Are Scientologists Trained to Lie?

Did you ever wonder why scientologists are so comfortable with and accomplished at issuing ‘acceptable truth’ (scientology euphemism for lie)? This may shed some light on the question. For starters, scientologists are taught from the get-go that whatever is true for the individual is true. That datum is presented by L. Ron Hubbard in such wise that usually it is taken as a tremendous validation and empowerment of the reader.  It is so universally accepted as such that it is about the last scientology stable datum a recovering scientologist is willing to question. They find it difficult to reckon that such an idea can ultimately serve as a cement ceiling to any growth beyond wherever scientology might take them.

In fact, it is the first step toward a sort of chronic self-hypnotic state that ultimately automatically converts the scientologist’s subjective world into the objective world.   To a scientologist there is no objective universe, but for the one he or she deigns to be true.*  Over time that subjective reality is thoroughly shaped and molded by the universe view of L. Ron Hubbard. Once fully converted to accepting that wholly subjective, albeit influenced by indoctrination, universe view as objective fact, a hard core scientologist can act rather insanely.  No matter how hard you try to convince him about the existence of an objective fact he will increasingly cling to his ‘reality’ (which after all to him is the only true source of objective fact) no matter how fanciful or insane that reality may be.  Ironically, that is insanity according to Hubbard’s own definition  – unable to sense and perceive that which just about everybody else is able to.

That is one reason why scientology organizations can smugly count on any scientologist in good standing to comfortably commit perjury for scientology and its leaders. Scientologists can and do perform that feat with the greatest aplomb, without the slightest sense of guilt or remorse for doing so.  I have watched lawyers become dumbfounded witnessing scientologists so perform so facilely while under oath.  Those skills are honed in scientology’s ‘Success Through Communication ‘ course that teaches one to comfortably lie as a supposed social necessity.  They are refined in lengthy, arduous witness coaching sessions with scientology legal staff (sessions that are promptly and conveniently forgotten upon command by the scientologist’s cultivated ability to create his own reality).  Connected to legal proceedings or not, the scientologist’s subjective universe view reins so supreme that he can even be unaware that he is lying through his teeth while doing so.

This state of unawareness should not be considered an acquittal for the dishonest scientologist.  That is because every scientologist at some point makes a conscious decision to enter the mindset of permanent self-deception.  It is crossing that line where conscience is consciously overridden in favor of whatever promised fruits await to award faith.  The disease that conversion process nurtures was well described more than two-hundred years ago by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason (describing corrupt priests):

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a 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. 

At some point every scientologist consciously passes that threshold where he begins to preach with utter conviction – and steel-eyed intensity; a trademark of scientology – that which in his heart of hearts he knows not to be objectively true.  But, in keeping with his training and conditioning subjectivity reins and trumps reality.  As Paine notes, that becomes possible only after a lot of corrupting and prostituting of one’s own mind.  Over time as it becomes a group validated and reinforced habit then every other crime becomes justifiable.

The result examined here perhaps highlights most dramatically the fundamental betrayal of the Rogerian client-centered therapy that scientology mimics as its ‘central religious practice’ called auditing.   Carl Rogers was quite clear and evidently sincere when he wrote that the end of intelligently and compassionately applied psychotherapy has been achieved when the client discontinues the practice of lying to himself.

 

*For the metaphysically inclined, this is not to be mistaken with Kantian theories (as paralleled and validated more recently by advanced theoretical physics) that physical matter reality is to some degree potential until sensed, perceived and conceptualized.  The distinction became clear to me while reading of Immanuel Kant. That was an eye opening experience after having listened to L. Ron Hubbard for decades repeatedly denigrate Kant and bemoan how impossible it was to understand Kant. It was also interesting to read that Hubbard’s favorite historian Will Durant observed in The History of Philosophy that philosophers subsequent to Kant who could not understand Kant were lost. Durant made that statement even while leveling scientific criticisms at Kant; criticisms that science has subsequently demonstrated as invalid.  Perhaps this footnote supports the argument that Hubbard was more confused than manipulative in heading down some of the paths he did. That idea would not hold very well if one were to demonstrate a pattern of Hubbard intentionally denigrating those whose work could unlock the methods he employed.

677 responses to “Are Scientologists Trained to Lie?

  1. There’s also TR-L, Training Routine Lie, part of the OSA Hat Pack. Does what it says on the tin, trains you how to lie effectively.

    • Does the church train it’s members to lie? That depends. When I reached out to the Church of Scientology for help for the first time in high school, I did not lie, I believed I had a reactive mind that needed to be audited, and only because LRH said so. It has never ocurred to me once to ever lie for the church. EVER. Sec check me on it!🙂 The Church of Scientology lies, because of the money to be made. The staff began lying to me and the more they lied the closer I got out the front door until I was finally back home with the tech but WITHOUT the crazy church people. I read the same tech most of them read. Did it make me a liar? No. Do people in the church lie and train others to lie? Yes. That’s why I am not a member and they are. And that is serious, because if Mankind needs new information to use to better himself, how is he ever going to get it from org and mission staff. The church is basically a criminal annoyance in its organized (a.k.a.on-polcy) state. It turns people away not from the truth, but the idea of trying to communicate the truth in the same manner as the church.🙂

      • “Does the church train it’s members to lie?”
        Did the paterfamilias of a slave-owning family train his children to believe and repeat that the slaves were of an inferior race and actually better off under his benign guidance?
        Does the homophobic minister preach that Jesus abhorred homosexuality, and teach the kids in Sunday school this lie?
        Do the Hamas nursery schools train the kids to believe they will go to a Heaven with 70 virgins if they blow themselves up with explosives in a large crowd of infidels?
        I think these are all examples of groups training people to lie, to tell themselves lies, and to in their future to train others to lie, and that Scientology culture as it exists today very much does so, too.

        • They lie because they are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth. Simple. Because behind every super complexity there is a simple basic truth being covered up.

          Example: Rather than admit that I stole LRH’s mail to John Doe and tried to extort money out of him with the information in the stolen mail – have the Ethics Officer tell John Doe the International Ethics and Justice Office in Florida of the church has ordered an investigation of him and Security Checks BEFORE he can start his Purif. The Sec Checks are at full price and must be done back to back PRIOR to any formal service. Why? There’s the answer if you can read it. At least on this planet, unless you know of another, in this time and place that would be the calling of the Church of Scientology.

          • I don’t think so. Scientology’s tech is designed to destroy individual’s own ability to evaluate and be confident in one’s own evaluations. Invalidation of one’s mind is done throughout the process with concepts like “the reactive mind,” “case,” being PTS (under the influence of SP), associating with “enemy lines” and so becoming “infected” with certain “reality” due to the principles of ARC – i.e. communication leading to more “agreement” – agreement being reality in Scientology’s world. Even individual’s very efforts at evaluation may be invalidated with concepts like “figure-figure,” evaluation of someone else’s actions especially if it’s someone at the Church get’s invalidated with concepts such as “motivating,” and the supposed natural principles suggesting that “criticism” is caused by “withholds.” I mean it just goes on and on and on.

            The end result of all of this is that an individual CANNOT think, cannot evaluate and made decisions on their own. In that state of mind then a person has to adopt “conclusions” from elsewhere and keep insisting on them since a person must have some model of reality in order to operate… but having lost an ability to observe, evaluate, and make decisions on one’s own, people in Scientology simply insist on the reality that is given to them that they cannot evaluate because their ability to evaluate is suppressed by Scientology “technology” itself and the endless peer pressure and pressure from Scientology authorities. This is how Scientology works even though it may have here and there aspects of genuine spirituality.

            • LTC. I really like our explanation and it makes so much sense. Thanks.

              • Thank you. I have been working on some analysis to make a more professional presentation. It is mind boggling how flawed Scientology really is even down to some of its most basic principles such as the ARC triangle which becomes the basis for “disconnection” and creating a “group delusion” yet I have not seen anyone talk about it in this way.

                • Your evaluation of this contradiction is valuable. One learns the good stuff, then is faced with an opposing view at a point, but within the same study subject. One tends to get confused, loses his own independent thought and it just turns into a catch 22. Mind-boggling and when one doesn’t understand it, one just shrivels away and remains controlled, to just accept, do what’s one’s told and looks no further. In other words, and I’m just looking at it, becomes the slave and a smaller being, especially on the first and second dynamic. Whereas all the dynamics may have equal importance, one loses himself.
                  Just my thought to share. Thank you LTC

            • It might be the case for some but not for all. Many don’t allow others to rule them. I gained a lot in scientology and don’t share that view complelty as you put it . I explain within the outside world and within the community networks such like social services and networks that provide assistance / care and other supporting services with activities learn to Not be judgemental , or prejudge people , or to make wild evaluative statements but progress people to gain inpowerment for themselves and ensure they progress to make decisions and think for themselves and most certaintly be able to challenge without being destroyed.

              • Hadley, good post.

              • hadley, your response is really not that different than what I heard from Scientologists dozens times before: “Scientology saves lives,” “we are clearing the planet,” “we are helping people,” “who have you helped?” so on and so fourth. Any time someone expresses some doubts or criticism about Scientology, it is always looked at as if there is something wrong with that person. Even in your response there is a hidden implication that it is somehow an individual’s fault following Scientology that they may be doing something wrong… and what I am seeking to point out is that Scientology itself is messed up and that anyone who diligently follows it will get into a mess. It is virtually inevitable since Scientology is flawed in many ways while claiming that it isn’t. Someone maybe can use some stuff out of Scientology to build something decent, but taken as it is, Scientology is a disaster.

                And, by the way, unless it is your real name, why are you using hadley’s name while defending Scientology?

      • “You can get a much better fee — I tell you as auditors quite frankly — it’s much easier to get a great deal of money out of somebody who’s on a down spiral into becoming MEST than it is to get money out of somebody who is going on an up spiral toward becoming theta.”

        ―L. Ron Hubbard

    • “Unethical conduct is actually the conduct of destruction and fear; lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences should one tell the truth; thus, the liar is inevitably a coward, the coward is inevitably a liar.”

      ―L. Ron Hubbard

      Science of Survival (1951)

      • “Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real”.

        L. Ron Hubbard

        • And that is the bank… (You find that out on OT VIII).

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

            Consensus reality[1][2] is that which is generally agreed to be reality, based on a consensus view.

            The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or ontology, and therefore it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.[3][4] Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this consensus as a pragmatic guide, either on the assumption that it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more “practical” than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be “in effect… living in a different world.”[5]

            Throughout history this has also raised a social question: “What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?”

            Children have sometimes been described or viewed as “inexperience[d] with consensus reality,”[6] although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature. However, the answer is more diverse as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, enlightened or divinely inspired, or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of “objective” (though the nature of “objectivity” goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the individual’s own director of the individual’s own consciousness and is fundamentally opposed to enforcement of the culturally accepted reality upon non-conforming individuals. Effects of low cognitive liberty vary from indifference to forced-medication and from social alienation to incarceration to death.[citation needed]

            • http://vinaire.me/2014/06/11/a-model-of-reality/

              Reality is essentially what is there.

              Reality may be distorted by the personal filters (biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, etc.) being used by the observer. But then such filters shall also be part of the reality.

              So, the reality is made up of what is observed by the observer, whether it is straight or distorted. But then the observer also should be included in that reality!

              The filter separates what is observed from the observer, while modulating the observations.

              But when the filter is gone then that which is observed and that which is observing are gone too.

              In a sense, the very existence of what is observed, and the observer, depends on the existence of the filter.

              Thus, reality is the filter that is observing itself.

              The ultimate reality remaining after the filter is gone is something else.

  2. Marty wrote:

    “For starters, scientologists are taught from the get-go that whatever is true for the individual is true.

    Great point, Marty.

    A lot of work went into Scientologists choosing to deny that the objective world existed. The Personal Integrity essay was one thing Hubbard wrote to get Scientologists to do this, and the whole process of Scientology 8-8008 was devoted to getting them to do this, too.

    From Scientology 8-8008:

    The original definition of Scientology 8-8008 was the attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity and power of the MEST universe to a zero for himself, and the increase of the apparent zero of one’s own universe to an infinity for oneself.

    A Scientologist often forgets the onslaught he was subjected to which got him to change his mind about things and to take on such disastrous concepts when he first became a Scientologist. This is actually delusional thinking. It is thinking which any child learns to abandon the first time he burns his hand on the pretty red glowing stove.

    But Hubbard needed Scientologists to deny the objective world around them so that when he installed a positive suggestion in them, they would listen, see and feel only his implants, and would deny the disasters they were creating for themselves in the real world by following their commands.

    L Ron Hubbard got inside the heads of Scientologists, and set it up so that they would deny that anything else but his ideas existed.

    Disconnecting from your family, maxing out your credit cards and driving yourself into bankruptcy for your Bridge, quitting your job and joining the Sea Org to work for free – all of these things require a Scientologist to deny the subjective world around him and to listen only to what he thinks and feels inside his own head. All these things require “Personal Integrity” as installed by L Ron Hubbard.

    Alanzo

    • Well said, as always. Where I take exception is in your assertion that , , ,

      <blockquote . . . A Scientologist often forgets the onslaught he was subjected to which got him to change his mind about things and to take on such disastrous concepts when he first became a Scientologist.. . .

      It seems to me a reiteration of Marty’s assertion that . . .

      . . . At some point every scientologist consciously passes that threshold where he begins to preach with utter conviction – and steel-eyed intensity; a trademark of scientology – that which in his heart of hearts he knows not to be objectively true . . .

      . . . and both statements seem to discount the (as I see it) more likely case of how the application of Scientology at the entry-level is very subtle. The poor old “boiled frog” is the usual metaphor used to explain what I am trying to get at here. From what I have seen, read, and heard, the indoctrination process is such that the person subject to it doesn’t consciously realise what is being done. Gradients, and all that. Once a person has been reeled in, typically by the false promise of having some “ruin” healed, they are already distracted at a personal level. (“Yipppeee!! At last, I have found the answer.”) At the wider, social level, the distraction is reinforced with the religious / therapy / philosophy / science trappings (pick whichever one or combination of used as bait) and super-slick application of “affinity” with its concomitant love-bombing. At the surface, level, Scientology is initially presented as something of real value being delivered by loving people all working to “help” the neophyte. There is nothing within the subject or its immediate surroundings at that stage to indicate anything else. Not surprising since Scientology has had 60 years to perfect the lure.

      This baiting process, I accept, can accurately be described as an “onslaught”, and a carefully calculated one at that. Yet, is the new person actually fully aware of it to such an extent that it can be consciously forgotten? Certainly after the Scientology experience when one has had sufficient time and space to learn about and reflect upon what happened, there is often a genuine sense that “I knew it all the time” but wouldn’t that be an exhibition, as described by one wise man, of hindsight-sight bias?

      Perhaps I’m being hyper-sensitive to the “blame the victim” meme I sometimes see splattered about in the wider Scientology conversation. But, hey, I’m just a wog, so what would I know? If you are able and willing to explain how my understanding of this is flawed, I would be grateful.

      Still, apart from my quibble here, I gotta say, what a great post from Marty. That’s the first time I have said that. Those words are new to my keyboard, and so unfamiliar as to be difficult to type but I am started to get the feeling I might have to get used to it. I might even have to re-evaluate my stable Marty data if he carries on like this. Eeek!!
      🙂

      • Crepuscule –

        Well what I am referring to is, after having become a Scientologist, you don’t really look at all the effort that was expended on you to get you to start thinking like one.

        Ethics technology, threats of SP declare, PTS handlings, Sea Org members in fake Navy uniforms running around giving out “too gruesomes”, Crimes and high crimes, throat-rippings and severe reality adjustments, hypnotic processes, security checking, lower ethics condition assignments which regularly accuse you of TREASON and ENEMY, statistical graphs that always have to go up, word clearing on an EMeter, False Data Stripping, KSW style instant attacks of “WHAT DID YOU DO WRONG?”, Knowledge Reports, Success Stories, drilling, drilling drilling – all to get you and keep you in-ethics and in-valence as a Scientologist.

        Some subtle, some blatant, these are ALL techniques of social coercion.

        What I meant was that, after years of becoming a Scientologist, you tend to forget about all this EFFORT that went into to getting you thinking the way you do.

        All of these socially coercive techniques were placed into Scientology by L Ron Hubbard, and refined and maintained by him over decades to be maximally effective.

        When you step back and look at all that effort, you realize that it was an ONSLAUGHT.

        That’s what I meant by that. (:>

        Alanzo

        • See and then that’s another thing, is talking about the people. Do you remember the polcy “Jokers and Degraders” by L. Ron Hubbard where he talks about people who spend their time talking about others. That makes sense because I don’t do that. And then above you say a when a person starts “thinking like one”. The person that starts “thinking like one” is not really a Scientologist, but merely a person officially contracted to the corrupt governing body of their religion. The people you see out in the world ACTUALLY bettering for eternity themselves and others with LRH tech, THOSE are the real Scientologists. Those are the real trend setters. And the church condemns this practice. It is almost laughable the way the church introduces Mankind to LRH philosophy for the first time, and then asks for it back so it can be replaced with a more profit oriented corrupted version and then charge the person to fix mistakes the church implanted in them this way. The church might as well go join the WACS because no one will ever believe them again.

          • L Ron Hubbard made that policy because he walked in on people laughing because someone was doing an Imitation of him yes ?

          • The Way of the Dictator:

            http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2003-09-22.html
            On 19 Sep 2003 14:51:54 -0700, ksw@techie.com (john carson) wrote:

            >Dear Gerry,
            >
            >Funny guy :.)
            >When Hubbard wrote the “Jokers and Degraders” policy in Feb. 1977,
            >were you there? I just read it recently and it says he based his
            >”investigation” on a handful of staff making jokes. I’m curiouse who
            >were the original jokers in Feb 1977, maybe they are on ARS now.
            >What was the joke that pissed off Hubbard so much that he had to ban
            >jokes?
            >
            >Thanks, JC

            Funnily enough, when Hubbard wrote this bulletin, I was on the RPF in
            Clearwater, Florida, and he was at La Quinta, California. I had been
            ordered to the RPF by him personally, which was no joke.

            Hubbard wrote this bulletin during his biggest — and utterly
            psychotic — List-1 R/S period, where literally hundreds of people
            were being routed summarily to the RPF for R/Sing on a List-1 item. It
            was nonsensical to request a Comm Ev because there was no “recourse.”
            How could a person possibly contest a sec checker’s noted R/S in the
            worksheets?

      • “Not surprising since Scientology has had 60 years to perfect the lure.”

        Is that lure continuing to work, or is it being contermanded by Internet searches on Scientology?

    • One of the main tools used to discredit critical and independent thinking is the (mis-)use of the concept of the ‘reactive mind’. At the beginning of committing yourself to the cause you have to agree that you and everyone else has a ‘reactive mind’ which has to be gotten rid off. The main goal is to become ‘clear’ and then OT. Here one is possibly entering the trap. This disregarding if the analytical mind/reactive mind concept is a real and if the ‘tech’ works). I think everyone has observed nonsensical behavior in others and himself and overreactions and insane actions are covered frequently in the news.This is not the point. The point I want to make is, that: ‘reactive’, ‘the reactive mind in action’, ‘the bank’ is used to discredit the person, his thoughts and ideas.
      For example, when I was fairly new on staff there was a fellow who was supposed to ‘productofficer’ me. Every time I had a disagreement with him or something didn’t work out, he said that this would only be “my reactive mind”. He was also fairly new, but he adapted this concept to dominate very fast (and he was quite a nice person).
      “It is your ‘reactive mind’/your ‘bank’ speaking ( – not YOU -) is frequently used to attempt to quench peoples free thoughts, free speech, free will and reasonable criticism. To carry this to extremes is: “CLEARS” should be the only people allowed to vote.” Outrages! And the “true is, what is true for you” is just an inflated platitude to allay suspiciousness and alertness.

      The stress on the STATUS of being at some level on the bridge (au contraire to just being spiritually enlightened) and thus having ‘no/less reactive mind’ (and later having ‘handled the BT’s’) and thus being more right is similar to the ones ‘who have seen the light’ and look down on the poor devil who supposedly has no clue (I am not decrying spirituality per se, not at all).
      And of cause it is the ‘the bank/reactive mind’ (or overts, or evil purpose etc, etc, – everything but YOU , and everything which quenches you as a free spirited person), when you want to leave or don’t agree with something, don’t lock-step (the other alternative to denigrate is: “must have MU’s”.)
      The ‘reactive mind’ concept of Scientology with its invalidating view point in regards to different minded people is not known by and large by people who were not in the CoS, AFAIK; this also regarding how ‘Scientologists’ talk to and are handling ‘SPs’. In their indoctrinated mind, they are talking to and handling ‘the reactive mind’ (otherwise the person couldn’t possibly oppose the CoS, eh?).
      I hope I could express myself, so it is understood what I like to convey. I’m certain you could convey this in a more concise way, Alanzo.

      • ka wrote:

        “One of the main tools used to discredit critical and independent thinking is the (mis-)use of the concept of the ‘reactive mind’. At the beginning of committing yourself to the cause you have to agree that you and everyone else has a ‘reactive mind’ which has to be gotten rid off. The main goal is to become ‘clear’ and then OT. Here one is possibly entering the trap.”

        I agree completely.

        I remember when I first accepted the reactive mind model for myself as an explanation of my inner world: I realized that some of my thoughts were not my own. Some of my thoughts were coming from “my analytical mind”, while others came from “my reactive mind.”

        And thus, the DIVIDE AND CONQUER of Alanzo had begun.

        Alanzo

        • “And thus, the DIVIDE AND CONQUER of Alanzo had begun.”

          LOL. So two Alanzos, like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde?

          Oh, and I just found this gem:
          “The only common denominator among humans is the reactive mind. Therefore all agreements between humans who have not achieved the state of Clear can only be classified as “bank [reactive mind] agreement.”

          Gosh! I must have been in a heavy daze to brush over such unbelievable assertions.

          • Good ka, more peelings of the onion. I’m to the point that I believe what I myself know because I found out by experience but this is a rough way!
            Yes, ” …. must have been in a heavy daze to brush over such unbelievable assertions.”
            I’m not sure how that daze occurred ~ still working on it🙂
            Thanks for your comments

            • You’re welcome, Cece. I think the ‘daze’ could be due the contradictions and has to do with the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE *. Yes, it can be a rough ride to get out of the mind control as one has to examine and adjust so much of his ‘stable data’ (I had this so drastic at one point, that I had the feeling that I was mentally falling into an abyss without bottom. I was still in the SO then).

              In hindsight it was somehow like this for me: First you have the wins (otherwise you would not continue). Then you are in a group with which you somehow identify and agree with their goals. There are people you like and have good communication. Then there are showing up things which don’t make sense and you don’t like – more and more. But you got used to brush them aside, you can’t ‘choose’ and reject because ‘the tech’ and everything around it ‘works’; you have to except the whole package of Scn otherwise you would have to leave. The condition formulas are laid out in a way that you go ‘up the conditions’ and agree or you would have to draw the consequences and to leave. Many were finally drawing the consequences. The whole subject of Scn is interwoven with contradictions. You never have a chance to solve those contradictions or to doubt ‘source’ (L. Ron Hubbard ) in any way (if you do, you get ‘handled’). To somehow function in this system you have to suppress your thoughts about what doesn’t make sense, is contradictory or just not right; thus also the cognitive dissonance and the ‘daze’, IMO.

              * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

              This I found also to be very true and helpful:
              http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/mental-manipulation/

    • What the “Personal Integrity” essay actually says is this: “WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything.”

      “What you have observed yourself”. OBSERVED, not what you believe or imagine.
      And it concludes with,
      “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
      Unless you have observed it
      And it is true according to your observation.
      That is all.”

      If it’s not true for you, it is not true. Thus Al, it is not true for me that you always know what you are talking about! 🙂

  3. Are Scientologists trained to lie? Yes, and on multiple levels:

    — To “wogs” — that’s always “fair,” and Scientology is not the only religion to sanction lying to the “infidels” — the unfaithful.

    — To themselves about their abilities gained (not), current emotional state (contrived), memories (whole track that has not been confirmed in 60+ years), and so on.

    — To the public about Hubbard, his inflated life, his druggy death, and his appropriation of the work of others without acknowledgement (actually he did acknowledge Jung, Freud, Wittgenstein, Durant, and others at first but some of that got whittled down in the cult rewrites)

    — To one another to reinforce that Scientology works, their experiences and state of health, and so on.

    — To the government and society at large about their beliefs (denying Xenu/Xemu), denying their complete hatred of all things “psych,” to the IRS on tax-exempt eligibility, to the world about the fundamental interconnections of Scientology and all its acronym parts, WISE, ABLE, Applied Scholastics, Narconon, calling required payments “donations,” claiming that things like disconnection and being RPFd are “voluntary,” lying about the existence of “fair game” and so on.

    I personally believe it is Scientology’s ingrained penchant — even mandate — for lying that contributed to so many former “ins” to become “outs.” Such behavior is anathema to anyone who is seeking _both_ subjective and objective truth.

    Back to the “Founder” / Plagiarizer-in-Chief: He was once Buddha, Metteya? Doubtful. I remember one writer on Buddhism responding to a question of what kind of things Buddha would or would not do. Would he steal? Maybe in some contexts, such as to save a dying child. Would he kill? Maybe to save someone. Would he lie? Never, the writer asserted, for that would be to distort reality.

  4. Another aspect of this trap that was explained to me by an ex-SO member is once a scientologists accepts “what is true for you” after that it means anything they might be unsure about they go to Hubbard for the answers on. Not only go to Hubbard but look to and try to learn his way of thinking to find out how to decipher anything that can’t readily figure out with what is true for them.

    P.S. Kant rocks! Mistrust anyone who tries to belittle his work out of hand.

    • Kant sucks! Never left his little Town…

      • Exhibit A. If your post isn’t a bad joke it’s the most pathetic criticism of Kant I’ve ever read. Kant’s mind took him light years further than most humans have the ability to travel.

        • My mistake, I read your other post. Sadly, you are serious and obviously derived all your knowledge about Kant from some quips by Hubbard.

          It’s obvious you’ve never read Kant and if you ever even tried you lacked the ability to comprehend even his most basic ideas. However, a scientologist criticisizing something they have little to no knowledge or understanding of is par for the course, particularly if LRH already told them what their opinion should be.

          No one who has read and understood the fundamentals of Kant’s philosophy would be a Scientologist. Hence, as Marty points out above, why Hubbard so disparaged Kant. Hubbard feared Kant’s ideas and concepts for analysis would buckle his pyramid scheme of delusions. LRH would not have to worry now because I don’t think the typical scientologist of today has the intellectual capacity or curiosity to read Kant.

          Today’s ronbots are a far, far more shallow, intellectually stunted, status driven, narcissistic breed – like the worst aspects of the founder. Decades earlier that was not the case and Scientology attracted a wider range of people and free thinkers, so Hubbard had to worry about their intellectual curiosity taking them places that might lead them to discover his fraud. I don’t think those fears are relevant today. I doubt many Scientologist who joined since 1988 or any 2nd Gen scientologists even know who Kant is or have ever heard his name.

          Today the fear, is rightly, all focused on the Internet where people can just read the objective facts about the cult. Hence the ever greater need to enforce the false reality, the total reliance on subjective “what’s true for you.” it’s been a major card the cult plays when members ask questions about the abuse – “have you seen anyone hit?” If they have not experienced the things reported about first hand they should not believe them. (Funny, they are supposed to totally believe the amazing “wins” and ludicrous stories about Hubbard they only hear about second, third and fourth hand.) This total belief in the subjective is probably on of the major factors that the cult is able to keep some members in the fold even after they have read the objective truth about Hubbard and the cult.

          • SunnyV, it`s all much simpler than that. Why beeing so complicated? I am not indoctrinated, I am a free Being. I think what I want, and I do what I want. I always did. And I simply like L. Ron Hubbard, and his way of thinking. I always compare what he has said and written with the world, we`re living on, and it matched always. LRH is absolutly right, I don`t know how he did it, but he`s right. Astonishing. A genius. That`s my opinion.

            • I’m hoping your are spoofing, Snowwhite? What Hubbard wrote and said “matched always” with the world?

              Um. Here are a few things that absolutely don’t match with the world: all “psychs” are suppressive. The speed of light c is not a constant in a vacuum. All drugs are stored in fatty tissues. Venus has a thriving civilization complete with trains. He said that volcanoes were at places they did not exist at 75 million years ago. His age of the universe does not agree with scientific evidence by many orders of magnitude. Research (admittedly scant, because Scientology is averse to verification) has not verified the existence of engrams. He states (axioms) that energy is particles (wrong — some energy can behave alternately like particles and waves, but energy is not properly defined as particles). Dead wrong on almost everything he wrote about radiation. His claimed academic, naval, marital, and exploratory legends do not match the real world. His claim of being a blood brother to an Indian tribal member of a tribe that did not practice blood brotherhood is a bit askew. His definitions of art and aesthetics are at best trite and at worst out of synch with the world. His conspiracy theories do not stand up to scrutiny. The e-meter is not validated to work for the reasons Hubbard said it worked. The soul has not been verified to have weight (Hubbard cited one experiment that claimed it did). There is no evidence that Scientology increases IQ (that could easily have been proven were it true). Clears supposedly don’t get colds, etc. — but they do. OT VIIIs should be able to manipulate reality in a way that is visible to all — but they can’t. The tech does not work 100% of the time — that claim does not match the world. And, well, I imagine even now you don’t get the idea.

              Snowwhite, best wishes to you. I mean that sincerely, for if you believe that everything that Hubbard said or wrote matches the world, you have been led down a dark alley and should be ready to get mugged, even if little by little, of the consequences.

          • SunnyV — you write: “the total reliance on subjective “what’s true for you.”

            Yes, that sleight of hand is so appealing to free thinkers. In reality, it comes to mean: “what’s true for you as long as what is true for you agrees completely with Scientology and Hubbard.”

  5. This blog post also gave me a Hubbard lecture flashback. If I recall correctly, there was a lecture where Hubbard ridiculed other philosophers, saying something like “if Kant can’t, and Wundt wouldn’t …” How many lectures did I have to rewind repeatedly to make sense of what turned out to be sludge in many cases?

  6. Thanks, Marty. Your post helped to clarify a behavior that I had found baffling in business dealings with a certain OT. Given an ‘inconvenient turn of events’ this individual would assert that A was really B even when we had both been present to observe A. Faced with written proof that A had occurred, they would change the subject and refuse to discuss it, but at the next meeting would again assert that it was B and not A.

    Needless to say it made trusting this individual rather difficult because even written agreements were worthless if they later decided to take their ‘reality’ in a different direction.

  7. L Ron Hubbard created his own system of morality apart from common standards of decency.
    He did this by defining culture as something degraded that needed saving and assigning only negatives our culture.
    After convincing his students of his theories regarding culture the next step was to convince them that HE was the only man able to save humanity.

