founder with some good ideas and some bad ideas, or will they (b) try the impossible — to dam up society and force it into the Scientology mold (if that is the vision of clearing Earth, it is forever doomed to failure), or will they (c) evolve and transcend???

        Even Hubbard

        • Oops — above I of course meant not-ising and alter-ising (not as-ising — which is the desirable level of confront / obnosis). Also forgive the “widowed” stray ending of “Even Hubbard” — did not mean to be sloppy or enigmatic.

  3. Marty

    Good point. I suspect this clinging to past truths is likely built right into the very creation of current organisms. I am talking about their actual physical forms, not just their ideas. Future forms are built from the left-overs from past forms… And since the past forms apparently ceased to exist, one wonders why we all seem to be so eager to duplicate them.

    I believe that this very thing is the undoing of theta in the first place. It is a case of severe conservatism, and in conservatism one is unwilling to create, or accommodate new creations.

    Even the very prized subject of “logic” is stuck in preserving the past. Logic allows little or no room for originality or “non-sequitur” concepts. The very word “non-sequitur” is a degrade of original thought.

    So, where does that leave Theta, the creator? Shackled! Unless we can somehow break the bonds of MEST thinking we will be eternally doomed to be stuck in having to “figure it all out” to MESTs satisfaction!

    Good luck with that, unless you don’t mind being MEST yourself.

    Eric

    • Eric, personally, I don’t believe that Theta can ever be undone nor can it be shackled. Also, I don’t believe that we have to figure anything out to MEST’s satisfaction. Indeed, I don’t think it’s possible to actually figure anything out to the satisfaction of MEST. MEST is never satisfied as it is in a perpetual state of lack. It always needs something else and it never has enough.

      History repeats itself because we keep doing the same things again and again and again. In other words, we align ourselves to MEST thinking and MEST thinking perpetuates MEST. We do have another choice. We have always had another choice. Instead of choosing to align ourselves to MEST thinking we can chose to align ourselves to Theta, Spirit, The Light, Love, God…

      Eric, have you ever had an experience where you ‘boinked’ completely out of MEST and all need for learning instantly dropped away and you were in a state of KNOW? Well, whether you have or not, such experiences begin to occur when the choice is made to turn away from MEST and align to Theta. THETA IS. MEST isn’t.

      • Monty

        Me thinks that you may have totally misunderstood me. Obviously I missed somewhere in my communication.

        I totally align with your summary.

        With that in mind, and knowing that I come from that viewpoint, I invite you to re-read my comment.

        Eric

        • Eric,

          These two lines that you wrote are what grabbed my attention:

          “I believe that this very thing is the undoing of theta in the first place.”

          “So, where does that leave Theta, the creator? Shackled! ”

          It seemed to me that you were saying theta could be undone and could be shackled. But as far as the rest of your comment…I did misperceive your comm. My apologies.

          • Monty.

            Ahhh yes. OK. Along with those lines I had not made it clear that I do not believe that MEST is actually able to “undo” or “shackle” Theta, except by Theta’s own considerations and fixations and agreements, one or more of which have led him to feel that he has somehow NEEEEDS (read this from a needy, cloying tone) MEST to justify his beingness.

            Thanks for allowing me to help sort this out.

            Eric

            • Eric, sorting things out is never a one way street. That noted, thanks to you too.

              Do you ever watch/listen to Bashar videos on YT? I do (I go through phases of doing so). Right now I’m in a phase of doing so. Going back to the idea of ‘MEST thinking’…I watched a Bashar vid last night wherein he gave a great explanation of Mest thinking (IMO). Of course, he doesn’t use those words. Here it is:

              • Monte.

                Thanks. I had not ever watched a video by Bashar. I found his video interesting. The reality that he is expressing reality appears to be aligned with some Buddhist thought, as I know it. I consider that the things that he has pointed out have merit and are worth more than just a glance. Some of those ideas I have encountered elsewhere, including Scientology.
                Some of those ideas I had already incorporated into my own understandings of the roles of Theta and MEST. Some are still somewhat foreign to me. Some I have considered the validity of, but have not experienced their reality as my own.

                I am not likely to watch another of his videos because I find that the carrier wave upon which his communication is carried to be out of sync with my own harmonics. I would likely do better if I were to read his statements rather than be pummeled by them. I prefer my sources of data to be laid out more as a buffet rather than come as an avalanche.

                Thank you though. I got your comm.

                Eric

  4. Reminds me of why Hubbard developed the Vital Information Rundown.
    Seems like that is the one thing David will not part with no matter how big the donations get.

  5. I LOVE logic!
    I HATE logic!
    I LOVE logic!
    I HATE logic!
    I LOv……

    What were we talking about again?

    Eric

  6. I imported this from another blog. Kind of a major charge blower for me.

    This makes a lot of sense and explains a lot.

    In the OT Doctorate Course, LRH stated:

    “At any one time on Earth there were not more than about 10,000 people of a caliber, that was sufficient to do a little steering or leading.”

    “There’s only about 10,000 of them really.” – LRH

    • T.O. I just read that in the PDC lecture recently and was struck by it too. Keeping in mind that it was 1952 that LRH gave those figures, he went on to say:

      “…And below that level you have something in the neighborhood of about 100,000 or 150,000, 200,000 people who have a competence of assimilation. That’s about all.

      “You can count then on those people directing others or leading them…

      “And if you have a savage enough truth, or a beautiful enough truth, they can go through, but don’t ever try to get a reasonable enough truth, because you won’t ever talk to reason…

      “So therefore you have two levels of appeal which are quite direct and quite direct indeed is you just go ahead and you work; you don’t try to tell anybody anything beyond perhaps you intimate to them once in a while that you might be able to do something for them.

      “But you could intimate that for God sakes on a… on an aesthetic, an aesthetic or a completely false sympathy line. ‘Oh, you poor fellow’…”

      • Makes me wonder if all this noise is all about nothing. How are you going to clear a planet when such a small % of the population can assimilate? Maybe we should all just have a huge victory party that those that could assimilate already passed through those pearly gates and whatever could have been accomplished with Scientology already was. Maybe we should be celebrating instead of arguing. I have had this thought on my own before before I saw this reference.

        • Because I have to tell you, when I view it from this angle, every little thing makes perfect sense.

          • I’ll tell you what else this explains to me. That the people who got “stuck in it”, were not able to assimilate it.

            • I don’t mean the people who made it through or the people that are on top of it. I mean the people that got stuck. Fixated at some point and unable to move.

              • Or are fixated to the point of not being to integrate the knowledge or experience with everything and everyone else in the world. Or not able to apply it in everyday living or think with it as being integrated with all of their other knowledge.

                • Like this for instance. This is part of an email sent out by someone from the Church.

                  All is Explained! The Average IQ in America is between 85 and 90

                  My reference for this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F

                  Maybe you already suspected this but seeing it laid out on the map does explain a few things. I personally have a problem communicating to people with an IQ of less than 125 since their comm lags tend to be rather high and they don’t get my jokes.

                  …………………

                  David Wilson
                  Gold Humanitarian Valley

                  Check this out, this guy while on OTVll, drained his swimming pool, forgot he did it, jumped in it and broke one or two ankles, whatever, ended up in the hospital.

                  • How is that for I.Q.? I mean, he is a very intelligent man in many regards. But he just doesn’t integrate the Scientology to his swimming pool. He doesn’t know how to know when to jump in the pool.

                    • And the people still STUCK on lines certainly haven’t assimilated it, they would have recognized that this guy David Miscavige is suppressive and totally out K,S.W.. The Sea Org members do not assimilate it, they are REALLY stuck. Never moving on the bridge or training even leaving the buildings for an opportunity to assimilate it. If they could assimilate it, they would leave.

                      And I think David Miscavige knows all of this. I think he knows. And he is just profiting off of these people and their misery.

                    • I mean, he might as well be working as a dentist.

                    • Not that I mean to suggest there is anything wrong with being a dentist.
                      I haven’t assimilated the art of dentistry and I am grateful for those that have. I just mean, he probably could have been doing anything else . David obviously did not assimilate the Scientology.

                      Maybe it doesn’t matter. There are thousands of areas of science and hundreds of other religions I haven’t assimilated. What if everyone got the idea that if you didn’t assimilate the things they were curious about there was something wrong with you? What if everyone got these bad attitudes that Scientologists can sometimes muster up? That if you aren’t exploring what I am exploring you are deficient.

                      Can you imagine going for a tooth cleaning and the dentist looking at you in disgust because you didn’t study dentistry? Discounting your value as a human being because you were not curious about the arts he found interesting?

                      This is the off balance thing.

                    • When the subject of Scientology becomes a fixed idea, it is the same as a ser fac. The Scientology becomes a ser fac. And it is not possible to grant other people beingness. That is when it becomes something used to suppress. No wonder they have the OT’s at the base back on objectives. Who is going to have any case gain in the face of someone who only has a ser fac to run on you? And for sure these people haven’t even assimilated the Scientology themselves. Or they wouldn’t have filed the knowledge under “fixed ideas”.

                    • Ouch, funny but painful.

