Scientology Indoctrination Abomination

There is a specific sector of scientology ‘technology’ that clearly betrays the subject’s hypnotic, mind controlling nature.

That is L. Ron Hubbard’s ‘False Data Stripping’ technology. In short, Hubbard dictates that one identify the source of any data that is getting in the road of a person adopting, with 100% certainty and exclusivity, any datum from scientology’s indoctrination.  Hubbard has the practitioner search for the data that conflicts with a datum Hubbard is attempting to get across.  The objective is to eradicate the earlier datum utterly so that only Hubbard’s datum remains unopposed.

First the practitioner and the recipient are indoctrinated to accept that holding conflicting data of any sort is a sort of aberration or mental dysfunction.  There is no concept of plurality or synthesis when it comes to understanding in scientology.  Please read this from the Hubbard indoctrination very carefully and try to think with the consequences of accepting it as Gospel.

——————

“THEORY

There is a philosophic background as to why getting off false data on a subject works and why trying to teach a correct datum over a false datum on the subject does not work.  It is based on the Socratic thesis-antithesis-synthesis philosophical equation.

Socrates:     470 B.C. – 399 B.C.  A great Greek philosopher.

A thesis is a statement or assertion.

Antithesis:  opposing statement or assertion.

The Socratic equation is mainly used in debate where one debater asserts one thing and the other debater asserts the opposite.  It was the contention of Socrates and others that when two forces came into collision a new idea was born.  This was the use of the equation in logic and debate.  However, had they looked further, they would have seen that other effects were brought into play. It has very disastrous effects when it appears in the field of training.

Where the person has acquired a false thesis (or datum), the true datum you are trying to teach him becomes an antithesis.  The true datum comes back to smack up against the false datum he is hanging on to, as it is counter to it.

In other words, these two things collide, and neither one will then make sense to him.  At this point he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis, or his wits simply don’t function.  (Synthesis:  a unified whole in which opposites, thesis and antithesis, are reconciled.)

So you wind up with the person either:

  1. attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or
  2. his thinkingness locks up on the subject.

In either case you get an impossible-to-train, impossible-to-hat [train for one’s scientology job] scene.”

————-

In other words, it is Ron’s way (to the exclusion of all other ways, including even your synthesis of his way with something related you may have learned earlier) or the highway.

Why could not ‘a’ above have been ‘attempting to use a remarkably new, fresh and workable synthesis he has formed?’

Because, in scientology there is only one way, and that is the way Ron Hubbard tells you it is.  Now, I can already hear the apologists claiming ‘well, damn that applies to critical stuff that could happen in an auditing (counseling) session.’   I have news.  This bulletin, and ‘technology’, was not developed because of any scientology counseling problems being encountered.  The bulletin begins by telling you that it applies to just about everything but scientology counseling:

“When a person is not functioning well on his post, on his job or in life, at the bottom of his difficulties…”

This bulletin in fact was issued one month before Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue and eight other top ranking scientologists went on trial for crimes committed in running the largest domestic espionage ring in the history of the United States of America. (Fittingly, scientology’s chief justification for the operation was to ‘correct false data in government files.’)  It was headline news across the world.  What ‘false data’ do you suppose all outposts of the scientology network were fixated on ‘stripping’ about that time?

Many outsiders have wondered how could such apparently intelligent, cheery – if sometimes overly focused – people as scientologists adopt such Hubbard sociopathy as forced labor re-education concentration camps and dictates to treat critics as ‘fair game’ for personal ruination.  I’ll tell you how I did.  I was heavily false data stripped.  I recall specifically some of those nasty ‘false datums’ that were stripped from my mind through ‘false data stripping technology’ to make me amenable to doing it Ron’s way:

Datum: ‘The best a man can do is to do the best he can do.’    Wrong.  The true scientology data is that if someone fails it is more likely that they are secretly engaged in criminal activity and have billions year old hidden evil intentions towards Ron and scientology, and that any failure should be interrogated intensively to uncover such.

Datum: ‘The most effective form of leadership is to lead by example.’  Wrong. The true scientology data is that it is far more effective, and necessary, to ‘muster bayonets’ as most people are ‘degraded beings’ and it is fruitful sometimes to ‘make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday school teacher.’

Datum: ‘When under attack it is best to take the high road.’  Wrong.  When under attack ‘ALWAYS ATTACK…The defense of ANYTHING is UNTENABLE…cause [the attacker’s] professional demise, or if possible, of course, ruin him utterly.’

These are actual examples.   They really shouldn’t be needed though to get the point across.  It is quite evident from the theory section above where all this might lead.

So thorough is Hubbard’s ‘tech’ for ferreting out and disappearing ‘false data’ that conflicts with his data, ironically, that those steps applied to one’s scientology experience could actually de-hypnotize someone from years of mind control programming.   That is provided that on the last step ‘Have the person study or restudy the true data on the subject you have been handling’ one did not impose on the person what it was he had to study.  In other words, free him from the implant and give him the freedom to start out at square zero to discover for himself the plurality of ideas (thesis, antithesis, synthesis, or otherwise) available in a free society.

413 responses to “Scientology Indoctrination Abomination

  1. Good post Marty.
    I will endeavor to use this wisely.
    Thanks, Mark

  2. Very good point. I could not agree with you more on this point.

  3. Fortunately I never had any “official” false data stripping, but that same process was used repeatedly at all levels.

    There was one variation introduced… One didn’t even bother to look for the “false datum”. ANY datum that was not written by Ron was considered “false”, and Ron’s datum was slammed in hard at every opportunity. Any datum that one forwarded was regularly met with “Show me the LRH reference.”, followed by… “If it isn’t written, (by LRH) it isn’t true.

    And then you have that pushed down the line to the point where every Scientologist is policing every other Scientologist, and ethics reports are sent if one does not toe the line to the letter

    But hey… “What is true for you is what is true for you.” (but be damn sure it was something Ron said.)

    Eric S

  4. While reading the posting I remember that, not too long ago, I told a friend that by reading other books, listening to other’s viewpoints, reading a blog like this one, definitely helps in allowing yourself to feel and look at things as YOU see them and, consequently, it acts as a mean to get rid of numerous false datums covertly implanted through “Scn technology”,

    One specific was this datum: ‘all foul ups and mistakes are the cause of suppression’. One day I really saw it and said “No way, it is not true. You may make a mistake because of lack of information or familiarity, or whatever’. And this is only one example, I have many more ‘datums’ I have seen, and since, sent to hell; it feels good as then I can arrive to my own conclusions.

    In fact, the more I get rid of imposed datums, the more I see that all scientology invites you to do is to “introvert, look always inward, find the external cause of your problems, et al.

    I consider this a terrific posting Marty, so revealing and shocking at the same time, but it is real to me and hope others can benefit from it.

    • Sylvia, your post brought to mind how much I was once indoctrinated with the supposed fact that all criticism stems from overts and withholds / missed withholds.

      That is so patently false, and it serves as a control mechanism to stifle any and all criticism of Scientology.

      Ironically, by Hubbard’s own datum, if it were true, every criticism he had of “psychs,” scientists, philosophers, wogs, Blacks, gays, etc. — must have all been signs of his own overts and withholds.

      But of course a different standard applied to Hubbard. He could natter and whine and criticize and no one would dare put him on “the cans” and try to fly his ruds (pronounced “roods,” short for rudiments, with “fly” meaning something like clear or get back in good shape) much less ask him something like “What have you done to psychs?” to pull (bring to light) his overts.

      What Hubbard demanded of others to protect his system from their critical thinking and reasoning did not apply to him at all.

      • This is a great observation, FOTF.

        Think of what Scientology would have been like if Hubbard was not hiding so much, and he could say, “Criticism is actually a way of helping. Since we are social animals, one of our strengths as a species is the multiple viewpoint system where other people can see things that you may not be seeing yourself. And if you can confront criticism, you can learn alot about what you are trying to achieve and realize better and better ways to get there.”

        Then he could have developed a technology for constructive criticism, similar to the coaching tech in study technology. He could have foreseen a lot of problems that Scientology would face in the future because other scientologists in the areas of computer technology could have warned him, etc.

        But no. Ron had “risen above the bank” and the rest of mankind had not. And people would just wreck Scientology if they were allowed to contribute in even a little bit of a way.

        Plus there was all that lying, and people who found out about it tended to tell the other paying customers, and that crashed his stats.

        So, criticism had to come from overts and withholds. That way anyone who criticized could immediately be introverted and then if they continued to criticize they could be dead-agented and disconnected from. And if they still continued criticizing so as to warn other people, they could be fair gamed in order to shudder them into silence.

        That Ron. Scientology could have been so much better if Ron wasn’t such a liar and he had been able to withstand scrutiny and criticism.