    “I am not interested in wog morality” and “we are not moralists” are statements, once agreed with, makes lying a “greatest good for the greatest number” calculation. Then a Scientologist lies to “save” the world, because lying to get Scientology accepted becomes a religious duty.

    Then conscience and morality become an impediment.

    Then people with morals and a conscience become the enemy.

  8. The first words out of my mouth when I read the title of your blog today was “yes, I was”!

    I was raised catholic (god ‘elp me!) and was very uncomfortable with lying, instinctively knowing I would feel better, no matter the cost, if I told the truth. Learning to lie as a Scientologist was quite a gymnastic mental feat for me, on one hand telling acceptable truths and on the other hand in “getting off overts” having to tell the whole truth down to the hairs on a gnat’s ass. It created a real tongue tying, push-me-pull-you affair for me. To this day “telling acceptable truths” still creates a difficulty in dealing with life as it rolls out, when honesty is called for and one can’t.

    Thanks for pointing this out Marty. It takes it off automatic for me. Maybe now there will be relief from lying, causatively knowing if I am or am not lying, causatively choosing whether to lie or not.

  9. What are you talking about? I`m Scientologist for over 30 years now, and no one ever never told me to “disconnect from my family” , “maxing out my credit cards” or “driving myself into Bankrutcy” or quitting my job joining the Sea Org. I even signed a Sea Org Contract 1986, but I didn`t manage to go on duty until today. They shrugged shoulders! I sometimes raised my hand to do a Donation at an interesting Reg Event, didn`t have the money afterwards, and the Reg shrugged shoulders! It`s even well known I`m reading all the rubbish you ever written here! They shrugged shoulders! I`m still a Scientologist in good standing!

    Why? Because every person is to take his own responability for the the things one does, or does not! True is what is true for you! I know you know this Data is true! So, how dare you think Scientology Administration is interested in leaving Scientologist broke, as it were a goal? The contrary is right! Scientology makes you able to live a better live, in wealth and freedom, by ethical production! I wonder why you are keeping lying all these years, since you started this Blog? Scientology, for me, don`t have to be perfect, and we may have done some Faults, you mentioned some over the years, but it`s still the best thing that could happen to the population of Earth, and the best chance we have, to change this culture of death and war.

    I know, there ARE Scientologists complaining, Marty. They are NOT satisfied! They might even get dissaffected! Okay, accepted! But, do you have the slightest idea HOW MANY WINS were written using Scientology over the last 60 years? A LOT of wins! Astronomical! There are a few without wins. So go away, Scientology is not for them! And it`s certainly not for you, Marty! It never was! And you know that!

    • One of the great tricks in Scientology is the obsession of “clearing” words or idioms to the nth degree while simultaneously disregarding the definition entirely (and assigning any new meaning to it) whenever it doesn’t support Scientology’s corrupt, abusive & criminal actions.

      Without much effort, one could easily generate 100 pages of such examples, but just to cite a famous one, let’s recall the “inalienable” rights of man (according to the Creed of Scientology) to publish, speak or think freely. One need only see how Hubbard applied his “creed” in the infamous case of Paulette Cooper where her “inalienable right” to publish a book was redefined to mean that she should be falsely framed for bomb threats, imprisoned, driven insane, institutionalized in a mental hospital and driven to suicide.

      In fact, Scientology’s final defense (when all else fails) is to pull out its ultimate trump card called “wins”. Wins solve everything, in a Scientologist’s mind. Sure, our top OT senior management executives and leader might have been imprisoning and beating each other up for years, but we just had a huge “win” because our square feet of new church’s statistic has increased by 5,400,000 million square feet!

      Sure, people are blowing all over the place, committing suicide, dying in our Narconon facilities, dying at the Mecca of Technical Perfection while doing the Introspection RD, going bankrupt and other minor “outpoints”——–but, our parishioner are having “wins” because the tech works. So leave us alone.

      “Wins” handles everything.

      “Wins” proves that the tech works.

      But does it?

      Here is the trick. “Wins” are equated to mean “Gains”. If someone had a “Gain” then the tech worked, right? Very, very slippery misdirection where the audience swears that the hat was empty before the magician pulled an adorable rabbit out of it.

      Here is how the trick is done. Scientology first gives its cult members two (2) feel-good, get out of jail free cards:

      1) EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

      2) NOTHING IS WRONG!

      These are the dual narcotics that cult members are provided in order to self-medicate.

      EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE! This is the grandiose package promises of Happiness, Health, Wealth, Clear, OT, Total Freedom, Exteriorization, Immortality & Eternity. Like the beliefs that one is “Going to Heaven” or that “God’s Grace, and Will” is blessing every aspect of life in a divinely good & just way, Scientologists can avail themselves of “Theta” injections in whatever dosages they require to numb the pain.

      NOTHING IS WRONG! This is a wildcard that I have not seen written about before. It is an ultimate, one-size-fits-all Universal Justification Tool (UJT) that can bring about instant feel-good when a Scientologist notices that their fellow cult members or they themselves have “sinned”. It is a built-in mechanism provided free of charge to all Scientologists to justify their “overts”, abuses, atrocities and criminal acts.

      The UJT is the Scientologists get-out-of-jail-free card. David Miscavich imprisons & beats his staff? No problem, it is greatest good to slam ethics in on their dramatizations in order to help them become totally free. Drive Paulette Cooper to prison, insanity and suicide? No problem, while she (the being) has “inalienable rights” to publish her thoughts, “the reactive mind has no rights” according to Hubbard’s holy scripture.

      Understanding the above, a Scientologist can therefore have a “Win” on successfully breaking into government agencies and stealing/changing their files as was done on Operation Snow White. One can have a “Win” on bankrupting a parishioner with coerced “donations” because the glorious salvation of all mankind will now be possible, wherein even the ruined cult member will drink the divine nectar of Total Freedom for eternity.

      Scientologists, well-medicated with “wins” (Everything is Possible!) and “absolution” (Nothing is Wrong!), the rabbit can now be pulled out of the Scientologist’s full hat.

      3) A WIN IS A GAIN! A gain is proof that Scientology tech works. If the tech works and people are being helped and freed, then there is nothing wrong and everything right about Scientology. As dark as it is, I will simply mention that had Paulette Cooper committed suicide, it would have been a major “win” for Scientologists. When Lisa McPherson’s criminal and civil liabilities were made to go away, it was in fact celebrated as a huge “win” at a Scientology event.

      The re-definition of words to keep Scientologists perpetually “winning” is one of the principal treacherous psychological devices that Scientology uses to perpetuate its crime wave, fraud and hoax upon Scientologists and others.

    • Snow White-
      “And in regards to Robin Williams, he had access to the so called best therapies money could buy, and evidently they did not work.”

      L Ron Hubbard, to a Sciebtologist, created the most workable mental technology available. At the end of his life he was asking people to go look for BTs on the ranch. He also instructed a person to create a suicide e-meter so he could kill himself.

      So, here is a man, Ron, who prefered suicide. How is it possible to reason that he “found the way” if he prefered to die of electrocution.

      I find it incredibly fascinating that the man who decried electroshock therapy in the end desired it done to himself.

      This fact cannot be even thought through by a Scientologist. Their brain would explode. The cognitive dissonance would be too severe.
      Stable datums would come crashing down and an emotional breakdown could be the result.

      Think about it;

      The man, Ron, who devised the most workable tech for spiritual growth desired suicide by electrocution!!!!!!!!!!

      Allow yourselves to think about that one. You will not be able to put Humpty back together.

    • Quite a Scientological nom de plume you have there, Snowwhite, and that’s a pass on TR-L.

    • 3 paragraphs, 19 exclamation points. That’s about all I got out of this post.

    • Snowwhite,
      You have just made Marty’s post even clearer for me.
      Nothing like adding a little mass to the significance.
      Thank you.
      P.S.: By the way, I love the nickname — totally a propos.

    • LOL! Classic!!! ROTFL…

    • “True is what is true for you! I know you know this Data is true! So, how dare you think Scientology Administration is interested in leaving Scientologist broke, as it were a goal? The contrary is right!”

      Snowwhite, do you realise that in the first sentence you are emphasising the fact that what is true for you is true for you (so basically also what is true for Marty is true for Marty), and yet in the same paragraph, two sentences later, you deny Marty that very right by saying “how dare you think XYZ”? Do you notice the conspicuous contradiction you weave with your own thoughts for all to see?

      Perhaps you should give this some thought and attempt, over the next few days and weeks, to not belittle people who have not had a good scientology experience, and instead consider that their experience may indeed have been as bad as they say and perhaps worse.

      Your life in the Sea Org is one of sacrifice and privation, and you know that, too.

    • Snowwhite wrote: “There are a few without wins. So go away, Scientology is not for them! ”

      We did go away. You followed us here. I suggest you use some of those wins available, to find out where you really are.

  10. Marty,

    That is an amazing blog. It takes an incredible amount of knowledge of different points of view and mental horsepower to articulate such data.

    I am also amazed at Thomas Paine’s mind and ability to articulate what he wrote. I have to read that book. (But boy, it is difficult to find time and mind power, to read now days.)

    It occurred to me how long it takes to decompress, and then how long it takes and how much effort it takes for a person who leaves the CO$ to untangle, unrevel all of Hubbard’s lies and deceit, all the false and limiting data, identify all implants, all the traps,and straighten out all the crooked thinking.

    You made a huge step in doing so.

    But at the same time, to be fair and just, I still maintain that what ever morsels of good there are in scn, they are still invaluable and they are many. There is nothing like them or of comparable effectiveness in any other psychotherapy. The basic principles are at least there.

    A person with a scn background certainly has a considerable advantage over the average person when confronted with life’s challenges, if they are wise and ntelligent and use it correctly.

    This is the point that must be taken as the point that Hubbard intended when he said> I blazed the trail, the trees have been marked, the guide posts have been put in place, now go and build a better bridge. (Paraphrased.) He said that in Dianetics and it still holds true, after he did what he did in and with scn.

    Any intellectually and perceptually honest person (a truth seeker) must never lose sight of this.

    Another side to this is that we learn more from mistakes than we do from successes. And it is wise to not only learn from one’s own mistakes, but the real wise know that it is much cheaper to learn from other’s mistakes.

    ( I would never want to make the mistakes Hubbard did, so in that sense he sacrificed himself. He was a totally aberrated, psychotic, criminal genuis, with an incredibly high I. Q., at least two or three times higher than average. I mean how many people can write a 100,000 words a day and do all what he did in a life time? He did at least ten times more in a life time, than the average person does, and he did something no one else ever did. )

    The real wise person, will sit on the wire (as in; the bird on the wire) and evaluate everything Hubbard said and glean it for the good in it and chuck the rest up to experience (which means you should also learn everything you can from it).

    And also apply the data in “How to study a science”. And build a better bridge.

    In fact that is what Hubbard actually did to come up with what he did in scn. In 8-0-0-8 he gives credit to his sources. He says he studied the works of 50,000 yrs of thinking men. (Who else has done that, at least in the way he did it and come up with what he did? )

    There is still a dire need for a bridge that actually achieves a true “homo novus.

    I just watched some of “The war comes home” on CNN by Soledad O’Brian, last night at 9 pm. .

    Of the pain and agony the war vets are going through with PTSD and resulting suicides.)

    The therapies the so called experts are applying are ridiculous.

    And in regards to Robin Williams, he had access to the so called best therapies money could buy, and evidently they did not work.

    A competent auditor could help these people. Any auditing would be better than no auditing.

    I know Dianetics and scn auditing certainly saved my life more than once. That does not mean that it completely solved my problems, but it certainly helped and did so when nothing else could not even make a dent in my case.

    In order to completely resolve my case, I have to make my own improvements in auditing and build my own bridge.

    This would not even be remotely possible, if I did not have the knowledge and experience I gained from Hubbard, including mistakes and all the bad stuff.

    Dio

    • How did Williams’ end of life differ from Ron’s?

      • Marty,
        RE: How did Williams’ end of life differ from Ron’s?

        I do not know what you are trying to get at here?

        Are you implying that I am comparing apples and potatoes?

        Or are you implying that they both died a mess?

        Or they died different types of causes of death?

        Or are you implying that Hubbard’s own therapies or technology did not work for him?

        Or something else?

        Please identify your point.

        In fact, I think your question is a non sequitor to my post.

        I think that is why I am confused.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

        Dio

      • Also, David Carradine. I was at the CCI graduation when he had just finished his purification rundown. He was in the audience when I attested to my Grade IV completion. He was in the hands of scientology, yet his life also ended in tragedy.

        This bull that “if only he’d gotten auditing,” is just that…bull.

        Let’s also never forget how well the scientology handling of Lisa McPherson went.

        Cover up the inconvenient truths to speculate on just how wonderful everything would have turned out if only scientology could have come to the rescue. Some auditor might have made a difference in Robin’s life. Then again, maybe not.

        This is one of the lies that scientologists tell themselves on a regular basis; that any tragedy could have been averted with Ron’s tech. If you look at the Rex Fowler’s tragedy, and many others the limitations become painfully obvious.

        As an auditor I can easily hope that I would have been able to help this amazing being (Robin Williams). But delusion and illusion really need to be separated from truth if one is to move up in awareness.

      • Marty, at this point in your voyage out . . . would you be willing to name names of all the Int Base/SO executives who knew the truth and specific details about LRH’s final months and yet had the unthinkable gall to invent the “death shore story” in 1986 and participate in a nearly thirty-year cover-up? That tight-knit cabal?

        Now personally, I view Sarge as an innocent and loyal friend who saw what he saw and then left the SO. (And thank you Sarge for revealing what you knew in Larry’s and Marty’s books.)

        Jesse Prince knew some of the story and went public about it in a short comment on the Internet in the 90’s.

        But who were the people in the Watergate-style conspiracy that hid the truth from us publics to keep the show going all these years? Broeker? Mithoff? Who else? And is that why they’re all still locked up and being held incommunicado? To keep the conspiracy from being more fully brought to light?

        I guess somewhere in my psyche I still have a need to find out so I can fully wash my hands of the subject. To somehow resolve WHO exactly it was behind the lies that induced me to keep the faith and waste so many years of my life, burn up so much money, and miss out on so many life experiences (like having children of my own).

        Would you be wiling to name the names in this deplorable conspiracy and cover-up? What they knew; when they knew it?

        It would help me (and maybe others) to put things to bed and move on.

        We might be owed this much.

    • WOW, you really have everything figured out, don’t you? On the one hand you congratulate Marty for a great blog, then you continue on to defend Hubbard, and demonstrate the delusional hubris which is so repulsive among Scientologists. Can’t we just let this crap go? ‘What is true for you’ might not be true for everybody else!

      • Raylene,

        Yes, I usually try to give an objective and well reasoned and balanced perspective.

        And I base it on my own experience, and I mention that.

        I give credit where credit where credit is due and criticism where criticism is due.

        If your I. Q. were sufficient, and were high enough on the tone scale, you should be able to see that.

        Evidently not.

        You, evidently, would throw the baby out with the bath water.

        That is very low on the tone scale.

        Dio

      • Raylene,

        I had to come back to your question and the tone level of it, which seem to be around the bottom of the tone scale and theta scale:

        WOW, you really have everything figured out, don’t you?

        I want to know what you think is wrong with having everything figured out?

        Is that not the goal of every effort in life?

        Understanding: the universal solvent.

        Dio

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      Dear Dio

      You say:
      “He says he studied the works of 50,000 yrs of thinking men. (Who else has done that, at least in the way he did it and come up with what he did? ) ”

      LRH says he did, but I doubt it very much.
      He read Will Durant’s Story of civilization. I read it 2 times (only 30 books) and many of the ideas LRH Expresses, you’ll find them there. The Definition of static (not fully the way LRH looked at it) was formulated in the 16/17th century by a French philosopher and LRH took it nearly word for word !

      Or the 3 barriers to study is a cheap copy of the remedies of teaching children formulated by the father of pedagogy Johann Amos Comenius (1592–1670). Durant explains in the book (published in 1962, about a year before the study tapes) that Johann formulated the ideas tha children should clear wors, study on gradients and applying it to real things. Those are the building blocks of pedagogy and LRH was selling it as his discoveries and using it to the outmost and squirelling it so People believe anything he ever said.

      Here you can watch the science of dianetics (1946) and see the first HGC in Action before the word ever existed. At the end of the movie all pc’s are vgis, telling their wins at a graduation and get their certs :

      I always asked myself how he could study 50 000 years of history while we have only knowledge about the last 6000 years. How did he study the 44 000 years before ? Reading paintings in caverns ?

      • Roger from Switzerland: “I always asked myself how he could study 50 000 years of history while we have only knowledge about the last 6000 years.”

        My how everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon. What you wrote is a misquote. LRH never said he “studied” 50,000 years of history. What he said was this:

        “The combined truths of fifty thousand years of thinking men, distilled and ampified by new discoveries about man, have made for this success.” (from “The Aims of Scientology”)

        And he amplified that idea in the “Phoenix Lectures” passage below (caps are mine):

        “And so we can look back across a certain span of time, across a great many minds, and into a great many places where man has been able to sit still long enough to think, through this oldest record [the Veda] and find where it joins up with the present, and to what we in Scientology are rightly indebted. For to say that out of whole cloth, and with no background, that a westerner such as myself should suddenly develop all you need to know to do the thing they were trying to do, is an incredible and an unbelievable and an untrue statement. Had the information of the Veda not been available to me, IF I HAD NOT HAD A VERY SHARP COGNIZANCE OF EARLIER INFORMATION ON THIS WHOLE TRACK, and if at the same time I had never been trained in an American university which gave me a background of science, there could not have been enough understanding of the western world to apply anything eastern to. And we would have simply had the eastern world again. But the western world has to hit with a punch. It has to produce an effect. It has to get there. Nobody urged Asia to get there. You could sit on a mountaintop for a thousand years and it was perfectly alright with everybody in the whole neighborhood. They’d pick you up for vagrancy in the west.

        “So we combined the collective wisdom of all those ages with a sufficient impatience and urgency, a sufficiency of scientific methodology, and I think by the way that Gautama Sakyamuni probably had a better command of scientific methodology than any of your chairs of science in western universities. We have to depend though upon this scientific methodology and mathematics, and so forth, to catalyze and bring to a head the ambition of ten thousand years of thinking men. And if I have added anything to this at all, it has simply been the urgency necessary to arrive, which was fairly well lacking in the eastern world.”(GENERAL BACKGROUND PART I. 19.07.54. PHOENIX LECTURES)

        • QED

          • What does QED mean?

            Dio

            • Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι), meaning “which had to be demonstrated”. The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out—has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof. An example of Q.E.D. signifying the successful completion of a geometry proof is available in Chapter 2 of the Wikibooks Geometry text. – Wikipedia

              • Thanks Marty,

                I thought it was some scn term and I looked it up in the tech dictionary and did not find it.

                Interesting phrase.

                The urban dictionary defines it as:

                1.
                Q.E.D.
                A Mathmeticians way of saying “I win”
                Mathmetician: Q.E.D., Fuckface.

                2.
                QED
                An abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum”. It literally translates as “which was to be demonstrated”, and is a formal way of ending a mathematical, logical or physical proof. It’s purpose is to alert the reader that the immediately previous statement, which naturally was arrived at by an unbroken chain of logic, was the original statement that we were trying to prove.
                “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
                “But,” say Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
                “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that” and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.” — Douglas Adams, from “A Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

                Proof that x + 3 = 0 if x = -3

                x + 3 = (-3) + 3
                = 0
                QED
                3.
                QED
                Originally Latin meaning “quod erat demonstrandum” or “which was to be shown or proven”, now used mainly by physics students to insult someone when something is proven wrong or false, typically with the words Mother Fucker added for effect.
                Ha! Your wrong.. QED mother fucker!
                4.
                QED
                1) From the Latin ‘quod erat demonstrandum’, a mathematical term meaning that a proof is complete.

                2) A mathematician’s way of saying “OH SNAP BITCH!”
                “So you see, by this simple proof, your theory is wrong and mine is correct. QED!”

                5.
                q.e.d.
                Abbr. of quod erat demonstrandum, lit. “which was demonstrated”;
                cf. res ipse loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), circumstantial evidence, the “smoking gun”

                6.
                Q.E.D.
                1. Abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum; literally, “that which was to be demonstrated”. Commonly used at the end of mathematical proofs to signify the proof is complete.

                2. Modern usage expands it to include the conclusion of any proof and is often used in attempts at ironic humor.

                3. Quantum electrodynamics.
                1. If A=B and B=C then A=C. Q.E.D.

                2. Beckham and Ronaldo move to MLS. MLS attracts more fans and makes more money. More money attracts more quality players. More quality players make USA competitive. USA wins World Cup. Q.E.D.
                7.
                Q.E.D.
                Formally used at the end of mathematical proofs to indicate their completion, informally to indicate an argument has been won. Literally “Which was to be demonstrated” (not just “which was demonstrated”).
                … Yeah well, I checked; they don’t make dildos that big. Q.E.D.

                Dio

          • Having a “cognizance” of something is not always a result of studying the written history of it.

            history: “a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle:a history of France; a medical history of the patient.)”
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history

            • That should have been worded “Having a “cognizance” of something is not always the result of HAVING STUDIED the written history of it.

        • Miraldi,

          Bulls eye!

          I would say these words somewhat vindicate Hubbard.

          Thanks for posting it.

          There are others too.

          When I take a bird on a wire viewpoint of Hubbard and scientology, and see all the incredible contradictions, it leads me to think that there were more than one entity working through Hubbard. There seems to be evil ones,criminal ones, stupid ones and genius ones. The wise will sort this all out and glean what is good.

          Dio

        • “The combined truths of fifty thousand years of thinking men, distilled and ampified by new discoveries about man, have made for this success.” (from “The Aims of Scientology”)

          I would say that statement is BS. Ron was great at sounding benevolent and sounding wise and inclusive.

          But in reality he dissed most all thinking men but himself.

          Ron flew in the rarified airs of intellectual sophistry while keeping his eyes on unsuspecting prey.

          To think that Ron honored saints, sages and wiseman of the past is a PR line to make himself sound beneficent. He had disdain for men of great learning.

          • “But in reality he dissed most all thinking men but himself.”

            Dissed “most all” thinking men? Do you have any quotes to back up this and the other generalities?

            • Hey Marildi,
              This is just a start. Consider how many people fit into these generalized catagories: Frued, Newton on and on. Any critic…..any!!
              I’ll keep finding for you. Consider Journalists, doctors, all religions except the one created by him. Consider what he felt about other philosophers being less than his majesty.

               “Show me any person who is critical of us and I’ll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate’s hair on end.”
              – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965

               “… We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one… This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.”

              – L. Ron Hubbard, Sec ED, Office of LRH, Confidential, 22 February 1966, “Project Psychiatry”

               “Neither Lord Buddha, nor Jesus Christ were OT’s according to the evidence. They were just a shade above clear” (Ability, No. 81, 1959).

              To not know that L Ron Hubbard’s narssicism dissed other people in human potential movements is to some degree to be brainwashed and faith based thinking.

              • And Marildi,

                Consider you finding fault with me for making a generality.

                Then consider Ron’s statements.

                With one swoop he generalizes and categorizes whole groups of people.

                I am generalizing about one man. He is generalizing about millions with these delusional statements.

                • You are still over-generalizing and for the most part giving your own stretched interpretations, rather than any specifics which could be looked at for accuracy and context. And even IF your interpretations were true, they wouldn’t add up to “MOST all thinking men.”

                  IMO, you are careless in your statements – indicating strained efforts to make everything about Ron as negative as you can. You keep it all very general so that it can’t be contested. This is what’s called logical fallacy.

                  • Marildi is interpreting too, and that is serious because it is in violation of the Discussion policy.

                  • Ok, I tried my best. If you think LRH was kind and supportive towards other philosophers and saints that is your right.

                    If you cannot see anything to support the well known view that Ron dissed other thinkers and men of the spirit than what can I say?… Lol nada!!

                    It is also my right to think you are an apologist for a mentally unstable man who did dis other men of faith and knowledge.

                    Your faith in Ron precludes any directly perceived and known facts about his life.

                    Faith cannot be argued effectively because it is faith. I honor your right to your faith. But I also honor my view that an emotional attachment to Ron as a superior benevolent human is shortsighted.

                    Here’s a hug Marildi xoxox🙂

                    • Wow, that’s one of the most flagrant Straw Man arguments I’ve seen.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Interesting choice of identical terms you and Val just fired off.

                    • Aw, Marty. Now Brian will assume he’s off the hook.🙂

                      It WAS Straw Man – multiple, in fact. About one per paragraph, with the wording twisted around just enough to be specious.

                    • Maybe it is quantum entanglement.😉

                    • Val and Marildi have lot of affinity between them and therefore lot of agreement too.   

                      ________________________________

                    • I do like marildi, but I also feel she is kinda pedantic at times. Maybe we have that in common?

                    • I love this blog ha ha ha. So many thoughts, so little time.

                      Somehow, it’s the interaction that is the benefit. Lots of emotions. Lots of minds meshing and grumbling.

                      Actually, this communication is very honest. I like you guys. I hope you don’t mind me just being human and personal for a moment and not a thought gladiator:

                      We are all climbing up a little higher. And our perceptions are our own, determined and conditioned by our experiences.

                      I try to share my view. Some of you think my view is hogwash. And I think yours are hogwash. Somewhere in this interaction we are growing. I guess hogwash can be very nurturing.

                      Thank you all for the passion of your views.

                    • Marildi, have you read any of the books out there? Bare Faced Messiah and the rest?

                      They truly give quite a point of view of things. I hope you do read them.

          • LRH simply took the side of Parmenides of Elea in his argument against Heraclitus which first took place around 500 BC. The most of the western world too that side too. I think Hubbard was sincere in his erroneous belief that the Ground State is a “being”. But if it made him look down on others then it was a natural outcome of his belief.

            All monotheistic beliefs have looked down upon other beliefs. They all take the same stand that Parmenides took.

            Here is some history.
            http://vinaire.me/2014/08/12/ground-state-of-universe-history/

            .

          • I recently made a video on Scientology Inc Lying and Lies .

    • Dio,
      I am curious as to your answer as regards how Robin Williams end of life differed from that of LRH. I really don’t think Marty has any hidden meanings or implications here. It is really a thought provoking question that does not have a right or wrong answer. Anyway, I am curious as well if you feel like saying something about it.

      • Cooper,

        I am still stuck on what Marty was implying.

        Even if he was positing a thought provoking question.

        I would like to know what he meant?

        Or what was on his mind?

        Dio

        • Are you really that dense Dio? Or have just failed to read the facts about Hubbard’s final year?

          Williams committed suicide. Hubbard, in hiding in terrible physical and mental health, tried to commit suicide. He begged Sarge to build him an e-meter that would administer a lethal electric shock. Sarge built one, but not one with lethal capacities, only enough to administer a very strong shock. Hubbard used it and it failed to kill him. He was so obsessed with BTs he had driven himself mad. Within 6 months he suffered a series of strokes and died, basically incapacitated in his final weeks.

          Robin succeeded where Hubbard failed, but Hubbard tried to kill himself but his motivations were madness, obsessed he was covered with BTs. He died incapacitated, a mental vegetable filled with traqulizers, estranged from ALL members of his broken family in the back of a motor home. Not exactly the idea scene for a man with all the answers, huh?

          Get it??

        • Dio, You are not dense. Permit me to answer that question for you. I get it something confused you. A lot gets lost in translation on the Internet. Both ways. People seem to get frustrated in a way, that makes me think, they think, we are running out of time, to get a point across. We have all the time in the world. We all have plenty of time. It will all turn out O.K..

          “The line it is drawn
          The curse it is cast
          The slow one now
          Will later be fast
          As the present now
          Will later be past
          The order is
          Rapidly fadin’
          And the first one now
          Will later be last
          For the times they are a-changin’.”

          You are ahead of us ways you only can understand.

          • To Marty, Raylene, SunnyV, T.O. and even Cooper Kessel, and LDW,

            First off, for some reason I am not getting blog post notifications for this blog for the last few days.

            So I have to manually check this blog to see what is going on. And I don’t have time to read everything by any means. I skim at best.

            Second, I was not aware (until just now) of the psychotic abusive insulting scornful education I got from SunnyV on something I did not bring up, and was not related to my post, and still have no interest in at this point in time, and do not want spend time on.

            Then I also just read T.O.s post to me.

            There are quite a few non duplications or disconnects and incongruencies here, or MUs, between my original post in response to Marty’s blog and subsequent responses to my post.

            And it is some challenge to untangle and address all the issues or outpoints. I will try and address some.

            On one hand, if I take SunnyV’s post to me at face value; SunnyV implies that I am dense, because s/he (it seems to be like a she) evidently seen or read something in my post that I did not write and in response, wants me to know something I do not want to know, and did not write about.

            I used to know how Hubbard died, (I heard or read all about it in the past,) but I do not want to know how he died now, nor do I want to discuss it or compare it to how RW died, because it is quite irrelevant to what I was addressing in my post.

            And Hubbard’s condition and response to auditing, and the effectiveness of his therapies have been discussed a few times. It is elementary and irrelevent and old hat to me.

            (The healer could not heal himself, nor did his therapies work on him, when delivered by others. I know at one time, he told one auditor, that he or she was the worst auditor he ever saw. I think he may well have really thought that of every auditor he had. I know all that…..and I think everyone here knows all that. )

            (At one time, I had a cassette recording of what was most probably Hubbard’s last words to the world. Last time I looked for it, I could not find it.)

            So how Hubbard died is fairly well known, to members of this blog, and especially old timers.

            This MU began with Marty’s question to me:

            How did Williams’ end of life differ from Ron’s?

            To me, I still can’t figure out, why Marty asked me that question, because it was not relevant to the subject of my post. I know the answer to it, and knew the answer to it, but again, it was a non issue to me.

            There are quite a few things wrong here in this little fiasco, because all the responses to my post are non duplications to my subject and I am getting berated and abused for being confused and called dense for not “getting it”.

            Me not getting something I did not write and was not interested in evidently has upset a few people

            Did everyone read something in my post that I did not write?

            This condition is discussed in Dianetics.

            This is elementary.

            Some of the words I remember from the tape I mentioned, (which I have not listened to it since about 1998) was Hubbard lamenting in a weak, distraught trembling or shaky voice, that when you try and help the insane, you go insane.

            I hope this burys this issue deep.

            I spent a good hour writing this something I did not want to write nor had time to write.

            Dio

            • Dio, The blog is really booming with activity. Like I said, things can get lost in translation with this much activity. It’s moved up a few notches on speed of particle flow. Laughter! Thanks for the reference on the tape, sounds very interesting. I will check it out.

              • T.O. ,

                Acked.

                I am not getting any email notifications of blogs.

                I do not know what is wrong?

                Dio

                • I am not either. In fact, I never have. Sometimes WordPress, and Yahoo, change the system and everyone is supposed to change with it.

                  • T.O.,

                    I have always got email notifications for new blog entries, on my hotmail (Outlook) account, because that was the way I set it up, when I signed on. That was some yrs ago.