                      Reminded me of a joke I heard 60 years ago:
                      The inspector entered an institution and was shown
                      around the newly renovated facility by the manager.
                      They came to the newly refurbished swimming pool
                      and saw the patients enjoying it. The inspector
                      incredulously exclaimed why they had so many
                      people using it. The manager retorted “you should
                      see how many we will have once the pool is filled
                      up with water”.

            • Yes, assimilate (integrate), evolve, and transcend, or be assimilated, digested and pooped out. Very much like eat and digest or be eaten.

          • Yes, it does make sense viewed from this angle. Otherwise, why would we have so many different interpretations of almost every aspect of Scientology?!

            But I don’t think we say “whatever could have been accomplished with Scientology already was.” It’s probably true with regard to many people, who tried but didn’t succeed in assimilating Scientology; but others may just need to delve into it more. And we have to keep in mind that the vast majority haven’t even given it a try yet. Just imagine if we had 200,000 people on Earth who understood and practiced the core basics of Scientology (not the contradictions that evolved). I think it would be a whole different planet.

            • Oracle, the above was in reply to your comment of “Because I have to tell you, when I view it from this angle, every little thing makes perfect sense.”

              Note: on the sentence above “But I don’t think we say…” it should read “But I don’t think we can say.”

              • Well that is exactly what I am pointing out, ASSIMILATION is EVERYTHING. I mean, when I read K,S.W. I read it to mean the art of auditing and training required some discipline.

                I know there are other people, that filed that info under “fixed ideas, I am supposed to have fixed ideas that never change. And, I need to knock anyone who recommends change.”

                I mean, really. So, If you have ten people in a room and they are all assimilating the knowledge in a different way, you are not going to get a uniform product. That is why we do not see any uniform product in Scientology. If fact, we see a lot of different interpretations and people taking it in in different ways with different meanings. It is just a person’s capacity to assimilate and that means also, integrating the knowledge with knowledge you already have and will acquire in the future.

                There is a lot of disagreement , abuse, and suppression in the culture of Scientology itself. Because of this varying assimilation. Assimilation is a unique ability or mechanism, depending on how it is done ,and also depends upon other factors besides using a dictionary. Verifying results, incorporating knowledge into your make up already. Assimilation itself is relative.

                I don’t think you could expect any two people to assimilate the knowledge in the same way. And some people think they have assimilated when in fact they have not. Just because someone can pass a star rate check out or a drill, does not mean they have assimilated the information. Just because they say they understand it and can apply it and think they can, does not mean they can. Because if the whole course got filed under “fixed ideas” in their mind, you have only given life to people with more fixed ideas.

            • Actually, the number of 200,000 would have to be increased quite a bit in relation to the increase in the world’s population since 1952.

        • Interesting. Maybe “clearing the planet” was the biggest hook of them all.

          • Actually, the rest of the quote explains LRH’s point. It isn’t that you can’t clear a planet. He says you can’t expect to do it by getting very many people to assimilate Scientology since only a small percentage will. You have to appeal to them on some other basis than reason. You can use aesthetics or sympathy, for example, and those will “go through.” But mainly you just “go ahead and you work.” Here’s that part of the quote again:

            “And if you have a savage enough truth, or a beautiful enough truth, they can go through, but don’t ever try to get a reasonable enough truth, because you won’t ever talk to reason…

            “So therefore you have two levels of appeal which are quite direct and quite direct indeed is you just go ahead and you work; you don’t try to tell anybody anything beyond perhaps you intimate to them once in a while that you might be able to do something for them.

            “But you could intimate that for God sakes on a… on an aesthetic, an aesthetic or a completely false sympathy line. ‘Oh, you poor fellow’…” PDC-61 “How to Talk to Friends about Scientology” 18 Dec 52

      • From PDC-61 “How to Talk to Friends about Scientology” 18 Dec 52

      • Roger From Switzerland Thought

        “…And below that level you have something in the neighborhood of about 100,000 or 150,000, 200,000 people who have a competence of assimilation. That’s about all.”

        Horrible thoughts, very elitist thinking. Already in the fifties LRH clearly expressed what he thought of his brethren. The same is with his theory of big beings and dbs.
        ” because you won’t ever talk to reason…”
        He was able to hide his facist ideas very well. Kind of having 2 faces !

        It’s no surprise anymore for me that the establisment in the fifties did’nt applaud him. Allready in the fifties there were reports about his facistic leadership and way of handling people which talks about Religion and blind followers. Intelligent and educated people left very fast . People like Dr. Winter, Heinlein, Campbell…

        • An interesting question one could ask would be, “Did LRH encounter a sufficient number of people to make this statement?”. Another one would be “assimilation of what?”.

          It is an old art in Scientology to blame failure to understand or apply on the student.

          • Good questions you ask. Personally, I think LRH must have had things “revealed” to him. Just as many wise men over the eons have had.

            • “Revealed” to him? What does THAT mean?

              • It means “revelation,” something common to many religions. From the Wikipedia article on “Revelation”:

                “In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.

                “Some religions have religious texts which they view as divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired. For instance, Orthodox Judaism holds that the Torah was received from God on biblical Mount Sinai, and Muslims consider the Qur’an to have been revealed word by word and letter by letter. In Hinduism, some Vedas are considered apauruṣeya, i.e. “not human compositions”, and are supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti, i.e. “what is heard”. Many Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. The 15,000 handwritten pages produced by the mystic Maria Valtorta were represented as direct dictations from Jesus, while she attributed The Book of Azariah to her guardian angel….”
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

        • Roger, what LRH thought of his brethren was that they were basically good and powerful and wise – but that they had case that clouded those attributes. And he thought enough of them to work very, very hard to help them find their way out.

          • Here’s another part of the context:

            “Now, let’s… let’s… let’s not be snide or put this into the category of ‘we’re all so smart and they’re all so dumb.’ I’m telling you something that’s very nakedly true; that has a workability as I have worked it out.” (PDC-61 “How to Talk to Friends about Scientology” 18 Dec 52)

        • Whatever category his ideas fall into, you have to ask yourself, it is TRUE or not. It would be my guess that roughly 200,000 people HAVE been able or WILLING to assimilate the information he complied. If I had not spent several years touring the world myself and meeting Scientologists from many different countries, and working at the base and AO for several years, I would not have been able to see it. But I see it as the truth of the matter.

          • Oracle: “Whatever category his ideas fall into, you have to ask yourself, it is TRUE or not.”

            Or as Thoreau said in the quote: “…any direct revelation, any original thoughts, it [the world] hates like virtue.”

          • Roger From Switzerrland Thought

            Dear Oracle

            I love most of your posts, but this time I have to disagree. My experience in disseminiation was that about 80% of the people I was talking to were interested in the promises that Scientology does and were very able to understand the theory of it, but most were disappointed as it failed to deliver the promised wins.
            This was already so in the fifties, when Dmsmh promised paradise but failed to deliver it !
            I know you are not a ksw adept but the elitist thinking shines through your posts.
            I never read or heard such ideas from the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela or Ghandi. They always have great respect of any individual.

            In the middle age only the Elite had an education and were the masters and so 90% of the people weren’t able to assimilate anything but were just thinking in terms of hell and paradise.

            This changed in the 18th century when all the great philosophers asked for that everybody has the right for an education and because of this we are enjoying the freedoms we have. Look at the richest countries of the world as Norway, Sweden, Finnland, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany…
            Why are they so succesful ?
            Universities cost nothing (or almost), while the USA doesn’t grant this right to their people. I can understand that in America there are too many people lacking an education, but not the ability to assimilate. They just hadn’t the chance for a real education !

            If you have problems with paying taxes in your country, you are living in a democracy and you can do something about it . You nevertheless are living a good life with lots of freedoms .

            IMHO

            • Hey Roger,

              I am not sure about education being out of reach in America. I haven’t met anyone who wanted to go to college but wasn’t able to. There are scholarships available and of course, government loans! I think anyone can borrow money to get through school. Of course, then they start out in life straddled with debt. Things could be a lot better here, that’s for certain.

              I don’t mind the taxes but I think they should be raised elsewhere and kept off of people’s homes. I don’t think it is right that people should lose their homes because they can not pay the taxes on them.

              We do have a big situation here with that. In Detroit alone one county assessor turned over 4000 homes to one bank last year. There are over 18.5 million vacant homes in the United States right now.

              There are also many, many schools and other commercial buildings vacant as well. There are about 3.5 million homeless people in the United States today. There are also many families, who are homeless. This includes many returning veterans, who make up 18% of the homeless.

              Something seriously wrong with our system when families are literally moved out into the streets because they did not pay property taxes. And one reason why these massive buildings that David Miscavige buys for future orgs and they sit vacant for years while there are children living in cars, upsets me. Right now there are more vacant homes in America than there are homeless people!

              I think the taxes could go up across the boards for everything else, and I would be happy to pay them, but should be taken off of people’s homes. Because they can really never own them! It isn’t enough to get your own home paid off today in America. If you can’t set your kids up in a home you have to worry about them being homeless some day! They would have to hustle just to stay in top of the taxes, forget about the mortgage payment!