        Alanzo

    • Not the “church” but PEOPLE that are “in the church” do not want anyone to think freely, it becomes out-ethics and an O/W on the part of the person thinking freely to know that things are not working out in the church like they ought to. This is so true, that yesterday I was in New York and by chance passed a protest being held by Anonymous in front of the Church of Scientology of New York at 227 West 46th Street. The “church” had summoned police to the area and had people out front with cell phones and cameras and spys across the street sitting next to me “acting incognito for OSA” saying things to the Anonymous like “Get back in your pen”. Apparently no one is allowed to speak freely about the people in the church these days, never mind mention BT’s and clusters.🙂

      • The PEOPLE that are “in the church” are following Ron’ tech or scripture as they call it. Therefore no critical thinking at all, therefore, believers and followers of his words = Ronbots.

  5. Oh Marty,
    I’m so sorry. He raped your integrity.
    I’m so glad that after you escaped and found your ‘square zero’ that you chose to reintegrate yourself and be the good man that you obviously were before he stripped your datum.
    I’m sorry you lost so many years, but your knowledge is invaluable when there exists the need for a societal goal – to escape from wrong action and restore unity to humanity.
    Those who formerly took control of humanity’s masses used the technique of ‘divide and conquer’.
    Perhaps your technique can be ‘unite and win’.
    Another amazing post, sir!

  6. Marty, this is becoming an habit of late with every new post of yours I go to bed laughing my ass off.

    Something about Snow White and the need for false data stripping…..

    HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA, PRICELESS

  7. I liked the last paragraph. False Data Stripping works. But if you did it honestly, you could strip off false data from Scientology, and study the true data from wherever it exists.

    I also think that if you used False Data Stripping honestly, you could spot simply CONFLICTING data to whatever it is you are trying to learn, that you picked up in the past, and then you could honestly evaluate which datum is true and which is false. Maybe the conflicting data from the past is actually the true datum and the datum you are learning now is the false one.

    In other words, don’t just assume from the beginning that the new datum that you are learning is the true one and that you have to find a false datum from your past. Maybe you just need to find the datum from your past that is conflicting with the one you are learning now, and then honestly evaluate which one is true and which one is false.

    • You brought something else to light for me. Another thing it does is to enforce two-valued logic.

      • Marty, do you think that if someone were warned about two-valued logic, so he understood its shortcomings, that use of FDSing to simply help a person find a conflicting datum to what he or she is now being taught, so that he can examine it, he can then proceed to examine the current datum AND open himself up to multiple points of view on the subject because the FDSing helped him spot his previous conflicting datum?

        Again, he would have to discipline himself not to use just two-valued logic, and FDS would simply be a way for him to become aware of something he has learned in the past that was blocking him from understanding fully what he is learning now, so he can then make honest judgments about not just the two conflicting datums but a variety of different possible viewpoints on the subject.

        This is not a rhetorical question, I want to know what you think.

        • Actually, as I re-examine your last paragraph, it seems that you answered my question there already.

        • Dave,
          Thanks. When you posit this “use of FDSing to simply help a person find a conflicting datum to what he or she is now being taught, so that he can examine it, he can then proceed to examine the current datum AND open himself up to multiple points of view on the subject because the FDSing helped him spot his previous conflicting datum?”, you are so far outside of what FDSing is – even according to the very ‘Theory’ section I included – that the question becomes meaningless. FDSing is predicated on the idea of two-value logic, binary-thinking, ‘there is this way or that way and no two ways about it.’ In my opinion.

          • Well, given that, then the thing I am positing may be a good educational method, depending on if it proves out or not, but would not actually be FDSing.

          • Thanks for that further discussion. Insisting on two-valued logic in multi-valued universe is, well, dense and dull and uninsightful.

            Take photons. Sometimes they behave like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Conflicting data? No. That’s the reality of it.

            Take “spin.” If something turns in a full circle you see what it was when before it span, right? No, not at the subatomic level.

            Take the common sense datum that everything moves in a straight line unless external forces act on it. Well, sort of, but the item will actually go in a straight line through space-time, and may not look like it is going straight through space.

            Or take the commonsense that for something to get from A to B it must traverse the space between A and B. At the macro level, yes, barring black holes and such. At the micro level, not true.

            Or something cannot come from nothing. Not true. The universe is a seething foam of continual creation from an apparent nothing.

            Or the thetan postulates and things happen. Hmm. We know now that many decisions are made before the person is actually conscious of the decision having been made.

            Or if you add energy to a moving object it goes faster in proportion to the energy added. Not really. Some of the energy goes into an increase in mass, up to the point where mass would theoretically become infinite at c, the speed of light.

            Or truth is exact time, place, form, and event. Not true in any deep way. In fact, three different observers could truthfully observe events A and B each finding, in apparent contradiction to the others, that A precedes B, B precedes A, or A and B were simultaneous.

            If science had used two-valued logic instead of embracing apparently conflicting truths and realizing that from some viewpoint both views are true, we would still be in the 19th century. Thank goodness far greater thinking men and women abound.

          • . . . FDSing is predicated on the idea of two-value logic, binary-thinking, ‘there is this way or that way and no two ways about it.’ In my opinion . . .

            You appear to have conflated “two-value logic” with the enforcement of “binary thinking”. They are not the same thing. Classic logic is a tool which measures prepositions, it does not create the prepositions. In this case, the creator of the preposition (the FDS) was L Ron Hubbard who sought to enforce “binary thinking”, whereas classic logic is the tool which shows the FDS to have no logic and, thus, proves it to be FALSE.

            Speaking of “two value logic”, why is there such a resistance towards two-value logic when discussing Scientology?

            In classic logic, a statement is either TRUE or it is FALSE, as per the law of the excluded middle. Anything that can be both TRUE and FALSE or where there is a third state as per Łukasiewicz’s UNKNOWN, for example, ceases to become logic. Instead, it begins to cross the boundary into mathematics and computer programming involving propositional calculus or relational database matrix problems. Even then, the answers to those problems serve no purpose other than to derive new propositions which, ultimately, must be resolved, via IF/THEN/ELSE permutations, to TRUE/FALSE if ever they are to be of practical use. Intuitionistic logic, I guess, might have some scant bearing but Scientology struggles immensely in that the propositional formulae must have tacit evidence to support a TRUE value for progress to be made. At this stage, there is exactly zero tacit evidence to support any of Scientology’s fundamentals. The application of “fuzzy-logic” is very useful in the wider task of deconstructing the subject of Scientology. Fuzzy-logic lends itself to an examination of the context and relational quality of language in the construction of meaning and how unique expression can bear myriad unexamined assumptions, agreement assumed by narrative, and, of course, the metaphysics of presence. Fuzzy-logic, however, is nigh on useless in ancillary and general discussions about Scientology because of its tendency towards the subjective. Such discussions among Scientologists inevitably leave them relishing their duplication-flavoured ice cream while playing in the “what’s true for you” mental fun-park with all its recursively enumerable subsets. If there are any wogs around, Scientologists will seek to apply fuzzy-logic as a tool for control. If its not applied as a gradient of acceptable truths in some sort of dissemination exercise its used to explain why Scientology and L Ron Hubbard can be all things to all people.

            Obviously, then, the application of classic two-valued logic is that form of dialogue which most exposes Scientology. When statements are measured as being either TRUE or FALSE, Scientology’s lies become apparent and the mechanisms it uses to impose control are exposed. Armed with even a passing familiarity of Scientology’s tech, key facts in the actual L Ron Hubbard biography, and a working knowledge of the classic logical fallacies, and adhering to classic two-value logic renders Scientology powerless and temporary.

            • I suppose by “preposition” you actually mean “proposition.”

            • Logic is how one thinks. Orientals thinks differently from Occidentals. Their logics are different. Instead of binary, one should call it discrete logic. The logic of meditation may be compared to an analog version of logic.

            • The finer are the propositions of logic the more analog (infinite-valued) it becomes.

            • Logic is a concatenation of syllogisms.

            • “Intuitionistic logic, I guess, might have some scant bearing but Scientology struggles immensely in that the propositional formulae must have tacit evidence to support a TRUE value for progress to be made.”

              In Intuitionistic logic we seem to be replacing binary “true-false” values by an analog “degree of consistency.” The truth-value of propositional formulas must be verified by direct observation in line with the scientific method.

              However, in Scientology, logical arguments are tacitly agreed upon and not verified directly. Thus, the subject of Scientology appears consistent within itself, but not so when examined in a broader context. This broader look is discouraged among Scientologists.
              .

            • ”Fuzzy-logic, however, is nigh on useless in ancillary and general discussions about Scientology because of its tendency towards the subjective. Such discussions among Scientologists inevitably leave them relishing their duplication-flavoured ice cream while playing in the “what’s true for you” mental fun-park with all its recursively enumerable subsets. If there are any wogs around, Scientologists will seek to apply fuzzy-logic as a tool for control. If its not applied as a gradient of acceptable truths in some sort of dissemination exercise its used to explain why Scientology and L Ron Hubbard can be all things to all people.”

              When talking to Scientologists, one should be very mindful, and should not go by anything that one does not understand.

            • ”Obviously, then, the application of classic two-valued logic is that form of dialogue which most exposes Scientology. When statements are measured as being either TRUE or FALSE, Scientology’s lies become apparent and the mechanisms it uses to impose control are exposed.”