                    I don’t know how else a person can keep up with all the different blogs being posted at different places on the site, without such a feature?

                    Even if you had all the time in the world.

                    You are probably right, that word press and yahoo make changes from time to time.

                    I think there is also the problem that the companies put grade 9 “D” students to work in these departments, and they screw everything up.

                    My experience is:

                    Yahoo is the most problematic email account.

                    Gmail is so – so.

                    Hotmail (Outlook) is the least problematic.

                    I hope someone in management in those companies catches on soon.

                    Anyways, thanks for supporting me and defending me in the fiasco lap.

                    And thanks for the complement.

                    I have diligently and passionately applied the tech of “How to study a science” and more, for 27 yrs before I came across Hubbard’s scntlgy.

                    I was doing my own version of scientology, for 47 yrs.

                    Scntlgy defined as: the study of knowledge and truth, and knowing how to know. And resolving the problems of the mind and life.

                    Or a combination of epistemology, truthology and psychology.

                    Def: Truthology; the search for the truth in all things and the study of truth in all things and knowing how to know the truth of all things.

                    Because only the truth will solve our problems.

                    The trouble is most people boil over when you tell them the truth, …..like is expressed in the message of “The allegory of Plato’s cave”.

                    People, generally speaking, are much happier operating on false and limiting data, and lies.

                    Most people have the problem of thinking that what is wrong is right and what is right is wrong. They see wrong where there is right and right where there is wrong. (Read Dianetics.)

                    And:

                    Most people are only intelligent enough to argue to defend their ignorance, stupidity, overts and their right to be that way.

                    It can be very dangerous to speak the truth in this world.

                    Dio

                    PS:
                    The key to finding the truth in anything and in all things is that it is best to ask that empty space in front of you to teach you the truth you need to know to solve your problems, and in all things.

                    That empty space is alive and well and omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Ask non ceasingly. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

                    But beware that the empty space will not throw it’s peals in front of swine, for they only trample it beneath their feet into their manure.

                    Or to put it another way, it does not give what is holy to dogs, because if they can’t eat it, or screw it, they pee on it.

                    The truth in this universe, is hidden and protected by many layers of false and limitng data, lies,deceptions and traps to protect it from swine and prostitutes.

                  • T.0.>

                    After thinking about the cause of the IT tech problem, I think it has to be WordPress. WordPress has to be broken or something, that it does not send notifications to email. I will see if I can look into it.

                    Dio

  11. A Scientologist feels that if it does not cause a brain spooge in me, then it’s not the truth.

    It it doesn’t “indicate”, if it’s “entheta”, if it is associated with an emotion that Hubbard listed below 2.0 on the tone scale, if it runs contrary to Scientology or anything LRH or management or your group of Indies said or is trying to accomplish, then, for a Scientologist, it is not the truth.

    If it happens with a floating needle, if it aligns with Scientology or something LRH or Scientology Management or your Indie group said or is trying to accomplish, if it “indicates” by making you feel better, if it moves you closer to an approved ideal scene, then it is the truth.

    This is, unfortunately, the basis for a Scientologist’s logic and critical thinking skills and his ability to tell true from false.

    Feelings and emotions, ideal scenes, Hubbard quotes, and the desire to avoid entheta and avoid being accused of being “out-ethics” or “SP” – are all the skills you have in Scientology to determine what is true.

    On top of breaking down your natural repugnance for lying, and training drills designed to get you to lie comfortably, a Scientologist really is caught inside a huge and complex labyrinth that requires you to keep following the closely taped path of L Ron Hubbard.

    Not.

    Alanzo

  12. Martin Padfield

    Really interesting. Intrigued by this especially: “…if one were to demonstrate a pattern of Hubbard intentionally denigrating those whose work could unlock the methods he employed”.

    So…. more manipulative than confused? And if so, to what end? If, as has been suggested on many a forum and blog, he was fully aware of the mental enslavement that practice of the subject can ensue, then why? Power? Money? Why?

    • I look to his desire for the temporal persistence of some of his creations for answers to some of these kind of questions as to “why” he altered some things.

    • Fame. And in his quest for fame, everything he claimed his body of work stood for, was drowned.

      “Fame is like a river, that beareth up things light and swollen, and drowns things weighty and solid.” — Francis Bacon

    • David Mayo, Ron’s Personal Auditor for 8 years, was interviewed by Russell Miller for the Bare-Faced Messiah book in 1986:

      Mayo said:

      In auditing there were things he revealed about himself and his past, things that he had done. There were absolute contradictions of his biography and reputation. Revealing things like that was not a great risk to him because I had a duty to keep such things confidential. and I was well trusted as a loyal subject. Had it even entered my mind I would have been kicked out of Scientology and that would have been a serious penalty. Also there was a risk, if I revealed my information, of severe harassment, if not even killed by the GO. I had also audited Mary Sue and supervised both of their auditing; I have read their folders. A lot of the top people in the GO talked to me about things that weighed on their conscience.’

      “It wasn’t just what I discovered. I didn’t care where he was born or what he had done in the war, it didn’t mean a thing to me. I wasn’t a loyal member of Scientology because he had an illustrious war record. What worried me was when I saw things he did and statements he made that showed his intentions were different from what they appeared to be. I began to realise he wasn’t acting for the public good or for the benefit of mankind, it worked partly that way and he may have started out like that, but in later years, in his own words, he had “an insatiable lust for power and money”.

      “He told me he was obsessed by “an insatiable lust for power and money”. He said it very emphatically. He thought it wasn’t possible to get enough. He didn’t say it as if it was a fault, just his frustration that he couldn’t get enough.”

      “This was at Hemet, one of the times he was having a sort of one way conversation and he commented on the price of gold that day, I forget whether it was up or down, then he started talking about gold and money. I thought, “My God, that’s right.” One tended to try and not believe it.”

      This quote is from Tape 3.

      Here’s the whole interview with him:

      https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm

      Alanzo

    • You pose a very good question! During my study of tridional modern cults I have often asked myself that very question. Why would Jim Jones put his devout under armed guard, eventually leading them to mass suicide? Why would Charles Manson command his follows to kill? To what end? Money? Power?

      Through my own studies and interpretations it comes down to what Marty mentions aptly in his post; communal truth overriding objective truth. LRH surrounded himself with those who through his manipulation, conscious or otherwise, came to believe he was more than human. This ratified his own delusions making them real. Without those believers he could not so easily cement those delusions as reality.

      A find a more apt proverb for LRH would be “what is true to your followers, is true about you.” One can only speculate what may have happened had scientology not been so widely successful in it’s formative years. Would the Apollo have been another Jonestown? He commanded his follower to lie, steal and if documents that have been found are correct, even attempt to kill. Were those tactics not so effective, it is not so far a leap to conceive a policy where his loyal sea org are commanded to together “drop the body” so to as a thetan army storm the implant stations on Venus and once and for all save the planet from the influence of SMERSH and the Tenyaka Memorial.

      To me it sounds disturbingly possible.

      • I think you made a very good point. There is an old Chinese belief that the more you are worshipped, the more “Godlike” you become. There were magic rituals built around this idea.
        I think Hubbard may have framed this in his theory about admiration being the most valuable particle in the universe, that a ‘thetan’ would do just about anything to acquire. This can create an insatiable thirst or craving. It is ‘power’ is it not? It permeates the lower levels of the Know to Mystery Scale as I understand it, particularly in Eating and Sex.

        • “I think Hubbard may have framed this in his theory about admiration being the most valuable particle in the universe…”

          In The Factors, the word was “valued” – not valuable, which would conflict with the Code of Honor, right?

          “14. Many dimension points combine into larger gases, fluids or solids. Thus there is matter. But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence.” (The Factors)

          • Heh. Uhhhh, what makes something valuable, other than being valued by someone? “The more you pay, the more it’s worth.”

            • I guess it would be the difference between inherent value and that which is considered to be of value. A person might value something that might actually be harmful to his health – whether physical, mental or spiritual. And per the Code of Honor, placing a value on admiration will not do you any good.

              Now, w of us is being too pedantic?😛🙂

              • Last line should read “…WHICH of us…”

              • My reflex is to say there is no such thing as “inherent value”. Value is primarily an opinion about something. But I can see how it could be considered that locally organically grown food has more inherent value than Twinkies purchased at the convenience store, or Wonder Bread also sold there. However you will pay more for the organic locally grown pesticide free, etc. But he health benefits are worth it I believe. Nonetheless, is that “inherent value”? Its a judgement call, isn’t it?

                • Val, that is the central theme of this whole thread, isn’t it? What is of value? What is “true”? What is “reality”? And how are these things determined?

                  You’ve suggested the answer quite well in many of your posts. We are like children in the dark who both need and want some guidance from someone who sees, or at least sees better. And when the student surpasses the teacher, he may then continue on with another teacher who sees even better. Or he may have good enough sight to start looking for himself, directly.

                  His “reality” keeps changing as his ability to view what is there keeps improving. And at some point, he decides for himself what is fundamentally true, rather than relatively so. Just one of the ways LRH expressed fundamental truth was with the Code of Honor – as you pointed out.

                  So, what I had in mind about “valued” vs. “valuable” was that the latter relates to the basic nature of a being – i.e. self-determined and at the same time pan-determined across the dynamics.

                  (In other words, I rest my case on the immortal posts of Valkov, The Feral White Russian from Manchuria.🙂 )

        • True, the are many Asia philosophies that believe that exterior perception of ones self by others has an impact on reality and self. But what I was more speaking to is how those who suffer from mental illness, specifically those that display symptoms of narcissism and megalomania, often segregate a group of individuals from greater society and use the talents available to them to align the groups sense of reality to reflect that of themselves.

          By doing so the “feeling” of being superior or being the only hope of mankind transcends into “fact”. In this way, when confronted with their delusion, they may point to their scores of followers as defence or, as symptoms of paranoia manifest (as is often the case), use their followers as weapons to destroy their perceived “enemies”.

  13. The irony is that actually benefitting from auditing requires telling the truth, as in communicating the actual time place form and event as one perceives them, to the auditor, as best one can. Now this is turned upside down and folks lie in session for various reasons.

    • Valkov wrote:

      The irony is that actually benefitting from auditing requires telling the truth, as in communicating the actual time place form and event as one perceives them, to the auditor, as best one can….

      As best one can – but only within the confines of the Scientology ideology. This is enough to make you change the truth into something that will be acceptable to your Scientology auditor and to the ethics officer, etc.

      Having to interpret your experiences through any ideology will alter those experiences, and when you have so many “rewards and penalties” in the Scientology environment – as Marty talked about with his comparison to Rogerian client-centered therapy – these cultic pressures will cause you to lie (to yourself and others) to a greater or lesser degree.

      When you are lying and altering your experiences to be acceptable to try to get some relief in therapy – this can be a catastrophe for anyone.

      It’s a fundamental reason that Scientology has proven to be a horribly stifling mental therapy for most people who have tried it. And disastrous for some.

      No ideology can act as a therapy.

      And no ideologue can be a therapist.

      A therapy that is part of an ideology can only act as policing mechanism for “right feelings” and “right thoughts” that fit in with the Party Line.

      Alanzo

      • I wasn’t talking about ideology, I was talking about therapy. A therapeutic outcome depends on a lot of honesty between therapist and client.

        • Yes. And also a lot of honesty is required between a client and himself. This is almost impossible when you are trying to fit your thoughts and emotions into a fixed ideology like Scientology.

          You just can’t get any case gain that way because you are not there. Only the ideology exists to be audited.

          As an illustration, it’s like being in a Scientology session and constantly talking to your Scientology auditor about your “Id”.

          “When are we going to handle my Id??” You keep asking.

          But the Scientology auditor thinks that the Id does not exist because he is a Scientologist. He keeps trying to audit your reactive mind.

          And in the meantime, the client himself, his actual individual, unique, and ineffable issues remain untouched because everyone is stuck trying to make these ideologies for the mind into real things.

          And they are not real.

          They are just ideological constructs.

          Alanzo

      • Al,

        You: No ideology can act as a therapy.
        And no ideologue can be a therapist.

        You make good points.

        But don’t tar everything with the same brush, scientology auditing is good for somethings to some degree. At least locks and secondaries.

        My dianetics demo saved my life.

        But to get better auditing I had to go outside the box and think outside the box and think for myself.

        And I got very good results and looking for more.

        Dio

        PS. I am looking for a co auditor.

        Anyone interested, email me at:

        diogeneseii at yahoo.ca

        • What works in auditing is the chance combination of the right question and the preclear’s ability to look.

          • Vin,

            When you mentioned “combination of right question”, the following article from IVY came to mind:

            Exploring the Difficulty vs. Finding the Right Process [IVy 38]
            by Frank Gordon USA
            As a general rule, in order for any process to be effective in
            helping to solve a problem or relieve by-passed charge; it must
            focus attention directly on the problem. If attention is on the e-
            meter, auditor, or a predetermined “standard” process, then it is
            off-target, and will increase rather than reduce the charge.
            Matching the process with the problem
            I’ve been run on processes that didn’t “make sense” to me. When
            that happened, “My main concern became to answer the question in
            such a way that the auditor would stop asking it.”(1)
            And “In the past, I’ve seen them (the CCHs) as ‘meaningless.’
            Follow orders, dig a hole and fill it up. Like rote school work,
            do it; pass the course, get your grade and go on to another grade,
            a meaningless grind.”(2)
            As far as I’m concerned, for a process to work, I need to
            understand how and why it will help me with a particular
            difficulty. This means exploring the problem enough to see how the
            process applies.
            And “.. something that is not sufficiently emphasized about
            Hubbard’s own approach to auditing, is how he led into a process
            and made it real and important to the pc.”(3)
            Attention fixed on the process
            Attention can become fixed on a search for “the right process,”
            and pulled away from a more careful as-ising of the difficulty.
            This became clearer to me after reading a replay(4) of an
            experience reported on the TROM-List which echoed one of my own.
            Here is a brief excerpt:
            “Well, I was having a really bad persistent PT problem the other
            day that had really gotten out of hand .. so why don’t I do some
            RI(5) .. now that I have done some RI, why don’t I timebreak(6)
            the incident that I’m upset about, so I did that .. I figured I
            would do some creative RI to finish off .. I got fustrated .. I
            guess frustration is a change so that I should keep doing this
            until there is no more change .. the frustration got worse and I
            felt really awful .. I went back to the office .. after I got
            there I quickly got overwhelmed by this PT problem and actually
            broke down and cried a few times .. I went to bed, tossed and
            turned for quite a while .. although I felt very good while
            timebreaking and at the tail end of doing RI, doing the TROM
            didn’t seem to help my emotional state at all afterwards… In
            fact afterwards I started getting very bizarre ideas on how to
            deal with the situation.”(7)

            I had also fixed my attention on finding the right process
            After reading this, I recalled a similar experience. A friend of
            mine got sick, and I felt it was somehow my fault. I really felt
            horrible, and went through The Book of Case Remedies trying
            different approaches. Nothing worked, and I just felt worse and
            began to have burning hot spots in my body. I had lost weight and
            obviously looked bad, since another friend asked me, “Are you
            dieting or dying?”
            Finally I put my attention directly on the difficulty
            Then I gave up looking for some “right process” and simply lay
            down and thought, “OK, I’m going to let whatever comes up, come
            up, no matter how horrible it is.”
            As I let go, a scene of what looked like a Portugeuse fishing
            village came up. It had white buildings with red-tiled rooves and
            was on the ocean. As the scene appeared, I had the feeling that I
            was supposed to be the protective spirit for that village and had
            failed to protect them.
            As I had this thought, the hot spots suddenly vanished and I felt
            fine! Such a simple action, and such a vast relief! It was
            miraculous!
            Similar experiences
            I have had similar experiences, some of which I reported in “The
            Release of Backflow to Suppression,” IVy 19, p.25. One paralleled
            the above:
            “At one time alone in my apartment, I had become almost frantic ..
            so I lay down and let come up whatever came up.
            “Finally the thought ‘Destroy myself’ appeared and with it a
            slight loosening. This was certainly a negative and destructive
            thought, but I was interested in the accompanying relaxation and
            probed this area and expanded it. Surprisingly, in about 3 minutes
            I felt fine again.”(8)
            In the cases above, it seems that looking elsewhere for a process
            (or solution), was ineffective. In my case, I found it better to
            directly explore the upset.
            The above examples are not given to denigrate the value of TROM
            with its running of RI, timebreaking and postulates, or The Book
            of Case Remedies; but to emphasize the importance of first closely
            contacting and exploring the problem. Resolving the actual area of
            difficulty or by-passed charge is primary; the method chosen is
            secondary.
            The value of non-resistence
            I’ve read about an aspect of the martial arts where you don’t
            resist, but keep control by pushing the other person in the
            direction he’s already going. This can throw him off balance.
            The technique of non-resistence was also used effectively in the
            political realm by Gandhi, and by Civil Rights workers for
            African-American voting rights in the United States.(9)
            Observations by others
            John McMaster in “Effortlessly Creating a Safe Space,” IVy 34,
            p.18, recognized the importance of directly exploring the
            difficulty, and had good results when he let the pc choose the
            question to work on. He asked, “What question would you like me to
            ask you so you could find out what you’re looking for?” Then
            listed, got a good question, asked it until the pc wanted to
            change it, and then asked that.
            Flemming Funch noted on e-mail that ex-Scns could be difficult to
            work with, because they had preconceived notions about what
            Standard Procedure should be used. Here again, attention was
            shifted off the difficulty and onto a supposed solution.
            Geoffrey Filbert in Excalibur Revisited noted that before running
            any correction list, he would first ask the pc what he thought
            needed to be repaired.
            Hubbard himself, although he set up rote routines for others to
            make up for their lack of understanding of what was important;
            essentially personalized and tailored his procedures to the needs
            of the pc in front of him with his emphasis on the importance of
            live two-way communication.
            Hubbard’s reasons for rote processes is given on a tape, “The
            Fundmentals of Auditing,” 11 January 1955:
            “Well, you know the fundamentals .. If you were capable of
            applying the axioms of scientology immediately to the problem of
            another fellow human being, you could theoretically dream up
            enough procsses to satisfy adequately every single condition which
            you would meet. But it has been found by experience that auditors
            do not do this. So we have codified processes.”(10)
            Summary
            A process, if not on-target and poorly selected, can actually act
            as a suppressor. So it is not primarily a case of selecting a
            predetermined “right process,” but allowing the appropriate
            process to arise from thoroughly exploring the nature of the
            charge. One way I found of doing this was to “Let come up,
            whatever comes up, no matter how ‘horrible’ it is.”

            Quote from the above article:

            Hubbard’s reasons for rote processes is given on a tape, “The
            Fundmentals of Auditing,” 11 January 1955:
            “Well, you know the fundamentals .. If you were capable of
            applying the axioms of scientology immediately to the problem of
            another fellow human being, you could theoretically dream up
            enough procsses to satisfy adequately every single condition which
            you would meet. But it has been found by experience that auditors
            do not do this. So we have codified processes.”(10)
            End of quote.

            In other words, the truth is, if you can’t come up with the right or appropriate questions in session, to match the case, on the go, (but have to use rote questions or only rote questions) you are not truly a competent auditor.

            My experience is that a process can be used as a guide, but usually has to be modified to match the circumstances of the case.

            Otherwise there is an incongruency (an awkward stumbling moment) in the processing, that both the auditor and the pc feel.

            Dio

            • Yes, the auditing is for the person and not just to satisfy some rules. If the preclear is not happy then the rules, and “standardization” are not working,

  14. Gerhard Waterkamp

    There is no doubt that the ones left in the CO$ as of this writing have forfeited reality and accepted an illusion instead, – otherwise they would have left. It is also true that the agents of the CO$ lie and cheat and perjure themselves without any hesitation.
    But “all Scientologists” at “all times” is not what I saw.
    There is a simple little book Erich Fromm “The Art of Loving” in which the author defines Objectivity as the opposite of Narcissism. The book is in a large part an encouragement to overcome ones own Narcissism and to strive for Objectivity as a multi viewpoint and focusing on what actually occurs or has occurred. Or as another author said truth exists only in the past or present. The future does not know truth.
    Inoculated with this thinking “True is only what you is true for you” becomes an effort to get to the bottom of things, not believing in PR and Propaganda but finding the truth for yourself, to overcome your own Narcissism and to constantly strive for objective truth to your best ability. And “Acceptable truth” becomes an accurate simplification of a more complex reality or truth, but not a narcissistic twisted version of it.
    Admittedly that is not what is practiced in the CO$ these days (or earlier days). Also admitted that there are even plenty of Indies that are just not willing to accept truth not to mention have given up searching for it entirely. But those are not all Scientologists at all times.
    In a way LRH and the CO$ lost their soul piece by piece, when they practiced dishonesty after dishonesty and in the end there is nothing left of substance. All there is now is an empty shell with no quality but just quantity.
    But I know plenty of people who have been Scientologists who managed to keep their soul and did not denigrate to the state you are so correctly describing. They are not Scientologists anymore, but they were at one time.

  15. “To a scientologist there is no objective universe, but for the one he or she deigns to be true.”

    The following paragraph from “The Way to Happiness” booklet says there IS an objective universe for a scientologist, and I don’t see how it is any less objective than even a scientific approach. (Emphasis in caps is mine.)

    “There are ways to study so that one really learns and can use what one learns. In brief, it consists of having a teacher and/or texts which know what they are talking about, of clearing up every word one does not fully understand, of CONSULTING OTHER REFERENCES AND/OR THE SCENE OF THE SUBJECT, OF SORTING OUT THE FALSE DATA ONE MIGHT ALREADY HAVE AND OF SIFTING THE FALSE FROM THE TRUE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS NOW TRUE FOR YOU. The end result will be certainty and potential competence. It can be, actually, a-bright and rewarding experience. Not unlike climbing a treacherous mountain through brambles but coming out on top with a new view of the whole wide world.”

  16. What next will there be to read .and Whats the purpose of this ?

  17. True words aren’t eloquent;
    eloquent words aren’t true.
    Wise men don’t need to prove their point;
    men who need to prove their point aren’t wise.

    The Master has no possessions.
    The more he does for others,
    the happier he is.
    The more he gives to others,
    the wealthier he is.

    The Tao nourishes by not forcing.
    By not dominating, the Master leads.

    Tao Te Ching- chapter 81

    • +1000

    • Tom,

      Re: True words aren’t eloquent;
      eloquent words aren’t true.

      I would not say the above words are true or correct.

      True words are often eloquent.
      And also succinct.

      Search : words of wisdom or wise sayings on line and you will find lots of eloquent truths.

      Dio

  18. gretchen dewire

    Whatever is true for me is true, boy has that ever caused me some problems. In my mind I can convince myself of almost anything , it is seeing the truth that is difficult. When we lie or delude ourselves, we are really in trouble.

  19. Connected to legal proceedings or not, the scientologist’s subjective universe view reins so supreme that he can even be unaware that he is lying through his teeth while doing so.

    Wow, that says it all! It also explains a lot of what comes out of Kristie Alley’s mouth.

  20. To me above all of this is: Why did we buy into any of this in the first place?
    What was so appealing about this subject that made us all (at one time or another) forfeit our sanity and ability to see differences to be a part of this group?

    • Freedom?

    • The desire for spiritual growth is inherent in the soul. It is the prime directive given by the Creator to expand and learn.

      All paths of spiritual knowledge, the good ones and the not so good ones, each have their purpose in teaching us something.

      Belonging to a cult and then freeing oneself from it is great learning.

      The lesson of not surrendering our common sense to anyone.

      I am glad I was part of a cult. And glad to free myself from it.

    • Gretchen,

      Re:

      Whatever is true for me is true, boy has that ever caused me some problems. In my mind I can convince myself of almost anything , it is seeing the truth that is difficult. When we lie or delude ourselves, we are really in trouble.

      Thanks for posting your thoughts and experience on that subject.

      You articulated the truth out of the phrase:

      “What is true for you is true for you.” in a way that I have been looking for and trying to articulate since I first heard the phrase, when I first read Dianetics 17 yrs ago.

      Sometime after a lot of pondering, I did realize that what is true for you, is true for you, but your truth may or may not necessarily ” be the truth”.

      That, like not knowing the difference between a fact and a belief is also the basis for insanity.

      In other words, solely operating on the idea or datum that: “What is true for you, is true for you.” ……………..is absolute, …………is the basis for insanity.

      (In fact that is one of the clever traps in scientology, that keeps the group in a state of insanity and blind irrational conceit and arrogance, and fanaticism, and irrational exuberance, sheep mentality, and irrational zeal and irrational prosetylizing and resulting disrepute.)

      Same goes for not knowing the difference between:

      – thinking and feeling.

      -think and believe.

      “I think” and “I believe”.

      It is all part of basic word clearing and having certainty on these basic words and definitions.

      A few more are:

      The definitions of such words as:

      intelligence
      ignorance,
      stupidity
      insanity
      sanity
      knowledge,
      understand
      understanding
      wisdom
      truth
      lies
      false and limiting data
      common sense
      conscience
      conscientious

      and off course; fact, belief and believe

      and many more.

      Word clear these words, and this process will be a huge step towards sanity.

      Word clearing these words must be the first part of any new and better bridge word clearing and study tech course.

      Dio

  21. A wink… If you consider confidence as being a kind of faith (as you said in your last post), I then plan to stay a believer🙂

    I could quote the Curtis Mayfiled song, but this one is better:

    “(Love, love, love)
    (Love, love, love)
    (Love, love, love)

    There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done
    Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung
    Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
    It’s easy

    There’s nothing you can make that can’t be made
    No one you can save that can’t be saved
    Nothing you can do but you can learn to be you in time
    It’s easy

    All you need is love
    All you need is love
    All you need is love, love
    Love is all you need

    There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known
    Nothing you can see that isn’t shown
    There’s nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be
    It’s easy”

    Yes, yes, I know, I am an old hippie… A spiritual path is always a dangerous one, with a lot of traps. Yes, scientologists, like any other .gists ™,are trained to ly. Even some Buddhists…

    You say : “Carl Rogers was quite clear and evidently sincere when he wrote that the end of intelligently and compassionately applied psychotherapy has been achieved when the client discontinues the practice of lying to himself.”

    I totally agree, and I could say that it’s also the end of intelligently and compassionately applied auditing. And some client-centered therapists cannot succed in this, because confidence stays at the heart of any two- terminals therapy.
    Much love

    • Li Po,

      Re: “Carl Rogers was quite clear and evidently sincere when he wrote that the end of intelligently and compassionately applied psychotherapy has been achieved when the client discontinues the practice of lying to himself.”

      Me: The above statement is ridiculous.

      It is the voice of an ignorant, incompetent a**hole therapist.

      He does not understand case.

      Neither does anyone who agrees with him.

      These kinds of people should never be allowed to be therapists or auditors.

      They are fraudsters.

      Dio

      • Dio, huh?
        I interpret the Carl Rogers quote as very valid and true. When a ‘client’, pc, or whatever you want to call him, achieves ‘no longer lying to himself’, ie, achieves being truthful with himself, he has achieved “Integrity” – being ‘at one’ with himself rather than being divided, scattered, and less than ‘whole’.

        At least that is what I was looking for, when I started seeking..

        • Val,

          Yes you are right.

          But the spirit behind Carl Rogers statement is that he blames the PC for lying to himself. As if the PC’s case is his fault.

          A PC’s case is the product of failed parenting,

          and an insane environment other than at home.

          There are some schools and local societies that are quite insane and backward. I know because I come from one.

          This in alignment with Hubbard’s article in Science of Survival, on the idea expressed on the role of women in society.

          In other words; women (mothers) can only save this world by immediately stopping the women’s rights, feminist, career nonsense (BS) and get back in the home and raise the next generation right. That is if we are not too far gone. Feminists, liberated women, working women , working mothers commit the worse crime in the world; criminal negligence, causing the destruction of civilization.

          Also called armageddon. Armageddon can only happen when enough people go crazy. They can only become suffiently crazy by not being brought up right. The mother, the home and family is the factory of society. If you have a problem with society, check with the factory for the cause.

          So that is what I mean.

          Yes, the PC has to stop lying to himself, but he usually needs help.

          A PC can help himself if he is not too bad shape. But if he has been screwed up past a certain point, he needs help.

          Dio

  22. “Are Scientologists Trained to Lie?”

    Well …, let’s say they are at least trained to avoid telling the truth (TR no-answer).
    But they are certainly trained to lie to themselves – despite all the emphasis on “the exact time, form, place and event”.

    • I benefitted from the “No answer” TR. Perhaps I am somewhere on the autism spectrum as defined by modern psychology? I always assumed I was the way I am because of the severe displacements I and what was left of my family experienced when I was growing up? That would fit with Ken Wilbur’s theories of psychological development. But perhaps I am partly ‘wired’ top be the way I am?

      What I am referring to is that since childhood I have always been very sensitive to and resentful of, what I think of as the routine “social lying” that people engage in.
      This frame of mind could be ‘overdetermined’, actually, and could include MWH phenomena and other bpc. I used to think of it as ‘natural’. Now I’m not so sure.

      • ”. . .on the autism spectrum”? Huh?? I hardly think so. As what I got from you discussions (mainly on Geir’s blog – also when could not always follow/comprehend them due to lack of knowledge and language skills) you are so what of communicative and ok. What I really don’t like is when people have to be ‘norm’ to be ‘normal’. I like all the differences and different types of people with their different characters.

        “But perhaps I am partly ‘wired’ top be the way I am”?
        I don’t understand this completely. But I just want to say, that you ARE OK the way you are, whatever you do is ‘natural’ for you, IMO.
        About ‘social lying’: I have a nephew who is very direct – he is not into ‘social lying’ at all. Others are using it more. I think it is not a factor of having something wrong per se, people are just different in character, also in upbringing and culture. It still depends on in which way it is used.

        I benefited from the ‘no-answer’ too. It made my life a lot easier at the beginning when getting questioned from my non-Scn family members. And I still benefit from it today in all kinds of situations. That doesn’t exclude how it was and gets (mis)used to deceive in the CoS/Scn.

  23. What’s true is what’s true for you can encourage even lying to yourself, bigotry, delusion, pseudoscience, and also dissent.

    What was going on at the time Hubbard wrote this, was personal integrity written as a reaction to some situation? It sounds like an effort to resolve disagreement.

  24. Let’s not forget a couple of additional reasons Scn-ists are so good at lying A. they get so much practice at it at the examiner and B. when you have an attitude of superiority, others, i.e., “wogs” are a lower form of life. They do not deserve the truth, unless it does not inconvenience you. Your reality is so superior that it trumps anyone else’s. The latter reason is also evident in politicians.

  25. Thanks Marty for this post. My favorite line is: “Ironically, that is insanity according to Hubbard’s own definition – unable to sense and perceive that which just about everybody else is able to.”

  26. LRH was a pathological liar … thus condoning lying from the source. The trickle down theory and the leaf doesn’t fall far from the tree apply here in spades.
    Sorry to say I am finding less and less truth in Scio. Oh well …….