              But I have to tell you Roger, Switzerland has it’s own challenges. The last time I was in Bern I paid 25.00 for a hamburger and it cost me 125.00 to fill up the tank of a small rental car. The colleges may appear to be “free” but someone is paying for them. Probably everyone.

              As far as my “elitist” attitude, I’ll have to assimilate that and file it someplace. That’s a first for me. I have to admit I felt like one of the elite when I gave birth to twins. That, I felt, was sort of magical. Only time will tell if such magical events will happen for Kate Middleton!

      • A world of perception depends on the belief in ‘more than’ and ‘less than’ which brings into existence levels. Then, it is individual preference that establishes the hierarchy of levels (illusions). Theta, Spirit, God has no levels, has no hierarchies.

        Marildi, in the lecture excerpt you posted LRH is cluing the audience into his preferences.

        • I hear you, Monte. I would say that “preferences” are themselves a level of truth and one that meets the reality of most people – as a stepping stone to transcending those levels and illusions.

          • Marildi, would you mind elaborating on your perspective of how ‘preferences themselves are a level of truth and one that meets the reality of most people? Also, preferences as a stepping stone to transcending those levels and illusions. That’s very interesting to me. I would like to hear more if you’re so inclined.

            • Thanks Monte. Will give you a reply when I get back to my computer later today.

            • Monte, all I meant was that LRH was communicating in terms of his own observations of the principles that people are operating on as a result of agreements. Most people are on a level of truth that isn’t way up there where they no longer see the physical universe and its built-in “levels”. LRH communicated on the reality level of most people in order to reach them.

              Basically, what that reference says to me is that he didn’t think most people were able to assimilate Scientology, BUT those who could should simply apply the tech to others without trying to reason with them as the entry point since that won’t work. It’s the same idea as in another tape where he said “Don’t try to explain it all to the guy, just tell him ‘Give me that hand.'” (paraphrased).

              And yes, I would say that it’s a stepping stone to get case out of the way enough to be able to transcend constructs and directly perceive for oneself the oneness that you and others talk about and I’ve had glimpses of.

              • Hi marildi, Thank you very much for the elaboration. That was a wonderful explanation of what that reference says to you. I get it. And the ‘stepping stone’ too!

                In reading your explanation I was reminded of a paragraph in the introduction to the student’s lesson workbook in A Course in Miracles. It reads:

                “Some of the ideas you will find hard to believe, and others will seem quite startling. It does not matter. You are merely asked to apply them to what you see. You are not asked to judge them, or even to believe them. You are asked only to use them. It is their use which will give them meaning to you, and show you they are true. Remember only this; you need not believe them, you need not accept them and you need not welcome them. Some of them you may actively resist. None of this will matter, nor decrease their efficacy. But allow yourself to make no exceptions in applying the ideas the exercises contain. What ever your reactions to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than this is required.”

                As you say marildi….”Most people are on a level of truth that isn’t way up there where they no longer see the physical universe and its built-in ‘levels’.” I suspect that there is a time or times in a person’s journey of self-discovery where a leap of faith (void of any explanation or understanding) is required in order to transcend to a higher level of preference. That has certainly been my experience.

                Again, thank you for elaborating. It was much appreciated and it was most helpful.

                • Hi Monte. Thanks for that great quote. I think it parallels what LRH said – and it’s a great example of the fact that truth is truth, no matter how it’s phrased or what the metaphor is. And btw, I think LRH said something similar to what you wrote about “leap of faith” when he indicated that with the application of tech one will eventually go up the scale to “Know” – which is above “Look,” where most of us “live” at least most of the time. Thanks for the comm.🙂

      • The masters and the slaves,

      • 10,000? ……100.000? …..200,000?

        Where did LRH get those figures? How did he research that issue? (in the entire freaking WORLD??????/)

        Like 2.5% …. not 2 percent …. not 3 percent …. but 2.5! Based on what? A “feeling”?

        • Joe, it may be that LRH was capable of the following:

          “Thought can pervade an area or approximate a situation and know.” (*Scientology 8-80*)

          The above in non-Scientology contexts is sometimes referred to as “intuition” or “direct perception” or similar terminology. In other words, this way of gaining knowledge has been recognized by others besides LRH in the Scn 8-80 quote (and also in the “Route to Infinity” tapes, I believe). And LRH wouldn’t be the only one who has been capable of doing it. The point is, many believe that it can be and has been done.

        • I think it was a Psychiatric Study about military men with PTSD, some never got it and could go omn killing without being effected

    • Oracle, what does it explain to you?

      • I think a lot of people filed K.S.W. under the fixed ideas in their mind. In stead of discipline. I mean, becoming a good auditor or using the tech requires a discipline. There are plenty of people that use what they learn in Scientology as a discipline and they are not leaning on the knowledge or skills as fixed ideas.

        I also think there can be a confusion between granting beingness and being reasonable.

        Of course I would not know this if I hadn’t met so many people that have great skills with the tech, seem to integrate the knowledge with everything else in their life and do not have a problem granting others beingness.

        It makes perfect sense to me the numbers he is giving, because I can look around in the world and see it is true.

        It explains a lot of other things I don’t think I want to go into right now but that people could probably figure out for themselves. One thing I frequently have to deal with in auditing is “survivors guilt”. This was born on the premise that I wanted or expected everyone could have the same experiences I had, and it wasn’t going to be possible.

        Well Hell, Christians probably feel the same way about me. Because I am not assimilating their books.

        I have met Scientologists who are well read and experienced within the culture and it was obvious to me they had not assimilated any of the information and frankly, it was a little bizarre. I don’t think David Miscavige has assimilated the knowledge and he in charge of the Church!

        Hey, there are people in marriages that haven’t assimilated the situation. There are people with kids that haven’t assimilated the situation. There are people with plants and animals that can’t take care of them, they haven’t assimilated the situation.

        There are people walking through this world that I guess, have not been able to assimilate life and the forces and conditions connected to it.

        And there are many branches of knowledge, science and religion that I have not been able to assimilate.

        A person in this country (United States) can not own land anymore. It is all owned by the government and rented back to us under the banner of “property taxes”. Home ownership is pure illusion. I have studied the laws, customs, statutory and common law behind this. The economics and how it came to be this way. But I still can not assimilate it and just move forward with it and pretend that I “own a home”. I live in a home that is fully paid for and I am perfectly aware I do not own the home. I am renting it from the county.

        Every other home owner has the same tax burdens I do, but many have not assimilated these stark realities and the math behind “home ownership”. Or, I can not assimilated the contingencies in the easy manner they have.

        Either way, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the numbers Hubbard gave in that reference above are accurate.

        Meaning also, Scientology is the brief window of opportunity he said it would be.

        This is a big game changer.

        • I mean, I live in a home that is fully paid for and I am perfectly aware I do not own the home. I am renting it from the county. Even though I paid for the home, I am actually living under the same conditions as someone on public assistance renting their home under federal government assistance programs. I mean, that’s the “home ownership” I am assimilating.

          You have people running around saying, “I just bought a home for 400K, I am now a home owner!” Well, they have a mortgage and by the time they pay it off with the charges they actually paid 800K for the home. So, they just bought a home for 800K. Still asserting they bought it for 400K. And they do not own it at all, the bank does. And will, until that mortgage is paid off. Yet on every form they fill out they are quailfied as “homeowner”. Let’s face it, they are maintenance staff living on the premises, covering all of the expenses, taxes, repairs and upgrades for the homeowner, which is the bank.

          But, this is just an area of assimilation where I assimilate the situation differently than someone else.

          It doesn’t mean everyone should see it the same way I do. If they did the economy would collapse.

    • And, of course, that has to be true – just because Ron Hubbard said so and held that opinion ?

      Really ?

      A “Scientologist” is not truly one, until they are free from “Ron Hubbard Says So” and embrace “I say so.”.

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

      • It’s true for me because when I read that, It made prefect sense. For those figure in the Scientology movement. Maybe, less. But over 60 some odd years, who knows. I wouldn’t be able to account for the very early days and many of those people are not around anymore. But, can you name over 200,000 people that you felt were able to assimilate Scientology?

        Because only a few over 6300 in over half a decade have made it up the bridge. 63 years since Dianetics, billions of hours of labor, thousands of lives dedicated and 6300 people made it? That IS ONE PER YEAR against the magnitude of thousands of people’s effort and sacrifice.

        How do you figure Hubbard’s numbers are low?

        • Then, you have to take into account, THAT 6300 is on lines and in good dtanding and supporting the new tech and the new bridge that David Miscavige incorporated under his name. I mean, how much of the Scientology do you think they assimilated?

          I have to ask myself how many people I have met, personally, that I could see for myself had assimilated it. And I made those judgements by how those people lived and dealt with others.

          And it is not anywhere near 6300. I would have to say given the opportunities I had to meet people in Scientology, I’ve met more than the average person has, from all parts of the world.

          I would venture to say even, some cultures were more prone to assimilation that others.

          Probably the only cohesive group , is the people exchanging ideas on this blog who have more or less become regulars.