              Stressing two-valued logic here can be confusing. What most exposes Scientology is looking at their assertions in a broader context than the narrow context of Scientology.
              .

            • Armed with even a passing familiarity of Scientology’s tech, key facts in the actual L Ron Hubbard biography, and a working knowledge of the classic logical fallacies, and adhering to classic two-value logic renders Scientology powerless and temporary.

              I find this list of logical fallacies inadequate and confusing. It is better to simply isolate the inconsistency and state why it is inconsistent rather than labeling it with some fallacy.
              .

          • EDIT: Ooops . . . my bad. I see now that when the term “two valued logic” is being applied here what is being referred to is a “logic” which results in the person having only two options in deciding a course of action or which belief to adopt and NOT the application of classic logic which (usually) provides a TRUE / FALSE conclusion to a given preposition. D’oh!!

            I’m pretty sure that the term “two valued logic” is a misnomer, though, because, when it comes down to it, there is no logic involved at all, and, even if there were, there is only one valid option available for a Scientologist. Also, wouldn’t it be better to refer to it as “black and white thinking”? More accurately again, it is also known as “dichotomous thinking” or “binary thinking”, two terms which I have seen used hereabouts fairly frequently. Then again, it seems I’m the only one who got confused so. no big deal. Carry on.

        • Also Dave, Hubbard called it False Data STRIPPING for a reason. (:>

          Alanzo

        • Dave

          It would seem that the technology would need to be altered to the point where it was no longer “false” data stripping. That very concept prelables what you are looking for, or what you find, as FALSE data.

          At the very least it would have to be altered so that one was simply looking for “opposing” or “contradicting” data, or perhaps even just “similar, different” data related to the same subject.

          Then one would need to leave the options open and simply invite the person to re-evaluate the data and come to whatever conclusion he does.

          At that point you will have removed the whole purpose of “false data stripping” and most of the “technology”.

          Eric

      • Marty, I completely get what you are saying about the danger of FDSing being used to enforce two valued logic. But it also seems to me that you are using 2 valued logic in evaluating this subject. You seem to only consider two possibilities. It is good or it is bad, it is helpful or it is destructive, it is use is right or it is wrong, etc.
        Don’t you think that there might be other possibilities? In other words could YOU use these techniques to help another person locate data which they might be “believing” is true, but which they might not have examined yet to a point where it had been integrated with all of their own personal observation? I think that you could. And I wouldn’t be surprised if you have done so, successfully.
        It just appears to me that you are not considering to the possibility of any benign use of this technique by anyone ever. I think that, like many things in this world, it can be used or mis-used for good or evil and many shades in between.

        • You don’t ‘completely get’ what I am saying, because I did not state what you wrote that I allegedly said. As to your absurd insinuations, already asked and answered between Dave Fagen and me on this thread. That was quick and natural because Dave didn’t pull the scientology ploy of having to make someone wrong to make a point.

          • Marty I did not insinuate anything. I stated what I said plainly and I meant what I said.
            What I said did express disagreement with your statement which is the theme of this this post that the practice of FDSing is flatly an abomination and gave my opinion that your method of coming to what I feel is an absolute conclusion was 2 valued logic, so I can see that in that sense it could be said that I was making you wrong.
            But I was talking about the idea you had expressed, not you as a person. I have a great deal of respect for you as a person and one of the reasons I do is because you have provided a forum here where people may freely express their opinions, especially about Scientology. I guess that there is inevitably some “charge” when people express conflicting ideas to each other. I try to minimize that charge in my communication. This problem does not come up when people’s opinions are in agreement
            …..and one of the opinions that I stated is that I can see potential dangers in the application of this procedure. I meant that too.

            • There you go again, summing up a two page essay with one word. Then, diving into dead agenting the use of another word ‘insinuation’, without, of course, addressing the major thought that word introduced. Take a moment and re-read the post – and perhaps take a few moments to review how it might apply to you – before batting back with stimulus-response at every word you can take issue with.

            • Let me pitch in my 2 cents, here.
              I have done and received a lot of FDS’ing in my time in the SO. I have read, word cleared and clay demo’ed that bloody HCOB till I could regurgitate it nearly word for word. Still, I always had a few questions about the tech being explained in there, which never got resolved; I will endeavor to make a short list here to make a point later:
              1. The thesis vs. antithesis syllogism was an invention that Socrates thought would help him understand better how Man reacted when faced with opposition; that is, how does one resolve the clashing of two divergent opinions? So, this “gimmick” came about and he thought he had found an answer, when he introduced the idea that “when two opposing forces came together a new idea would be born”. This is probably the worst statement ever made and, in my eyes, the most asinine thing to say. A new idea can never be formed when two things, ideas or forces clash — only the “debris” of the clash is generated and that is not a new idea but the remnant of an illogic. A new idea can be conceived when two, or more, forces, ideas or things start to vibrate at the same level and find harmony and agreement and co-operation; then, and only then, I see fertile ground for creativity.
              2. The technology for FDS’ing demands that one fish for a false datum; however, it also clearly states in the HCOB that a false datum will not necessarily register on the E-meter because the person receiving the FDS’ing might believe it to be true. This is illogical in so many ways. One of the most glaring is: if the false datum were truly aberrative, per scientology technology, it should read on the meter, just like all other charged items. Therefore, if a datum does not read, then it is not negatively charged and to erase it or strip it would be a gross violation of auditing procedure: i.e. auditing only charged items and not auditing uncharged items.
              3. When one lives in an environment where one is bombarded every single day on how the founder of the movement is “always right” and other sources are “always wrong” or just not “as right as LRH”, then one is conditioned to think that any knowledge one has acquired before scientology to be false or harmful, unless the founder mentioned otherwise. This is the epitome of cultist thinkingness and grossly irresponsible on the part of those who push this way of thinking within that group. By way of example, it is deleterious to think that “tone 40” means one has to act in an overtly loud and assertive way, like I saw many people do while I was in the SO. “Joe blasted his juniors and got the stats up at the last minute. That’s tone 40!” (I perfectly recall an exec once mentioning this to me) No, it isn’t! That’s the exact opposite of Tone 40 by definition. Same thing was when one started a session every time — some auditor shouting at me “this is the session” and then expecting an F/N — really? Where’s the Tone 40 in that. Yet, try to pass an internship video without doing exactly that…! All this is to arrive to the fact that some false data are implanted in the group and then enforced by the group and no other data is allowed for evaluation because accepting any other data, except the “standard”, accepted data, means failure, whether on post or in training. FDS’ing is ineffective in handling this phenomenon and only actually helps in enforcing the false data, inculcated by the group.
              4. As far as two-way logic is concerned, a syllogism, like the Socratic thesis-antithesis one, is the prime example of two-valued logic. Anyone who has done some study along these lines can confirm that. At best, it may be classified as three-way logic, if one were to consider the synthesis factor, which is still a long way away from the vaunted infinity-valued logic that Hubbard like to talked about.
              5. Then, one comes around to criticism. In scientology, criticism has been given a really bad name: “Ooh! You’re critical! You must have overts!” It took me a long time to understand that being critical was not a sign of overts, it was a sign of either of two things: constructive criticism, which points out in an eloquent manner the salient outpoints in something, is a sign of intelligence and wisdom; destructive criticism, which repeats parrot-like words from someone else, with no sign of real comprehension (like christians say: “Ugh! Homosexuality is a sin because the Bible tells me so.”), is a sign of ignorance and stupidity. Overt acts do not matter in the least.
              Finally, the point I am trying to make here is that there is a lot of data we accepted in scientology without inspection, because we held this major stable datum in place: LRH was Source and therefore, concerning the tech and admin of scientology, he was infallible.
              Get rid of this major false datum and you will live a better life.

              • Flavp: “1. The thesis vs. antithesis syllogism was an invention that Socrates thought would help him understand better… “

                I see this thesis vs. antithesis syllogism as a binary version of meditation. To me meditation employs infinitely-valued logic, which essentially is free association without interfering with it, and see what falls out.

                >

                • I am not an expert at meditative practices, Vinaire, but, per what I do understand, meditation and logic do not share a common essence. A syllogysm is a logical construct whereby, from two factors, a third factor results; these two factors can be in agreement, they could be added up or multiplied, subtracted or divided; they could be opposed (as in the Socratic syllogism). However, I do not see how a logical construct applies to meditation.
                  In fact, if we were to translate this into proper spiritualistic language, logical constructs and the whole field of logic has more of a yang essence; while, meditation has more of a yin essence; or one could say that logic is more of a left-brain subject and meditation more of a right-brain subject.
                  Free association and infinity-valued logic, per the definitions I know, are also not the same thing.
                  Free association is the activity of allowing memory to wander from a single mental image picture to another, based solely on the arbitrary connection each image has with the next, in which the viewer has no control. In short, the person recalling these memories asserts no control on the flow of re-evocation and the images just flow, one to the next, with no apparent connection. In reality, the connection is below the viewer’s awareness level.
                  Infinity-valued logic is just another construct to determine a way of reasoning that has unlimited potential, whereby no absolutes are conceivable. This particular construct admits that something can never be perfectly or utmost X. It is factually still a dual construct because it still deals in dichotomies. By way of example, it states that “there is no absolute good or no absolute evil, just grades of better and better good and worse and worse evil”; however, it still deals with the dichotomy of good/evil. When one really looks at it, it is a two-valued logic that has been stretched out.
                  Finally, as I mentioned at the beginning, I am not an expert in the field of meditiation but from the little I have studied and practiced, and learned, meditation has various applications and techniques. Free memory association could probably pass as a meditation technique if done under a certain regimen; however, from my understanding of the subject, meditation is more centered upon the channeling of vital and spiritual energy rather than focusing on memory recall, whether free or controlled (free association or straight-wiring). I do not argue that there might be some benefit in doing a meditative practice that allows one to run free association, especially if the person doing so finds he or she has problems remembering things. In my opinion, a better technique would alternate free association with straight-wiring, thus slowly rehabilitating the mind’s ability to do both. For straight-wiring, I actually find that Hubbard’s Self Analysis lists are really, really good.
                  Nonetheless, I see memory excercises more as psychotherapy than a meditation technique.