  27. scientologists remind me of women (there are men as well) who are the victims of domestic violence.

    Domestic violence victims don’t even KNOW they are victims because the abuser has so insidiously and cleverly worked convincing them that THEY are the abuser.

    Do scientologists lie? Yes. But they don’t know it UNTIL they are up against a wall with one of two choices:

    Stay in and die.

    Leave and possibly die but at least die trying to start a life.

    Watch this video. Especially knowing that statistically the victim is killed when the FINAL attempt to leave has happened.

    Sounds like scientology to me.

    BTW — replace — “deeply difficult person” with a flawed imperfect system or a system that isn’t “delivering” standard tech … etc

    http://www.upworthy.com/ever-tell-yourself-youre-in-love-with-a-deeply-difficult-person-instead-of-facing-the-truth-2?c=ufb1

    Windhorse

  28. The more one has ‘corrupted and prostituted’ one’s own mind with lies, the harder it is to wake up and abandon the group agreement and restore ones integrity and self esteem with rational thought.

    Boy is it ever good to be on the other side of that barrier now.

    For those that hold out to the end, increasingly lying to oneself and others as a necessary means to justify crimes and patch up an irrational world view…..it’s only going to get tougher.

    When the group at last collapses, and they didn’t make it out on their own recognition of truth…..well, ‘dazed and confused’.

  29. Ron was not and is not the God he purported despite his attempted takeover.

    Isn’t there an equation whereby Xenu = LRH?

    Doesn’t ‘mankind’s greatest friend’ create and support insanity and generalized confusion?

    God help anyone who considers themselves a card carrying scientologist.

    I mean that sincerely………

    • What in the world is a ‘card-carrying scientologist’? “Are you now or have you ever been connected to a card-carrying scientologist?”

      • Yes……..

        My IAS lifetime membership card was designed to almost look like a credit card. Mastercard, VISA and even American Express.

        That’s besides the point.

        I have concluded that the ‘Founder’ was a flim-flam-man.

        Yes he contributed to the cause of rising-up the condition of the individual if constrained within the wisdom imparted by the likes of a Phil Spickler and many others.

        None-the-less, the Bridge “To TOTAL FREEEDOM”, the Green on White bullshit and the suppresive nature of ‘Ethics Tech” have left me to look elsewhere, even within myseff, for answers.

        Hubbard is a failed Guru. Just look at the current Stats of Ron’s creation documented at Mike Rinders site.

        Hubbard could have made a difference in his own name.

        He was too much a narcissist to let that happen.

        There’s my 50 cents.

  30. One’s “reality” is the accumulation of one’s experiences, memories, beliefs, considerations,emotions, biases, opinions over the years of one’s life. Understanding this can benefit someone, if he can appreciate that the other fellow has his own reality, which should be respected. I think that philosophical concepts are not “true” or “untrue”, but are tools to be used for betterment of oneself, or others. So I think that using “if it’s true for you it’s true for you” is one of those trite, meaningless sayings, which unfortunately for many, have been used by scilons to make wrong, justify, or to delude themselves that they are “right”, in total contradistinction to the apparent facts. It makes me sad to see people use potentially useful philosophy in this way, rather than finding applications which benefit someone or something. Ironically, scientology falls down in the application.

  31. Marty, as you wrote, “I have watched lawyers become dumbfounded witnessing scientologists so perform so facilely while under oath.” In the past, this has been a successful part of Corporate Scientology’s legal strategy to win at any cost. It was often difficult for attorneys to find information that would destroy credibility of these highly trained lawyers. However, I think some optimism is called for — the world is changing and it’s harder to get away with lying in court on many occasions. In fact, this remarkable ability to lie will increasingly backfire.

    In part, that’s because computers can store more than ever before. For example, In the past, bank computer systems were only able to keep information for a couple years, but today, digital copies of all financial records stretching back to the end of time are available. The international financial system is far more controlled than ever before, and it’s a certainty that various government organizations that monitor money laundering are tracking every offshore bank transfer in the world. It’s thus a virtual certainty that Scientology’s offshore financial labyrinth could be exposed in the future to a degree never seen in the past. In other words, if Scientology doesn’t produce records in response to court orders, counter-parties can easily do so.

    On that foundation, it’s easier for attorneys opposing Scientology to analyze reams of information than ever before. Document management systems allow easy scanning and cross-referencing of countless reams of data provided by Scientology attorneys. Details that could crack cases wide open are far more easily found than by having humans pore over them, as in the past.

    Finally, as more suits are filed against various arms of Corporate Scientology, a small legal industry will probably form where attorneys share success secrets in bringing cases. This is likely to happen particularly in the area of Narconon, where fraudulent claims of success rates have lured many into those facilities, and where insurance fraud appears to be rampant. This has happened in many sorts of personal injury cases like asbestos-related litigation, tobacco lawsuits, and even around the Y2K computer problem a few years ago.

    Since Scientology’s organizational mindset is rooted in the past and is unlikely to change, I predict that plaintiffs will increasingly take advantage of modern technology to make it irrelevant whether Scientologists are good at lying on the witness stand or not. Those breathtaking performances will now start to hurt the organization far more than they help.

  32. “That is because every scientologist at some point makes a conscious decision to enter the mindset of permanent self-deception. It is crossing that line where conscience is consciously overridden in favor of whatever promised fruits await to award faith.”

    Much as I like your post overall I consider it a generalisaton. I may have
    taken on board many datums from SCN that I now ignore. One may consider there was some self deception. Probably all gone now. I no longer
    subscribe to the areas I was trained in,OEC/FEBC. Some is good some not so much. Some toxic.

    I have never been one to follow faith of any sort. I go for know. I know COS is a cult and I know Scn can work wonders, even if it dosn’t always.

  33. “This state of unawareness should not be considered an acquittal for the dishonest scientologist. That is because every scientologist at some point makes a conscious decision to enter the mindset of permanent self-deception.”

    Except for the kids that are raised in scientology. We never have a choice. We don’t have the opportunity to make a decision about our beliefs since we were raised in scientology and know nothing else.

    • I think this is a good point and it also applies to those who are recruited young, as young adults.

    • “Except for the kids that are raised in scientology. We never have a choice. We don’t have the opportunity to make a decision about our beliefs since we were raised in scientology and know nothing else.”

      I believe that there is an inherent sense of decency, consistency and coherency that has to be deliberately squashed to convert a child into a lying Scientologist. A child is may be more gullible and easier to condition. But children are known to rebel too.

      .
      .

  34. In regards to subjective reality and lies: I happen to think that there is much that is of value in LRH’s essay on Personal Integrity and his writings in 8-8008. My view is that in our world, one’s OWN reality and one’s own universe are too often stomped on and made less of by people who would dominate others and enforce THEIR reality on other individuals andwhole groups.

    The ironic point when we are discussing subjective reality and Scientology is: when the heck are you allowed to exercise and ACTUALLY PRACTICE your subjective reality and personal integrity in Scientology????? Is one “allowed” to have any individual truth on one’s finances when in a reg cycle? Is one allowed to have a different sexual orientation in one’s own universe when subjected to Scientology “ethics”? Is one allowed to decide that one does not agree with something that LRH says?

    So I CELEBRATE subjective reality (within the confines of respecting and not suppressing OTHER beings’ subjective realities and dynamics). I LOVE 8-8008. I just wish that Ron had decided to practice in his church what he wrote in those works.

    • “In regards to subjective reality and lies: I happen to think that there is much that is of value in LRH’s essay on Personal Integrity and his writings in 8-8008. My view is that in our world, one’s OWN reality and one’s own universe are too often stomped on and made less of by people who would dominate others and enforce THEIR reality on other individuals andwhole groups.”

      One big aberration of A=A=A is to equate the integrity of knowledge with the integrity of the “source”. These two are not the same thing. We cannot say, “Source = Knowledge.”

      Knowledge stands on its own consistency. It is totally independent of the source. On the other hand, the “source” is human. He is changing all the time. The “source” is not the same thing as the knowledge. It is an error to equate these two together.
      .

      • Vin,

        You make a good point in the above:

        One big aberration of A=A=A is to equate the integrity of knowledge with the integrity of the “source”. These two are not the same thing. We cannot say, “Source = Knowledge.”

        Knowledge stands on its own consistency. It is totally independent of the source. On the other hand, the “source” is human. He is changing all the time. The “source” is not the same thing as the knowledge. It is an error to equate these two together.

        but you way over use the word; “inconsistency”.

        Over used is kin to over run.

        Same with your relentless persistent referal to KHTK.
        It is obnoxious. It causes nausea.

        Obnoxious

        adjective
        1.
        highly objectionable or offensive; odious:
        obnoxious behavior.
        2.
        annoying or objectionable due to being a showoff or attracting undue attention to oneself:
        an obnoxious little brat.
        3.
        Archaic. exposed or liable to harm, evil, or anything objectionable.
        4.
        Obsolete. liable to punishment or censure; reprehensible.

        Search Results

        ob·nox·ious

        adjective: obnoxious

        extremely unpleasant.

        synonyms: unpleasant, disagreeable, nasty, distasteful, offensive, objectionable, unsavory, unpalatable, off-putting, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, revolting, repulsive, repellent, repugnant, disgusting, odious, vile, foul, abhorrent, loathsome, nauseating, sickening, hateful, insufferable, intolerable, detestable, abominable, despicable, contemptible; More
        informalhorrible, horrid, ghastly, gross, putrid, yucky, godawful, beastly, skanky;
        literarynoisome
        “the gasoline-powered pump made an obnoxious racket”

        antonyms: delightful, fragrant

        Another thing that is obnoxious is die hard scntlgsts who parrot and argue to defend Hubbard as source, or argue to defend “Source”.

        That is why there is an old saying:

        “Beware of the one who has read only one book.”

        That also applies to one who only studies one religion.

        In fact, that is probably the intended meaning of the phrase.

        Scientology and Islam are especially prone to such fanatical extremism.

        Hubbard wisely vindicates himself in his article: “How to study a science”.

        in other words, he cleverly sets many traps in scn, but he also gave you the map to the way out of the trap.

        (Or he hung the keys for you to unlock the trap on the wall in plain sight, for those who had a mind to think, and eyes to see.)

        When it comes right down to the truth, people who got caught in the trap, only have themselves to blame, because they did not do their homework and read and apply “How to study a science”.

        Or as it sometimes called or now called “How to study scientology”.
        It is true both ways.

        If you read and applied the data in “How to study a science”, and applied it properly, you cannot get caught in the trap or stay caught in the trap.

        Dio

  35. Lying, lying to cover up for the sake of “Public Relations” infests every nook and cranny of Sea Org life.
    It might have had its roots on the Apollo. The word used was “shore story.” The crew have secrets not to share with people ashore, and “shore story” was the made up agreed up on lies to *NOT* tell on land.
    But lies are far more serious than that.
    Take the case of the girl who was beaten at Gold Base/Int Base.
    She got a beating so bad that her retina detached in her eye.
    She was coached to lie at the hospital that she fell into a table !
    Lying to medical authorities about work place accidents is a stand routine.
    To save money the “Church” shoe horns all Sea Org Medical into Workman’s Comp OR *Free* medical which tax payers cover in various states. The point is numerous lies are involved.
    Lying in Sea Org culture is dubbed “Shore Story” “acceptable truth” “White lie” “Statement approved by MAA” ~~ LOL.
    Int Base execs who had been beaten the most by Miscavige, Marc Yager, Guillame Lesevre, Ray Mithoff, Norman Starkey with straight faces signed affidavits to the St. Pete Times ( now Tampa bay Times) that Miscavige had never laid a Hand on them !
    And who can forget the wicked witches of the West asserting the innocence of Miscavige on National TV while hyperventilating to protect dear Leader?
    Watch group lying in action, billed and drilled and rehearsed so that 2 of them accidentally blurt out “every square inch of his body” by accident.

    • I just watched three clips of Anderson Cooper and this came to mind:

      Latin phrases: Re: duress and duress per minas:  Vani timores sunt aestimandi, qui non cadunt in constantem virum.

      Those fears are to be regarded as groundless which do not affect an ordinary man.

      Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus.

      Nothing is so contrary to consent (or free volition) as force and fear.

      Vani timoris justa excusatio non est. A frivolous fear is not a lawful excuse.

      Per Minas is a Latin term and in British common law it means “to engage in a behavior by means (under the pressure) of menaces, fear or threats.”
      When a person is compelled to enter into a contract by (under the pressure of) fear, threats or menaces, it can be termed duress per minas.
      When a person fears death or any menace or mayhem on not acting according to the threat, the person may act as directed. However, the actions done (performed or committed) under duress can be altered or revoked by the person afterwards.
      The courts only require that the person was forced to act by threat and that the threat was not one that could be overcome by the mind and will of a firm and reasonable man.
      Duress per minas is a Latin term meaning, threat of loss of life.
      Duress per minas also means causing fear with threat of loss of limb or other harm to a person.
      In civil cases the rule as to duress per minas has a broader application at the present day than it formerly had.
      The nature of the common law factor of “duress per minas” is to enable the person threatened with this pernicious control to avoid a bond or note obtained under such threats.
      Per·ni·cious
      adj.
      1. a. Tending to cause death or serious injury; deadly: a pernicious virus.
      b. Causing great harm; destructive: pernicious rumors.
      2. Archaic Evil; wicked.
      3. wicked or malicious: pernicious lies.
      4. causing grave harm; deadly
      5.causing insidious harm or ruin; working or spreading in a hidden and usually injurious way; “glaucoma is an insidious disease”; “a subtle poison”
      Mayhem: 1. the crime of wilfully inflicting an injury on another so as to cripple or mutilate.
      2. random or deliberate violence or damage.
      3. rowdy disorder.
      4. Law The offense of wilfully maiming or crippling a person.
      5. Infliction of violent injury on a person or thing; wanton destruction: children committing mayhem in the flower beds.
      6. A state of violent disorder or riotous confusion; havoc

      Menace:
      1. to threaten with violence, danger, etc
      2. a threat or the act of threatening
      3. something menacing; a source of danger
      4. a nuisance
      5. something that threatens to cause evil, harm, etc.; threat.
      6. a person whose actions or ideas are considered dangerous or harmful.
      7. threaten.
      8. to serve as a probable threat to; imperil.
      9. A possible danger; a threat: the menace of nuclear war.
      10. The act of threatening.
      11. A troublesome or annoying person: a toddler who was a menace in a shop full of crystal.

      What is DURESS PER MINAS?
      Duress by threats. The use of threats and menaces to compel a person, by the fear of death, or grievous bodily harm, as mayhem or loss of limb, or property, to do some lawful act, or to commit a misdemeanor.

      PER MINAS. By menace. When a man is compelled to enter into a contract by threats or menaces, either for, fear of loss of life, or mayhem, or property, he may avoid it afterwards. 1 Bl. Com. 131; Bac. Ab. Duress; Id. Murder A. See Duress.

      Per minas, in British common law, to engage in behavior “by means of menaces or threats”.

      Dio

  36. How is soul objectively true? None of us this side of the veil (if there is one) can demonstrate objectively one way or the other. If we cannot demonstrate it objectively, does this automatically refute its existence or do we merely lack the tools to do so?

    I have always had trouble grasping the meaning of “what is true for you is true for you”, ever since I was a child. It sounds like one of several things that Hubbard said that should be profound but to me were meaningless. I figured I just lacked insight as to what it effectively means. Perhaps you could assume broadly that even second generation scientologists must consciously decide to accept this statement, akin to how protestant children might consciously accept Jesus as the saviour – they grew up with the idea, but it is a different matter to take that step with an open heart. One could then argue that in doing so, they have found their answer and will look no further, thus putting a ceiling on any further spiritual growth. In this manner one could argue that accepting any answer will ultimately act as a ceiling.

    So what are you saying? That I should reveal personal information to people even if it’s none of their business? I agree that on the comm course one learns to provide evasive, misdirecting answers that will leave the person thinking the question has been answered without divulging anything of real importance. It is a thinner slice of a white lie. But why would I want to disclose everything about me? This is where I am having trouble with your article (beyond my difficulty in understanding the premise to begin with).

    I feel that spirituality, and the question as to whether it is truly relevant or valid, is a deeply personal affair, and reading assorted blogs over the past two years has only confirmed that feeling. What, then, is the error? That one mistakes one’s sense of one’s own spirituality (or lack thereof) for an objective fact to be enforced on others?

    Please help me out here. If not you, Marty, due to insufficient time, perhaps someone else? I can sense I am very confused on this issue, but cannot put my finger on exactly why.

    • Letting Go wrote:

      I feel that spirituality, and the question as to whether it is truly relevant or valid, is a deeply personal affair, and reading assorted blogs over the past two years has only confirmed that feeling. What, then, is the error? That one mistakes one’s sense of one’s own spirituality (or lack thereof) for an objective fact to be enforced on others?”

      For me, LG, the problem is not with anyone’s subjective reality – it is confusing the subjective world with the objective world, to the point of denying that the objective world exists.

      Just like LRH taught in 8-8008.

      Clearly locating the boundary between the very real objective and subjective worlds allows one to take care of one’s self. Blurring that line leads to disaster.

      My problem with this is that LRH blurred the line between beliefs and facts and not only does this cause many harmful things – it’s just stupid. And it makes Scientologists stupid. Where Scientologists should be watching their bank balances and credit card statements, and following the latest neurological research to keep up with the latest discoveries in the field of the mind, they are being led by brain spooges and floating needles, and never questioning the reality of LRH dogma while destroying their own and others’ families, careers, and finances. Some even engage in false imprisonment and physical violence and torture when their stats won’t go up.

      Blurring the line and denying the objective world leads to total breakdown and dysfunction. It is highly unworkable. No Scientologist ever signed up for that.

      And when vulnerable people who need real help come to Scientology, because of this dark aged thinking that Ron taught Scientologists, Scientology can actually be dangerous.

      Alanzo

      • Thanks, Alanzo.

        What is a brain spooge? And can you provide a practical, real life example of acting in the subjective on the assumption it equals the objective? I see others here appear to have got it, but to me Marty’s article is highly theoretical and I seem to lack the insight necessary to translate it into my life and understand what he is saying. I can see it is an important aspect to examine, but cannot grasp how.

        • Letting Go asked:

          What is a brain spooge? “

          “Spooge” is slang for “orgasm”.

          Human neurology has a reward system that floods a person with feel-good hormones that keep a person coming back to an activity again and again.

          “Runner’s high” is an easily recognized and thoroughly documented example of a “brain spooge”, for instance.

          In that example of a runner’s high, there is an objective reality that is causing a subjective experience. And this subjective experience feels so good to the runner that he will put up with the pain and discomfort and blisters of jogging and go running again and again.

          “And can you provide a practical, real life example of acting in the subjective on the assumption it equals the objective?”

          When the subjective experience is used to say “this is the truth”, as a Scientologist will do when they say “That indicates to me. That must be the truth”, or is told “Your needle is floating” then you are being led around to discern truth by subjective states of mind that often have nothing to do with the truth.

          When your spouse is cheating on you, and you find out the truth of this, the feeling is very bad and “entheta”, but it is still the objective truth.

          Subjective states of mind are not good measures of the truth. We fool ourselves with these states all the time.

          It takes discipline and is an important effort to emphasize objective reality where it can be realized. Objective facts and reality should not be discounted or confused with subjective states of mind when trying to reason out what is the truth or the best way to proceed.

          L Ron Hubbard went so far as teaching Scientologists that facts were a form of belief – as some have actually stated here in the last few days. This mixing of the objective and subjective destroys critical thinking skills and sound reasoning because you can no no longer tell facts from beliefs.

          There is a lot more to this problem, but this is as simply as I can explain it in a short blog comment.

          It is fundamental to critical thinking and seeking to live with the truth.

          Alanzo

        • Letting go, your original post above tells me that you already have a very good ability to look for yourself – that is, to OBSERVE – and from observation, to know “what is true.” And what else could “what is true” possibly mean than “what is true FOR YOU”?

          In the essay “Personal Integrity” Ron says that what is true is what you have observed for yourself. I don’t think it’s arguable that OBSERVATION is what even scientists do, and is about as objective as one can possibly be – whether it’s a matter of direct observation or through study (called secondary research, I believe).

          Knowledge of such things as the soul, might have to come under direct observation, but so might everyday objective matters – like, how to communicate effectively for the good of all concerned.

          I don’t know if you read the excerpt I quoted in an earlier post from “The Way to Happiness” (published as late as 1981, btw, and the basis of the Happiness Rundown). I think it explains very well what Ron meant by “what is true for you.” And he sums up how you go about finding that out, with the words “what is NOW true for you” – the implication being that you remain open to new observations.

          Is there any other way one could ever decide upon anything for himself than by his own observation? Anyway, here’s that paragraph again:

          “There are ways to study so that one really learns and can use what one learns. In brief, it consists of having a teacher and/or texts which know what they are talking about, of clearing up every word one does not fully understand, of consulting other references and/or the scene of the subject, of sorting out the false data one might already have and of sifting the false from the true on the basis of what is now true for you. The end result will be certainty and potential competence. It can be, actually, a-bright and rewarding experience. Not unlike climbing a treacherous mountain through brambles but coming out on top with a new view of the whole wide world.”

          • “Letting go, your original post above tells me that you already have a very good ability to look for yourself – that is, to OBSERVE – and from observation, to know “what is true.” And what else could “what is true” possibly mean than “what is true FOR YOU”?”

            One may condition other people by flowing lot of affinity and putting them in a frame of mind to agree without mindfulness.

            .

            ________________________________

            • “…putting them in a frame of mind to agree without mindfulness.”

              I guess you had your filters up and didn’t notice that the bulk of my post was about mindfulness. Shocking!🙂.

              • I was simply making an observation that I felt was quite objective. It was not directed personally at you, Marildi, or anybody else on this forum.

                I have observed that phenomenon in Scientology organizations. There is a sudden reversal of tone level the moment a Scientologist finds out that you have been declared suppressive. Suddenly the flow of affinity stops. It is not natural. It is very deliberate and artificial.

                • “I was simply making an observation that I felt was quite objective.”

                  Do you mean insinuation (eval and/or inval) is okay as long as you “feel” it is “objective”?

                  • There was no insinuation. But I do feel that your affinity comes across as artificial and not natural.

                    • Pure Ad Hom fallacy. Not to mention violating “discussion policy.” But as already noted, you don’t feel it should apply to you – only others.

                    • You can’t have it both ways, Marildi. You sound quite oppurtunistic with regards to referring to the discussion policy. You don’t like it because it is not written by LRH,

          • marildi, thank you. I think what scientists actually do is measure. Their maxim could possibly be stated “if it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist”.

            I read the excerpt, and see that is what we are doing on this blog, particularly examining the scene and the result of certain principles in application. Unfortunately, this short excerpt does not contain instructions on how to determine what truth and false data are, respectively.

            However, you could not refute the fact that scientologists do lie, if even only to themselves, flying in the face of another WTH tenet, seek to live with the truth. So what we are interested in primarily, if I’m right, are the results of principles applied. They do not look pretty.

            I am unsure as to whether something can only ever be true for you. Perhaps what you mean is you cannot know it is true until you have seen so? For instance, you cannot know the church of scientology bears an uncanny resemblance to a cult until you have stepped back, examined other cults and scientific literature on cults and thought reform, and then dared to entertain the possibility that the resemblance might be more by design than chance.

            The planet revolved around the sun millions of years before man even conceived of the opposite. Galileo, through observation, measurement and calculations learned the truth as the Catholic Church clung to various psalms in protest. Perhaps this is the difference between objective and subjective truth. Things as they actually are and things as one would like them to be.

            • Letting go: “Perhaps what you mean is you cannot know it is true until you have seen so?”

              Yes, I’d say you could put it that way. Basically, you have observed for yourself and made your own assessment – which is the way LRH himself described what he meant by “true for you.”

              You do need to do the research, obviously, whether that is by direct observation or indirectly by studying the direct or indirect observations of others and assessing the validity of those observations. For example, I’m sure you don’t have any doubt that the world is not flat even though you probably have not seen that for yourself, directly, such as from outer space. But there is so much evidence presented by so many reliable sources that you can confidently decide that this indirect evidence is true for you. And “reliable sources” is also part of what you have to work out for yourself.

              There’s no getting around it – we ourselves do have to look and that isn’t always a quick and easy task. Sometimes we have to put the question aside and look or wait for further info before we can determine whether something is “true for you.”

            • Science determines truth through consistency of observation. This truth is always relative and never absolute.

              Absolute truths exist only in the heads of know-it-alls.

      • “For me, LG, the problem is not with anyone’s subjective reality – it is confusing the subjective world with the objective world, to the point of denying that the objective world exists.”

        Even when a reality is subjective it must be consistent within itself and also with physical realities. The problem arises when such inconsistencies are overlooked and justified by faith.Ellie Perkins story is an example of that.

        .

    • “How is soul objectively true? None of us this side of the veil (if there is one) can demonstrate objectively one way or the other. If we cannot demonstrate it objectively, does this automatically refute its existence or do we merely lack the tools to do so?”

      The idea of soul is based on the assumption that there is a spiritual world totally independent of the physical world. Therefore, it is assumed that body disintegrates while the self retain integrity as a soul. This history of this assumption goes back to Parmenides of Elea [c. 515/540 -c. 450]. Here is an ineteresting excerpt from The Tao of Physics.

      http://vinaire.me/2014/08/12/ground-state-of-universe-history/

      .

      • This contains an arbitrary: “The idea of soul is based on the assumption that there is a spiritual world TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of the physical world.” Who says?

        A ‘soul’ could be a part of the universe that is much longer-lasting than a body, and that would cover most conceptions of “the soul”. For example, in much of monotheistic thinking, God created the sould as well as the physical universe, so both are creations. As ‘creations’, they are not ‘eternal’ but the ‘souls’ are much longer lived than any particular bodies.

        That “totally independent” bit is a kind of dub-in that really restricts the discussion in an unnecessary way.

        • Valkov, let’s work together on this and not make it a contest between viewpoints. If there is an inconsistency (disagreement between viewpoints) then let’s look for the hidden assumptions. It could be my assumption or your assumption. We don’t know at the moment. I don’t claim that I know it all. I am just trying to learn.

          I think that a soul and a body has one to one correspondence, and if the body disintegrates then the soul should disintegrate too. Why is it considered to remain intact?

          • I do not have the”the answers”, but in many teachings of the past there are various levels of existence from gross ascending to ‘subtle’. Buddhism speaks of ‘subtle bodies’. It also speaks of the human as a ‘compound being’. That is actually a major part of Buddhist teachings, the ‘compound’ aspect is what makes things subject to decay and falling apart into their basic constituent elements.
            Anyway, there is no reason to think there are not, in Nature, various levels of ‘fineness’ or ‘grossness’ and that some may not be much longer lived than others. That’s all I’m saying. I have ‘felt’ an inconsistency, like speedbump or pothole, in some of your postings on the subject and it finally surfaced that to equate the durations of body and soul was arbitrary or unnecessary. In Nature there are many examples of things proceeding at their own pace. One human year = roughly 7 dog years, for example. A fly lives one day. What is the lifespan of a microbe, a bacterium?
            An interesting book along these lines is “The Parable of the Beast”. From 1968, but still fresh and alive. Here part of a review:
            Terry Glavin on The Parable of The Beast by John Bleibtreu

            “Several years ago, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, I was struck by a strange epiphany. I was aboard a fishing trawler called the Arctic Harvester, with a crew of amiably rambunctious and hard-drinking Newfoundlanders and a team of scientists that had chartered the boat for a joint Canada-US research initiative. I was on assignment for the newspaper I worked for.”

            “We were about half-way between Hawaii and Canada when we found ourselves completely surrounded by a vast aggregation of little blue sailboats, each no bigger than the palm of a man’s hand. It was then that I realized that everything I had done in my life that had ended up bringing me all the way out there I owed to a book that I’d read when I was 15 years old.”

            “But first, the little boats. They’re called velellas, or by-the-wind-sailors. A velella consists of several organisms that collaborate to construct from their own tiny bodies a colony, in the form of a sail, a hull and a keel. The result looks just like a child’s toy sailboat, and it works just like a sailboat. Velellas also manage to gather together somehow in grand flotillas in the middle of the ocean. And then they all sail off together in the same direction.”

            Point being, there is no constant of “Time”, and there are many levels to the experiences of “Life”. Some are over in what appears to us to be a flash, others may have much more duration. But they are all part of Nature. There is no reason to fix one’s attention on something permanent and everlasting as a dichotomy with things that are not such. Those are just arbitrary assumptions we don’t need.

            • VALKOV: “I have ‘felt’ an inconsistency, like speedbump or pothole, in some of your postings on the subject and it finally surfaced that to equate the durations of body and soul was arbitrary or unnecessary.”

              I would love to hear more on that inconsistency so that we can sort it out. The point I am making it is that the soul cannot survive in one piece if the related body has disintegrated. There is a one to one correspondence between them.

              But the common Christian culture has thought very differently from the beginning.

              • OK, but I have no reason at all to believe this is the case. It seems like an entirely arbitrary idea, this linkage. Soul might be one component, body another component, mind another component, consciousness yet another component, of a ‘compound being’ or ‘beingness’, just as those ‘velellas’ are. Perhaps when those components of a velella separate, the individual components have different lifespans? That seems just as likely as any other scenario to me.

    • Thanks Alanzo, marildi and Vinaire. I’m going to have to chew on your answers for a while and see if I can make sense of my confusion. The article seems to touch on solipsism, or perhaps my question does. I know I was taught to use evasive answers and acceptable truths (blonde named floozy), irrespective of what Hubbard may have written to the contrary in other texts. Perhaps I am confused about the assumption that this can be confused with what is happening (not recognised as such, in other words).

      After all, ‘what is true for you’ still does not mean ‘what I tell you is true for you’, even if that is how it ended up being practiced (management events, OT mag success stories). I have not seen any of you. For all I know, you don’t exist or are not separate people. And yet I need a workable massumption to communicate on this board.

      • LG, if I were you, I would get some word clearing and/or false data stripping on this area of confusion. Kids who grew up in the SO were subjected to a lot of confusing verbal data, and I’ve seen it (first-hand) resolve with those pieces of tech. You could even try making a list of key Scientology terms and then clear them, and that might just do the trick.

        Or, you may need to take a look at the specific area you are questioning and see if you can spot when the trouble started – and then look for a word that was misunderstood just before that. Whatever pops up in your mind. This procedure is based on the HCOB “Word Clearing, Key Datum” and it IS the key to stubbornly unresolving confusions, along with false data stripping (the effects of false data and the tech to handle it came later).

        • Word clearing doesn’t help when the definitions being used are suspect. Same with false data stripping when data is being evaluated by the source and not by its consistency.

          • Vin, a definition is merely an explanation of what is meant when a word is used. It has no bearing on whether or not the object or phenomenon, or whatever the word symbolizes, actually exists or is true.