          I met them through my time travels exploring Scientology. And I would give it about 2 out of 50. Based on just knowing people and how they lived and thought with the tech.

          I really wouldn’t base it on someone who “made it up the bridge”. Because when I was on staff, those were the people I had to help. They had different reasons for being in Scientology, exploring Scientology, and/or using Scientology. There were some that were really masters at taking a piece of information and running with it and having it spread out across their realm of influence like pancake syrup falling over a stack of pancakes. Very theta.

          But anyway, back to commercialism. It’s been 63 years since the release of Dianetics and David Miscavige has 6300 OTVll’s, Which is interesting becasue there was a time before David Miscavige took over the Church, when there more than 6300 OTVll’s. Original OTVll’s.

          He just seems to make nothing out of everything. I would throw myself off a cliff if I had 6300 products after 63 years. Do you realize there are women out here that have multiple births, that get more product in a year ? The year I had twins, I made more babies than David made OT’s!

          Yes, this assimilation thing makes perfect sense to me.

          • How did you assimilate that? As my observation, or my math error?

            • And, what exactly is the math error? Wouldn’t it REALLY be that someone in “good standing” supporting the Church right now, would it be a good guess that NONE of those 6300 ever assimilated the Scientology? As they arrive at the base to do their objectives? Have even one of them asked to see a reference on doing an RPF repair program (Super Power) after OT8? I haven’t seen on the grade chart between OT8 and OT9.

              See, it’s all in the assimilation.

              • Now that I am talking about this glitch, in the system, has anyone else ever felt there was a glitch in the arc triangle theory or has it just been me?

                I have been in situations where the more I communicated to someone , and the more real they became to me, the less I liked them.

                And I have been in situations where the affinity I had for someone was so high, that I could not have cared less what their reality was or what they were saying. There just could not have been anything that they could have said or done that could have reduced my Affinity for them. It seemed like an unshakable absolute.

                I think there is some sensibility about the ARC triangle. But I have seen it work on a reverse vector where the “ARC” is bank agreement. Or mutual out ruds. Or wrapped around a minus ARC if that makes sense.
                Like people who team up together in hate groups. They like one another but the ARC is based on a lack of ARC.

                The lowest ARC group I was ever in was the Sea Org. Not that I spent anytime with the group, I was on public lines 99.9% of the time. But when someone got sent to the RPF or wanted to leave it was like, EVERYBODY just suddenly HATED someone they had worked beside for years! That was straight up spooky. And usually I guess, why people came to me when they wanted to leave or blow or borrow money to go home. I actually knew people that routed out or blew and would call me when they got home to let me know they were alright.

                There was no feeling of anyone being a homey. Sometimes I would sit at my desk all night long and call public and just talk to them on them phone. People that I knew that stayed up late, usually in the music business, or people in other countries on a different time schedule. You know, if I got lonely. I also stayed in touch with my friends that I had before I went in the Sea Org, that were not even Scientologists!

                The mistrust and treachery got so bad between staff, by the time I left staff were being sec checked on what they knew about their fellow staff. Jesus Christ was that sick. If you flowed ANYONE a smidgen of love a K.R. was written on you for using 2D flows to get your product.
                I saw that happen to an FSM.

                The saddest thing I remember, were these two new OT8’s that were living in Clearwater and falling into this Sea Org valence with their business. They were two people that I had come to really like because they had this really beautiful baby. I went to go see them at their at their office and when I was leaving I heard the baby crying in a separate room. I opened the door and there was this HUGELY beautiful baby that looked just a cherub. And he was about two and he was all alone looking out a window and tears were rolling down his cheeks. I went over to pick him up and comfort him, and his mother walked in behind me and BOY DID SHE GET PISSED! AT HIM! She started to explain how he was in a “time out” for being casey, and I thought, “For the LOVE OF GOD!” The kid is fucking LONELY!

                Still, for the rest of the time I was in, they knew I liked this baby so whenever the parents got into some trouble with the Church in some way, guess who they came to to bail them out?

                Do you know this was in 1988 and I still wonder what happened to that baby and his parents?

                I met Karen De la Carriere right after I left the Sea Org and she was a Rock for me. Really, a life saver. I had the pleasure of working with her for awhile. Jesus Christ I fell apart when her son passed away and I should have gone to the memorial service. But I knew I would just break down and become a SCENE at that service. I knew I would become THE PROBLEM if I stepped on the boat. If I looked at her. Because I would FEEL her pain. Even now if I think about it, I have restricted breathing for a minute.

                For me what is so very strange about the Scientology, is when I assimilate it, and I think in an intelligent way. Because of the REASON that falls into place in my mind behind it.

                And yet, I do not fit in with everyone else in the group the way I am taking it in. With the people that seem to be the most devoted to it!

                That is very, very strange. But I have to tell you this, I have met some very special people in Scientology, who had similar issues. So, there are some strange things. There are some very interesting and strangely wonderful things to think about.

                The best thing about what I have done and experienced exploring Scientology, for me, is that against the backdrop of all that I have experienced, I do not feel the need to apologize for who I am, what I have been or what I think.

                And I think that is a decent product from exploring any avenue of the super natural.

                I am most grateful to the auditors who can care about the people in front of them.

                Because those are the people that made it all worthwhile. For everyone.

                • But, there is this weird thing in that culture where “losses” are connected with “case” or Dianetics. And if you COMMUNICATE that you are not happy about a loss, it is considered “case”. you can just “get over” with a session.

                  In some instances it is true. But there are some things I am never going to feel good about no matter how much auditing I get. I am never going to celebrate the fact that David Miscavige and the stupid people that went PTS to him destroyed the Church of Scientology.

                  I still can’t celebrate losses. In fact, I think that is very fucking aberrated!

                  Some people even GENERATE losses! DESTROY! I still don’t get that.

                  Sometimes I feel the new Sea Org Anthem should be:

                  http://www.artistdirect.com/video/pink-floyd-comfortably-numb/34819

                  I mean, they might as well be on heroin.

                  • “I still can’t celebrate losses. In fact, I think that is very fucking aberrated!”

                    Right, it is aberrated. LRH differentiated between appropriate emotions (ones that fit the situation) and reactive emotions (ones that didn’t). But the group think became just what you said – all emotion is “case.”

                    • Yeah,
                      the problem is a lack of compassion.
                      Once a young Scientologist I knew died (he was not even 40 years old) and I spoke to the guy who lived with him at the time who was also a Scientologist. I talked to him and expressed my feelings of compassion, wanted to see if there is something I could do for him. But his response was like “it was his own fault” (has nothing to do with me and I don’t care). No emotion, no regret, noting. Like he was a zombie or something.

                      I can understand and admire people who can rise above pain and suffering (see dhukka), but what is being cultivated in the church is a denial of loss (and compassion = sympathy = misemotion = A = A = A).

                    • SKM, I’ve had similar experiences. When a family member died a while back, it was really odd how some Scientologists I know were very careful not to show any “sympathy.” It felt eerie. But I’m sure it’s due to their confusions about the Auditor’s Code point regarding not sympathizing, or maybe they just consider it “low toned”. Amazing how the MU’s abound. I’ve found many of my own!😉

                    • I watched videos and looked at photos at the memorial service had for her son. It was a very dignified event , even theta. Because people could be there for her, and people could remember someone and honor someone’s life, and support one another. I think this is such a major part of healing. This is theta, it’s not entheta.

                      Then I saw photos from the memorial event held at Celebrity Center at it was the worse P.R. I have ever seen for the Church. It was practically blasphemy. A sort of “Let’s pretend nothing happened and it did really matter.” Just BIZARRE.

                      I’ll tell what is really bizarre. When the Church issues false reports that people died or are dying! That is REALLY sick! If someone blows or leaves they tell everyone the person died or is dying of some disease.

                      Whoever came up with this stuff? It is tradition now! To restimulate people into having losses on people they loved, thinking they died or are dying, when they are not and did not! That’s just plain fucking evil! Because once you figure out they are doing this, if you did have your heartbroken over someone “who died” according the to Church, now, you don’t know if it really happened! And you wonder if the person may still alive and out there somewhere.

                      This is really mind fucking social intercourse. So wrong for a Church.

                    • I meant,
                      A sort of “Let’s pretend nothing happened and it did NOT really matter.”

                • Oracle, a lot of us had the idea that “more” communication would raise the other corners of the triangle, but it’s actually a matter of communicating on a subject on which the person being talked to can agree, which raises the Reality (agreement) between the two of you, and the Affinity (tone level) will then increase and so will the Communication level.

                  The reverse is true too since any increase OR decrease on one corner raises or lowers the other too. You wrote, “I have been in situations where the more I communicated to someone , and the more real they became to me, the less I liked them.” It sounds like you were not being communicated to on things you could agree with and thus the reality BETWEEN the two of you (rather than your reality OF that person) was less and less in agreement and the affinity went down too. That’s my understanding.