                  • Dear Flavp,

                    Free association becomes the practice of “infinite-valued logic” under the discipline of mindfulness. The 12 aspects of mindfulness are:

                    1. Observe without getting influenced by your expectations and desire for answers.
                    2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
                    3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
                    4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
                    5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
                    6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
                    7. Experience fully what is there.
                    8. Do not suppress anything.
                    9. Associate data freely.
                    10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
                    11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
                    12. Let it all be effortless.

                    Reference: The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness

                    Regards,
                    Vinaire

                    • Meditation may be logical, but most meditation techniques have nothing to do with logic.
                      Basically meditation occurs in this order according to all meditation masters. It is called the Eight Limbs of Yoga.

                      1) Yama- abstention from doing evil

                      2) – the observances: purity of heart, contentment, discipline, study and devotion to God

                      3) Asana- having a comfortable sitting position with straight spine. The spine is a main hose for physical and psychical energies. These assist focus and health and prepare the body for the shock of the power of Spirit.

                      4) Pranayama- life force control. Being in command of energy.

                      5) Pratyahara- withdrawal of the mind from sense objects

                      6) Dharana- concentration

                      7) Dhyana- true meditation

                      8) Samadhi- total absorption in one’s nature as Satchitananda. Total blissful comprehension of our immortal nature beyond all time and space. One with the Unified Field of all existence and beyond even that to the Uncreated Absolute (Nirvana)

                      Sat-chit-ananda:

                      Sat- ever new existence
                      Chit- ever new awareness of that existence
                      Ananda- that existence and awareness of that existence is ever joyfull.

                      This is Raja Yoga or the Royal Path.

                      Jnana Yoga or the path of knowledge does have techniques of reasoning and logic. It can be called a sort of meditation. But it is a conscious discrimination prossess that does include cognitive faculties.

                      Yoga masters would generally not include logic as part of the process of meditation. That is thinking. Thinking is still in the realm of mind.

                      Meditation dissolves the mind and ALL of it’s proclivities.

                      Meditation is pure intuition, far beyond the cumbersome shackles of any type of thought.

                    • Brian, what do you think of the following video on Yoga? Yoga: Aligning to the Source

                      ________________________________

                    • Brian, the logic you are talking about is not infinite-valued logic.

                    • I still can;t see it. Sorry.
                      I read the 12 points various times over and I still do not see how free memory association could become infinity-valued logic — not with the definitions I am working with.
                      It’s just apples and oranges.
                      If I may be allowed a little comment, here:
                      Sometimes your answers tend to be a little concise and, well, cryptic; even if you reference or give material from your web site. Since, personally, I have tried to go on your site and study the material you so often quote and I have had trouble understanding it, maybe you should try to explain it in the easiest terms possible for someone who does not share your knowledge of these matters. Possibly, you should write more than just some cryptic statement on how you view things — try to make me understand why you have reached that conclusion.
                      I do value your input, Vinaire; it’s just that sometimes you drop statements that make me go: “Huh? Where does that come from?!!”

                    • Flavp, Sorry, my ability to express myself is way behind what I am looking at. I am trying to develop my expressions. Please check out a number of thoughts here. Hopefully, I shall be able to knit them together with your help.

                      https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/scientology-indoctrination-abomination/#comment-319754
                      .

                    • Hey Vinay, I hope this goes in correct order as I am missing reply choices.

                      Well I love it. And what I love is how Yoga is such an open source system. So many different teachings with so many different approaches, all being celebrated and embraced as sacred.
                      I believe Yoga is a 42 billion dollar a year biz in America. That will tell us greatly where things are going. It’s stat graph has been growing exponentially for decades now.

                      And last but not least is this man. A documentary is out called Awake. Yoga was given quite a push forward with this sage:

                    • Hi Brian, I am very familiar with Yogananda. I shall certainly be watching the movie AWAKE when it is released in October.

                      Have you watched the following videos?

                  • Hello Flavp.
                    You were talking about infinity valued logic. You said:
                    ” It is factually still a dual construct because it still deals in dichotomies.”

                    I see what you are saying on this. It is still one dimensional thinking as in a straight line from one point to another.

                    Three dimensional thinking, where there are an infinite number of vectors that can cross any line of logic seems to be more rational in the grand scheme of things. Most vectors which relate to any subject would not lead to the basic end points of the original ‘line’ of thought, but would affect or moderate the original or central line.

                    Just my take on it.
                    Mark

                    • “Most vectors which relate to any subject would not lead to the basic end points of the original ‘line’ of thought, but would affect or moderate the original or central line.”

                      Exactly, imagine how much more could be reasoned if we did not have to stick to a “line of thought”. I would imagine it would be a bit like a clairvoyant looking at future possibilities.
                      Besides, all this “straight-line” thinking is a very “male-oriented”, yang way of looking at things, where only the parts in view are seen. A more female-oriented, yin method would also look at the whole and, to look at the whole, one needs to be able to branch out these “vectors”.

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Thanks Flavp.
                      I hadn’t looked at Yin and Yang from that direction.
                      The more I learn, the more holes I find in my knowledge.
                      Mark

                  • . . . A syllogysm is a logical construct whereby, from two factors, a third factor results; these two factors can be in agreement, they could be added up or multiplied, subtracted or divided; they could be opposed (as in the Socratic syllogism) . . .

                    Nope. A syllogysm is a logical argument whereby, from two prepositions, a conclusion is reached. The preceding prepositions must be in agreement, and so must “add up”, but cannot be multiplied, subtracted or divided; they cannot opposed. There is no such thing as “the Socratic syllogism”, although there is the Socrates Syllogism . . .

                    All men are mortal
                    Socrates is a man
                    Therefore, Socrates is mortal

                    • With the risk of sounding pedantic, I must correct you.
                      I understand where you are coming from, Crepuscule. I understand that the example you gave is the “standard and approved” view in by-now stagnant philosophical circles.
                      Unfortunately, I do express myself rather carefully and I do my research, too.
                      The definition for syllogism I gave is rather accurate and the examples I gave fit, even though I may not have been specific enough. Furthermore, you will see that these examples fit even the definition you gave.

                      Let’s take your definition into account:

                      “A syllogysm is a logical argument whereby, from two prepositions, a conclusion is reached.”

                      I will now endeavor to show you, by using this definition, how a syllogism’s factors can be “in agreement, they could be added up or multiplied, subtracted or divided; or they could be opposed.”

                      Example1 — Agreement
                      PROposition A = Human bodies are mortal.
                      PROposition B = You have a human body.
                      Conclusion = You are mortal.

                      Example 2 — Addition
                      Proposition A = A person has two apples.
                      Proposition B = A person finds two more apples.
                      Conclusion = The person now has four apples.

                      Example 3 — Subtraction
                      Proposition A = A person has four pears.
                      Proposition B = A person eats two pears.
                      Conclusion = A person is now left with two pears.

                      Example 4 — Multiplication
                      Proposition A = One person buys 20 oranges from a fruit seller.
                      Proposition B = Three more people buy 20 oranges each from the same fruit seller.
                      Conclusion = That fruit seller sold 80 oranges.

                      Example 5 — Division
                      Proposition A = A dying father has a total inheritance of 60 million dollars to give to his legitimate living descendants.
                      Proposition B = He has three legitimate living descendants, to which he wants to leave this money to, in an equal manner.
                      Conclusion = Each living descendant receives an inheritance of 20 million dollars.

                      Example 6 — Opposition
                      Proposition A = Hubbard states in his administrative body of knowledge that giving your juniors the knowledge to carry out their functions (in scientologese: hatting) works best in getting them productive.
                      Proposition B = Often people get harassed and overwhelmed, in scientology orgs, because production is down, so they cannot go to study.
                      Conclusion = a person on staff often has to “earn” his study-time.

                      I hope this helps to clarify things a bit.