            For example, there are definitions of the word “God” which give the different meanings that are intended by its use. A person word clearing it may not believe there is a God of any kind. Nevertheless, he will come to understand the definition and then know what people are saying when they use the word. Obviously, he needs to decide for himself, based on his own study and observation, whether there is a God.

            You have made it clear that you “suspect” the definitions of “static” and “thetan” – simply because you don’t agree that these exist. That is missing the purpose of word clearing.

            Done right, word clearing simply clears up the way a word is used. And false data stripping works on a similar premise of evaluating what is true for oneself..

      • “After all, ‘what is true for you’ still does not mean ‘what I tell you is true for you’, even if that is how it ended up being practiced (management events, OT mag success stories). I have not seen any of you. For all I know, you don’t exist or are not separate people. And yet I need a workable massumption to communicate on this board.”

        The problem with “what is true for you is true” is that it validates outpoints in one’s thinking. So validated, a person essentially deceives himself by keeping those outpoints.

        After a person starts practicing mindfulness, he becomes more aware of inconsistencies (outpoints) in all situations including oneself. He starts to shed those outpoints away and gains a very peaceful kind of confidence.

        .

        • The problem with “what is true for you is true” is that it is sophistry and LRH never said it. It leads to delusion. But my main point is that it is at best ‘verbal scripture’ in scientology, an “everybody knows” that is without basis in actual ‘scripture’. Therefore it is an alter-is, a squirreling.

          • What is your highest attainment on the scientology bridge? What is your training level?

            • Fortunately I did not do “the Bridge”; it is to that fact that I attribute my ability to still think straight at least part of the time, and sometimes see things objectively. 🙂

              • If you were thinking straight, I think you’d give some thought as to the wisdom (even ethics) of spending so much effort publicly extolling a religious belief system – the ends of which you have no way of knowing.

                • I call Straw Man.
                  When have I ever “extolled a religious belief system”, any religious belief system , publicly on this blog? I don’t believe I have ever posted anything I did not experience myself or gather from the multiple viewpoint system you set up here, or as it exists in other locations on the Internet. I gather information. When I don’t know something, or when I am speculating, I usually say so. What you just posted is prejudicial.

                  • You are not qualified to call ‘straw man’. You are in the dark and leading people there as you go.

                    • It is common for people to be not aware of their filters. This can also be called outpoints in one’s thinking.

                      Mindfulness provides a cure for it.

                    • Duh, on being in the dark. If I hadn’t perceived that I was in the dark, would I have started searching for some light? I am not leading anyone anywhere, that I am aware of. God forbid anyone follow me, they will soon be disillusioned I hope. I post what I think when I think it. I would hope that others do the same.

        • This is exactly the point of my post above. You may think you understand me perfectly well, but do you? It may be “true for you” that you understand me, but…..?

    • I think part of the problem I am having with understanding the premise of the post is the assumption that subjective and objective reality are conflated or collapsed with scientologists, and that subjective allegedly replaces objective. Yet even in scientology there is this idea of “one’s own universe, the physical universe and other (thetans’) universes”, thus marking a clear deliniation between the subjective (ones own universe) and the objective (the physical universe).

      If I have therapy and feel better, then according to the post it would be deemed a subjective reality. Yet if that betterment were to show up as an improvement of cognitive skills, it could be deemed objective.

      I think the line is to thin to make a wholesale declaration, and particularly to use the nebulous “true for you” as its foundation. I can see how it can play out (I had gains so it makes everyone elses suffering worthwhile), but I don’t think it is the correct or only why. Perhaps Marty chose it because “what’s true for you” sums up the idea of postulates and “mock ups” and so forth.

      • “If I have therapy and feel better, then according to the post it would be deemed a subjective reality. Yet if that betterment were to show up as an improvement of cognitive skills, it could be deemed objective.” Cognitive skills would be one potential index of improvement. Utilizing the same IQ test over and over is no objective demonstration of anything though. To claim that scientology routinely raises IQ – on the basis of that protocol – is fraudulent. Prohibiting any objective testing whatsoever as scientology has done since before the publication of dianetics makes it a wholly subjective endeavor. If you cannot see that scientology from beginning to end invites you to create a reality, defines ethics or integrity as – in part – never compromising with one’s reality, then I am sure a lot of what I write sounds ‘nebulous’ at best to you. If you believe scientology does not invite one to create a reality that defies objective scrutiny, then as Pi noted late in Life of Pi: “And so it goes with God.”

        • In my reference to measuring cognitive skills, I was thinking more along the lines of what Martin Seligman did in his studies about which he wrote the book “Learned Helplessness” – not IQ tests, but problem solving done after groups of students had been subjected to different stimli with varying options to respond and varying effectivity of the response.

          Unfortunately it seems you took my statement to mean what I think about scientology. You are mistaken. I am simply trying to understand the premise. Perhaps I am having difficulty doing so because I never really knew what the whole “true for you thing” meant, subjectively (or factually). It is pretty obvious to me that even if I accept something as true for me, that does not mean it has been proven or even exists outside of my imagination.

          So far I have not had any difficulty understanding what you write, even if your style is more reminiscent of Thomas Paine than contemporary writing.

          • Thanks. I think Larry Wright’s book ‘Going Clear’ is a marvelous demonstration of how Hubbard and scientology are all about assisting with creating one’s subjective universe in which to live as if it were the objective universe.

            • It’s on my stack, along with many recommendations made by you and others here. I just need to learn to read faster or budget my time better🙂

            • Incidentally, yes, scientologists live in an alternate universe. I feel that in some way we all live in our own little spheres, and depending on how much we interact and calibrate with our country’s or the global sphere, we may appear more up to speed or more out of whack.

              Scientology doctrine is very much out of whack with contemporary life, but then if one were to apply the Bible literally, stoning and flogging women would be equally conspicuous. This isn’t an apology, I’m just saying I know what they look like from the outside, and I know they are oblivious.

          • LG: “In my reference to measuring cognitive skills, I was thinking more along the lines of what Martin Seligman did in his studies about which he wrote the book “Learned Helplessness” – not IQ tests,…”

            In my opinion, learned helplessness comes from the person being bound to some “stable datum” as the absolute truth, and is unable to deviate from his “stable datum.” He then learns to live with the consequences of his belief.

            .

      • Letting Go wrote:

        I think part of the problem I am having with understanding the premise of the post is the assumption that subjective and objective reality are conflated or collapsed with scientologists, and that subjective allegedly replaces objective. Yet even in scientology there is this idea of “one’s own universe, the physical universe and other (thetans’) universes”, thus marking a clear deliniation between the subjective (ones own universe) and the objective (the physical universe).”

        The whole purpose of this context in Scientology was to rehabilitate the thetan back into his ability to make his postulates “stick” again.

        It was for the purpose of magic: to make the physical world manifest our wishes.

        Like wanting to fly like Superman, or cast spells like Merlin, Hubbard appealed to our childish desire for magic.

        The reason the subjective world was emphasized over the objective world was because Hubbard said that we had gone into too much AGREEMENT with the physical universe, and lost all our magical powers as thetans as a result. The way out of this “trap” (his assertion) was to DISAGREE that physical universe reality was more powerful than your own subjective reality.

        Replacing the objective with the subjective was the purpose for all auditing as “spiritual therapy” in Scientology. It was the way out of the “trap”, per Hubbard, and the whole route to salvation in Scientology.

        Alanzo

        • Alanzo, I see what you mean. This is also the kind of real life example I needed earlier. Very good. I also had trouble with the ‘disagree and go free’ thing, since I normally saw it used in the context of ‘bankrupt yourself and laugh at the consequences’, and I never felt inclined to do that (I never had the means, else I might have gone down that route).

          However, I did buy into this whole physical universe is a trap thing, knowing no different as a child and thinking myself lucky to not be as blind as the rest of the world “obviously” was. I was afraid of examining the physical universe too closely, in case that meant I was agreeing with it, all the while aware that this line of thinking was ultimately superstitious, and also aware that a wall would still be there if I walked through it, even if I said it wasn’t😉

          My breakthrough came, I believe, when I looked up and saw non-scientologists were looking so much happier and healthier and more relaxed than myself or virtually any scientologist I knew. As a one time artist, perhaps I retained some ability to observe the physical universe.

          My original question (soul or no?) was meant to indicate the potentially artificial divide created by the terms physical universe and thetan/theta universe. Possibly, they are two sides of the same coin. Else they are simply wishful thinking.

          As a side note, I found a “win” I wrote up after an O/W writeup. I was in deep. I’ve never done drugs, but reading that you’d never believe me.

          • LG: “My original question (soul or no?) was meant to indicate the potentially artificial divide created by the terms physical universe and thetan/theta universe. Possibly, they are two sides of the same coin. Else they are simply wishful thinking.”

            Yes, spiritual (THETA) and physical (MEST) are artificial divides.

            “As a side note, I found a “win” I wrote up after an O/W writeup. I was in deep. I’ve never done drugs, but reading that you’d never believe me.”

            I believe you. I have never done drugs either.

            .

      • LETTING GO: “I think part of the problem I am having with understanding the premise of the post is the assumption that subjective and objective reality are conflated or collapsed with scientologists, and that subjective allegedly replaces objective. Yet even in scientology there is this idea of “one’s own universe, the physical universe and other (thetans’) universes”, thus marking a clear deliniation between the subjective (ones own universe) and the objective (the physical universe).”

        To a Scientologist, his own universe has become the objective reality, and the MEST universe an illusion. If the another person’s reality does not agree with the Scientologist’s reality, then the other person becomes part of the illusion too.

        • How fascinating. For me one of the most interesting aspects of the scientology experience is that there are so many different experiences, dependent particularly upon emphasis in training (red on white or green on white, or just plain illiterate like me). I haven’t had these kind of thoughts, or at least am not aware I have discounted another’s reality as an illusion. Yet here we are, those of use who are still in touch with the faithful in the church, saying their view of the church’s expansion is a manufactured illusion. Are we right to do so because it’s true? Will they discount our truth because it does not fit with what they believe? (Definite yes to that last question.)

          I thought the idea that the physical universe is an illusion is essentially a shift in viewpoint, from being identified with mind to becoming disidentified with mind. It seems like lots of nothing with a thin layer of paint, when comparing the scale of something to emptiness.

          • LG, the problem boils down to there being no clearly established absolute truth, and people are grabbing different data as absolute truth to stabilize themselves.

            A person’s most “stable datum” becomes the absolute truth for him. Trouble comes when different people have different stable data, and they are discussing fundamentals.

            My stable datum is that awareness is bounded by non-awareness, and nothing that one can be aware of can be regarded as absolute. The only datum that comes closest to being absolute is the fact of non-awareness.

            The stable datum that LRH provided was that at the bottom of all existence is the Being. This is basic stable datum of a “thetan.” This appeals to people of the Abrahamic faiths because those faiths are based on the same stable datum. This is the basis of monotheism.

            For the history on this basis please check out the following link.

            http://vinaire.me/2014/08/12/ground-state-of-universe-history/
            .

        • Vin – “To a Scientologist, his own universe has become the objective reality, and the MEST universe an illusion.” Don’t you think this is largely a pretense? Surely they can’t really believe this? I have to think they know, at some level, they are pretending, as any believers must be pretending….

          • Valkov, what is self-conditioning?

            • Self-conditioning is an attempted alter-is of self. Like Coueism, Affirmations, etc. It is a flow zero kind of thing. It can ultimately be a way of destroying one’s own integrity.

            • LRH did use affirmations. He seemed to favor it. I have seen Scientologists totally absorbed in their own universe, and very dismissive of not only the MEST universe but also other people’s universes. They made no effort to be cooperative in resolving disagreements. They simply dealt in accusations.

              I have observed this phenomenon very commonly in discussion forums. A proper discussion was virtually impossible on Geir’s forum That was one of the reasons for putting together the Discussion Policy.

  37. Like your thinking, Marty. I know I got to the point of willingly telling “acceptable truths” to the police and the Coroner about my daughters’ deaths so as to protect the cult and maintain my good standing with the same. And I was certainly helped along by the “friendly” OSA staff “helping” me. Not to mention the cover-ups of paedophilia that I’ve known about and some that I helped.

    I can’t believe that I did that now. I’ve had the opportunity to set the record straight with the Police and that was a huge relief. And OSA’s response was …?

    “Why hasn’t he been charged with perjury?”

    I kid you not.

    “Always attack, never defend.”

    It fits hand in glove with what you’ve pointed out above.

    So glad I left that cult behind nearly six years ago.

  38. I believe the redefinition of words would be under the category of Lies..and what is Scn definition of Propaganda?
    ……………

    “’Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatrist’ are easily redefined to mean ‘an anti-social enemy of the people‘. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions…The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended…Scientologists are redefining ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ to mean ‘undesirable antisocial elements‘…The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.”

    – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, “Propaganda by Redefinition of Words”

    • Here are some parts you left out where you used the ellipsis dots:

      ————————————-
      The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandist.
      […]

      The American Medical Association and the National Association for Mental Health in England and South Africa and the “British Psychological Association” in Australia have been working very hard to redefine Scientology in the public mind.
      […]

      The AMA has even gotten US dictionaries to redefine “Dianetics” as a “pseudoscience from Science Fiction”. Fortunately, the public does not respect and is not responding to mass news media. Mass news media believes it steers public opinion, but in actual fact can get a reverse effect.

      “The capitalistic AMA is seeking to deny the people the benefits of new discoveries such as Scientology because it would eradicate the great profits the AMA makes from the psychosomatic illnesses of the people,” would be a statement reversing the reversal of meaning. One has to find, pinpoint and denounce the propagandists to make headway against such an effort of redefinition. One brands the propagandist and blows the effort to redefine, using a steady standard PR campaign to do so.
      […]

      The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible.

      Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards.

      This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition.
      —————————————-

      • Thanks Miraldi..Uh.. just want to add.. I copied and pasted the quote from a source that used the ellipses.

        I absolutely am appalled by my quote and yours just made the quote more evil. Hubbard was a Con man and a liar. He mastered the art of deception to his many followers. Some are more deeply entrenched his BS than others.

        Again.. Thank you.

        • Okay. Well, here once again is confirmed what I’ve observed many times – that the typical critic does a lot of jumping on the bandwagon and merely parrots what they have heard or read from other critics – without having any direct experience with the subject they speak about.

          The other thing I noted, yet another time, is the projection of a negative meaning into the material even when it does get read. One example:

          “The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandist.”

          • First you have no idea what experience I have with the subject matter. I worked in Mental Health for 30 years. I know of which I speak. I have researched this topic since the early 70s. I have been called as an expert witness in court more times than I can count due to my experience in the field.

            I am not jumping on any bandwagon. I am a critical thinker who has done my research. I do NOT parrot. I am informed.

            • Okay, got it on your field of expertise. However, the subject I was referring to was scientology itself. Have you read much of those materials or experienced any of the methodologies?

              It looked like you had quoted someone else who quoted some cherry-picked portions of a particular written issue which you yourself had not read. That would not be “doing your research.”

              • Yes. I took University Classes for 2 years studying Dianetics. I have lost a family member to disconnection and have been involved in research and the study of Scientology for many many years.

                My BFF ‘s sister is heavily involved since the 70s. Yep I quoted someone else. I had read this years ago and just googled it. I don’t apologize.

                No one asked for the entire passage but you. I worked in mental health in tangent many times with the AMA.

                I am informed about Scientology. Can I quote verbatim? No.. Do I care? NO.

                My doing research is NOT spitting out information on cue. I am not a circus monkey. Doing Research is compiling information for reports. Reading books and gathering information would also be considered research.

                Please do NOT word clear Research. I come from a strong academia background. I know what the word means. Thank you.

                • Out of curiosity, which of Hubbard’s books have you read, if any?

                  • Thank you asking so respectfully. I felt attacked by your first 2 posts.

                    I taught assertive training for 30 years and will not be talked to in the manner that you did.
                    …………………….
                    1..”Okay. Well, here once again is confirmed what I’ve observed many times – that the typical critic does a lot of jumping on the bandwagon and merely parrots what they have heard or read from other critics – without having any direct experience with the subject they speak about.

                    2.It looked like you had quoted someone else who quoted some cherry-picked portions of a particular written issue which you yourself had not read. That would not be “doing your research.”

                    …………………………………………..

                    I have had access to LRH’s writings, books, tapes collected for years and stored in a relative’s house in the garage.

                    I, like many people during the Viet Nam era was a seeker. I involved myself with those that were not only seekers, but also looking for truth.

                    I am a voracious reader. I think when I read. I become obsessed with comparing not only philosophies, but methodologies. I use my critical thinking skills to analysis words that are written and said.

                    To give you a list of books that I have read and studied is a monumental task. I don’t know where to begin. I am talking about material from 1970- present time.

                    Off the top of my head.. of course a thorough study of Dianetics, History of Man, Science of Survival, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Handbook..The lecture Series.. etc.

                    I have read many.. and I mean many books regarding Additional Scn. Material not written by LRH.

                    Marty Rathbun ( 3) , John Duignan, Janet Reitman, Lawrence Wright, Jenna Miscavige Hill, Marc Headley, Amy Scobee, Nancy Many,

                    I have read about every word on about every blog about Scn. Including FZ, Milestone.. Started reading Marty in his initial blog and followed him when he started this one. I am very well rounded.

                    Mirildi I will tell you straight up. I am connected to psychs and because of a chemical imbalance I am on antidepressants and it is a miracle drug. I am an SP and would also be considered a strong critic.

                    I realize you did not ask me. I just wanted to inform you right away so that there is no question to as I stand.

                    After all my research I have determined that LRH was a conman. He was a liar.

                    Respectfully.. I am not here to convince or argue with you..but it is 2014 and there is too much information out there NOT to believe that he was a liar. Marty is writing the facts.

                    • Thank you, Baby. I appreciate your thorough answer. And I sincerely wish you well.

                    • “Thank you, Baby. I appreciate your thorough answer. And I sincerely wish you well.
                      ……………………
                      Thank you Marildi.. I only wish you well also .”

                    • I felt that.🙂

                    • Baby,

                      I have been as much of a voracious reader myself, as I was able.

                      As for myself I was in the cos for only a few days in 97 in T.O., and got declared for basically asking the qual sec why he was still coo coo after 19 yrs of being in scn? When I had a phenomenal win from my dianetics demo.

                      Longer story short, a few months after I was declared, I miraculously learned about the fz, while on a business trip in San Antonio Tx. and from that connection, acquired all the scn books and read them all more than once, some several times. I loved them. They were of incredible help for me. I connected with fz auditors and got about 4-500 hrs of auditing. Some terrible auditing and some real good auditing. I also read a lot of fz material. I was told by Hank Levin that I have the equivalent of the bridge up to OT 2 and did not recommend I do the bridge. (But that does not mean that I would not still like to do the bridge someday. I am sure I could learn a lot from it. I would evaluate everything and hold on to what is useful. I would even learn from what was no good.

                      I have learned to audit mostly on my own and have been told I am a better auditor than a few high class, high grade Hubbard trained auditors with 50 yrs experience.

                      Have you read the Oahspe and the Urantia books? (These books have been as much mind blowing and life improving as the scn books have been for me. )

                      I would like the opportunity to give you some of my style of auditing, for your mental problems. I don’t see any good reason why I can not help you.

                      If you are interested, email at:

                      diogeneseii at yahoo.ca

                      If anyone else is interested, please do not hesitate to email me.

                      I audit over skype with no meter.

                      Dio

      • “I’m not a fundamentalist because I don’t want to handle snakes or wear those funny clothes.”

        A common example of how words are subtly redefined constantly. The worst ones are an effort to direct one’s thinking.

        “I hate those crooked corporate execs. I’m not no lazy welfare cheat.”

        Subtle, hidden additions to definitions are deeply ingrained in everyone’s life.
        Mark

  39. Hi Marty! Great to see you are really growing out of Scientology. As an ex long term Scio I was often puzzled why other so called ex scio’s kept fighting for it and Ron. You have explained why.
    I have since done meditation which gave better results than OT levels. It was based on science and Quantum Physics not faith or mumbo jumbo as Ron would have us believe. I also used scio assists since leaving, when I could see they would help.
    The point is ,as you say, getting controlled unknowingly is not the way to any kind of freedom.
    Keep up the good work and enjoy life.
    Regards,
    Peter Smith

    • Peter, what seems to work in Scientology is the mindfulness element, which was first elucidated by Buddha. This element is not really acknowledged by Hubbard. I have been investigating that particular element and have gotten long lasting results from its application. Please see:

      http://vinaire.me/minfulness_page/.

      • I don’t agree that it was not acknowledged by LRon. This, from the little but basic central essay “Personal Integrity”, the second paragraph, reads to me like being all about being ‘mindful’:

        “Of course we can talk about honor, truth, all these things,
        These esoteric terms.
        But I think they’d all be covered very well
        If what we really observed was what we observed,
        That we took care to observe what we were observing,
        That we always observed to observe.”

        • I do agree that Hubbard had his moments of sanity.

          Unfortunately, they were few and far in between. One has to search for them.

          • How does one measure this? Were his moments of sanity more or less frequent than mine, or yours? How does one know?

            • Now you are getting to the bottom of the problem.

              Kowledge cannot be judged simply by its source.

              So what determines the truth of a datum given to you? Have you examined the scientific method? What do you get out of that?

              • I know the answers for myself. The questions were for you, because of your evaluation/opinion of LRon. You posted an opinion – I asked, essentially, How do YOU know that? How do YOU measure that?

  40. Thanks for writing this post. I had always wondered why scientologists could lie with impunity. I was involved with one who would lie directly to my face and even after I had caught said person in their lie they denied them. I was dumbfounded until your post. The more I learn about this cult, the more I am saddened that people are still being drawn in. It seems that rather than helping humanity this cult has the potential to destroy humanity.

  41. And lets not forget the donation parties, uh, rather, “events”.
    Mark

  42. I think you are too broad, no doubt because you were in and leading the SO for so many years. I was never “taught to lie” when I was in auditor training, and I was never “taught to lie” when I was being audited. I was taught not to judge people (“I promise not to evaluate for the PC”) or put people down (“I promise not to invalidate the PC”). In my study of Scientology I was never taught to lie.

    However, there is another class of Scientologist and another group of Scientologists: the Sea Org. I WAS taught to lie by Sea Org members when I was on staff. I was taught to misrepresent myself in Florida when I was on staff at Flag in 1977, I was taught to lie to creditors when I was on staff at Bridge in 1984. I was lied to and taught to lie by Sea Org registrars. There are other cases. Not that I actually did what I was taught, mind you, which is why I left staff both times I was on staff in seven months or less. I couldn’t reconcile what I was being taught by the Sea Org with what Ron himself said to do, i.e. answer people’s questions, tell no lies in PR, and all that. Ron had his bad policies for sure, but he had good policies as well. Leave it to the Sea Org members to emphasize the bad.

    Of course, these days, the Sea Org has extended their instruction of lies to the general public, and by shutting down honest discussion of the real problems Scientology has by using threats of disconnection and performing acts of harassment such as you and many others have been subjected to, people who are in “good standing” with the church _must lie_ if only by staying quiet, if they expect to continue with their involvement with Scientology and their friends and their family. The Sea Org, unleashed and uncontrolled, did all this.

    Ron’s admin policies are totalitarian in nature. Following Ron’s Admin policies results in a dictatorship. That, to me, is the main flaw here, along with the public agreeing with these policies even though they are contrary to the stated goals of Scientology – freed individuals, free speech, returned self-determinism, etc. So, I blame Ron for the Sea Org. But I also blame the Sea Org members for running with these policies and making them worse, and I blame the public for allowing themselves to be cowed by these idiots. And I blame myself for not calling bullshit forty years ago.

    Mark Patterson

    • What, Grasshopper? You’re not putting all the blame on Ron? You think others were also responsible – maybe just as much so? Blasphemous!🙂

      You also wrote: “Ron’s admin policies are totalitarian in nature.”

      I sort of saw it that way early on – in policy, the buck always stopped at the then “Executive Director,” Ron, but thought of it more in terms of a benevolent dictatorship since he didn’t think a society of aberrees could function as a democracy.

      Later, when I read about GPM’s, and then about OT III and NOTs, I figured Ron felt even more that he had to take matters into his own hands – at least until people could be brought up the scale and be truly self-determined by their basic goodness.

      • p.s. I’m not saying he was right – or wrong. Just looking at a possible underlying rationale.

      • That is a possible rationale he followed, arising from his subjective viewpoint. But if you believe in the Ethics Conditions, it means LRH ‘bypassed’ more and more because he perceived some kind of a Danger condition, which places all that he bypassed down into Non-existence, doesn’t it?

        What has essentially happened is the SEa Org, RTC, etc have bypassed the field, the orgs, the missions, the public and now al those are in Non-existence. They pretty much WERE the embodiment of Scientology, which now pretty much no longer exists.

        • That seems to be the case.

        • Val, I don’t have an answer, except to say that I think what Grasshopper mentioned probably has more truth to it than anything – i.e. that LRH wasn’t the only one responsible for how things turned out. His mistakes were certainly compounded by others!

          A particular PL comes to mind that expresses this idea of mutual responsibility, from LRH’s own viewpoint, as well as the subject of Danger conditions and whether or not LRH was in fact bypassing. It basically focuses on disagreement with orders and policy and the fact that staff were expected to handle such – that was a string to be pulled. Here’s a portion of the PL:

          “There is one further footnote on a Danger condition. I have carefully studied whether or not HCOBs and Policy Letters and actions by me were by-passes. And a search of statistics refutes it, as when I give the most attention to all echelons of an org, wherever the org is, its statistics rise and when I don’t they fall. Therefore we must assume that advice is not a by-pass, nor is a general order by me.

          “Where there is disagreement on a command channel I am trying to forward then a bypass occurs.

          “So we can assume correctly on experience and statistics that Danger conditions occur only when there are fundamental disagreements on a command channel.

          “If you yourself then ferret out the disagreement ones of those under your orders you will clear your command lines.

          “Review can always find disagreements when they exist with a meter.

          “Where Danger Conditions are declared, the declaring executive should make an effort to find the disagreement with himself, policy, the org or Scientology as a basic Review action on persons found responsible for a Danger Condition. The only errors are not to look for them and not to find ALL the disagreements the person has on the subject of his superiors and post, policy, technology or orders.

          “This is why a low leadership-survey-grade person can be counted on to put wherever he is in Danger. His disagreements are too many and he doesn’t execute and thereby secretly puts his superior into by-passing and a Danger condition inevitably occurs.” (HCOPL 19 Jan 66 “Danger Condition, Responsibilities of Declaring”)

          • But LRH as “source” should bear the final responsibility. A source is a source is a source.

          • Or, the whole idea of “Source” is simply bullshit.

          • Well, ultimately, we are each responsible for everything. “You are responsible for your own condition” has been bandied about as a make-wrong for years, and has ben used as justifications for things as egregious as child molestation (“she pulled it in”) and other crimes. It is a very seductive thought – “we are 100% responsible for what happens. Therefore, whatever happened was my fault and my fault alone.”

            So, when some SO asshole comes along and tries to pull that crap, and tries to lay the destruction of the planet on your shoulders because you forgot to dot an “i” in a session transcript, no one ever seems to put it back on _them_: “No, YOU are responsible for your condition, and the condition of my post, your post, your division, your org, and this sector. YOU have failed. What are YOUR overts? YOUR crimes? Fess up.”

            So, yes, philosophically and ultimately we are each of us responsible for everything, and for our own conditions, at a high level, but practically, it’s the guy who pulls the trigger who needs to pay the price, not the “100% responsible” person who got shot.

            And, ultimately, it is Ron who is responsible for the SO and for the policies that were followed by his followers literally, to the letter, and without judgement. In my opinion, he made a huge mistake setting up that structure. But Ron was flawed. He was not God. Not even close. So I personally cut him some slack. But I still condemn the CMO and SO, and I assign culpability to everyone involved with it, current and former, for running with the Fascist valence without even questioning why.

            • “And, ultimately, it is Ron who is responsible for the SO and for the policies that were followed by his followers literally, to the letter, and without judgement.”

              Yes, he was responsible for the SO – but not “for the policies that were followed literally, to the letter, and WITHOUT JUDGEMENT.” Those who did so were the one’s who pulled that trigger.

              • I don’t agree. The policies should have been monitored and corrected as it was clear that they were being misapplied. Of course, he was doing that – witness PLs like “The Stat Push” and others. But at the end of the day, the “Disconnection” policy was misapplied and should be corrected – Ron (and certainly Mary Sue) I am sure never meant it to be interpreted as it is now. And policies such as the RPF should have been rescinded or dramatically more defined. The Lower Conditions should have been better defined and explained. It is not enough for Ron to say that “man is prone to witch hunts.” In fact, it makes it worse since he KNEW this could happen. Again, I cut him slack – he is not God – but still, he set this thing up to fail without even knowing it. His biggest error was not providing policies that allow parishioner oversight – or any rational way to govern this mess when went off the line.
                Turns out there is more to Power Change than writing up your hat. You have to leave a group that can manage without you – and he did NOT do that. Fail.

                And yes, the perpetrators are also responsible for being cussing stupid literal minded idiots, like pretty much the entirety of “International Management” both current and past.

                • Well, I must say you are refreshingly even-handed in your comments. Thanks for that.

                  “His biggest error was not providing policies that allow parishioner oversight – or any rational way to govern this mess when went off the line.”

                  I believe there were and still are such policies, but they were never “in” – never applied – including KR’s from parishioners and including admin theory policies that give the right to change policy that isn’t contributing to expansion. Of course, any of this would be tempered by intention – as is always the case.

                  Regardomg the other points you mentioned, there seem to be two sides to the stories, and I don’t think you and I going to settle them either. And anyway, at this point they are moot – except for the fact that those who are practicing scientology separate from the CoS could determine for themselves their value.

                  • Being able to write a “Things that shouldn’t be” or Knowledge report is very, very far from oversight. Who do these reports go to? An ultimate arbiter whose word is law – Ron back in the day, or Miscavige now. There is NO mechanism and never has been a mechanism for how to deal with problems in “International Management.” Who elects the so-called “Watchdog Committee?” Who even knows who they are? And who do they report to? The same asshole they are supposed to “watch.”

                    No, the linchpin of applied LRH policy is that all management is run, ultimately, by one great guy, who loves everyone and has infinite wisdom and compassion. Ron, initially (and at least he had the mission of getting Scientology tech applied) and now “COB.” THAT is the inevitability of LRH admin tech. Of course, no one is that great.

                    There is a lot of workability in pockets of LRH admin tech – CSW, the Admin Scale, “Always deliver what you promise,” “Answer people’s questions,” there must be a qual devision, etc. But LRH’s structure is totalitarian and you see the result in the church.

                    • “But LRH’s structure is totalitarian and you see the result in the church.”

                      Again, I’m not disagreeing about how things did in fact unfold. I’m saying that the policies do exist – which, IF applied by the group with the purpose and intention those policies were written to achieve, there might have been a very scene.