                  • I get it, I do. But the point is, reality is all excusable if I LIKE the person. They can worship pink elephants and it doesn’t offend me. At least me. Another person’s reality does not make me like them better or worse. It does not affect the other sides of the triangle. At all for me.
                    I could go on and on but what I mean to say is that I have relationships that seem to be above the laws of the ARC triangle. And I have relationships that seem to be below the law of the ARC triangle. The ARC triangle theory has not been a constant for me, and the theory behind it has been workable or not by about 50 / 50. I can’t make myself like someone by talking to them more and finding things we agree upon more and more. And I don’t automatically dislike someone because they do not agree with me.

                    • It may have to do with contact assists. You know, when you come in and you start on the bridge, everything I did for the first 2-3 hundred hours was contact assist with the bank, Original Dianetics, drug rundown, grades, the bridge was different then. So you go clear and I figured out later it was because in the session, you are just doing this contact assist with the bank.

                      Then you get up into sec check and all that and overts and withholds, you get on the Hubbard Personal Ethics and Integrity course, you do this seven month practical on writing OW’s, and you get into all of this facing on contra survival acts that turns into another weird kid of touch assist where you just do the reaching out and touching of that and you get to the point where that whole thing blows like the bank from the touch assist.

                      And through all of this and those years you are flying ruds and that ARCX issue gets to be like a touch assist and that blows after a while too and you get to the point where you don’t ARCX anymore. I mean, you can exert some force, but you really don’t ARCX anymore. You can be repelled by people but it comes like a force independent of ARC. And on the flip side. you find you have ARC for people and you don’t need any reason. But you like or dislike along some other dynamic that feels like a musical harmony.You don’t need a reason behind it. And you don’t have to be “right or wrong about it”.

                      So the theory becomes lost on some level.

                    • I get you too. And I agree there can be relationships above the mechanics of the ARC triangle, which is just that – mechanics. For example, there’s the thing people call “unconditional love.”

                      Here’s an amazing excerpt (I think) from the Phoenix Lectures:

                      “Considerations are senior to A, considerations are senior to R and are considered senior to C or any part of C.

                      “One has affinity because he considers he has affinity; one has reality because he considers he has reality; one has agreement because he considers he has agreement; one has disagreement because he considers he has disagreement; one has the third dynamic because he considers he has a third dynamic; one has a second dynamic, but some people don’t, and so on.

                      “Any part of the dynamic principles of existence – create-survive-destroy, ARC, the Chart of Attitudes, top and bottom, the entire Scale of Emotions, Know to Mystery – are all preceded by a consideration. In other words, they are postulated into existence.”
                      (“Consideration and Isness” 20 July 1954)

                    • Thanks for the reference! I need to read more, talk less.

        • “How do you figure Hubbard’s numbers are low?”

          Please look again at what I actually wrote. I said nothing
          whatsoever about whether his numbers were either low
          or high. My point is that that statement of Hubbard’s represents
          only his opinion.

          There is and cannot be any factual basis for that claim as there exists neither any standardized means of determining who is or is not “of a caliber, that was sufficient to do a little steering or leading”. Neither have there been any surveys conducted of all Humanity, periodically over the entire existence of Humanity on Earth, testing all persons or even a significant fraction of them, against these non-existent criterion to determine how many there factually are or were at any give time.

          In other words, Ron Hubbard just pulled those numbers out of thin air – unless you actually believe he was some sort of God with sufficient omniscience to determine those numbers without resorting to Physical Universe means. There certainly exist those who have deified Ron Hubbard to that extent, but I am not one of them.

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

    • Talk about ego trips!

  7. To me Thoreau was saying people would rather follow than think or explore for themselves. Most believe it is best not to expand in realms unknown, and by staying with the tried and true you limit your existence. Experience makes all the difference in a life lived or denied. You don’t have to be always right. We often grow the most from the mistakes we make. We should forgive ourselves and move on.

    • sarah james: “We often grow the most from the mistakes we make. We should forgive ourselves and move on.”

      Mistakes are the learning opportunities we gift to ourselves. And I have noticed that any mistake will remain a mistake (float in time as a mistake) until it becomes a lesson, at which point, it never was a mistake but always only a lesson.

      Forgiving ourselves allows us to move on or, more accurately, to return.

  8. It also sounds a lot like the Protestant fundamentalist culture I was born into, and to a certain degree the culture of America as a whole back in the 1950s. To those of us trying to shake things loose a bit in the 60s, Thoreau was a giant. My favorite passage in this essay: “They think they love God. It is only his old clothes, of which they make scarecrows for their children.” Amen!

  9. Deconstructing Scientology: Modern Science of Mental Health. For those affected by it.

  10. Formula Violation :
    When it was a *Normal condition*
    Continuously and willfully doing things over and over that are *EPIC* failures (e.g. squirrel busting, Fair Game, Vigilantism, Money extortion, adversarial conduct on clients, domination, thuggery, intimidation etc etc) violates the *NORMAL* condition, which is to quickly analyze what is increasing the statistic and do that and do away with that which does not work.
    We watch how this very formula is violated every second of existence.

    • Perfect.
      We have come to the point where we actually EXPECT Mi$cavige to violate conditions formulas and then lie about it as he promotes his false stats.
      As the old folk song says (about those still drinking the Cool Aid?),
      “Oh when will they ever learn? Oh when will they ever learn”

    • That would really depend on what their products are and what stats they are operating on.

      At some point soon, the final shreds of pretense will be dropped.

  11. My most favorite Henry Thoreau quote :

    The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.

  12. Great stage play and movie, too!

  13. OK, so what would be the minimum necessary stable data that people need?

    • And, having largely failed to achieve “live orgs” within the CoS, is it a given that the enterprise is hopeless?

      Should we all just be anarchists?

      • And speaking of ancient, or at least somewhat older, revelations, there was that guy awhile back who reportedly said “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

        • “…unless you turn and become like children…” Yes, we need to become like children, innocent children. I think I’m beginning to have an understanding of this.

          From A Course in Miracles: “And what could hurt the truly innocent? Thy will be done, you holy Child of God. It does not matter if you think you are in earth or Heaven. What your Father wills for you can never change. The truth in you remains as radiant as a star, as pure as light, as innocent as Love Itself. And you ARE worthy that your Will be done.”

    • Valkov

      To answer your question, I don’t know.

      To elaborate, I seem to be on a path tending toward re-inspection of as many stable data as come to view. I have come to think that the concept of “stable Data” is best used in initially starting the stabilization of situations of confusion. As the confusion unravels or stabilizes, I feel one needs to constantly re-evaluate the data one used as “stable data”. (Which doesn’t make it “stable” at all really.)

      A “stable datum” is a fixed viewpoint. Postulates are stable data. Agreements are stable data. Constructs are stable data. They all tend to fixate a being and limit his reach. The “limits” may be very broad, but they are limits none-the-less.

      That being said… In a world containing vast quantities of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, one might do well to have a grasp of some of its rules, but I think it is highly valuable to be able to do it from a free flowing viewpoint.

      One key in the rehabilitation of Theta seems to be change in the direction of “the ability to experience anything”. (including nothing at all) I consider this a “Q” and I consider that, as a “Q” it is above the “Q” of self-determinism. (a “Q” itself is actually just another “stable datum” adopted in order to put some order into some of the confusions of life and livingness.)

      One of Theta’s biggest strengths is its ability to change.

      Hmm… Perhaps I am an anarchist.

      Eric

    • That we are spiritual beings, and not bodies. From there, all else springs. If the belief is, rather, that we are mechanical, material only, then nothing matters. Killing a person is like crushing a rock in the grand scheme of things.

      • The counter I have heard to that viewpoint is, that it is a person’s very mortality and limited span on Earth that makes him/her irreplaceable and thus worth honoring and treating well, because once that person is gone, they are GONE.

        And in fact it is “religious” or “spiritual” beliefs that have been used as a justification for the easy killing of other human beings; along the lines of “It’s not our job to judge them, only to kill them and let God sort them out.”

        This has been particularly true in Christianity, historically, but also in other cultures where a belief in “coming back” was common. Musch atrocity was justified by the idea that one wasn’t really hurting the soul or the being, but only hurting or killing the body.

        • Grasshopper (Mark P)

          People kill for all sorts of reasons. Stalin and pol pot were atheists. Scientists built the atomic bomb.

          But, the one-shot point of view is interesting. Each person is a unique shooting star. I believe we are each unique, but I don’t think we are shooting stars.

  14. To think, explore and create outside the box, it takes
    a mind which can transcend, integrate and be open
    enough to have revelations which might go against
    all ingrained thinking. There has to be a willingness
    there to say “I do not know” with conviction. And then
    have the thirst for real answers. The Data Series can
    go a long way but for one obstacle; the organization.

  15. This reminds me of something that Thomas Paine, a predecessor to Henry David Thoreau, once said,
    “It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”

  16. OOOooooops, If I am going to quote Thoreau, I need to do it right ::::::::
    The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.
    Henry David Thoreau

  17. Sounds a little like what happened at the beginning of 2013 when your blog took a turn, Marty!

  18. Possibly this is the fractal nature of our world and possibly the reason that man cannot learn to not repeat the mistakes of history.

    • ‘You’ re in my mind’, Marty and Chris.