                    • You appear to have an MU on “syllogism” as that word is commonly understood. You are not adding, multiplying, etc, the propositions themselves but doing so within them which is a quite different thing,

              • . . . So, this “gimmick” came about and he thought he had found an answer, when he introduced the idea that “when two opposing forces came together a new idea would be born”. This is probably the worst statement ever made and, in my eyes, the most asinine thing to say . . .

                It was L Ron Hubbard that came up with the “gimmick”. Socrates never said or intimated that when two opposing forces comes together a new idea would be born. It is, indeed, an asine thing to say. What Socrates said (according to Plato) is that structured, reasoned dialogue could resolve disagreements. The style of debate had nothing to do with better understanding how people reacted when faced with opposition, it was to do with bringing reason instead of passion and sophism to bear in the resolution of differences so as to seek truth.

                . . . As far as two-way logic is concerned, a syllogism, like the Socratic thesis-antithesis one, is the prime example of two-valued logic . . .

                The Socrates thesis-antitheis aproach is not, by definition, a syllogism. Nor is it an example of two-valued logic. While the Socratic approach will result in a reasoned determining as to which is TRUE and which is FALSE, you appear to be confusing the conclusion with the process. There is no “third value” in this form of logic, rather the declaration of one preposition being either true or false provides a step forward to discovering the truth and, thus, moving towards a resolution of the disagreement. Logic is logic regardless of how many values are present in deciding the outcome of its application.

                . . . Finally, the point I am trying to make here is that there is a lot of data we accepted in scientology without inspection, because we held this major stable datum in place: LRH was Source and therefore, concerning the tech and admin of scientology, he was infallible. Get rid of this major false datum and you will live a better life.

                ^^^ QFT

              • Flvp says..

                ” Finally, the point I am trying to make here is that there is a lot of data we accepted in scientology without inspection, because we held this major stable datum in place: LRH was Source and therefore, concerning the tech and admin of scientology, he was infallible.
                Get rid of this major false datum and you will live a better life.”
                …………………………………………………………..
                Absolutely YES.. You said it so much better than I would.. Agree 100%

    • Dave Fagen wrote:

      I also think that if you used False Data Stripping honestly, you could spot simply CONFLICTING data to whatever it is you are trying to learn, that you picked up in the past, and then you could honestly evaluate which datum is true and which is false. Maybe the conflicting data from the past is actually the true datum and the datum you are learning now is the false one.

      That word “honestly” is a weasel word that is used a lot in Scientology to mean “what Scientology says is true”.

      I know that you did not mean it that way, Dave. I also know that any course room run by you would probably destroy Scientology ideologues and turn them into human beings again with excellent judgement.

      But that word is important to watch out for in a Scientology context.

      “a world where HONEST beings can have rights”, for instance.

      Well which beings are the honest ones? The ones who push Scientology, obviously. All others are below 2.0 on the tone scale and do not deserve any civil rights of any kind!

      Again – I know this isn’t how you meant it, Dave.

      If I know you, I think you can come up with a better way to describe the way that you would apply false data stripping so that it improved judgement and better critical thinking – something that I am sure Hubbard did NOT want done to Scientologists.

      Alanzo

      • Interesting that the way I would do it, and to some degree the way I did do it, is the way I thought it was intended, because that is the way I intended it.

        I think FDS is one of many techniques that are included in this subject that is commonly labeled “Scientology” that could be helpful to a person, as long as you leave out the parts that say that you always have to conclude that what Ron says is true, that your purpose in life is to contribute to his organization, etc.

        • Dave Fagen wrote:

          “Interesting that the way I would do it, and to some degree the way I did do it, is the way I thought it was intended, because that is the way I intended it.”

          I think anyone who still considers themselves a Scientologist – even after they have been exposed to all the “outpoints”, and all the evidence of the catastrophic disasters that Scientology has caused for so many people – is operating on this idea to some degree.

          What was an outpoint to Ron, was not always an outpoint to a Scientologist.

          And what was a disaster for a Scientologist, was not always a disaster for Ron.

          Outpoints and pluspoints are evaluated in terms of their ideal scenes, and both Ron and Miscavige operate on very different ideal scenes than do Scientologists.

          Thus “outpoints” like enforced disconnection and intrusive sec checking and RPF re-education camps were outpoints to Scientoliogists.

          But they were pluspoints to Ron.

          Alanzo

          • So my ideal scene was different than Ron’s, is part of what you are saying.

            • Dave wrote:

              “So my ideal scene was different than Ron’s, is part of what you are saying.

              It may not be true in ALL cases, but it is a very productive way to re-examine one’s experiences in Scientology.

              In which parts of Scientology were Ron’s ideal scenes different from my own?

              What were the consequences when Ron’s ideal scenes were different from my own?

              Etc.

              A lot of Scientologists simply assume that Ron shared the same ideal scenes that they held as a Scientologist.

              In many cases in Scientology, this assumption has been fatal.

              Alanzo

            • Here, I realize this needs an example. So I’l give one:

              When Hubbard made it a high crime to go to the press about anything in Scientology, he was working off of a different ideal scene than a scientologist was.

              It is a definite pluspoint for a scientologist, working within his own ideal scenes, to be able to go to the press, or to hire an attorney, or to take any justice action against a scientology entity in order to defend his own interests.

              But to Hubbard, if every Scientologist had that ability, it would be a major “breeder of outpoints”, when viewed through his ideal scenes.

              So Hubbard handled that situation by making it a high crime for a scientologist to defend his interests and seek justice should he need to.

              Bam. Sit handled!

              There were definitely times when Hubbard had different ideal scenes than Scientologists had.

              And this is only one example.

              Alanzo

        • Dave,

          Add to the CONFLICTING data, those little surprises that are waiting to anyone that volunteers into Hubbard’s Churches:

          Enforced polygraphed interrogations foisted as religious confessionals.

          and,

          “Leavings and leaves” Canon law, that strips “volunteers” of their rights to free speech, association and movement.

  8. I particularly like this post.

    I have followed your blog since the beginning and I am happy to see the changes you have gone through over the years. Your original interview with the St Petersburg Times along with the others interviewed started me on the road to total freedom. Thank you.

  9. FDS is an interesting procedure. As you noted, it can be used to recover from someone forcing scientology data on you. I have had a little FDS and it was a rewarding experience – but of course, I was not in the SO and I was not FDSed by someone with an agenda.

    To me, the part that always jarred me was asking the guy if he was given any false data on the subject, and meter steering the person as needed. How would someone know it’s false? The only way it could work is if the person accepted the idea as true at the time, but subsequently learned that it was false, and never revisited earlier learnings. Otherwise how would he know?

    Also, the procedure is subject to the Auditor’s Code, meaning that the auditor cannot tell the person what the false datum is, or tell him that what he came up with is wrong, or even tell him he ought to think it over. The auditor must accept whatever the person comes up with. Therein lies the art, which of course, was rarely applied. There is a way to do this so that if someone labels as false something that really is true, you can back out of it and still maintain the auditor’s code, but it is very difficult and requires sanity and judgement. For example, let’s say the person came up with trying to figure out the Theta-MEST theory and could not for the life of him grasp it, and then was FDSed on it, and when asked what he could not think with, he said “I can’t figure out how evolution fits into all this.” When asked, “have you been given any false data regarding this,” he gleefully replies “The theory of evolution is false data!” and feels happy! The auditor cannot judge this, cannot tell him to think through this, etc., he just accepts it as the “false datum” and runs with it. I am positive most FDS sessions mishandled true data when it came up, either because of ignorance or because of rotely applying the procedure.

    So, yeah, it is a pretty dangerous thing to do. It can produce good results, but obviously can and does result in disaster as well.

    • Grasshopper wrote:

      “Also, the procedure is subject to the Auditor’s Code, meaning that the auditor cannot tell the person what the false datum is, or tell him that what he came up with is wrong, or even tell him he ought to think it over. The auditor must accept whatever the person comes up with.”

      You are not looking at the wider context in which this technology is being applied to a person.

      A Scientology environment is the wider context. And that environment contains coercive social pressures to conform to the ideology that, being basically social, every Scientologist knows deep down and feels within his very bones.

      As just one example of these coercive social pressures within the Scientology environment, “Ethics Review” contains the “gradients” every Scientologist knows will be applied to him if he does not toe the line. And line 36 is “expulsion from Scientology.” He knows that is inexorably coming for him if he disobeys.

      So, socially, line 36 might as well be line number 1 – and delete all the rest.

      Any session given in a Scientology environment contains the tacit command: SCIENTOLOGY MUST ALWAYS BE TRUE – EVEN WHEN IT’S NOT.

      And yes, Hubbard told you that you are responsible for your own condition, and any talk about what pressures or forces you were handling which came from your environment were simply justifications and natter. So you were never allowed to acknowledge the weight of the oppressive Scientology environment that your sessions were delivered in.

      So yes, if you ignore the whole social environment that Scientology creates for a Scientologist, then the auditor must accept whatever the pc comes up with – during the session. But then after the session the auditor must write up reports for the ethics officer, right?

      And the ethics officer runs on Ethics Review and many other socially coercive policies that and tech that Hubbard used to keep Scientologists “in-ethics” and “in-valence”.