                      Yes, LRH had the final word – and DM has it now. But per my understanding,, the way LRH actually wanted the church to be organized wasn’t the way it now is. There were supposed to be checks and balances.

                      And I think the idea of both staff and parishoner oversight was essentially expressed in the Knowledge Reports PL:

                      “To live at all, one has to exert some control over his equals as well as his juniors and (believe it or not) his superiors.

                      “When misconduct and out-ethics is occurring in a group, it is almost impossible for other members of the group not to know of it. At least some of them are aware of the outness.

                      “When a group has down stats, it is not true that all of them are trying to fail. Only a few are dedicated to not doing their jobs.

                      “The question one can ask of any group that is not doing well is this: Why did the other group members tolerate and ignore the loafers or out-ethics cats in it?

                      “In analyzing countless numbers of groups with whom it has been my good fortune—or misfortune—to be associated, I finally isolated ONE factor which made an upstat group upstat and a downstat group downstat and a horror to be around.

                      “The single most notable difference between an upstat, easy-to-live-and-work with group and a downstat, hard-to-live-and-work-with group is that the individual group members themselves enforce the action and mores of the group.

                      “That is the difference—no other.
                      .

                      The above approach was also expressed in terms of a multiple-viewpoint system of management, which would also have taken total responsibility off the shoulders of any one man IF it had actually been in effect – and with the right intention. I always go back to intention as the main element because it can be the overriding factor with just about anything.

                    • “….is that the individual group members themselves enforce the action and mores of the group.”
                      I am paranoid enough to be paranoid about any group that purported to be like that. Doesn’t Corporate Scientology purport to be that kind of group? Didn’t the various Communist Revolutions purport to be all about creating classless societies in which all had it good? I like to dream, but I guess I have a jaundiced view of the real world and the people inhabiting it. Many young people mobilized themselves enough to effect some changes in this society, such as ending the military draft for awhile, getting HUAC scrapped, and perhaps shortening the Vietnam war, but positive changes are very incremental and I don’t see them holding with that famous “eternal vigilance”. I think ike it is in Corporate Scientology, those institutions creep back in under other names. If CorpSci uses front groups, it is a lesson learned from the larger society.
                      Welcome again to my darkness.

                    • The reason policy haven’t worked “Marildi’s way” is because they weren’t thought out properly by the source. Blaming others for it is a cop out.

                      A source is a source is a source. A source cannot eat its cake and then blame others for being sloppy.

              • I must say I do think LRon did want his S.O. policies to be followed to the letter. The whole point of being a commander of a ship is that you have the power of life and death over everyone else on the ship.
                I also think he had other strata of policies for other levels of Scientology, as in his expectations for Field Auditors were different from his expectations for Mission staff and again, for Orgs. It was a kind of gradient scale of expectations. However he did not stick to this early view, and in the end the ‘head'(Sea Org) of the snake has eaten first the tail, and now almost the entire body of the organism. Death can’t be far behind.

                • I was differentiating between “followed to the letter” and what I quoted from Grasshopper’s post: “followed LITERALLY, to the letter, and WITHOUT JUDGEMENT.”

                  • In his personal sphere of influence, I suspect LRon was walking a very fine line and would usually prefer unquestioning obedience over one using one’s own judgement. That is true in most groups and corporations as I see them. “it’s our way or the highway”, as folks around here say.

                    • “I suspect LRon was walking a very fine line and would usually prefer unquestioning obedience over one using one’s own judgement.”

                      When you say “usually,” I tend to think otherwise, because of what I’ve studied of policy and from my personal experience as a staff member – at least some of the time! Here’s something I know you’re gonna love:

                      “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That was all he ever lacked. SO, GIVEN THAT, SHEER POLICY IS POOR STUFF AS IT SEEKS TO MAKE A DATUM STAND WHERE A BEING SHOULD BE.” HCO PL 23 Oct 63 (my emphasis in caps)

                    • Ron lays out the issue, as Marilidi’s reference shows – but did not follow up with a structure to support it. The Admin Scale is a classic expression of the hierarchy of corporate or group guidelines. “Purpose is Senior to Policy” is a very real concept – but that doesn’t matter to literalist SO-types.

                      I have been involved in Management Consulting (in real companies, not idiocies like “Sterling Management” and other LRH-ish based “consulting companies”) and consistently one of the biggest issues companies are faced with is “alignment”. Since my major is IT, it is usually getting IT in alignment with corporate strategy. In the corporate world, there is only one real goal, and that is to make money for the shareholders. But there are lots of strategies and IT and all departments need to align with corporate strategy.

                      In the corporate world, “Strategy” is at the PLAN level of the Admin Scale, and programs and projects descend below that. It is all the rage now for IT organizations to have “Program Offices” to run the corporate programs, and in the last fifteen years, “Project Management” has become a certifiable profession (“PMP” certification).

                      Many companies are a mess because they are not aligned. Different teams in different parts of the company are following their own agendas, which can and will directly counter the corporate strategy. Comp plans incentivize bad (or at least contrary) behaviors. So, you end up with Yahoo – or Enron.

                      My point is that Ron introduced the Admin Scale in 1970, in the HCOPL “Third Dynamic De-Aberration.” It is an excellent policy letter, and has valuable info good for all groups, not just Scn groups, and it is where Ron writes “Purpose is senior to Policy.” You can look down the litany of changes that DM put into Scn over the years, and see exactly how they directly counter the stated Goals and Purposes of Scientology – and here it is in Green and White how to deal with it – and FAT LOT OF GOOD IT DOES YOU.

                      Ron has said time and time again that if people need orders to do their job, they are not doing their job. So, it is established that Ron did not want automatons on staff, that he wanted thinking people on staff.

                      However, while he outlined the need for this, and his desire for intelligent people to understand the goals of Scientology, and the policies of Scientology, and the need to rationally execute to achieve the goals and purposes of Scientology, he also put in place “heavy ethics” and made it incredibly difficult to actually apply these policies. You cross the wrong person, and you’re sent to the RPF if you’re in the SO, or assigned some insane lower condition if you’re not. It takes an incredible amount of confidence and willpower to stand up to these monkeys.

                      Ron also put in the idea of “if it’s not written, it’s not true.” And put in an atmosphere of fear that prevented interpretation of policy. “What does your materials state?” I would answer that the materials state that you can interpret policy – but of course that fell on deaf ears.

                      I personally got into some kind of severe “ethics” trouble at least once per year when I was actively on lines, staff or no. I was almost “beached” from Flag when I was 16 (I would have been RPFed had I been SO). I was blamed, personally, for “sabotaging” the LRH archive restorations project. I was nailed for taking time off for a previously agreed-upon trip that I negotiated before starting my Briefing Course – naturally, I was considered a dilettante for asking for a brief LOA while on course. I was actually labeled a “borderline SP” by some student idiot MAA intern. All the time, you are under the threat of exclusion – the SO had the power to just kick your ass out and with no questions asked.

                      Ron described a wonderful world of intelligent people rationally applying rational policies all aligned for the common good – the good for all mankind, not just for Scientology, AND he actually established Hell on Earth in the form of the Sea Org. The Sea Org that was supposed to be the embodiment of his admin brilliance, but ended up being the embodiment of his tactical and execution failure.

                    • Thanks for the thoughtful post Grasshopper.

                      With all due respect to Marty, Mike Rinder, and many many other top-notch dedicated and skilled Sea Org members of good will, this does seem to describe it pretty well: “Ron described a wonderful world of intelligent people rationally applying rational policies all aligned for the common good – the good for all mankind, not just for Scientology, AND he actually established Hell on Earth in the form of the Sea Org.”
                      I heard that early on there were some good helpful S. O. missions sent out. Also early on, that apparently were turkeys. I can only conclude that the nature of each individual will out, training or not. A person either gets it or not. One is either a good therapist, or not. That is pretty much the consensus in the psychological therapy game. Good therapists are born, not made. And in fact that kind of view could be expressed thus: “Scientology can make the able more able. If you were a dictator to start with, it could make you a more able dictator.” Presumably, if you were a sadist, it could make you a better sadist. Etc. Does it change the basic basic nature of any particular individual? Remains to be seen.

                    • “A cleared cannibal is a cleared cannibal.”

                      And that’s where training comes in – which is sooo undervalued and hardly ever even discussed in all these years and countless discussions.. When a person has finally come around to being cause over his irrationalities, he still needs to understand how things work in life and what will actually bring about his basic purposes. That’s how I see it based on my own observations.😉

    • +++ ! Mark, I couldn’t agree more. I perceive the Sea Org as promoting that the “end justifies the means”, and promoting it to all. It is the opposite of what I perceived the basic teachings of Scientology to be.

      • Yes indeed, and I remember all along this period of the late 70s, early to mid-80s that the SO and the people in it had a hell of a lot of power – things like telling you you shouldn’t wear perfumes (!!!) and restricting speech “for the greatest good” and all that. And of course, if you were public and dared criticized an SO member, well that was the worst thing you could do. I once got jumped on by calling some asshole out on his “SO-Nazi valence” and got jumped on by my (SO) course sup.

        At the end of the day, the story of Scientology could be a lesson in what happens when you give children absolute power and no morals, and let them run things. I supposed we could have just read “Lord of the Flies” and had done with it.

        • Indeed. I was fortunate enough to have never been in a course room with S.O. I do recall one of the brothers Hare trying to recruit me and my wife into the S.O., and he described his viewpoint: “LIfe is that little bit of piss down there.” I guess it takes all kinds…..

  43. Catherine Bell lies for Scientology

  44. Marty…
    And all the rest of those identifying Scientologist are all the same.

    I´m a Scientologist.
    I can be trusted.
    I´m not trained to lie. I do not lie.
    i´m an Auditor and very proud of it.
    I´m not perfect nor a role model.
    Not everything writted by LRH is practical, true or sane. I don´t follow something just “because LRH says so”.
    I don´t think LRH was perfect, saint or an enlightened being. But he did a few good things inside all his mess.
    I have helped people using fundaments of Scientology in the past, I still do now and I will carry on doing it in the future.
    I strongly dissagre with Church of Scientology and LRH about OT levels and “powers”, Sea Org actions, Staff conditions, pay and exchange; donations, IAS and money handling.
    I personally know some scientologists that are good people. That have not lied to me nor even one time in their whole life and actually CAN be trusted.
    Carry on with your viased opinions. It´s a free blog and the owner free to speech his views. An opinion is not a truth. A opinion is not a fact.
    So the next time all of you came with all this BS of “all Scientologist are the scum of the earth” type of thinking just remember to take me out of your generalization.
    I´m sorry if for some of you the Church of Scientology is currently making your life miserable. I really do. That´s not the fault of some 2 or 3% of people using scientology for bettering conditions that are actually not liars and trusted.
    I hope this stays cristal clear.
    Sorry if this offends someone. Is not my intention. I love you all and I want your well-being. But I have a voice. And is a very different one.

  45. Great post Mark! I remember lying for Scientology but convincing myself that it was real or an alternative reality and therefore ok, somehow. Yes, I was mad. But I’m ok now😉

  46. Marty, much as I like the important and central topic of “lying”, I’m sorry, but some of your OP appears to be based on a majorly “STRAW MAN” argument. I am referring to this:
    “For starters, scientologists are taught from the get-go that whatever is true for the individual is true.”

    Who is teaching this datum, and where are the references that justify it? It is certainly not what LRon says in his little essay “Personal Integrity”. Not even close. To me, he appears to be saying quite the opposite. He appears to be saying that “what is true for you is what you have observed for yourself, not what you have imagined or opined, or postulated, or decided to believe. It is WHAT YOU HAVE OBSERVED FOR YOURSELF. So if something else is being “taught”, or was being “taught” , I would like to know what the references are, since it was not what I learned by observing LRon’s written or spoken materials. Of course I have not by any means observed all of his volumnious materials, but i have not seen or heard what you say, and what a number of others commenting here have jumped on, picked up, and run with. So if not you, then someone, anyone please SHOW ME? 🙂

    • If you don’t see this by now, I would be wasting my time trying to convince you. I am done playing that absurd ‘find the Ron quote game.’ Been there and done it for far too long. For every one that stands for one proposition another can be found that stands for a contrary one. But, I do have a quote memorized that you, Marildi and Dio are doing a fine job of demonstrating: “CODE OF HONOR” – “6. Never compromise with your own reality.”

      • That’s fine Marty, I don’t expect you to spend your time looking up references for me. Marildi can do that quite adequately. However, I would point out that your response to my simple request for information appears to be in itself a bit “straw man” to me. I have in fact not heard or seen LRon say or write that in any of the materials I have personally perused.
        This leads me to tentatively conclude that you and others absorbed that (to me, false, datum) through your experiences in the Scientology organizations, as part of the culture, perhaps particularly, the culture of the
        Sea Org.
        Since I was never on staff in any organization, much less the Sea Org, nor did I participate in the culture of Scientology to any great extent, I was not subjected to that “teaching”, but I have no doubt at all that you, Alonzo, and others have experienced that as a fundamental teaching “Scientology”. I personally think that “It’s true if it’s true for you”. and other such “truisms” are delusions that misrepresent what LRon said, as in that essay. I have no doubt that “Scientologists” steeped in the organizational culture do believe that, and are in some way “taught” that. More’s the pity.
        If it’s a stable datum to you that LRon actually said that and meant it the way you think he meant it, OK. I have no great desire to shake your stable data. I think I have been fortunate in having had the opportunity to examine the materials I have thus far, without the dubious benefit of having others tell me what to make of them. In this case, I posted because we appeared to be discussing issues of “fact”. I guess not, so mea culpa!
        That particular datum seems to me to be one of those pernicious items that “Everybody knows…..” I’m glad I don’t know it! 🙂
        Otherwise, this is one of my favorite posts of yours, as I think it pinpoints and addresses one of the most important issues associated with Scientology and how people act around it. It is obvious that at this time, to paraphrase and old saw about Communists, it appears “You can trust a Scientologist to be a Scientologist.” Keeping in mind that is also a generalization.

        • That one just blew right by you? “Never compromise with your own reality” (emphasis supplied)

          • Here’s one that apparently blew right by you, Marty: “Providing one sees eye-to-eye with the Code of Honor”. Because an ethical code can’t be enforced, it’s use can only be on a self-determined basis, or else it degrades down to the level of a moral code. One can’t, actually, be ethical if one does not observe for oneself and think for oneself.
            I recommend Jacob Needleman’s “Why Can’t We Be Good?’, which is all about Conscience and is a thoughtful exposition of the kind of real ethical dilemmas that can arise in the course of living.

            • Ok, if you are discounting the Code of Honor, it truly is useless attempting to discuss scientology with you. And no, Miraldi will not continue to post tomes of Hubbard high-sound bloviations that are pure dicta compared to the centrality of the Code of Honor to your faith.

              • Indeed. My “faith”? I opined that LRon never said what you and some others say he said, and now you’re talking about my “faith”? I think maybe you and those others have been the victims of some ‘verbal data’! 🙂

                In fact, the Code of Honor is one of my favorite pieces of LRH thought. It is based on and revolves around the ARC triangle and the Dynamics, both of which are useful concepts to me. Nice to contemplate.

                • I quoted it and you’ve continued to go hard at demonstrating its applicability to you.

                • Valkov, you have a system of thinking that you are identifying with LRH. Actually it is not LRH, It is your system of thinking.

                  Your system of thinking may have been brought about by LRH, but then he also brought about a different system of thinking in OSA. And these systems of thinking are in confict.

                  • Yes, it is ‘my’ system of thinking, as put together from various sources, and filtered through my personality and my life experiences. Whatever in the world makes you think I ‘identify’ it with LRH? That is dub-in on your part. Your insistence on this is puzzling. It is as though you NEED to see me that way, whether I really am that way or not.

                    • It is because you keep bringing LRH into the discussion, instead of simply discussing the system of thinking.

                    • I’m sorry Vin, but, Oh Brother! I just get done saying it is my system, but assembled from various sources, among which are the ideas of LRon and scientology. I have actually often posted others, other thinkers, philosophers, psychologists, scientists, etc. You have never objected to any of them, but focus on my every mention of LRH. I am starting to think you are fixated on him!
                      I guess we need to flatten that button, eh? 🙂

                    • My stance is that one should simply discuss the ideas, without bringing in source as authority.

              • And, I don’t discount the Code of Honor at all! THAT is a real Straw Man! I validate and honor the Code of Honor by refusing to degrade it into an enforceable “law” or “rule” one MUST follow, like some kind of sheep.

                • You are also demonstrating the appropriateness of my having used the term ‘self-hypnosis.’ An element of conversational hypnosis is inviting the subject to have a choice in the matter. That fixes the datum plenty. Then you observe the comedy of the subject demonstrating the datum he has adopted while arguing he never accepted it.

                  • I don’t think I ‘adopted’ the Code, I think it is ‘inborn’, perhaps genetic in some sense. I think it is an ideological fallacy to think one is some kind of blank slate and that one can write whatever one wishes upon oneself. Isn’t that the exact delusion that some Scientologists have fallen into, with all their beliefs that they are achieving OT and all that, inspite of all l the evidence to the contrary?

              • Marty, I never thought of the Code of Honor as being “central” to Scientology. Why do you consider that to be the case?

                • On second thought, since the Code of Honor concerns personal integrity, in that sense I can see it as being central to Scientology.

                  But in that case, since you seem to be in disagreement with some of the points on the Code, I would assume you disagree that it actually does concern personal integrity. Do I have that right?

                  • I’ll let you think about it until you can make up your mind one way or the other.

                    • I wrote that I had second thoughts and you seem to be discrediting that, even though you yourself have admittedly had many second thoughts, so to speak, in considering the subject of scientology.

                      And this relates to the meaning of “what is true for you.” Each time you had second thoughts, your now “current thoughts” could have been accurately expressed as “what is true for you NOW.” That’s the simplicity of what LRH meant by “what is true for you,” and I base that on his own explanation of the meaning, not what others later interpreted it to mean.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Pass on the Hubbard command to ‘never defend. Always attack’ test.

                    • This also ties in with the Code of Honor point of “Never compromise with your reality.” LRH explained what was meant by that too: “accepting other realities than your own against your own assessments.”

                      Isn’t that what you yourself do and try to get others to do?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Your first quote a misquote. Where did the second quote come from?

                    • Right, I inadvertently left out the word “own” – “…your own reality.”

                      The second quote was from the lecture “The Code of Honor” 18 Feb 52. Here’s a link for the transcript: http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes&Lect/Tapes%20different%20format,%20doubled/Lectures%20Transcripts%20txt%20unsortiert/520218_B.txt

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I am glad you posted that. I invite anyone who has been following this thread to read it in full. I counted twelve outright falsehoods he laid in with utter authority, another invented datum, and several ‘are you kidding mes?’ noted as well. You do not own your mind. But, it is your First Amendment right so forfeit it.

                    • Would you give an example of one of the outpoints you found?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      No. You are capable of finding them yourself if you try. The exercise will serve you well.

                    • Thank you, Marty. I took that as a vote of confidence.🙂

                    • MARILDI: “This [‘never defend. Always attack’ ] also ties in with the Code of Honor point of “Never compromise with your reality.” LRH explained what was meant by that too: “accepting other realities than your own against your own assessments.””

                      .

                      The other person’s assessment can be influenced by his filters. Your own assessment can be influenced by your filters. Where is the truth?

                      Is there any value to this Code of Honor? All it teaches one is to be contentious instead of working hard to find the truth.

          • Marty – It’s interesting to me that you take the wrong interpretation of things – which I agree are interpretations made by many others besides yourself – and then present that interpretation as THE WAY it is supposed to be interpreted.

            Sure, you can use this dictum to be a bull-headed stubborn asshole. “It is contrary to what I believe, so I must NOT accept it.”

            But come on. The intent of this is in the word “compromise.” If you know it is illegal and immoral to accept bribes as a public official, and someone comes to you and says “well, in this country, it is fine to accept bribes. They expect you to,” well it is a compromise of your principles and your reality to accept the bribe.

            Or if someone comes to you with a “get rich quick” scheme that promises 20% returns per month, and your reality is that this is impossible using ethical means, and you see no evidence showing that what the con man is pushing is actually an ethical way to produce these returns, then to just go along is to compromise your reality. I would argue that you should never do that.

            Or in my case. My “reality” of the Death Penalty changed over the years. I now believe the death penalty is wrong at all times, for a number of reasons which I believe are valid. If someone came to me to say – “well, THIS guy did things so horrific to that family that HE DESERVES the penalty, DO YOU AGREE?” For me to agree with him would be a compromise of my reality, given that I am against the death penalty. If I was running as a Republican for office as mayor or something, and some reporter or supporter asked me that question, knowing the death penalty is part of the Republican platform, and if I answered “yes, I support the detach penalty for this case,” I would be dishonorable, because I am lying to the reporter/supporter.

            Years ago, I would have agreed with the reporter/supporter. My reality was different then. I would be honorable, because in my heart at that time I believed we should allow the state to kill people legally. Same question, both answers honorable because of circumstance and belief. I would have been sincere both times. “Your reality” can change over time – as you yourself have demonstrated.

            Now you claim to be a rational thinker. Do you not agree that my interpretation of this line in the Code of Honor is a rational interpretation?

            Mark

            • Thanks. I suggest you read the lecture transcript where he introduces the code. You are welcome to come whatever conclusions you see fit.

              • Marty, I’ve been going ahead and plowing through that transcript. I may need to keep at it a bit longer. I tried to find an audio of it, I think there is a site that has all the audios on it but I don’t have the url, maybe someone could provide that?
                That said, your remarks started quite a bit of looking on my part. On a second look, that essay introducing the Code of Honor looked better to me than at first glance and I liked it better.
                Why?
                First, his distinction between “ethics” and “morals” had instablt made sense to me, when I first read it years ago. Having grown up exposed to 3 different cultures, the Russian, the Japanese, and the American, I was acutely aware of ‘cultural relativism’ and of course ‘moral relativism’, from culture to culture. I grew up with little or no guidance from the people who took care of me on these matters, so it was up to me to find my own way. Thus the distinction seems a key one, between the 2 words. This was part of my interest in philosophy, including ethical philosophy.
                I think Hubbard does a good job introducing the distinction and getting across the concepts involved.
                Then , I think there is truth to the concept that living creatures are in some way ‘wired’ to behave in certain ways. This is the idea of ‘native’ or ‘inborn’, not acquired. That he conceptualized this a a ‘code’ is irrelevant; today scientifically minded people speak of the ‘genetic code’, etc.
                Anyway, this led me to start thinking about how I listen to LRH lectures. It may be different than the way others listen to them. I see his lectures as attempts to convey significances, conceptual meanings rather than ‘facts’. He uses made-up anecdotes a lot; sometimes he appears to use actual experiences of his own. In general, I listen for the sense of what he is lecturing about, not for specific ‘facts’. How would I know whether or not the actual proportion of ‘witch doctors’ in a population was 1:50? How would he know either? Or what the proportion pf psychiatrists to population was at that time? (Although some statistics were probably available by the 1950s. They could be put together from med school graduation rates, for example.)
                That’s not the point anyway, whether the stats are pinpoint. They may be guesstimates at best; or even totally made up. Anyone with a shred of reason ought to be able to see that. How could he know? So I always skipped over those kind of “outpoints”; I felt they were not to be taken literally. I was listening for the main central ideas (concepts) he was trying to get across. And I think he often did a pretty good job of that, being a storyteller/raconteur at heart.
                It would be fun and actually educational and enlightening to discuss conversationally what you and others see as “outpoints” in that lecture and other lectures, and compare notes and the different ‘takes’ that emerge. That would, to me, be good use of a multiple viewpoint system.
                That’s as far as I’ve gotten on that ‘assignment’. I’ll have to get back to it some more.
                Anyway, thanks for responding to my posts, you have provoked a lot of thought and review over here. All to the good! The ‘control’ buzzword is major I believe, to myself and others too.

        • Valkov, something doesn’t make sense to me here. There have been many hidden data lines besides what is written in Tech or Policy. There are LRH notes on which Miscavige is supposed to be operating.

          Scientology culture is what it is. A large part it has come about by the enforcement of LRH will through the Sea Org. Why don’t you look at that culture directly instead of going through the via of only the visible LRH writings.

          Forget about defending LRH. Mayhe you and Marildi are just defending your faith in LRH writings above anything else. The truth is that there is much wider knowledge out there than LRH writings. Compare LRH writings to that knowledge. You will find a lot of inconsistencies in LRH writings. Please develop faith in wider knowledge.

          • Because “if it isn’t written, it isn’t true.” I have in fact looked at just about everything that has been brought to light, the Youtube videos, the interviews, the ESMB posts and threads detailing personal experiences, the books like Blown for Good, etc etc as my time allows.
            What makes you think I don’t, or haven’t? I point out one-sidedness wherever I find it, I point out Straw Man arguments and conclusions wherever I find them. It is odd that you see me as ‘defending’ LRon. That implies you see him as being ‘attacked’. If he is being attacked, then that implies partisanship and a lack of objectivity on someone’s part.

            • Valkov, I do admire your faith.

            • Here is the outpoint about “if it isn’t written, it isn’t true.”

              (1) Just because bullshit is written, it doesn’t become true.
              (2) There are truths that are not written down.

              Both of these outpoint apply to LRH materials and to the culture he created.

              • IN this case, VIn, what the quote means is that IF it isn’t written down, then “I (LRH) did not say it”. That is how I understand the statement. You may understand it differently, but I do not agree with what your interpretation seems to be. I believe he was referring to ‘verbal tech’, or ‘verbal scripture’. People were prone to saying “LRH told ME that……etc etc.” Another would say, “Well he told ME something different….” and off we go. Therefore I take “If it isn’t written….” to mean that if you can’t find it in writing, then assume it is a questionable datum. That is it’s obvious meaning to me. You are of course free to make up whatever meaning or interpretation suits your fancy; that seems to be what humans are best at.

              • I am no supporter of LRH but this is a terribly literal understanding of the expression. Read Valkov’s answer below for a rational and lucid (read:not literal ) understanding of it.

          • Forgot the main point – SHOW ME the ‘hidden data lines, the “LRH notes” Miscavige is operating on, supposedly. In order to align everything and resolve many of the inconsistencies of Scientology, it’s possible that all that needs to be done is to follow “If it’s not written, it’s not true.”
            I had a guy try that “I have it on good authority” line on me once. What a doofus. I felt sorry for him, he was so obviously just trying to get some attention and admiration he was lacking. I knew then ‘belonging’ to that organization was not for me, much as I might want to do some of the bridge, by which I mean some of the lower Grades.

            • I think you are making the mistake of “because you have not seen it, it has not been written”. Yet Marty posted OSA network orders that are not public issue. Would you have claimed they were not written and therefore not true?

              • An issue there might be, Do those network orders contradict the basic Tech teachings? If they appear to, then that needs to be looked at. You are correct in that I may not have seen ‘everything’; however that is irrelevant. No-one ever “sees everything”. One bases ones decisions, actions and opinions on the data one does have. Otherwise one would forever put off opining and acting for fear of making a mistake, perhaps.
                so it is not a ‘mistake’ as such. One cannot expect to “know before he knows”.

                • I did not say you have not seen everything. I said, “I think you are making the mistake of “because you have not seen it, it has not been written”.

                  A hidden data line as seen from a lower level org is any former GO now turned OSA network order. Another hidden data line as seen (or rather hidden) from the public is how much money goes uplines to int management (generally more than in the FP PL). They wonder why their org is still struggling after 40 years, and lose heart.

                  Out here, we can see more information than those in the church. But you do not have access to the Int base, RTC or OSA Int offices and seem to be claiming on the blog of the former Inspector General that everything LRH wrote is publicly and easily accessible. It is not.

                  In scientology, basing your decisions on data you do not have is an everyday occurrence. People decide to go up the bridge without an inkling of what they will be doing. Cl V management tries to run the local show without an inkling of mgmt’s real intentions. Kids get recruited to the SO without the faintest idea of what awaits them.

                  • No. What I am saying is that only those parts of LRH’s speech/writing that are easily publicly accessible may be worth learning and knowing. The ‘orders’ that the GO, OSA etc followed are basically of academic interest only, as part of specific events in scientology’s history. They are old garbage that ought to be discarded from actual practice, like believing the world is flat, or that Nagasaki still needs to be atom-bombed. I personally don’t believe it ever really needed to be atom-bombed, but someone thought so at the time and gave the orders. What the Church is doing now is analogous to thinking that Nagasaki still needs to be bombed, and repeatedly, compulsively, doing so.

                    Show me please, how it is a bad thing for say, two or three people to use the Self-analysis lists with each other, outside of the Church? Forget doing all the other garbage the Churchies do.

                    In other words, I can and do, comment on the aspects of “scientology” I have seen and experienced. And now, on what I have learned through the multiple viewpoint systems the Internet has made possible. I saw enough to keep me out of the organization, back in the 1970s and 1980s, but I retained my interest in the basic subject as it was publicly issued, the books and lectures basically. The rest is for you folks who were more deeply into it to hash out. Given me and my family’s personal history, I wouldn’t touch any such group as the Church of Scientology with a ten-foot pole.
                    Does that clarify anything for you, about me?

                  • valkov, it clarifies what you are saying. To me, you sound like an independent with the notion of “real scientology”, as if you were somehow the arbiter and not Hubbard, and as if you had the tools to devise a new scientology “without all the bad stuff”.

                    You suddenly branch off into SA lists. Shall I ask how the Autobahn could be such a bad thing? After all, they are still in use today. I do not see how SA lists make the rest of scientology harmless. Nor do I see how a person open to Hubbard’s broad statements about life and history (see the Code of Honor transcript marildi linked for a good example) would be critical of his later broad statements on management. I am curious: how do you propose to separate one from the other and draw a line that will not be crossed?

                    • Good argument! This is a good characterization of Valkov’s stance.

                    • I mentioned the SA lists because of Marty’s conclusion that he would not recommend Scientology to new people. Now, I have not done much Scientology; my contact was mostly with Field Scientologists in the 1970s. It was a different scene then, with the Sea Org just starting to throw its weight around. Gradually, people in the field started seeing the handwriting on the wall and started leaving. Some tried to hang in there for while.
                      Anyway, I see nothing wrong with recommending folks to pick up DMSMH and the SA book and listening to some lectures.
                      I see everything wrong with sending them in to “Corporate Scientology”. That’s the rub. But from what I hear, many independent auditors are finding a good response from public, and getting new pcs, just by making the distinction.