      In order to become or , you read what others have written, said and done. You’re not taught to do your own thing. Our philosophy school here teaches you what other philosophers have said. So if you finish it, you can tell others what those philosophers have said –not to be a philosopher. And that’s OK, you could then become a teacher. But what if you wanted to become a philosopher? I bet somebody would ask you something like “what do you know about philosophy? You haven’t read about anybody”. In other words, your thinking is not based on other’s thinking, and thus you don’t have to right to be a philosopher, as then you might do your very own thing –horrible!

      If everybody’s thinking was based on another’s, I guess there wouldn’t be much thinking, if any at all. Who would then be the first to think of something?😛

    • Hey, Chris. A valid question from the flogger of fractals.🙂 Now if katageek were here he’d probably say something about memes. LOL

      Good you showed up for another reason. As you’ve done before with computer questions, you might be able to help me with a problem I’m having of not getting email notifications on this thread. I did get the email where you click on “Confirm subscription,” and I did that. But instead of getting the usual link saying “Your subscription has been activated,” I got “Your subscription could not be activated, it may have expired.” Huh? It sounds like something a person who has a blog might get. In any case, I couldn’t see from that page what to do about it as you apparently need a password to get help. Anyway, here’s the link: https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?option=comments&update=notactivated

      Btw, the same thing happened a couple more times when I clicked on “Confirm subscription”. And when I posted a second comment and clicked on “Notify me of follow-up comments…” I didn’t get another “Confirm subscription” email. So I’m clueless. Clue me in if you can. Thanks!

  19. Marty, I like this line…”I go to see many a good man or good woman, so called, and utter freely that thought which alone it was given me to utter; but there was a man who lived a long, long time ago, and his name was Moses, and another whose name was Christ, and if your thought does not, or does not appear to, coincide with what they said, the good man or the good woman has no ears to hear you.” I think, with just a little tweaking, it becomes a good description of your blog. For instance, just take out the names, Moses and Christ, and insert the name, L. Ron Hubbard.

    Thoreau, though, unfortunately didn’t have the benefit of a blog where the good men and good women could come come together again and again to express original thought, or ‘new’ ways of thinking and thereby come to make different choices, integrate and evolve. And those ‘good men’ and ‘good women’ who came, or still come, to the blog and demonstrate that they have no ears to hear original thought…well, as they hold tightly to their beliefs and certainty, they remain on the narrow frequency they’re on and experience the reality that is reflected back to them.

  20. Here is a brainteaser for you all:

    “In 1901, Allen Upward coined Scientology “as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine”

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

    • Today that same attitude is called “scientism”.

      • My susspicion, Is that L Ron Hubbard tought of it as a pretty word and had knowdlegde by his studies of the word and later incapseled it when he founded the church of Scientology alsoo knowing beforehand the former meaning of the word it is yet another little jest of your founder. I must say he has humor.

        It’s intresting that Scientism alsoo looks down on emperical science

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

        For the concept in the Foundation series, see Scientism (Foundation).
        Not to be confused with Scientology.

        Scientism is a term used, often pejoratively,[1][2][3] to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[4] It has been defined as “the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.”[5] An individual who subscribes to scientism is referred to as a scientismist

        And there is an intresting twist on the Scientism Foundation page.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism_%28Foundation%29

        “In the novel Foundation, the Foundation, a large colony of scientists on the planet Terminus, find themselves cut off from their supporters in the Galactic Empire and threatened by the newly-independent neighboring Kingdom of Anacreon, which covets their possession of scientific knowledge and nuclear power. The leader of Terminus, Mayor Salvor Hardin, visits three other nearby kingdoms and convinces their leaders that allowing Anacreon to conquer Terminus would make that kingdom powerful enough to conquer them in turn. The three other kingdoms force Anacreon to back down.”

  21. Yes, he describes it well; acting as such denies progress and promotes stagnation in other’s past ideas not your own.

  22. :” It is remarkable that the highest intellectual mood which the world tolerates is the perception of the truth of the most ancient revelations, now in some respects out of date; but any direct revelation, any original thoughts, it hates like virtue.”

    Well, I’m not interested in indulging in religious arguments with Scientologists or anyone.

    Simply because religious people have accepted data without inspection, they have agreed to certain assumptions, and they have been coaxed by the group to build them into even more solid agreements.

    I do respect, and I do not comment on people’s wins using Scientology, I’m actually very happy for them.

    I think to engage in any religious argument is a losing proposition for anybody involved.

    Why? Because at the heart of ANY belief system is a lack of personal inspection, a lack of courage to look and experience for oneself.

    And what is at the bottom of Reality anyway? That it is not solid? That it is not permanent? That is not truly independent?

    No belief system is going to change that.

    Peace

  23. I think that is pretty much true of anyone at any time. People don’t like change, and especially don’t like to change their minds.

  24. Thoreau is describing New England in the mid-1800, after Puritanism and other religious cults had come over from Europe and run things for a few centuries.

    He could also have been describing how I felt after I moved back to the cornfields from LA. There is a kind of tyranny of the small-minded here that I felt acutely when I was a younger man, and which originally helped me to flee into the love-bombing arms of Scientology.

    The Scientology of the early 1980’s was much more tolerant and accepting of original thinking than the one which I experienced even into the early 90’s. I very soon began to feel much less like the Bohemian Free-Booter I thought I was by joining Scientology in the first place. Soon it became very important that I justified my thoughts and feelings to my fellow Scientologists with an LRH quote, than if I thought the way I thought, or felt the way I felt, just because I fucking felt that way and that was all.

    After a certain honeymoon period in Scientology, that was never allowed. Individuality was less something to grant beingness to, and more and more just low-toned “bank”.

    If we were all supposed to become original thinkers, then the Scientology experiment was just a fucking disaster.

    That’s all there is to it.

    Alanzo

  25. Thoreau “Every man is the builder of a temple, called his body, to get off by hammering marble instead. We are all sculptors and painters, and our material is our own flesh and blood and bones”. ” As I stand over the insect crawling amid the pine needles on the forest floor, and endeavoring to conceal itself from my sight, and hide its head from me who might, perhaps, be its benefactor and intelligence that stands over me the human insect.”
    Everyone please, ponder upon this.

  26. O/T. Am a never-in and only catching up on LRH and his work in the last month. Not to mention Scientologists and their Stories…
    The previous thread is like a 4-dimensional, international post-graduate seminar in Experiential Inner Work!
    Where can we leave questions on theory and practice that will not disrupt the flow of your individual threads?
    Thank you.
    Aurora

    • Hi Aurora. I commend you for your interest. What questions do you have? Maybe I or someone else can help you out, or direct you to something.

  27. Pardon, that should read ‘may we leave…’!

  28. I think it would probably help to understand that Henry David Thoreau was a Unitarian Universalist.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Unitarian Universalists place emphasis on spiritual growth and development. The official statement of Unitarian Universalist principles describes the “sources” upon which current practice is based:[35]

    1. Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

    2. Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

    3. Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

    4. Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

    5. Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

    6. Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.”

    Henry was very much a transcendentalist, as were many well known and influential UUs.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Transcendentalism was a religious and philosophical movement that was developed during the late 1820s and 1830s[1] in the Eastern region of the United States as a protest against the general state of culture and society, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard University and the doctrine of the Unitarian church taught at Harvard Divinity School. Among the transcendentalists’ core beliefs was the inherent goodness of both people and nature.

    Transcendentalists believed that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual. They had faith that people are at their best when truly ‘self-reliant’ and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed.”

    His influence came to fruition with Ghandi, coming to life with Ghandi’s embracing his ideas by living and breathing them and influencing millions of people to do so in India. The world has never been the same.

    “Mohandas Gandhi first read Walden in 1906 while working as a civil rights activist in Johannesburg, South Africa. He first read Civil Disobedience “while he sat in a South African prison for the crime of nonviolently protesting discrimination against the Indian population in the Transvaal. The essay galvanized Gandhi, who wrote and published a synopsis of Thoreau’s argument, calling its ‘incisive logic . . . unanswerable’ and referring to Thoreau as ‘one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced.'”[76] He told American reporter Webb Miller, “[Thoreau’s] ideas influenced me greatly. I adopted some of them and recommended the study of Thoreau to all of my friends who were helping me in the cause of Indian Independence. Why I actually took the name of my movement from Thoreau’s essay ‘On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,’ written about 80 years ago.”

  29. Notice!

    I have recently been informed that my posting here has been a liability on business plans of someone else trying to use Scientology to make the world a better place. Like, I have made it harder for them.

    Really, I never thought about about how many people read this blog, except for the people who also post here. So I was thinking top 200.
    I thought it was a very small and personal group, kind of like a “secret society”.

    Well, come to find out, I am stopping the planet from going clear.

    And I am stopping someone from clearing the planet.

    Well who knew? Not me. I am thinking I need to point out the math though, because I am good at math.

    There are billions of people on the planet who have not explored Scientology and who have not read this blog. They are all ripe for the picking of their aberrations and overts and with holds. Like snatching nuts from baby squirrels!

    Now, as it were, I was the only person In XXXXXXXX for years willing to hit the streets and drag these miscreants up the steps and into the Orgs and missions by body routing.