      In this way, Grasshopper, I believe that you are severely compartmentalizing when you make that statement above, and are completely ignoring the large elephants that are lumbering around in the room.

      Alanzo

      • You are talking culture. Your issue is with the culture, not FDS. Some areas were ridden with this culture – the SO, for example – and some less so. It was possible to apply False Data Stripping as intended without the recipient cringing in fear of saying the wrong thing. Not now, of course.

        • “It was possible to apply False Data Stripping as intended without the recipient cringing in fear of saying the wrong thing.”

          Yes, it was possible.

          But that’s like saying you can fight a house fire with a glass of water when the whole house is burning around you.

          In a cult, social context is everything. It’s what makes a cult a cult.

          Watch this brilliant scene from the movie “The Book Thief” and pay careful attention to the words of freedom and liberty that the children in the choir are singing.

          Scientology is filled with ideas of intellectual freedom, the free exchange of ideas, and “inalienable rights”.

          But that’s not what Scientology produces in any environment that Scientology has ever controlled, is it?

          Alanzo

      • Al, this perfectly expresses the “double binds” that a person is placed into, in a Scientology organization.

        http://www.traumahealed.com/articles/step-away-from-double-binds.html

        No-one has mentioned this as such, but LRH was ruthless in suppressing any counterintetion towards the survival of what he was trying to establish, ie the temporal “churches of scientology” or previously, whatever dianetics organizations he was trying to establish.
        I think the 4 poins of the “double bind” sum it up just about perfectly, what he built into the subject.
        The oddity is that he clearly explained it all along. There was nothing hidden about what he was doing, but many people rationalized it.

        • Here is the “technical defintion” of “double bind”, from the article above:

          A double bind is technically defined as a situation where:

          1. Explicitly, if you do some Action, you’ll be punished
          2. Implicitly, if you don’t do that Action, you’ll also be punished
          3. If you bring up the contradiction, you’ll be punished
          4. You can’t leave the situation.

          Sound familiar?

          • Yes, it does sound familiar, very much like a “games condition”:

            “The word games condition is a derogatory actually. There is a technical thing goes along. When you say games condition you mean a package, and the package has to do with this: It means a fixated attention, an inability to escape coupled with an inability to attack, to the exclusion of other games. There is nothing wrong with having games. There is a lot wrong with being in a games condition because it is unknown, it is an aberrated activity, it is reactive, and one is performing it way outside of his power of choice and without his consent or will. (SH Spec 32, 6107C20) (Tech Dictionary)

            • Marildi quoted:
              ” There is nothing wrong with having games. There is a lot wrong with being in a games condition because it is unknown, it is an aberrated activity, it is reactive, and one is performing it way outside of his power of choice and without his consent or will. (SH Spec 32, 6107C20) (Tech Dictionary)”

              This indicated something to me which I have been batting around for some time. Ron KNEW much of how the mind/spirit operated, what was aberrated thinking, what caused it. What he DID with that knowledge, how HE operated, is much a topic of debate. This has seemed a big inconsistency to me for quite some time.

              I have resolved this inconsistency for myself.

              Ron once wrote in one of his RJ journals that he never ceased to be amazed at the QUANTITY of case gain available. This said to me that individuals have a tremendous QUANTITY of case. Get rid of, or gain an understanding of just 1 or 2% of that case and one would appear far above the average earth human. But the person is still acting in an aberrated manner with 98-99% of his case. Jesus Christ, Confucius, The Buddha and many others were all operating far above their pay grades, but still in primarily an aberrated manner.

              Ron amassed a tremendous amount of knowledge of life but still had most of his demons, as do I. If he did set the stage for a hypnotizing, controlling cult, as many say he did, that is no reason not to use his knowledge of life to go beyond what he did in a less aberrated way.

              They say that hindsight is 20/20. Let’s use our good vision to recognize some of his aberrations and move up a step. Someone will come along later and recognize yours and my aberrations and move up another step.

              And so on, and so on.
              Thanks, Mark.

              • When you state something like this, “Jesus Christ, Confucius, The Buddha and many others were all operating far above their pay grades, but still in primarily an aberrated manner”, it serves to remind me of just how arrogant Hubbard’s ‘technology’ can make people behave.

                • Hi Marty. I get what you are saying about ‘arrogant’. There were many people throughout history, and some today, who rose above themselves and their fellows to do great things.

                  I, on the other hand, am slightly improving myself and occasionally helping some of my friends and family.

                  A more acceptable word may have been ‘…yet operating in an attenuated manner…’ rather than aberrated. I have seen times when individuals and groups operated on a much higher level, with extreme ARCL, high creativity and high speed action. Even when games were ruthless and violent, we would get together for a proverbial beer and laughter afterwards, winners and losers alike. Today’s lion fodder is tomorrows hero, savior. Getting slaughtered was no big deal. We all had great love for each other and had great adventures.

                  Ya can’t fault me for wanting to bring back some of the good ole days. The central point of my post is that I believe people are operating mostly on automatic with occasional spurts of insight and creativity. That people have a LOT of things going on inside them. An individual can have a strong purpose to help his fellows, purposes to control and subjugate his peers, the intention to get rich and powerful, the desire to crush those who look at him crooked, and the intention to save mankind, all going on at the same time. Most of these are intentions, purposes which are being ‘followed’, rather than being created in present time.

                  My intention was not to offend anyone’s ideals or feelings, but to tell it as I see it. Being careful with words has never been my strong point.
                  Mark
                  PS: Those who call me a Hubbard ‘follower’ seem to be glancing over my comments for what grabs their attention.

              • What is the purpose of a game? To entertain oneself?

                What is the purpose of entertainment? To avoid boredom?

                Why is one bored? Because there is nothing to do?

                Well, what else can you expect from NOTHING?

                So games are there because one doesn’t want to be onself.

              • Mark: “Jesus Christ, Confucius, The Buddha and many others were all operating far above their pay grades, but still in primarily an aberrated manner.”

                What makes you say that? What is your criterion. I think what you just said went against mindfulness.

                Please look at your assumptions. When you don’t know something you need to admit that you don’t know. That is mindfulness.
                .

                • Completely agree, vinaire. I believe Marty already pinpointed Mark’s “why”–arrogance.

                  • I think Mark needs to mindfully identify the inconsistency that is on top of his mental stack, instead of randomly ransacking his facsimiles.

                  • Wisher, thank you for the comment.
                    I like getting several viewpoints.

                    The constructs that people have on greatness and aberration vary greatly, especially on sites such as this one. There are more people currently and in history than I can mention who rose to the occasion and contributed to us all. They have my admiration and appreciation. Perhaps someday, I can contribute in some small way, something worthwhile to this world.
                    Mark

                • Hi again, Vin.
                  Take a look at my reply to Marty on this subject.

                  In addition:
                  A couple of years back I stumbled upon a particular line of thought which I decided to dig into. Many years back I was replacing some cables connecting a 1200 amp motor center to it’s power source. Some of the cables had overheated and needed to be replaced. I remarked at how poorly they had been installed in the first place, and that I would have never done such a poor job. I jokingly mentioned this to a couple of guys I was working with and did it in an insulting, superior manner. I had done this same thing several times before with different things, throughout my life.

                  I noticed this same attitude a couple of years ago while looking at a tool I had purchased, and it bothered me. I traced it back a very long way and across many related decisions and found the source.

                  I now look at myself as superior to NO individual. I also look at NO individual as superior to myself. No one is without true greatness, and no one is without faults. Many have operated at a high level for a time. I admire them and strive to get myself and others back to that level. But basically superior,,,,,,No. Those who have done and do great things, who have amassed and imparted wisdom, deserve my admiration and my efforts to get there myself. But to consider them superior is to relegate myself to mediocrity and to never be able to add anything to what they have done. To consider myself as superior to others will halt any desire to be better than I am now.

                  My intent was certainly not to insult figures in the past who some consider as sacred, but just to see things as they are. Be mindful my friend.
                  Mark.
                  PS: Varied opinions and viewpoints are what this site is all about.

                  • Mark, your error is using your case to evaluate other person’s case. That is an error which Hubbard was guilty of. That is The Guru Complex.

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Vin said:
                      “Mark, your error is using your case to evaluate other person’s case.”

                      I don’t understand your source for this statement. Help me see it.

                      I have stated repeatedly, ad-nausea, that this is my path, that everyone’s case is different, that everyone must find their own path. I have hesitated to give my specific methods and go over specific incidents and have given the exact reasons why.

                      I have stated over and over that past examination is only one, read it again,ONLY ONE of the tools I use for self improvement. I have even gone to the point of stating that past examination will be completed at some point. I have stated that I BELIEVE that the past can have an undesirable effect on the present for many people, that this is a common phenomenon and that some people could be assisted by some amount of past examination.

                      I also stated that I BELIEVE I discovered SOME of the reasons for problems that have been encountered by many with past examination, and that it could possibly open up this line of work for more individuals.