                      I find LRon’s lectures entertaining, but also perceptive and enlightening. He is so corny and kinda ‘fake folksy’ and so full of blarney. His lectures are really not much different from his fiction. Even in that lecture about the Code, so full of bullshit as it is, there are embedded what I see as valid, or at least, thought-provoking ideas. Same with his fiction.
                      In any case, each person has to hear and judge for himself. To me, that is what “scientology” fundamentally means – you read and hear and attempt a drill or whatever, and decide for yourself. If it’s not true for you, well , it’s not true for you. I don’t see how it can be done any other way. It is a set of ideas to me, for my perusal, evaluation, and use. That’s all. Back in the 1970s, among the people I knew, one did not call himself a “Scientologist” unless one was a practiced, effective auditor.
                      Since I am not trained I don’t have a ‘program’ except to point out what has worked for me, and recommend what I think is salutary.
                      Other than that, it’s not my job to babysit people to enlightenment. That doesn’t work anyway, although those who care, like Marty and the people working independently in the field today, give a tremendous amount of themselves, their attention, their time, their effort, in a word, their ARC, towards helping others in real ways. As do the people posting and commenting here. These are people who have assimilated something of scientology, integrated something of it, it is a part of their beingness now whether they call themselves scientologists or not, and whether they even consciously use any of it. Once one has learned to walk, one doesn’t need to think about it most of the time. So that’s my philosophy of it, and it doesn’t include Corporate Scientology which I see as one offshoot, one possible development of the basic philosophy. Almost all the people I met back then are long gone. A very few are still “in” and I must say I feel like praying for them. And sometimes do, in an informal kind of way.

                    • Valkov: “Even in that lecture about the Code, so full of bullshit as it is, there are embedded what I see as valid, or at least, thought-provoking ideas. Same with his fiction.”

                      FULL of bullshit, Val? There were some things LRH described that weren’t real to me (that is to say, I haven’t observed them) but for all I know they may have been real in the context of early 50’s culture. And why throw in the bit about his fiction? I mean, it’s fiction!

                      It’s so easy to flippantly dis LRH (or anybody) without putting things in perspective and evaluating their relative importance. At least you did some of that.

                      The study principle I think applies is “evaluation of information.” There’s a BC tape by that title which is also on the Student Hat course.

                      Mind you, there’s nothing wrong with having an opinion and you, and all of us, have that right. Trouble is, people read others’ offhand opinions and never think to evaluate them as such.

                      Anyway, JMO. 🙂

                    • The problem may be in the definition of “bullshit” and Bullshitter”. I mean by it, “raconteur”. Good “bullshitters” are hard to find! LRon was good! He could tell anecdote after anecdote off the top of his head, hardly missing a beat, and his anecdotes all helped to serve getting across his main point.
                      The bullshit part comes in, in my mind, in that many of his anecdotes were made up on the spot. Standing under a jub-jub tree? Fiction. They never happened. I think this was intentional. They are close enough to reality to get his sense across, without restimulating most people.
                      His fiction, stories and novels, each and every one contain a solid idea fleshed out and clothed in anecdotal fashion, as a story. He could and did take philosophical ideas like an Axiom, and make a pulp fiction story that illustrated it.
                      So there it is. Bullshitter in this case is an admiring label. I wish I could tell stories that well. A raconteur, a good one.
                      Barnum and Bailey had nothing on him. In fact, those kind of people are the ones we can all learn the most from. They often understand humanity better than college professors. Their chosen ways of survival depend on it! Elevate it a lot, and You have Cirque du Soleil. It’s not an easy path and requires a lot of ability and mindfulness, to use Vin’s favorite buzzword. And a knowledge of the mind.

                    • And Hubbard missed out on the precise application of the scientific method. And that is what has come back to bite him. The shoes he chose were a bit too big for him.

                      >

                    • I guess I don’t know what you mean by that, about the scientific method. I think if everyone waited for the scientific method to be applied, there would never have been any therapy of any kind done to this day. If we waited for it to be applied to Management studies, no one would be managing anything. Perhaps we would be still living in caves. Most technological developments have no come about because of the ‘scientific method’ as I understand it. Advances in science come more from intuitive insights than anything else. These may have some relationship to a “method”, but that relationship has not been defined to my knowledge. Einstein, right or wrong, advanced science by his insights. Ditto Tesla. Ditto Boehm. Ditto Buddha, for all I know. Advances of science and technology are largely serendipitous, is my understanding.
                      Here’s what I’m talking about, a history of Western science by Arthur Koestler:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers

                    • Please look up Scientific Method in Wikipedia if you wish to have this discussion.

                    • Ahhh, I got it now – very well expressed. I had the wrong concept of “bullshitter.”

                    • Another damn good post! And that last line was your zinger, as Al would say.🙂

                    • “Trouble is, people read others’ offhand opinions and never think to evaluate them as such.” That really is not my problem! Nor yours really. It is in fact the reason why we’re all here on this blog, isn’t it? It is the reason the CoS is what it is today, isn’t it? People didn’t read LRon’s offhand opinions and evaluate them as such? Or distinguish between the philosophical materials and the “Orders of the Day” from which are generated the embodiments we call “the Church”?? I mean, sometimes it really feels like “Beam me up, Scotty…..”
                      I said something about “herd instinct” recently, but really what is often in play is not herd instinct, it is “pack instinct”. There’s the “alpha” leader and the rest act like components of the Borg. The chimps in the study demonstrate it, just as humans do. There are slavish followers, there is a pack instinct. They are not “made” that way by an ideology. They might be a Communist, a Democrat, a Scientologist, a Republican, a beer swilling football watching Walmart consuming Union steward or Yuppy who shops at Ikea. Marketers of every stripe do take advantage of these “native” traits, but the traits and tendencies are native, inborn.
                      Welcome to my darkness.

                    • (Double damn! The reply I just posted above should have been here, so I’ll repost it here in the right place.)

                      Another damn good post! And that last line was your zinger, as Al would say.🙂

                      i

                    • The only thing fruitful I have derived from SA Lists is the following exercise.

                      http://vinaire.me/2014/08/14/recalling-memory/
                      .

            • Took me maybe 2 minutes to find it..

              In HCO PL 16 April 1965, Issue I KSW Series 22, The “Hidden Data Line”, LRH states:

              Some students have believed there was a “hidden data line” of tech in Scientology, a line on which Scientology tech was given out by me but not made known to students. … There is no such line. The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and tapes I do and release. I don’t tell people anything in some private way, not even Instructors. ‘…If it isn’t written, it isn’t true…’ Somebody says ‘Ron said to — ‘ and on a veteran staff you hear the rejoinder ‘Let’s see it…’ So we have learned the hard way — ‘If it isn’t written, it wasn’t said.’

              – See more at: http://www.iscientology.org/resources/lrh-references/why-some-people-can-t-see-truth#sthash.lY6r6rVa.dpuf

              • I notice this is in reference to “students”, courses, and the Training scene for training auditors and perhaps Admins. It refers to the transmission and inculcation of “tech”. It does not refer to ongoing “orders” or dispatches sent in the day-to-day operations of the organizations, which were not “public issue”, any more than government or corporate communications are “public issue”. Getting a look at those kind of communications can be harder than pulling teeth, requiring laws such as FOIA, Court orders and subpoenas, etc. Just take a look at Monique’s and other ongoing court cases as reported by Tony Ortega.

                • Sigh.. A simple ” Thank You..” Would have sufficed. I just want to add Val..

                  Life is too serious to take so seriously.

                  You asked. I found a site where Hubbard’s quote was posted that you asked for and gave you a link.

                  • Upon further reflection, I see that what is going on with me is that I am living from one “senior moment” to the next. Thus I am always in a hurry to post my thoughts before they disappear and I have forgotten them, and I am skipping the manners and niceties of social communication. This, coupled with my already abrupt nature, you see the result. Sorry. I’m glad you mentioned it. I may start using a Notepad type app for writing my posts out before I forget my thoughts, then add the manners and copy/paste the posts in when they are ready. Gotta see what this Chromebook has available in that type of app.

                • I do Thank You and I am very sorry I neglected to do that right up front. The truth is I was raised in a barn and my manners, lack of, does show it. I am aware of this but my abruptness is so ingrained I have trouble curbing it still. Also, in my horoscope some of my planets are misaligned in such a way that….. Well, you get the idea I hope. 🙂

                  Yes life IS serious, at least my life has been too much so at times. I am kind of an academic nit-picking kind of person who was raised to always try to be compulsively precise in my my thinking and I do believe that is not a bad thing, up to a point.
                  I think we are trying to sort out some of the differences between various types of the available scientology ‘materials’, that’s why I noted what I did.
                  Thank You again for posting that quote. Do you get that I am desperately trying to be liked, here? And don’t really mean to be offensive and rude?

                  • Apology accepted. I get that you didn’t really mean to be offensive and rude. Maybe my bar of expectations were set too high. I can be abrupt at times. But I will break you guys in slowly.

            • Valkov, your assumption seems to be that LRH is knowledge and knowledge is LRH. This assumption is highlighted by your belief in “if it isn’t written, it isn’t true.”

              This is A = A = A on your part.

              • Vin, your post makes absolutely no sense to me. I believe you are dubbing in because you failed to understand what I wrote. This may be entirely or partly my fault.

                What does “If it isn’t written….etc” mean? To me it means that LRon is saying that if I don’t find it in the writings (or recorded lectures), I am to treat it as non-existent, or at best “apocryphal”, in other words, as having no importance, not to be considered, as having no weight. It is ‘verbal data”, unverified data, possibly false data, etc. Are you following me so far?
                Anyone can make up and post “quotes” or paraphrases that claim to have veracity, but might actually be completely fake. Example:
                Some Christians claim to be opposed to homosexuality because “Jesus said it was bad”, or “the Bible is against it”, or whatever. In fact, Jesus said little or nothing about homosexuality. Those are “fake quotes”, made up to justify some attitude. They are things “everybody knows”, as in “everybody knows homosexuality is wrong according to Jesus”. Yet it is pure fabrication, pure lie.
                Another example: There are many “Buddha quotes” posted on Facebook. Many of these sound good are inspiring etc. Now however, there is a website called “FakeBuddhaQuotes.com”. It turns out that there is no record in the available translations, of Buddha ever having said some of these things.
                That is why I think it is important to verify so-called “scriptures”. “If it isn’t written…etc” is just plain common sense in many aspects of life. I could fabricate a story that Vinaire believes that once a year Christian babies ought to be sacrificed for the greater glory of Hinduism and the Goddess Kali. I could post this story all over the Internet and swear it is true. I could say he posted it on a discussion site that no longer exists, but I KNOW he said this, everybody there KNOWS he said this. Hey, this story could go viral and come to be regarded as “God’s truth”.

                To make a statement that I think “LRH is knowledge” is absurd. IN this case, LRH is the OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE, or ought to be. The statement that “LRH is knowledge” is absurd on the face of it. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what I mean. Which, as I said, may be my fault for not expressing myself entirely clearly, but you have some responsibility for checking back to see if you understood me.

                • What does “If it isn’t written….etc” mean? To me it means that LRon is saying that if I don’t find it in the writings (or recorded lectures), I am to treat it as non-existent, or at best “apocryphal”, in other words, as having no importance, not to be considered, as having no weight. It is ‘verbal data”, unverified data, possibly false data, etc.

                  Can you think with the idea that Hubbard might have wanted you to come to this very conclusion?

                  • Yes indeed, and do you see how that is a double-edged sword? How it leaves the question of his motives moot?

                  • Hubbard proposed the idea of evil purposes. What do you think his affirmations are?

                    • “Affirmations” are a form of self-help or psychotherapy introduced into the US around the 1920s by Emile Coue’. It’s generally known as “Coueism”. It is a method of autosuggestion, kinda like a light form of self-hypnosis. Thus it is not surprising that LRon knew of it and used it. There were a number of such approaches to the mind becoming popular in the early to mid 2oth century. Another popular one was Psycho-cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. There was a lot of interest in hypnotism then, also, and mental technologies in general.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9

                      In Hubbard’s terminology of scientology, it was a way of implanting oneself with the postulates for the qualities one wished to develop in oneself. That’s basically what autosuggestion is. Also called ‘positive thinking’.

                    • Thanks for the background on affirmations as such. I was referring to the content of Hubbard’s own affirmations.

                • Valkov, can you judge the veracity of knowledge without associating it with some source, or by the agreement it has?

                  The outpoint that I see is that you seem to be judging veracity of knowledge by associating it with a source (in this case LRH). This is faith and not the result of mindfulness (seeing things as they are).

                  I do understand that this may not directly follow from “If it isn’t written….etc.” Hubbard said that basically to control obedience of his followers. This way he could give orders and then retract them. Many BTBs were written on his orders, which he then retracted while blaming those who wrote them under his name per his orders.

                  • I question the veracity of anyone who states things like “Hubbard said that basically to control obedience of his followers.” How do you know this? Did you know Hubbard that well? DOX PLOX. That does not mean I am “defending Hubbard”. It means I am questioning YOU.

                    • I know because I was there. It is better for you to question yourself.

                    • You have already posted just a little earlier, that one cannot trust one’s own observations because one’s observations are ‘filtered’ through one’s ‘filters’ and are thus not ‘objective’. So why are you still posting anything at all? Anything you post is distorted by your own filters, right? Thus you cannot possibly have any good advice for me, right? 🙂

                    • Trusting or believing has nothing to do with knowledge.

                    • That seems to contradict what you said about observations, that anything observed is observed through filters and therefore not reliable as ‘knowledge’ Psychologists have a concept called “reality testing”. Perhaps that applies here, somehow. It is certain that Corporate Scientologists are deficient in the area of Reality Testing. They appear not to recognize reality even when it comes up and bites them on the ass.

                    • What I said was, ”An observation can be influenced by one’s filters. So one cannot swear by one’s observation.”

                      This means that one starts out with what one observes, but one must always consider the possibility of a better observation being there. That is the whole idea underlying the Discussion Policy. To quote:

                      ” The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.

                      The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.

                      Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.”
                      .

                    • Stated that way it makes some sense. without that, it just comes across as your own arbitrary rules. Or is sometimes taken that way. You know how people are…..

                    • No, it means “I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.” Do you expect me to buy a pig in a poke? Next thing I know, you’ll be selling me a Bridge, right? Sight unseen, yet.

                    • But you have already bought the Bridge from Hubbard. Anyway I am not in that business.

                    • No comment other than I have neither paid for nor travelled LRon’s Bridge.
                      However, I give you carte blanche to attribute anything you like to me.

                    • I recommend MINDFULNESS that helps people see things as they are.

                    • To be able to discuss anything properly one should be able to practice mindfulness. Please see

                      http://vinaire.me/2014/08/01/khtk-sessions/

                    • Well,, I guess I’d better stop commenting on your posts because I am starting to believe I do not practice ‘mindfulnmess’ as you mean it. Or you should abandon the idea that we are having a discussion. That would leave me free to still comment on your posts.

                    • There is nothing wrong with being controlled. Is there?😉

                      ________________________________

                    • If there is nothing wrong with it, then why do you speak of an “antidote to being controlled”? If there is nothing wrong with it, then no antidote is needed.

    • I can understand what you are saying Valkov, but the Scientology culture that I remember was more along the line of what Marty has indicated. It was not so in the first mission where I started, but then as I went to Fl;ag from there, I found people to be more defensive of their reality and less willing to discuss it toward a common ground. You yourself have been that way but now you are less so. But Marildi is still very much that way. There are other Scientologists I know who are that way.

      • Thanks Vin. I don’t doubt that is the culture, as you and Marty say. It’s telling, that you are referring to Flag. That is of course a Sea Org installation.
        And it’s not a matter of individual difference so much, in my case. I ridged up because my stable data were crossed, as I had lived a very sheltered life as far as Scientology went, having no association with the culture, but only with some of the materials and my brief early experience. As you can tell, experiencing the multiple viewpoint system was just the right thing for me. I have always sought out multiple viewpoints to some extent. This allowed me to compare what I read/heard in the lectures, with what people had actually experienced. This allowed me to align many things that had been incomprehensible before, about the history of LRon and Scientology. So at first i just put out what I thought I knew and took whatever came back at me.
        What is happening right now in this thread is exactly an illustration of the whole FACT vs. OPINION issue. Which Al tried to conflate with the BELIEF issue, by sliding BELIEF into the place of OPINION.

        I asked for a fact, in the form of a reference because the comments seemed more and more Straw Man, and so far I haven’t got it. But I have no doubt the culture perpetuates that idea and attributes it to LRon, even if it is not in any written or spoken materials. Of course as expressed, it can produce nothing but a bunch of solipsistic, self-absorbed delusional psychotics, eg the 21st century Church “Scientologists”. The first four letters of “culture” are C-U-L-T-…….

        • I gave you a reference – one of scientologists’ most central and hallowed scripture. And you blew it off because it did not fit within your ‘reality.’

          • You took one point of the Code of Honor out of context, which (the context) includes the caveat that an ethical code is unenforceable, and in any case requires that one see “eye-to-eye” with it in the first place, and then decide whether or not to follow it, or which part(s) to apply. Are you now blowing that off? That is part of that same “scripture”. I for one think it’s ridiculous to call LRon’s writings and lectures “scripture” anyway, except in the sense that as he said, “if it isn’t written, it isn’t true” (that he said it, I take that to mean.)
            Maybe your next post can be about “scripture” and what that word means….🙂

            • The next post will demonstrate the absurdity, and the inevitability, of this ridiculous conversation.

              • Very good, Marty! 🙂 I take that as a compliment. But who is the straight man here?

                ri·dic·u·lous
                adjective
                deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.
                “when you realize how ridiculous these scenarios are, you will have to laugh”
                synonyms: laughable, absurd, comical, funny, hilarious, risible, droll,
                amusing, farcical, silly, ludicrous;

          • I think I already answered that in my last two posts, but just in case…..
            The Code is not like the Ten Commandments, it refers to the basic nature of a being, and how s/he might act if s/he were truly free, regardless of ‘survival considerations’. But in fact, it is said that “politics is the art of the possible”. The Code states some absolutes. Those can be hard to live up to. (or die up to, as the case may be. The Japanese tried, at times. See Cruise’s The Last Samurai. It is popular in Japan.) In real life, I agree with LRon – it is a ‘luxury code’, to be followed as one sees fit to do so. So I am following that ‘scripture’, aren’t I? I am ‘faithful’ then, right?

            • ‘it refers to the basic nature of a being’, as apparently you belief to be so.

              • I do think it refers to the basic nature of a being, as described in the theory of ARC. This is consistent with my observations across several cultures, and i am thinking it even applies to the animal kingdom. It’s based on my observations of myself as well as observations of others, individually and cross-culturally. For example, when the village elders in India ‘authorized’ the gang rape of a young teenage girl as a reaction to her brother’s hitting on a married woman, it can be seen as in accordance with one of the points of the Code of Honor.
                My view all along has been that the problems we see in the world are the result of human nature, not that they are due to any particular ideology. They are not an overlay, they are inherent. The question is, can these tendencies be mitigated? Scientology was likely an attempt to solve some of these problems or tendencies. The question is, Is it really possible to have a ‘world with criminality, insanity, and war’? Is it possible? And what might the price be?
                Here’s a book recommendation: “Demonic Males”. It is a comparative study of humans and chimpanzees in the field, based on recent genetic discoveries that human and chimp DNA are nearly identical – something like 99% identical. And chimps are unique in the world of great apes by the ways in which they behave very much like humans, with quite a bit of territorial aggression and gratuitous violence, etc. apparently inborn as part of their basic nature.

                • In my opinion, the basic nature of a being is that it is a construct and that there is nothing permanent about it. To get fixated on the being is to be fixated on whatever a being considers to be his “stable datum.”

                  The person now has his “absolute truth.”
                  .

                  • It’s not about whether the construct is “permanent” or not, it is about the exact nature and characteristics of each particular construct. Is it Blue/ Green? Happy?, Depressed? It’s a given that a construct is a construct, that is not useful information. What is useful is knowing the nature of any particular construct. Will it kill and eat me? Will it be a helpful companion? Is it good food? etc.

                    • That is much down the chain. You can consider a chair, but a chair is not the fundamental truth.

                    • I just want a chair that fits my butt well and the color and fabric of which is harmonious with the furniture I already have. After all, we already know the “fundamental truth” of things is the absence of own-being, right? Is it warm where you are today?

                    • What’s that “fundamental truth” again? Can you elaborate on that please.

          • OK Marty. So you gave me that quote from the Code of Honor – “Never compromise with your own reality”, right? So I did exactly that – I did not compromise with my own reality. So, did I “blow it off”, as you said, or did I follow that principle exactly as stated? Perhaps at times the only way one can follow that Code as it is, is to “blow it off”?

            • You blew it off. Did you read the transcript of the lecture introducing it?

              • I read about the first half, then skimmed it. I would like to listen to the audio. Overall it is LRon the corny confabulator at his ‘worst” in many ways – the Big Barnum and Bailey Bullshitter at work. That’s actually one of the things I like about him – he didn’t censor himself much at all, a lot of almost psychoanalytic free-association interspersed with some really perceptive and if I may say so, deep insights. He tried to make himself appear a “man of the people”, I think, and succeeded in disarming many people, presenting himself a high volume off the wall Columbo-type character.
                When he didn’t have his thoughts organized, he just kept talking until he did. His lectures appear to be extemporaneous, basically without notes. Yet by the end he had focused right in on some basic he wanted to present. I think he must have had a good nose and eye for the indicators (poker players and con men call them “tells”) of the audience he was addressing. This is an early lecture, so I imagine he honed those skills in later years.
                His lectures are a lot like his short stories and novels and contain about the same ratio of good basic idea fleshed out with various kinds of filler.
                So I actually did not read it very attentively, but I would like to hear it in audio.
                But do you see how “blowing it off” (by which you could mean I blew off the Code itself, or your post about it? Or both?), if you meant the Code itself, is entirely consistent with the Code? And specifically the point you quoted – “NEVER compromise with your own reality” right? Well I didn’t. So I actually acted consistently with that particular precept. But it was not something I thought through. It was like a reflex or instinctive act.

            • From the transcript:

              “6. Never compromise with your own reality.

              If you think it is real, it is real. Don’t ever compromise with it. Somebody else comes along and says, “Well, it’s not real. Actually, it’s on page sixty-four of Professor Wittebump’s ‘Cranium Depository System,’ which came over from Germany – oh, pardon me, Bavaria or the Balkans at such and such a time, and it says on there that actually they are hallucinations and illusions which are on the left side of their right side but aren’t under because they aren’t up and submarines have fear.“ And you say, “Anybody who could be that confused must be right.“ Well, that would be having your own reality compromised with.

              Now, it is a mighty tough thing to tell somebody who would be very circuit-determined instead of self-determined that any time he considers something right, it is right for him, and he had better not change his mind about it – unless he contacts and runs out the postulate that made him think it was right, and then he can change his mind. Because accepting other realities than your own, against your own assessments, is a certain way to go down tone scale. You will get sick!”

              A person who is circuit-determined cannot apply this code correctly.

              .

              • Most card-carrying Scientologists seems to be circuit-determined.

              • The source-determined Scientologists are a category of circuit-determined Scientologists.

                • Of course. It’s all there in the scales like Other-determined, Self-determined, Pan-determined. Source-determined is a form of Other-determined.

                  However, it is a basic principle of gurudom that you take people where they are at, and work them up from there. Thus if you’re working with Other-determined people to start with, you control them until they do not need outside control any more. The trick is in knowing how to control them, how much to control them and when to let go.
                  Go to India and submit yourself to a guru. He will expect total obedience from you, if he takes you on at all. Same deal with Sufis.
                  Really that’s what parents do in raising children. They control their kids for their own good and protection. You don’t let your toddler run out into the street, or eat toxins. The trick is in knowing what is really necessary to control and what isn’t, and when to let go as they grow up. Now past a certain point children in particular strive to be self-determined. Adults call this the “terrible twos”. So it is different than starting out to work with adults, who may be more or less Self-determined to More or less Other-determined.

                  • But I see source-determined Scientologists continuing to be source-determined and falsely believing to be self-determined. Actually that seems to be the end product of Scientology. All scientology material seems to be rigged that way.

                    Such a person refuses to look critically at Scientology materials, and fiercely defends them against any critic.

                    It has descended into the realm of conditioning. Just look at Marildi refusing to discuss the contents of Discussion Policy while criticizing it, in order to defend her source-determinism.

                    • “All scientology material seems to be rigged that way.”
                      Well, I haven’t perused “all scientology material” so I can’t speak to that. But for example, the SA materials do not seem to me to “rigged that way.”

                    • The unrigged version of SA materials is here.

                      http://vinaire.me/2014/08/14/recalling-memory/

                      The nut-shell of the positive side of Self Analysis is to differentiate between the innediate flash response in the mind to a stimuli from thoughts about the past.

                      But Hubbard doesn’t emphasize that point, just like he doesn’t emphasize the mindful aspect of TR0 and Obnosis.

                      He uses these as baits.

                  • Marildi’s source-determinism is, “To defend one must always attack.”

                  • People complain about LRon trying to “control” his followers? Well of course he tried to control them. He’d have been a fool not to control them to the best of his ability. If he failed in any way, it is perhaps that he did not insure good control. And he said it himself – Bad control is actually no control.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      What’s remarkable is he can still control minds like yours 28 years after kicking the bucket.

                    • What’s so remarkable about that? He controlled yours for all those years you were in, didn’t he? And all the other ex-Sea Org posting here and elsewhere? And what is “a mind like mine”?
                      I really don’t get where you’re coming from at this time.
                      When you post a quote from Thomas Paine, is he controlling your mind at that time? He’s been dead a long time too. Sure, communication involves allowing yourself to be Effect when you receive one. So what? Or don’t you think so?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      What is so remarkable is that nine minutes later you can post a comment that about-faces this one, the latter one remarking how remarkable it really is. It is the nature of the trap.

                    • We are not on the same page as far as meaning go. I may be way off, but you seem to be equating ‘the trap’ with ‘scientology’. I do think there are traps in life and in thinking, but there are many that have no relation to scientology at all.

                    • Mindfulness is an antidote to the mind being controlled. When one is quoting Thomas Paine with mindfulness one is not being controlled by Thomas Paine.

                      That is very different from Marildi quoting LRH in an obsessive manner. Now that is being controlled.

                      ________________________________

                    • An antidote to being controlled? Is there something wrong with being controlled?

                    • Then why are you so resistive to what I say? 

                      ________________________________

                    • Mainly because I don’t understand much of what you say. I guess you’d call it MUs. But other than that, in what direction are you trying to control me? I tend to avoid control by others unless I can see or decide it is to my benefit. A person has only so much time in life. Especially me, as I am almost 70 years old.

                    • I think it’s remarkable too. I think it is remarkable that he was able to establish a world-wide network of organizations the way he did, in a few short years, too. He did it by knowing a lot about how to control people. It’s too bad he(or his organizations) didn’t do a better job of maintaining good relations with the environment, but I think the jury is still out on that one, in the sense that possibly he really never had the chance. Having been around in the 1960s, I can believe he didn’t. Not because of any involvement I had with scientology, but because of the general world scene that I and my family saw as I was growing up. It was not the best of all possible worlds.

                    • One can’t blame the world when one is trying to handle the world.  

                      ________________________________

                    • “One CAN’T”? Is all your thinking controlled by considerations of CAN’T, MUST, and the like? Are you a prisoner to those kind of things?

                    • It is common sense to me that one would blame something only when he cannot handle it. Why would one blame something when he can handle it? 

                      ________________________________

                    • LOL, Marty! You have quite a way of putting things in perspective.

                    • Surprise surprise! Marty is able to spot an ‘inconsistency’ in the beingness or thinking of another person! And you are so delighted by it! Probably especially because it’s me.
                      What was that quote, something about “Consistency is the hobgoblin….”etc

                    • I can see you putting your old defenses up.🙂

                      ________________________________

                    • OK, I had a second thought. Is that a crime? I have perceived myself as a mass of contradictions before I ever associated with Scientology. I have observed that many people suffer in such a state to one degree or another. Why else would one seek “to become a person”? Why else do people go to therapists and gurus, or study psychology or scientology or buddhism? For many people it is an attempt to make sense of and resolve the contradictions they see and feel in their own lives and the lives they see others living.
                      Your post did make me reflect on the issue of ‘control’. It is a scary word, not for myself alone.
                      But the fact is, control is what leads to order. Without control, there is only chaos, what the scientists call ‘randomity’ or ‘random motion’.
                      Anyway, back to my story. Having LRon or Scientology ‘control my mind’, was a voluntary act. It was a decision, just as you mentioned in your OP. I assumed everyone knew this. I guess not. Reading the tone of comments on various blogs, I see many people have a problem with this. “Oh my God, LRon CONTROLLED people!! OMG! OMG!”
                      But the fact is, at the time I was looking for what I had already come to call a “School”, a specific kind of ‘school’. I was in Berkeley CA and there were many available in the 1960s. There were lots of “schoolmasters” around. Various kinds of buddhist, yoga, subud, nishiren, gurdjieff/ouspensky, meher baba, ram dass, fritz perls, and more, all were on the menu. The “human potentials movement” was getting into full swing. Then people associated with scientology started popping up. Upon looking into that from those people in the mid 1960s, it seemed like the best fit for me at the time, at least on paper. Although I did not actually pursue the interest until I was in Michigan a few years later, after some more reading and pondering and a few more hard knocks.
                      To make a long story short, I decided to learn some scientology and use that as my “school”. It was a decision from the get-go.
                      You guys can ridicule me all you want, but I think it is because you are at a different point in the cycle. I never went very far with scientology, but y’all have been through it and been crapped out the other end, if I may say so. So I am still interested in learning whatever it is that LRon knew. Y’all presumably now know what he knew, or perhaps you have failed to understand him, or have done whatever. It really is irrelevant to me.
                      Your experiences are valuable to me and really, anyone else looking into the scientology scene. I am very grateful that you are here speaking up and providing this venue for others to comment.
                      For example, if not for this blog I would have still been under the illusion that the CoS was doing Scientology. I might have been victimized by them because I thought they were still working towards my best interests. Now I know better and can’t be sucked in to that scene. They are clearly not doing what the people I met in the late ’60s early ’70s were doing. I was never keen on the CoS to start with, now I wouldn’t touch them with a 10 ft. pole.
                      Anyway, the ‘control’ issues are well worth discussing, because it is obvious many people have strong feelings about them. I am no exception, but I may have a different view of them. When one wishes to learn one volunteers to be the effect of one’s mentors. It is done purposefully. One comes in and says “school me please”. If the mentor does a good job, one continues. If s/he doesn’t do a good job, one leaves, and either looks for another ‘school’ that fits better, or does something else. One stays and submits to the mentorship only for as long as one is benefitting from it in some way. It is like studying martial arts, a sport, or whatever.
                      That’s my take on it.
                      So yes, it may be considered ‘remarkable’ that LRon may be viewed as having some ‘control’ over my thinking, but the ‘control’, to whatever extent it actually exists was accepted voluntarily in the first place, and can be terminated voluntarily just as well.
                      To that extent, I think y’all are boxing with shadows. I think it’s a non-issue in some ways, played up for political reasons by some people. Not everyone. Think. Is Buddha still controlling the minds of some people, 2,500 years later? Or Plato, also 2,500 years later, is he still doing that?
                      Not to mention the estimable JC? He’s busy in American politics, according to some, controlling minds and influencing the vote. As is Karl Marx, according to some. So it could be looked at that way. I prefer to see it as people examining ideas and testing them and seeing how they work out. The challenge is to meet these people “on the ground of their ideas”, as gurdjieff put it.
                      A word about self-hypnosis. I’ve never been into it, or Affirmations, which might be considered a form of it. It appears to me to be a form of overlaying programming over pre-existing programming, so I never seriously considered it as a viable ‘way’. It occurs to me to be curious as to exactly how did LRon do his Affirmations? Did he chant them, write them out, put them in bottles and cast them into the ocean, or what?
                      Does anyone know?