    So! You need fresh blood to help your practice and make it easier for you to clear the planet? Just stop looking on Marty’s blog for prospects!

    Go out and find your own people that love you, and bring them on home and tell them to pick up the cans!

    All you need is love! There are thousands upon thousands in your own city. Don’t let me stand in your way when I don’t even know what State you are in!

    Here is the way to go.

    Go out. First person you see, you say, “Hey you, come over here. ”

    Oh, they will stop and walk toward you believe me. Remember the ashtray tech right? Then you say, “I am going to show you something that is going to blow your fucking mind.” They will pause, perhaps a little taken aback.

    “No, for real” you say. Let your eyes dart back and forth a bit in a tone of conspiracy. At this point, reach out and grab some bit of their clothing and pull them closer to you. Get close to their face and whisper, “Follow me”.

    Just like a puppy dog they will be all over you and on your heels.

    You take up them to your place and fuck these pinch tests. That was such bullshit. You sit them down across from you and do a date locate. That’s right. You show them the meter and explain this is the navigation into their soul . You tell them to pick a date, any date, you could not possibly know about. You ask them to write it on apiece of paper and you seal it in an envelope. Then you do the date locate. When you have the date, you tell them. You open the envelope and there it is.

    Astonishment! Pure astonishment! That is how it goes. Now that you have them at curious, it is an easy ride from there.

    One thing I can assure you, if you will just put forth the effort to prove me right, is that the first 2500 people you meet you can ask them if they ever heard of me or this blog, and they will assure you I am not making your work of clearing people harder than it is for you to take yourself down on the side walk in front of your home and reach out to a stranger. You don’t need me to shut up or Marty to close his blog. All you need is the ability to REACH, and to care about the person in front of you.

  30. Here is a simple way to tackle the issue of past authority:

    K: When you make a concept you are not listening.
    Have you given up your Gandhism, have you given up your principles, ideals, and concepts, which are all habits? Right? Give one up easily. Try, see what happens.

    Q: But, sir, when we give up concepts, what you speak would be just sounds for our ears, we would not understand what you mean.

    K: One has explained very carefully how concepts are formed, ideas are formed. The speaker makes a statement, and from that statement you draw a conclusion. You don’t listen to the statement without conclusions. Just listen. That’s one of our habits, which is, you listen to something, instantly you form an idea, a conclusion. Now, break that habit, which means, listen. Now I will make a statement, and please listen, don’t make an abstraction of it, an idea of it, or say, how am I to do it, just listen. Which is, when sorrow ends completely there is love. Don’t draw a conclusion, don’t say what do you mean by sorrow, what do you mean by ending – you follow? – All that, just listen and find out why you form a conclusion, which is a habit. So you have wandered away from the act of listening.

    The question was put: can tradition, culture co-exist with a religious life? We went into that very carefully. We said, culture, tradition, cannot possibly exist with a religious mind. If one is to find out what is truly a religious life one must abandon totally tradition, totally any form of culture as it is understood. Which means a free mind, a mind that is not caught in Christianity, in Buddhism, in Hinduism, Islam, or in some other sect and guru, none of that. That means total freedom. And in that freedom there is tremendous energy because there is no conflict, no struggle, nothing.

    Excerpted from:
    Can You Understand what a Religious Life is?
    J. Krishnamurti
    Third Public Dialogue in Madras
    January 1979

  31. I am happy to be part of a culture which includes direct perception ( true knowledge), faith and reason as part of an essential construct of the new spirituality.

    Far beyond the limitations of “only way” old world dogmas, these three approaches serves to include any sect, any group, and practice as long as these three principles are sacred to their dogma.

    The mindset of “only way” is slowly being evolved from by having these three principles as pole stars in human evolution’s unfolding advancement.

    Yogananda has written two volumes “The Second Coming of Christ.” He explains the meaning of the title as the resurrection of spiritual consciousness within ourselves. That is the second coming-that we, ourselves attain to Christhood. The definition of Christhood is exact and needs more than this moment for me to communicate. But it’s definition resolves many of the misunderstanding in the Christian “only way” dogma.

    Direct perception: one of the most beautiful, elegant and all resolving approaches to science as well as the spiritual.

  32. I agree with this post. “It is remarkable that the highest intellectual mood which the world tolerates is the perception of the truth of the most ancient revelations, now in some respects out of date; but any direct revelation, any original thoughts, it hates like virtue.” Any system or group is closed to transcending and integration as long as this is part of its stable dogma. No new or different “truth” is allowed nor even conceived of.

    Once you have crossed the river and left the raft you continue your journey. Those with the above named group think can not even see that the bank of land is the future and the river just passed over is in the past. Many simply get back in the water and tread until drowning.

    The ability to perceive, to think without fixed ideas with what has been observed – that is the mark of a sane future.

  33. An intresting read from Theta over MEST (mind over matter) girl Karin Spaink.
    http://www.spaink.net/2013/04/29/scientology-huurmoordenaars/

  34. Yes…I think this is true about Scientology culture..There is only one way to think if your in it and that’s why it’s crumbling…it goes against Natural Law.

  35. Roger From Switzerrland Thought

    Marty here some quotes from milestone 2 in an article about ethics:

    ” Scientology as a science has no ethics. It is completely inert, as regards ethics. It prescribes exactly nothing. It does not even attempt to define “the good,” or to draw distinctions between beauty and ugliness. Hubbard did an exact and masterful job in specifying precisely the parameters of the science as a science. There is no ethical leadership in the science at all.

    Scientology as a religion does not moralize, and does not “ethicize.” It does not prescribe worship, nor call upon belief. But it does contain an extremely robust methodology by which an individual may develop his own morals, and beyond that, his own ethics.

    The Nazi “war machine” was a beautiful organization. They damn near beat the Allies. But the Allies mounted a dedicated war effort and constructed a more formidable organization of their own. The differences between the two organizations may be studied in the abstract, but the differences between who won, and who lost, can only be resolved in the ethics of the individual soldiers, and in those of the men and women who supported them. In stark terms, it is that “only the individual exists” to either populate an organization, or a science, or a religion, or a society; and only an individual is capable of this quality we call “ethics”. ”

    .The nazi…..was a beautiful organization ….an individual populates a science ?
    …people with IQs lower then 125 don’t understand my jokes ?…
    Found out on google that the roman empire failed because of being downtone…..!

    I just can’t believe it….
    More ex scientologist can free themselves of their inhibited communication, more you can see the goodness and brilliance of some and more also the ugliness of some others.

    I run

  36. An English philosopher named James Allen, 1864 -1912, wrote the following in From Passion to Peace (1910), Temptations (chapter 4):

    “While a man thinks that the cause of his pain is in the attitude of others, he will not pass beyond it. But when he perceives that its cause is in himself, then he will pass beyond it into joy.
    The unenlightened man allows himself to be disturbed, wounded, and overthrown by what he regards as the wrong attitude of others toward him. This is because the same wrong attitude is in himself. He, indeed, doles out to them in return, the same actions, regarding as right in himself that which is wrong in others.”

    The irony of Marty’s post, today, I believe, is that it centres on this statement: “It is remarkable that the highest intellectual mood which the world tolerates is the perception of the truth of the most ancient revelations, now in some respects out of date; but any direct revelation, any original thoughts, it hates like virtue.”

    Yet here we are, the discussion is based on just such an ‘ancient revelation’.

    And the article ends with, “They think they love God! It is only his old clothes, of which they make scarecrows for their children.”

    And here I am, with some old clothes, and I’m not the only one here. Nothing wrong with them, but they are the clothes of a dead man. So what are you saying, Marty? Let go of the raft and strike out on a path of our own choosing? Set our own sites on how the land lies? Let go of all those words that are just autumn leaves in the wind?

  37. How many of you have ever seen the movie”The Life of Brian”?

    • Two or three times. Thanks for the reminder, another time wouldn’t hurt😀

      Brian: Please, please, please listen! I’ve got one or two things to say.

      The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!

      Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong! You don’t NEED to follow ME, You don’t NEED to follow ANYBODY! You’ve got to think for your selves! You’re ALL individuals!

      The Crowd: Yes! We’re all individuals!

      Brian: You’re all different!

      The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!

      Man in crowd: I’m not…

      The Crowd: Sshh!

      Love it.

  38. While doing a search on “the ascension mind” I came across a reference to a Dr. Clare W. Graves (never heard of him or his work) that snagged my interest. As searches go, on thing leads to another and eventually come across this paper by Dr. Graves from a publication called The Futurist (1974). The title of the paper: Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap. The first two paragraphs brought me right back here to Marty’s blog post and what Thoreau was talking about. See what you think:

    “For many people the prospect of the future is dimmed by what they see as a moral breakdown of our society at both the public and private level. My research, over more than 20 years as a psychologist interested in human values, indicates that something is indeed happening to human values, but it is not so much a collapse in the fiber of man as a sign of human health and intelligence. My research indicates that man is learning that values and ways of living which were good for him at one period in his development are no longer good because of the changed condition of his existence. He is recognizing that the old values are no longer appropriate, but he has not yet understood the new.