                      I have also stated repeatedly that I believe that knowledge such as this cannot be forced or coerced on another, that it can only be offered, to be used when a person is ready, if it ever becomes right for them. I have been over apologetic for my work and that has been an error. I am, so far, making progress. I love life, I love people and am looking forward to even better days for myself and others.

                      Being fixated on NOT looking into the past is just as much of an error as being fixated on looking into the past. That is obvious.

                      This is my last apologetic disclaimer.
                      Thanks, Mark

                      PS: I will enthusiastically relay my successes and failures alike. I eagerly await others experiences. I find value in all peoples thoughts and opinions.

                    • Mark: “I have been over apologetic for my work and that has been an error. I am, so far, making progress. I love life, I love people and am looking forward to even better days for myself and others.
                      Being fixated on NOT looking into the past is just as much of an error as being fixated on looking into the past. That is obvious.
                      This is my last apologetic disclaimer.”

                      Well said on every point. Bravo!

                    • The source is your statement here.

                      Mark: “Jesus Christ, Confucius, The Buddha and many others were all operating far above their pay grades, but still in primarily an aberrated manner.”

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Vin said:
                      “Mark, your error is using your case to evaluate other person’s case. ”
                      This was related to my statement about Jesus, Confucius, Buddha.

                      You are absolutely right Vin, I didn’t know them personally. It was a generalization. My bad.
                      Thanks.

                  • Mark: “Many years back I was replacing some cables connecting a 1200 amp motor center to it’s power source. Some of the cables had overheated and needed to be replaced. I remarked at how poorly they had been installed in the first place, and that I would have never done such a poor job.”

                    So the inconsistency here was that cable overheated. What caused them to overheat? Saying that they were “poorly installed” doesn’t tell me anything.
                    .

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Hi Vinaire.
                      The cables sourced from a 2500kva transformer to a distribution center, then to 1200Amp motor control centers. The cables became loose in their clamps, and the clamps became loose where they were bolted to the bus bars. Cables will sometimes loosen because of normal heating and cooling over time. They were NOT poorly installed originally.

                      The inconsistency was not the cables or their installation. It was not the tool I purchased and then made fun of. It is not the programming that I insulted in front of friends. It is not the people on TV that I would sometimes blurt out “they are a bunch of idiots”

                      The inconsistency was an arrogant, superior, smug, insulting attitude and emotion that would come up from time to time. It carried a specific flavor, a particular ‘feel’ which was the same with each occurrence. I had sort of recognized this before, but a couple of years ago I recognized it as a definite out point and decided to look into it. These occasional smug joking outbursts came from a specific series of incidents. The attitude and viewpoint had a specific source.

                      I can see things more clearly now, rather than quickly assigning a fault in others and assigning myself as the ‘smart one’. People may or may not like me now, but at least I have resolved this one outpoint, amongst many. It’s a start anyway.
                      Mark

                    • Mark, It is wonderful that you have resolved this issue for yourself.🙂

                  • Mark, if you are critical of your own attitude of superiority then that is not the issue. The issue or inconsistency is something else. See if you can apply the following.

                    Mindfulness 11: Contemplate thoughtfully
                    .

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Thanks Vin.
                      With your help I have found the exact source of many inconsistencies and brought them to resolution. I found that, for me, contemplation and unstacking to be an important intermediate step, with the solution to follow.

                      For that, you have my thanks, you have put a lot of work into this. If the past is any indication of the future, (just had to throw that one in) then more thanks will be forthcoming.
                      Mark

                    • I like that feedback.🙂

          • Good snag, Valkov!

            I hadn’t thought of that before.

            Alanzo

    • Grasshopper: “When asked, “have you been given any false data regarding this,” he gleefully replies “The theory of evolution is false data!” and feels happy! The auditor cannot judge this, cannot tell him to think through this, etc., he just accepts it as the “false datum” and runs with it.”

      The right way to handle this would be for the FDSer to make sure the student fully examines this earlier (not necessarily false) datum of the theory of evolution and the theta-mest theory, AND other related theories AND come up with his own judgments on the subject.

      Not that that has necessarily ever been done in the history of the C of S, but that’s how I would do it now.

      • Of course. That is the whole history of Scientology: Doing something rotely and without understanding or context, failing, and calling it “Scientology.” This is not to say that all techniques and data in Scientology is true – just that even if it is true and/or effective, it can be botched. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

        In the case of FDS, it is pretty limited in application because how can anyone determine truth or falsehood just by sitting in session on the cans with no reference materials or review of any kind?

        • “That is the whole history of Scientology: Doing something rotely and without understanding or context, failing, and calling it “Scientology.”” This is one of the most mind-numbing, pat justifications instilled into the minds of scientologists. It scientology’s one size fits all, one line sophistry.

          • I had a feeling you and others would object to that. Look – you yourself said in this very post:

            “So thorough is Hubbard’s ‘tech’ for ferreting out and disappearing ‘false data’ that conflicts with his data, ironically, that those steps applied to one’s scientology experience could actually de-hypnotize someone from years of mind control programming.”

            So, which is it? FDS is evil or FDS is good depending on context?

            My point is that if you are going to analyze and discredit something, base it on reality, not on misinterpretations. An example is a line about how false Scientology tech is made by another poster: “All foul ups and mistakes are the [result] of suppression” (correction mine – the OP said “cause”). This is not true at all, and Ron never said that. He did say “In the presence of suppression, one makes mistakes.” That is very different, and is also true, although not 100% of the time. This is a minor example. But – if someone’s going to condemn, they need to get it right. There is enough wrong with Scientology that people don’t need to invent things to condemn, or base their condemnation on things that aren’t true.

            Now – in this post, I have already said that FDS is limited, and I agreed with you that it can and has been applied for evil, and I will add that I reject the technique out of hand, now, because there are better ways to get people to ID and reject “false” data, and because this particular technique can so easily go off the rails.

            • The problem is you live in two-value logic, demanding for example that I choose an either/or. It has been months since I suggested scientologists get out of their nightmare, cave-dwelling two-value thought imprisonment by learning something of four value thought (or tetralamas) or even quantum theory. Since you want to cling to scientology two-value logic, little of what I say is going to mean anything to you other than your mocked up either/ors. Incidentally, on your criticism of the other poster, here is your scripture verbatim:
              “People making mistakes or doing stupid things is evidence that an SP exists in that vicinity.”

              • From 10 aug 1973:
                “There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

                These data are:

                1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

                2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.”

                Hubbard at this point was adamant that one’s connection to an SP was the single source of all illness and all foul-ups. The evil engram was no longer the enemy, that awful suppressive neighbor of yours IS.

                I recall discussing this with my wife before we got out and we were both thinking this was pretty iffy.

                We discussed it after we escaped the cult’s clutches and realized that both statements were false. The single source of all illness is NOT engrams, nor is it PTSness. False data now stripped. Door now open to discover the various aspects of nutrition, stress, environment, pollutants etc. that are at the bottom of much illness.

                It’s so amusing now to evaluate it and see that Hubbard laid in two opposing false data and then the schumks in the org have to believe both of them are true when neither is. The “standard” C/S now has to decide if he’s going to C/S a PTS rundown or Engram running. But the guy feels like shit because he’s developed an allergy to gluten.

                Of course, nowadays they just default to another sec check because they have decided that all disobedience or failure to be elated is the result of horrible crimes against their omnibenevolent organization.

                • Thanks Les. An inevitable, perpetual problem when treating process (life) as a mechanical, static two-valued, either or, binary shunting machine.

                • Yes of course I am aware of this reference – and I am also aware of the references were Ron contradicts this. So these statements are not 100% true and even Ron knew that and wrote that.

            • Grasshopper wrote:

              “My point is that if you are going to analyze and discredit something, base it on reality, not on misinterpretations. An example is a line about how false Scientology tech is made by another poster: “All foul ups and mistakes are the [result] of suppression” (correction mine – the OP said “cause”). This is not true at all, and Ron never said that. He did say “In the presence of suppression, one makes mistakes.” That is very different, and is also true, although not 100% of the time. This is a minor example. “

              L Ron Hubbard wrote:


              “There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and know are true in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

              These data are:
              1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

              2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or (C) Disconnect.

              Persons called upon to handle PTS people can do so very easily, far more easily than they believe. Their basic stumbling block is thinking that there are exceptions or that there is other technology or that the two above data have modifiers or are not sweeping. The moment a person who is trying to handle PTSes gets persuaded there are other conditions or reasons or technology, he is at once lost and will lose the game and not obtain results. And this is very too bad because it is not difficult and the results are there to be obtained.

              http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/suppression/sh11_4.htm

              Alanzo

        • Isn’t “false data” generally some simple concept that is misunderstood or not fully understood? Something like “airplanes are very hard to land”. The guys uncle told him that when he was a kid and he filed it away as important because his uncle was in the army or something. Doesn’t really make sense, but it’s there. Then years later he’s taking flying lessons and having a hard time with the section on landing. He’s not having it and will not try. You check it over for some false data and find this. He looks at it and compares it to his materials and it clears up. I’ve had it used on me incorrectly once or twice in the church and I didn’t appreciate it. It seemed like there was some confusion on it. I’d be interested in reading the bulletin just to see what it actually says. Maybe it’s like M9 and other stuff where I think people were just doing it wrong. I used to hate M9s until one day I re-read the bulletin and decided I was doing it wrong. Then I did it right – for me and actually found it to be helpful. So, the vital factor is intent. Intent to help, or intent to punish. Intent to control. Intent to suppress. Whats the intent? If the intent is to help then I think FDS is something you can use. I guess that’s what Dave is talking about.