                    • Applause!

                    • The problem comes when one thinks that one knows it all and therefore he is unwilling to look. As I see, Valkov, you are unwilling to look at many things that I have presented because you have your mind already made up. You misrepresent what I present and do not engage in a proper discussion. You are very flippant about it because you think you already know what is right. I see a problem when one has accepted a school as absolutely right and does not wish to discuss.

                      ________________________________

              • Darn Vin, nothing there in your post I can criticize or argue with!
                The business about ‘circuits’ is interesting, because it presents a picture of a person who has lost his integrity, who has things going on below his level of awareness that he has lost control of, whose is divided into AP and BP (among other components), as described in DMSMH. If he was completely integrated, I might postulate that he would not need to “apply” this Code, because it would simply be part of him and he could and would just act in accordance with it because it was part of his nature.
                However, I think the Code can be seen in action although in twisted and abberated ways, by ordinary people, even suicide bombers, for example. That is why I view it as “inborn”, possibly “genetic” in some way. LRon called it the “native” Code of a thetan. That’s saying more or less the same thing.

                • I try to guard myself against using “Code of Honor” as a justification. A person with integrity will never mention “Code of Honor” in justification of his actions.

                  A person with integrity will be humble and would follow the Discussion Policy.

        • VALKOV, one needs to confront the fact that Scientology has two faces. Nobody is invalidating your gains from Scientology,

          I know you are very sincere in what you write, and so is Marildi. But we are not talking about the simplistic Scientology world you two seems to be living in. We are talking about the Scikentology world that is actually out there.

        • Valkov, another comment I have on what you wrote is that your’s and Marildi’s is just one of many interpretations of Scientology materials. That interpretation was once promoted by the Church, but it has inherent inconsistencies.

          Therefore, that particular interpretation that you and Marildi are adhering to is sinking into a minority interpretation.

          • That’s right, Vin.
            Authority by majority.
            There have been very few times in my entire life when I observed that the majority was right about anything. Practically all advances in every area of life were brought forth by individuals, employing hard work and sparks of insight. Occasionally the majority will carry forth a correct bit of data, but it is usually something so obvious that it hardly warrants promotion.

            I have found this to be so true that when there is a majority consensus, I am immediately suspect. Not 100%, but way up there. As truisms go, this one is pretty reliable.
            Mark

            • That is another one of fixed ideas from Hubbard that “all advances in every area of life were brought forth by individuals.” and majority concensus is suspect.

              Do you believe in ARC? Isn’t majority concensus would mean higher ARC. Ah! you see the cognitive dissonance here? I bet there is a justification lurking here somewhere. Ask Marildi and she will whip out a LRH reference that justifies this cognitive dissonance.

              But truth or rightness depends neither on individuality nor on agreement from the majority. Meditate and you’ll find out what it depends on.

              Hint: It does not depend on Hubbard either.

              • Hi Vin.
                I said “…when I observed…”
                I was an individualist before I ever read Hubbard. And thanks to you and others, I am increasingly practicing a mindful, Taoist outlook. Group think and group efforts are often severely flawed. Sometimes a tight knit, well led group will accomplish much. Research teams, small businesses, etc. Just not that often.
                Mark

                • Hi Mark,

                  I see knowledge as a coperative effort. It may appear that advances are coming from individuals, but those individuals were helped by thoughts of others who came before them.

                  So, knowledge needs to be judged by its own characteristics, and not by some “source”. LRH introduced the idea of “source,” quite possibly to keep a tight control over the “system of thought” he came up with..

                  The discussion should be along the lines of how should knowledge be judged for its correctness. A clue may be found in the scientific method.

                  Regards,
                  Vinaire

                  • I first read an article on The Scientific Method as a preface to DMSMH back when I was 12. I forget the author, perhaps Bacon, or Durant. If anyone knows, or has a late 60s copy of Dia., get in touch with me.
                    Perhaps that is one reason I never took Hubbard at face value. He, in effect, told me not to, in his first big book.
                    Whoever compiled that edition of the book did me a big favor, I owe him. Oh wait, that favor has been paid by the use of the advices given.
                    Mark

                    • Mark, there’s a website that has copies of what I understand are original editions of books and other materials (in pdf form), any of which you can read, or download free. Here’s the link: http://www.sts.nl

                      I looked at DMSMH and found that “The Scientific Method” is in Appendix II. At the bottom of it is written “John W. Campbell, Jr. Nuclear Physicist, Author of The Atomic Story,” and just below that line was this: “NOTE: Formulation of this Scientific Methodology was contributed in part by the engineers of „Ma Bell“, the Bell Telephone research laboratories – to whom thanks are extended.”

                      Btw, Appendix I “The Philosophic Method” has this note at the bottom: “Reprinted from THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY, by Will Durant (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1926)”

                      The specific link for DMSMH is http://www.stss.nl/stss-materials/English%20Books/EN_BO_Dianetics_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health_DMSMH.pdf

          • The “Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” fallacy. Ask me if I care what fifty million Frenchmen think? Maybe Frenchmen are no better than sheep, eh? Such an obvious invalidation Vin. I would have thought it was beneath you. Are these your true colors, to invoke “majority opinion” because I posted something you don’t like or disagree with? How scientific is that?

    • One place where he says the “true for you” thing is in lecture “The story of Dianetics and Scientology”.

      • Here is the reference from the tape “The story of Dianetics and Scientology”.

        “But actually Commander Thompson had a very open mind on this, and he used to tell me, “Well, if it’s not true for you, it’s not true.” And I found out that he got this from a fellow named Gautama Siddhartha. Now, you really don’t know Gautama Siddhartha as a man (but that’s all he was) because better than two-thirds of the world population now considers him, a god. But the first thing that Gautama Siddhartha ever said about his own work was that he was just a man. This he tried to make very plain. And the other lesson, back there about 600 B.C., that he taught everyone is that if it isn’t true for you, it isn’t true. It was probably the first time that statement was ever made in this rather didactic universe. I find it’s a very good statement. It agreed with my own personal philosophy very well, because if there’s anybody in the world that’s calculated to believe what he wants to believe and to reject what he doesn’t want to believe, it is I.”

  47. The contradiction is glaring now that you point it out!
    How can I ever have a “misunderstood” word, if the particular definition I choose to give it is “true for me”? It’s everybody else that has the MU.

  48. Wow, Marty! You did say that the coming posts were going to be controversial and you did not lie about that!
    So, in my opinion, modest as it may be, the datum that the reason why scientologists lie because they are indoctrinated to do so is correct. However, the datum of “What is true is what is true for you” is probably not the real why. I mean a datum is a just a datum. It can be used either way.
    Now, I am going to voice an idea of mine (of which I have no proof) that might sound farfetched; however, in all its “farfetchedness”, it may have some ground to stand on, based on all I have read and listened to, as far as the current, actual state of the planet, at this time of writing.
    Hubbard may or may not have been the evil, con man that many have depicted him to be. I do not particularly believe so. I believe that he may have been exposed, somehow, to a great amount of knowledge and that he tried (at first) to use this knowledge for good and then deviated off into a wall.
    Like other commenters mentioned above, as well as you did in your post, Hubbard took a lot of data from past thinking men and gave it a new spin, he brushed some of it off and then repackaged it all in the form of dianetics and scientology, saying this was pretty much “all his idea”.
    The existing religion-based implant that is being run on this planet practically did the rest. People on Earth are always looking for “new ways to free themselves spiritually”. Fad-religions come to light every few decades or so — new “movements” and stuff. This is the result of mental conditioning that has been done to ensure that, if and when the “alien masters” were to come back here, we would be still moldable to their schtick. It includes failsafes that have made it easy for these “alien masters” to not have to police us from up close. We have all been pretty much good little sheep all this time, policing one another, by condemning our own when one of us disagreed with the “main group thought”. This happened also in scientology in the most glaring manner. The whole spiel about KSW was nothing more than a re-inforcement of this “implant” (for lack of a better word).
    This brings up the question: “How do we know if Hubbard was not sent by this very same alien faction?” I believe this may be a good question.
    I do not want to sound like I am one of those people that are so deep into the “alien agenda conspiracy theory” that is then not willing to assume there may be other answers to the puzzle; still, I can’t dismiss it outright, either.
    We must realize that religion on this planet changes the way people think and act — all under the guise of changing one “for the better”.
    In other words: maybe “What is true is what is true for you” is the way to go about it, so long as no one tells you what should be true for you.

    • The implant is that at the root of all existence is a Being.

      http://vinaire.me/2014/08/12/ground-state-of-universe-history/

    • Flavp
      I can imagine a group of guys sentenced to life on an implant station, sitting out in the Kuiper Belt or the Oorp Cloud just trying to keep the machines running. They watch a little Earth TV from time to time.
      Once in a while, they get a chance to read some of these opinions on spirituality and life and laugh their asses of. One of the few pleasures they are allowed.

      The most recent implants I have been able to scratch a look at have been mainly to keep us occupied and running in circles so they don’t have to bother with us every day, keep us out of the way. There are hundreds of similar thetan storage units (planets) in this sector. They can be a source of ‘superiority’ and an occasional source of humor to the bosses and employees alike.

      Recent repetitive implants will contain an instructional word content and artificially created emotional content. A sort of ‘flavor’ of the implant. When the individual later comes across certain ideas or thoughts it will trigger certain ‘feelings’. Things will “feel right” or just plain “seem” wrong. This has guided spiritual advances or lack thereof around here.

      The idea of “We can’t let them get away with that” stems directly from these recent implants. Implants aren’t everything, but they are something and need to be handled along with every other area of stupidity. Seriousness is highly reinforced in implants.
      Another cute little story to get people thinking.
      Mark

      • The only plant needed to keep people busy and under control is EGO.

        >

        • Vinaire.
          “The only plant needed to keep people busy and under control is EGO. ”

          I assume you mean ‘implant’.
          I hear ya there, Vin, but you know, some just want to make things complicated. Go figure.
          Mark

      • I totally grok you, man!

        • Got it, Flavp. Don’t be a stranger (in a strange land).
          I always heard (hearsay) that Heinlein’s “Stranger…” was a Hubbard inspired story. I don’t know. Any thoughts or info?
          Mark

          • It is possible. Per what I know, Hubbard and Heinlein knew each other; to what extent, I have no idea. It is possible that one inspired the other and vice versa. However, Heinlein was quite the man with “liberal” views about sexuality, etc. Hubbard… well, not so much! Hubbard always had this thing about being “super macho”. His heros where always “all man”, a view which Heinlein clearly did not share. Some of Heinlein’s heros were women and some heros were even transgendered people. Hubbard would have cut off a hand before writing anything like that. Besides, all heros in Hubbard’s SciFi were men — very rarely, if at all, a woman was the hero. I find that to be rather misogynistic.
            The first book by Heinlein I have read was To Sail Beyond the Sunset and I was a little shocked and gladly surprised about the incestuous, polyamorous and gratuitous homoerotical undertones (sometimes not so “under”). As a young gay man, who had no gay role model whatsoever because of being raised in an environment that wanted one to suppress one’s natural sexual orientation (the Sea Org), I read all his books quite avidly and found them, not only to be extremely free of stigma, but also very educative about a part of my life I had no means to have access to, at the time.
            Heinlein really envisioned a future where sexual orientation was less important than love. In his books, it did not matter whether one was straight or gay or whatever other label we could come up with; it mattered that one felt love for one’s fellow man. This was most evident in Stranger in a Strange Land. It was the book that most clearly stated how we could evolve: to love one another, by not necessarily having to go against one’s sexual orientation; rather, by truly embracing diversity in one’s life. Then, we discover we are not so different and our differences are not so bad, after all.

            • Thanks, Flav.
              Read a lot of the classic and not so classic sci-fi long ago.
              I have come to the conclusion that one should see the movie first, then read the book with any good story. Once I have read a book, the movie is always a disappointment. Less detailed. A book will always add detail to the movie version, so it is an increase. Just my twisted view.
              Mark

          • I also read somewhere that Heinlein and Hubbard enjoyed themselves together in bed with another lady as a happy threesome.

  49. Objective and Subjective

    “The existence in us of psychic life, i.e., of sensations, perceptions, conceptions, reasoning, feeling, desires etc., and the existence of the world outside of us—from these two fundamental data immediately proceed our common and clearly understood division of everything that we know into subjective and objective.”

    ~ TERTIUM ORGANUM, ~ P.D. Ouspensky.

    .

    Is reality truly that which is objective? Is reality falsely colored by what is subjective?

    Objectivity is generally defined as “the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject‘s individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.”

    Subjectivity is generally defined as “the condition of being a subject and the subject’s perspective, experiences, feelings, beliefs, and desires.”

    A subject is an observer whereas an object is a thing observed. Objectivity means perceiving an object for what it is. Subjectivity means adding distortion or color to what is there.

    The ultimate definition of objectivity is given by Kant as “thing-in-itself,” This theoretical absolute in objectivity is beyond sense perception because even the very act of perceiving seems to shape our experience of things.

    We shall never know the object, which is there, in an absolute sense. Our perception will always be subjective to some degree.

    To objectively understand what is really there, we should observe things as they are without known assumptions, expectations, or speculations. In addition, we should always remain alert for unknown subjectivity, and make corrections for that subjectivity wherever it is found.

    This is mindfulness.

    .

    • Scientology using Psychology concepts

      Reality

      Reality could be defined as “that which appears to be.” Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real. Reality, physical-universe reality, is sensed through various channels; we see something with our eyes, we hear something with our ears, we smell something with our nose, we touch something with our hands, and we decide, then, that there is something. But the only way we know it is through our senses and those senses are artificial channels. We are not in direct contact with the physical universe. We are in contact through our sense channels with it.

      Those sense channels can be blunted. For instance, a man loses his eyesight, and as far as he is concerned there is no light or shape or color or depth perception to the physical universe. It still has a reality to him, but it is not the same reality as another person’s. In other words, he is unable to conceive a physical universe completely without sight. One can’t conceive these things without senses. So the physical universe is seen through these senses.

      Two men can take a look at a table and agree it is a table. It is made out of wood, it is brown. The men agree to that. Of course, one understands that when he says “brown” and the other hears “brown,” brown actually to the first man may be purple but he has agreed that it is brown because all his life people have been pointing to this color vibration and saying “brown.” It might really be red to the second man, but he recognizes it as brown. So both men are in agreement although they might be seeing something different. But they agree this is brown, this is wood, this is a table. Now a third fellow walks in the door, comes up and takes a look at this thing and says, “Huh! An elephant!”

      One man says, “It’s a table, see? Elephants are . . . ”

      “No, it’s an elephant,” replies the third man.

      So the other two men say the third one is crazy. He doesn’t agree with them. Do they attempt further to communicate with him? No. He doesn’t agree with them. He has not agreed upon this reality. Are they in affinity with him? No. They say, “This guy is crazy.” They don’t like him. They don’t want to be around him.

      Now let’s say two individuals are arguing, and one says, “That table is made out of wood,” and the other says, “No, it is not. It’s made out of metal which is painted to look like wood.” They start arguing about this; they are trying to reach a point of agreement and they can’t reach this point of agreement. Another fellow comes up and takes a look at the table and says, “As a matter of fact, the legs are painted to look like wood, but the top is wood and it is brown and it is a table.” The first two men then reach an agreement. They feel an affinity. All of a sudden they feel friendly and they feel friendly toward the third man. He solved the problem. The two individuals have reached an agreement and go into communication.

      For an individual, reality can only consist of his interpretation of the sensory perceptions he receives. The comparative unreliability of this data is clearly shown by the varying reports always received in the description of, say, an automobile accident. People who have studied this phenomenon report that there is an amazing degree of difference in the description given of the same scene by different observers. In other words, the reality of this situation differed in details for each of the observers. As a matter of fact, there is a wide area of agreement, extremely wide, the common agreement of mankind. This is the earth. We are men. The automobiles are automobiles. They are propelled by the explosion of certain chemicals. The air is the air. The sun is in the sky. There is usually an agreement that a wreck happened. Beyond this basic area of agreement there are differing interpretations of reality.

      Woman who had her purse snatched
      Eyewitnesses at the scene of an accident or crime often present differing accounts of what occurred. Each person here has a different reality of what happened to a woman who had her purse snatched.

      For all practical purposes, reality consists of your perception of it, and your perception of reality consists, to a large extent, of what you can communicate with other people.

  50. Marty,

    This post really got me.
    I read somewhere that the Inuit (Eskimoes) have dozens of words to describe “snow”, because it is such a central part of their lives which they frequently experience. Wet snow, heavy snow, snow that drifts, etc. You get the idea?
    Likewise, comes the realization that not only are Scientologists trained to lie, but the subject itself is replete with a vocabulary to describe the different types of lies. False report, alter-is, shore story, acceptable truth, laudable withhold, findings, dead agent, fair game and persistence, are just a few that come to mind.

    • LOL! Great observation!

    • Lying (alter-is)is an integral part of the creation and maintenance of realities, per LRon, as described in the chapters and lectures on the Four Conditions of Existence from the Phoenix Lectures period. Another expression of these ideas is in the series about the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Postulates. The basic idea is that it is the introduction of a lie that causes the persistence of considerations and even material realities.

      • So, if I improve upon the design of a computer chip, I am lying?

        • Yes, in the sense that if you want “computer chips” to have duration, you actually must “improve” (alter-is) them, or they will become obsolete and disappear because nobody will buy them. Look at the basic considerations involved. “Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations”. If you want persistence through time, you have to fiddle with things more or less continually. Because, as expressed by Buddha, “All compound things are subject to decay”. That includes bodies as well as computer chips. As expressed by LRon, it’s in the Phoenix Lectures era materials. As one lives, person is constantly making a liar out of himself.

          • I do see that all lies are alter-is, but I do not see all alter-is to be lies. I see lie as a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.

            Hubbard may have given a different spin to make lies acceptable.

            • Not really. It’s in The Phoenix Lectures book in the chapters on the Four Conditions of Existence. They are As-Isness, Isness, Alter-Isness, Not-Isness. A “lie” is simply a statement contrary to fact or reality. For exmple, in Buddhist terms, when you say “I am Vinaire” you are stating a ‘conventional truth’. Conventional means agreed upon, right? But technically speaking, you are telling a lie.

            • Alter – is involves lying because when you alter-is something you change it. You take something that is “X” and you say now it is “Y” It’s not basically true that it is now “Y”, it is still “X” but you have given it a coat of paint or something. Redesigned the computer chip or something. Been awhile since I read that stuff.

            • You better review it then.

  51. I’m approaching this conversation from a slightly different perspective than I have in the past — in the past I shared my personal scientology/sea org/indy/outie experiences …

    In this comment to Marty’s most penetrating question: Are Scientologist Trained to Lie?

    I say — yes, yes, yes, yes

    BECAUSE from the get-go in scientology we are being trained to NOT BE HUMAN.

    And unless you have a tail or fins or wings — you are a human being.

    In scientology we are trained to “get rid of pain” … and “move towards a state that is higher than ‘human’ — homo novis”

    Sorry — pain/suffering/pleasure/joy/sorrow/despair/suicide/murder/keep adding adjectives and verbs – are PART of being human.

    We all want ANSWERS — finite explanatory answers that define our pain and or joy. Answers that will enable the PAIN to go away FOREVER and the joy to last forever.

    So — yes — we are trained to lie because we are trained to believe that with enough and proper application of LRHs work – we will be greater than human.

    I’m finding it very humbling to embrace to the best of my current ability that indeed I am human.

    I cannot wave a magic wand and take away the pain of another, much less all of mankind.

    I will sometimes cause another upset or sadness but mostly out of the wish to help, not harm.

    I cannot be so arrogant as to think I will never make another sad. I will.

    I am human.

    Windhorse

    • We lie to ourselves about our own pain. No HE&R. Don’t be banky.

      Thanks for sharing that aspect. Whatever one thinks of “true for you”, scientology is a game in which you lie, if you want to play it – about its effectivity, 100% results, expansion. You lie to yourself with your mind ringing in cognitive dissonance when faced with contradicting statements from source or contradicting actions from the church. Adept at rationalising all of this, is it any wonder it is easy to tell people what you want them to hear?

      What I would like to know is, why is truth so valuable? Better, perhaps, when is it valuable?

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      Beautiful Windhorse …..

      Yes on the trs you learn tto supress any Feelings and reactions you have, you learn to be serene all the time……having no thoughts , no thinking , just be there get rid of any natural reaction…..thoughts and ideas popping up…and sometimes you are serene but mostly just supressing your natural beingness…..
      then on the Bridge you get rid of all Kind of emotions, thoughts Feelings, somatics (mostly a warning about an unhealthy life) attitudes, considerations etc..until you’re a static (a nothingness) and as life is basically a static (a nothingness) you’re totally free and pan-determined how to handle all those Scientologists, you take all their Money, dignity, reason etc. as it isn’t an overt as you were just handling nothing and in life you do whatever what you want it’s just an Illusion created by nothing. So what’s a bankruptcy or a disconnection or selling 5 x times the Basics to the same Person ? NOTHING !
      So ist impossible to harm a static.

      But there is hope. In the Moment such attested static finds out he has a life to live and that life is not a nothingness but full of Emotions, Considerations, Feelings, reasoning, experiences, thoughts etc… he ‘ll break down and cry of the losses he had in the last 10-50 years…but he is healing….and he gets back anything he lost…..

    • Buddha never promised a ‘homo novis’ or that his teachings will make a person get rid of all his sufferings.

      Buddha simply said that his teachings will make suffering bearable.

      ________________________________

      • “Buddha simply said that his teachings will make suffering bearable.”

        Absolutely UNTRUE … the 1st noble truth (of 4 noble truths) is there is suffering.

        #2, #3, #4 do not say one word about suffering being bearable.

        AND Vinaire although I’m sure you are going to throw this back to me — I chose not to have an argument or conversation about this.

        I just wanted to speak to what others – who don’t know anything about the buddha to have such a wrong idea. You speak in declarative statements AS IF THEY are the truth.

        And to you they are. But it isn’t the TRUTH. It is your truth.

        It is not MY truth about the buddha it is what is taught about the buddha.

        Windhorse

        • The following is a quote from the book “BUDDHA” by Karen Armstrong,

          “If you look at things just as they are, you gradually gain the insight that makes the suffering more tolerable. It does not prevent the suffering that comes from growing old, getting sick, etc., but you can be peaceful in its presence. Following those insights you naturally develop a conduct that enhances peace and happiness.”

          • Vinaire: A quick google search will show (which I’m sure you know) that Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic sister (nun) who left and has become a “prominent and prolific religious historian.”

            And therefore not a source for me and others SERIOUS in understanding the core tenants of the buddha.

            Windhorse

            • Windhorse, source has nothing to do with knowledge. Knowledge needs to be understood as itself.

              “Source” fixation also comes from Scientology. It is a lie.

              • The source of River Ganges

                The word SOURCE comes from Latin surgere to spring up or forth. It has the following definitions.

                Anything or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin: Which foods are sources of calcium?
                The beginning or place of origin of a stream or river.
                A book, statement, person, etc., supplying information.
                The person or business making interest or dividend payments.
                A manufacturer or supplier.

                .

                In Scientology, SOURCE is defined as,

                “That from which something comes or develops; place of origin; cause.”
                “The point of origin, or it would be the originator, or where something was begun or dreamed up or mocked up.”

                .

                Scientology stresses heavily on source as a cause-point. Thus, the source of a river is not just the point where it bubbles out of the ground, but it would be traced back to the melting snow, to the cause of that snow, and so on.

                By associating ‘source’ to ’cause’ one can always ask, “What is the source of this source?” To overcome an endless chain one has to come up with some authoritative conclusion. Religion concludes the ultimate cause-point to be “God.” The problem is that different religions define “God” differently and the question never resolves.

                Scientology defines the ultimate cause-point to be THETAN (individuality). The thetan is said to have none of the characteristics of matter, energy, space and time. This is a concept similar to the concept of God, only difference is that there are as many thetans as there are individuals.

                The following may be said about the source as cause-point:

                It is the consequence of a logical association.
                It can be taken back to ridiculous lengths.
                Ultimately, it is a consideration of some causative agent.

                .

                Hubbard is looking at two types of cases here:

                A person who believes that nothing ever causes anything
                A person who admits to being cause of everything

                According to Hubbard, the person is denying the existence of cause in the first case; and denying all other causes by claiming himself to be the cause in the second case. Hubbard assumes that such a person is basically in denial of cause because he is associating it with something malevolent.

                So, Hubbard designed this Power Process to overcome that denial. The process asks a person repeatedly to answer the following questions:

                Tell me a source.
                Tell me about it.
                Tell me a no source.
                Tell me about it.

                The person is prompted with the aid of an e-meter to answer these questions. Hubbard believed that by able to recognize oneself as the source, or ‘cause-point’, a person would become able to resolve his problems.

                .

                In reality, problems resolve quickly when all relevant data is available. A person who is unable to resolve his problems may very well have data missing. In a simple case, a visit to a library or a search on Internet may resolve the problem.

                When one doesn’t know what data is missing, then one can follow the trail of inconsistencies to unearth that data. Here KHTK can definitely help. In cases, where case factors are preventing a person to look, then KHTK Exercises may help resolve those barriers.

                The bottom line to resolving problems seems to be the ability to see logical associations, rather than searching for, or assuming, a single source.

                .

                These processes in Scientology are organization of those items that many have contemplated upon since ancient times. These items may now be contemplated upon by oneself efficiently using the KHTK approach of 12 STEPS OF MINDFULNESS. No other aid is required.

                Please refer to the following for further data on the subject of source and cause.

                PHILOSOPHY PROJECT (points 21 – 25)

                An Analysis of Scientology Factor # 1

                AN ANALYSIS OF CAUSE

        • Windhorse, little knowledge is dangerous. Deep knowledge is helpful.

          • You got it Vin. I think that is exactly what she was trying to tell you. You do know she was a full-time practicing Buddhist for many years, right?

            • Then she should be compassionate and try to help me out of my misunderstanding. But she outright attacked instead! What kind of a practicing Buddhist is that?

              • Where’s your compassion?

              • Vinaire – I had no idea that you felt you had a misunderstanding about buddhism. You generally post with such certainly.

                I posted about the buddha not to clear up your misunderstanding as I said but to let others know that the buddha had never said that his teachings were intended to make suffering more bearable.

                IF I thought you felt you had a confusion or misunderstanding, I would gladly try to help as best as I could.

                Sorry that you felt attacked.

                One thing that might make your posts a tad bit more friendly, is if you spoke to me rather than speaking about me as if I’m not at the table. You know — the parent who speaks to the other parent or guest about the child pointing out shortcomings AS IF the child isn’t sitting right there.

                Kinda irritating – even practicing buddhists get irritated. That is why it’s called practice — we practice bringing compassion into our lives.

                In any case — I’m happy for you that you have found something that keeps your very active mind involved and working at benefiting others.

                Windhorse

                • Windhorse, you are looking through the filter of Scientology. I have posted the following several times. I doubt if you get it. Valkov for sure doesn’t get it.

                  The Quest for Certainty

                  Buddha declared.

                  “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

                  DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

                  This postulate may appear self-contradictory to some, but it essentially says, “There are no absolute certainties.” This is reflected in one of the most ancient hymns, The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda.

                  All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty.

                  That is how science makes progress. Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but there may possibly be a wider context in which the speed of light is a special case.

                  Similarly, in the field of spirituality, we cannot be absolutely certain that self or soul is permanent. The phenomenon that is described as self or soul must be open to further investigation.

                  There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute.

                  One can always improve upon a certainty one has.

                  .

                  • Thank you Vinaire — except for the itsy bitsy inval (which is fine) “I doubt if you get it”. Your article is very good.

                    I do not speak AS IF I have certainties; rather, I try to speak and think and write AS IF I do not have any absolute certainties and have said so for a couple of years on this blog.

                    Your comment however seemed very “absolute” — as in “There is NO progress possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute” (emphasis is mine). I mentioned once before that your sentences are usually declarative in nature rather than conditional. It’s a way of writing which tends to be FOR ME difficult.

                    I would disagree with your sentence as SOME progress MIGHT be possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute.

                    MOSTLY what I am pretty darn sure of — preaching TO anyone and showing them how poorly they might be thinking USUALLY doesn’t work too well.

                    Not always. Just most of the time.

                    What is important is the ability to see where ones audience is and more importantly the person one is speaking with. And then direct ones communication to the person in the most beneficial way for his own progress.

                    I feel Marty has mastered this … it’s a high level skill and requires CONSTANT self-reflection.

                    IMHO

                    Windhorse

                    • Thank you, Windhorse. I do welcome your criticism.

                      It is time for me to review my progress. I find that I have been unable to engage Valkov in a productive discussion. Marildi has been a similar problem. They are just too attached to their ideas and unwilling to look at different ideas for whatever reason. So, I’ll give them some rest.

                      Anybody who defends their ideas comes across as being very certain. This is the case with Valkov and Marildi. You yourself came across as very certain when you violently disagreed with what I wrote about Buddha. So, it is not a matter of how one writes. It is a matter of how one reacts. It is a matter of one’s willingness to discuss. The person who is very certain is the one who is unwilling to discuss.

                      My background is science and engineering, and that influences my style of writing. I cannot please everybody with my writing style. I consider one’s writing style secondary to one’s willingness to look and discuss. I am very willing to look and discuss ideas that are different from mine.

                      A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.

                      So, I am willing to discuss anything that appears to you as ‘absolute’ in my writings and look at how you view it and come to a better understanding. Please don’t get stuck on my writing style.

                      Would you feel OK if change the sentence “There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute,” to “There is little progress possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute”?

                      I do admit to my frustration when I am unable to get the other person into a discussion mode. My reaction to such a situation has not been optimum. That is a weak area for me. For now I plan to stay away from such situations, until I can act mindfully even under those circumstances.

                      For now my priority is to understand Buddhism well and express it in modern terms using the experience I got from Scientology.

                      Yes, Marty has certainly mastered how to communicate controversial topics without making others wrong. I am impressed.

                      Thanks for your feedback, windhorse. I appreciate it.

                      Regards,
                      Vinaire

        • Windhorse, the following will go nicely with your Vipassana meditation.

          Handling Unwanted Condition

      • Boy that sure doesn’t agree with the Buddhist scriptures I have read!

        “Precisely this do I teach, now as formerly: (suffering) and the stopping of (suffering).” The attainment of nirvana means actually the complete overcoming and cessation of “suffering”, according to Buddhist scriptures.