    “The error which most people make when they think about human values is that they assume the nature of man is fixed and there is a single set of human values by which he should live. Such an assumption does not fit with my research. My data indicate that man’s nature is an open, constantly evolving system, a system which proceeds by quantum jumps from one steady state system to the next through a hierarchy of ordered systems.”

    Source: http://www.clarewgraves.com/articles_content/1974_Futurist/1974_Futurist.html

    • Hi Monte — very interesting excerpt. I’m in the middle of reading the paper, which I find a plausible paradigm to explain various levels of existence. Thanks.

  39. Not my girlfriend, but I love her and all of her vids

  40. Thought some here might enjoy knowing about this:

    ‘We live at a remarkable moment in the understanding of the most fundamental questions of science. What is the universe made of? Where did it come from? Where is it going? At Nobel Conference 49, “The Universe at Its Limits,” to be held on October 1 and 2, 2013, we will explore these questions in the light of recent discoveries and spend time contemplating both their scientific and their philosophical implications.’

    It will be live-streamed. Here is a link:
    https://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2013/

  41. one of those who see

    Beautiful quote from Thoreau. Agreed. Scientology became closed off. If one’s revelation does not aline with existing doctrine, you are damned. This evolution that is happening is wonderful. Once again i am a free seeker of truth and freedom. There is truth and workability to be found in Scientology, so I am pursuing it (in the Indie Field). But not as a slave.

  42. Hi Marty

    I read your latest thread just prior to going to the Quaker meeting last Sunday morning. I found the snippet from H.D. Thoreau most interesting. I think I have said before I was born into a Christian Science family, and have only in the past 15 years got back involved with Christian Science and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. She was an amazing woman and truly an original thinker, to have founded a worldwide church in her own lifetime was quite a feat. Apparently when Albert Einstein visited New York he would spend hours in the Christian Science Reading room and had a high regard for her explanations of the nature of reality.

    Mark Twain has been quoted as having said “Christian Science is neither Christian nor Science”. Now Mark Twain is regarded as a person of substance and yet to make such a statement belittles him. Anyone who has seriously studied the writings of Mrs Eddy would soon realise that, of course, it is neither Christian nor Science that is the whole point, it is Christian Science. Incidentally Geoffrey C Filbert considers Christian Science the nearest thing to Scientology. http://www.freezoneamerica.org/excal/excal04a.html#christian The point I am making is to put the words Christian and Science together must be either pure genius or insanity, either way it seems to me worth investigating.

    In a similar way I call myself a ChristianScientologist and would be flattered if people were aware that as such I am neither a Christian nor a Scientologist. My only claim to fame is that I love Scientologists and I understand Christians. I would maintain that it is impossible to understand Christianity unless you have become a Christian, and by that I mean a “born again” bible believing Christian, and equally one cannot love Scientology and Scientologists without becoming immersed in the technology of Dianetics and Scientology.

    Jesus and Scientology are my two great passions. I would return to the CofS tomorrow if it wasn’t for my triple Suppressive person orders, and my expulsion from the Church. I am currently in comm with the Continental Justice Chief at St Hill, but at present we have an impasse over steps A-E.

    I am also banned from attending my local Christian Science Church, may be because they think I want to turn their church into “The First Church of ChristianScientology Portsmouth” what they might consider an E.P. if they knew what one of those was. Looking on the bright side the Christian Scientist have set up a get together on the first Sunday in the month in the afternoon to which I am most welcome, so it is not all bad. I just wish St Hill and I could let bygones be bygones and be friends again. I will just have to pin my hopes on the old adage “Communication is the universal solvent”.

    Incidentally after the Quaker meeting last Sunday I was speaking to a lady who knew I ran a “Thinkers” group and she informed me she had recently joined a thinkers group who were studying the work of Edward de Bono. I had never heard of him, so when I got home I Googled him, and now I am also going to look further into what he has to say. Here is a taster, enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjSjZOjNIJg

    • Pip: ” . . . I would maintain that it is impossible to understand Christianity unless you have become a Christian, and by that I mean a “born again” bible believing Christian, and equally one cannot love Scientology and Scientologists without becoming immersed in the technology of Dianetics and Scientology. . . . ”

      Chris: Good post Pip. You’ve made a deep statement and worth going over more than once. To me it points to the “relativity of the physics of our experience.” Each frame of reference can be said to be consistent within itself and incomplete according to my understanding of Gödel. And a universe in motions cannot be made to freeze in time and in that I see our uncertainty as described by Heisenberg.

      Therefore Scientology and Christianity and Mary Baker Eddy are all world views which are consistent within their own context. Outside that context? — Not as much. When I embrace this thought, I find a tolerance un-envisioned by the Hubbards of the World who sought to draw a circle and then cram all existence within it.

      • Hi Chris

        I appreciate your reply. For me the entirety of Scientology can be summed up in understanding. I base this on the words of L Ron Hubbard who said “I developed Scientology because of my love of understanding.”

        Jesus said (according to the Bible) I give you two commandments “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

        I am convinced that all of life can be summed up in love and understanding and would further maintain that “love without understanding is incomplete and understanding without love is dangerous”.

        When I was a Scientologist I had a vision/goal. “To help Ron clear the planet” when that vision went ‘pear-shaped’ due to being expelled from the CofS and I became a Christian I had a new vision “Go ye into all the world and preach my gospel (good news). Unfortunately what the Christian Church is preaching I do not consider good news, so I can no longer align myself with their vision. My new vision is that every Scientologist should become a Christian and every Christian should become a Scientologist, that the whole human race should be ChristianScientologists, and practice love and understanding, which will bring about the world that both Jesus and L Ron Hubbard envisioned – because “without a vision the people perish …..” Proverbs 29:18

        Kind regards
        Pip

        • Pip: “I am convinced that all of life can be summed up in love and understanding and would further maintain that “love without understanding is incomplete and understanding without love is dangerous”.”

          Chris: That is an interesting and all embracing world view. I like your turn of phrase.

          I have a different attitude toward ideologies and becoming. It doesn’t appear that your “all ideologies” ideology and my “no ideologies” ideology clash. Written another way, if we were next door neighbors, it would be good.

          • Hi Chris

            That’s a lovely idea, you and I being neighbours. It reminds me of the story of a lawyer
            who asked Jesus “Who is my neighbour?” and Jesus then tells the story of “The Good Samaritan” which could be interpreted as whatever one’s ideology or lack of one, it should make no difference when showing compassion.

            In a way “ all ideologies” and “no ideologies” are one and the same thing. It is like when I say no-thing. I am not saying nothing in fact, I am saying everything.

            Reading Marty’s blog has made me realise that I don’t have a 3rd Dynamic. I want to be part of a group of people who have a vision that I can align myself with. I can no longer embrace the vision of the CofS and equally I can no longer embrace the vision of the Christian church. Maybe I am destined to start my own group.

            Do you have a 3rd Dynamic group which you can give your all to?

            Yours
            Pip

            • Pip: Do you have a 3rd Dynamic group which you can give your all to?

              Chris: “The Dynamics” are part of the Scientology model that doesn’t work for me today as it did when I was in the box of Scientology. For me, the “dynamics” are not neatly divided anymore than the landscape around me is neatly divided by lines on a map.

              But the answer to your question is that I work at my business and through it exchange fairly with those who hire me and through hiring, provide an opportunity for others to provide for myself and for themselves. That is the center of gravity for, as you ask, 3rd dynamic activity. No, I am not helping those abroad except through the purchase of the goods they manufacture and that I buy at retail in the US. I no longer support religion nor do I view it in a flattering light but rather as a control mechanism to rule my thinking.

              • Hi Chris; In my opinion, Religion and science, at it’s high point will be the same. Chemicals do this and that and a being operates this way and that way. Metal wears down and individuals build up mass. It has been said that ‘Religion has caused more death and misery than any thing else in history’. I have observed that evil individuals, in the name of religion have been the real problem. Religion brought the world from barbarism thousands of years ago and put forth the ideas that there is a right and wrong and that we are more than animals. Since Religion is so close to many hearts, it is a magnet for those who would want to control others.
                Just my thoughts. Your thoughts?
                Mark

  43. Need to get into this thread, it just about passed me by. So many ideas, so little time.

  44. The latest on Scientology Culture is that David Miscavige hired a new editor for his “Freedom” magazine. John Sugg.

    Against the backdrop of his Las Vegas Public Relations Executive’s revolt against the local police department / government. And it turns out the editor he hired for Freedom Mag has also been of interest to the F.B.I..

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/03/11/they-want-to-question-me-about-lies-sami-al-arian-allegedly-told-but-what-about-the-lies-al-arian-s-enemies-fed-the-government-and-the-tampa-tribune/

    • All of this while merging with the Nation Of Islam. There is a Church reference on taking over the government in the U.S.. David beat down the I.R.S. already. Perhaps he is making his play for the White House?

      I wonder what will happen to the Church Executive with the failed murder attempt in Las Vegas. I have a copy of the Church’s paperback book on suppression. The one that explains how police cause all of the crime. She probably got a hold of that one.

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