          The last thing I did in the church was two sec checks – I think four intensives (which I know isn’t much compared to others stories) of bypassed FN’s with a GAT auditor who had fidgety feet and terrible TR’s. But I cleaned it up with a good independent auditor and now it’s fine. So was auditing bad? Were Sec Checks bad? I think this stuff can be good or bad, it depends on the intent. If you run across someone in trouble maybe you got something from the bulletin you can help the guy with- help him clear up some “false data”. That’s up to you. It’s up to you how you do it. If you think it’s bad, don’t do it. That’s how I approach Scientology now. If it doesn’t make sense or seems wrong I don’t so it. If it seems like it fits and will help, then I do it. In this case, I will go see if I can pull up a PDF of this bulletin and re-read it with fresh eyes and see what it really says.

  10. The “study tech” is a form of false data stripping too. If you disagree with Ron or find what he says confusing, you have a misunderstood word. You then churn through definitions until you can find a way to rationalize Ron’s sometimes obvious fallacies to convince yourself they are true.

    I admit, with embarrassment, that I did this at one time with Ron’s clear misunderstandings of physics and speed of light.

    I guess Hubbard was a genius at manipulation of people and a master of the tall tale, but as to science, logic, and research, he was an idiot and a buffoon.

  11. I got only one False Data Stripping. We looked for False Data about auditing. But it is impossible, and so had the auditor and C/S a hard time to get me through .. but it did not work ..

    First I could only have false data about auditing from LRH or scientologist, so false data could only be false application .. if I had older false data, it would be true that LRH was not the first one who practized auditing .. so it did run one against the other .. in both cases LRH and Scientology was basically wrong .. so I’ve never completed this rundown .. we had to skip it

    Tried to handle it with a PTS rundown .. but unfortunately we went down to the item “I” .. which meant to the C/S that I would be my own SP .. so we had to skip this rundown too .. fascinating ..

    • Well, what was the C/S there thinking? After all, it is a well -known quote of Hubbard, that
      THE ONLY ABERRATION IS DENIAL OF SELF
      APRIL 6, 2012 LRH QUOTE OF THE WEEK LEAVE A COMMENT
      “Now, where, wherever—wherever man—wherever man finds himself deeply instilled and engrossed and surrounded with mystery, he is actually in conflict with himself, and himself alone. That is why processing works.

      “The only aberration is denial of self.

      “Nobody else can do anything to you but you. That’s a horrible state of affairs. You can do something to you, but it requires your postulate, your agreement or your disagreement before anything could happen to you.

      “People have to agree to be ill. They have to agree to be stupid. They have to agree to be in mystery. And actually, early on the track did agree to being hornswoggled.”

      — L. Ron Hubbard

      Excerpted from the lecture Survive & Succumb, delivered on 5 July 1959. This lecture can be found in the Theta Clear Congress.

      So it seems that “I” would be a perfectly vaild item to find on such a rundown. Being “PTS to oneself” would be “flow 0”, wouldn’t it? “Self to self”?

      • Valkov.
        The two original sins.
        “That’s not me.”
        “I didn’t do that.”

        This is fully explained in my article “Beginning”. Perhaps it deserves going over again. Perhaps you could add some additional insight.
        Mark

        • Mark, have you ever looked at the possibility that the idea of ‘sin’ might be an implant?

          From Book: What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

          “According to the Buddha’s teaching, doubt (vicikiccha) is one of the five Hindrances (nivarana) to the clear understanding of Truth and to spiritual progress (or for that matter to any progress). Doubt, however, is not a ‘sin’, because there are no articles of faith in Buddhism. In fact there is no ‘sin’ in Buddhism, as sin is understood in some religions. The root of all evil is ignorance (avijja) and false views (micchd ditthi). It is an undeniable fact that as long as there is doubt, perplexity, wavering, no progress is possible. It is also equally undeniable that there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.”

          .

          • Vin quoting Walpola: “It is also equally undeniable that there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.”

            This is circular. He says one cannot be free of doubt until one sees clearly, but one cannot see clearly until one is free of doubt.
            Sounds like a “Catch-22” to me.

          • Vin,
            Thanks for the quote on doubt and clarity.

            I was using the word ‘sin’ in a poetic sense. It is my contention that when these two ideas were first originated, “That’s not me” and “I didn’t do that”, there was no such thing as sin, overts, errors or even the possibility that there could be anything wrong or harmful. These concepts hadn’t been invented yet. These two ideas eventually gave us, for better or worse, this big, elaborate playground that we are so fond of.
            Mark

            • It seems that focusing attention on ‘I’ takes the attention away from examining the whole situation. In truth any reference to ‘I’ should be taken as part of the whole scene being examined.

              Any accusation seems to collapse the attention to ‘I’ and prevents it from looking at the situation. Same thing happens with the word “respnsibility,” “sin” etc., are used.

      • “Nobody else can do anything to you but you.” ~ LRH

        Valkov, To me this appears to be a false datum based on faluty Scientology Axiom #1.

        There is something beyond Scientology Axiom#1 that influences a thetan.

        Thetan is really the “self” in the following model for the mind that lays out the scale from the ground state of “non-awareness” to the self (thetan) state of awareness of awareness.

        A Model of the Mind
        .

        • However, Buddha reportedly said something very similar. The very opening words of the Dhammapada say “What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow; our life is the creation of our mind.”

          • Buddha’s frame of reference is very different. For him there was no immortal thetan. To him thetan was a construct, which is shown as self in the model of the mind.

            So, Buddha is saying something very different. According to Buddha, even the thetan will be a creation of the mind.

            How do you interpret “You” in “Nobody else can do anything to you but you.”

            • I would say the question is, “Do you think you think?” Or are your thoughts simply the product of endless monkeys randomly hitting the keys of random typewriters?
              No matter how hard you try to depersonalize your thinking, it is still your thinking you are posting to your blog.
              That is the basic paradox or dilemma expressed by popular (mis)conceptions Buddhism – there are apparently thoughts, but no thinker. This of course is an absurdity. Buddha did not teach this. The reality of Budhist beliefs is more nuanced than that. Thinkers do exist, and they think.

            • I will not enter your squirrel-cage, to talk about how I interpret “you” any more than I want to discuss with Bill Clinton, what I interpret as “sex”. The fact is, all words and all languages are approximations of reality. Actually, likely they are approximations of just segments of reality. They are “fuzzy”.
              They segment reality in somewhat arbitrary ways. Therefore, you either get my meaning, or you don’t.

  12. Well written, and quite provocative, Marty!
    Another layer of the Scientological onion falls by the wayside with the realization that the whole process of indoctrination is designed to “graft onto” the individual all things Hubbard; a synthetic personality that asks itself, and others “What would Ron do?”
    The study and training of Scientology’s laughably named “ethics, tech, and admin” are designed to answer this question; to produce a ‘thinking robot” with the prime directive to “do what Ron would do.”
    Scientology always has been utterly incapable of honestly competing in the marketplace of ideas but is quite adept at “short circuiting” the process of critical thinking. To achieve this end, it employs mental boobytraps and devices such as “False Data Stripping.”
    Whether one should ‘use” Scientology to disengage from Scientology seems, to me, problematic, but I am for ANYTHING that can restore and increase one’s critical thinking skills.
    Thanks, Marty.

    • Hi Mike,
      Very interesting comment.
      ‘What would Ron do?’
      Many Christians ask ‘What would Jesus do?’ I don’t know if Buddhists ask ‘What would Lord Buddha do?’ but I wouldn’t be surprised.
      You really got me thinking.
      If there is a CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION for humanity, then there should be a ‘What would ___________do?’ If I suggest ‘What would God do?’, it pushes too many buttons in some folks.
      So maybe ‘What would a GOOD EARTH DOCTOR do?’ How about that? It directs the attention of the person reading it, to the fact that Earth might required medical attention. This is a point most people neglect to consider. Once your mind turns to the fact that Earth might need such attention, it’s an easy jump to ‘Who will conduct the attention?’. The easy answer to that question is ‘Humanity, who else?’.
      The motivation of humanity to redirect their attention to the health needs of the bigger beings we share space with – Planet, Sun, Galaxy, Universe – is my goal. That same goal requires the initial strengthening of humanity, the Universe’s immune system itself, in the sense of ‘secure your own mask first before assisting others’.
      Because I’m not a Scientologist, I don’t know if L Ron ever analogized humanity with the immune system, or if L Ron considered that Planets might need medical-type attention.
      Do any of you know?
      I do believe L Ron was a gifted prophet, but that he was beset by demons hell bent on slipping him false information to ruin his works. Therefore, his information must be tested along the lines of the Kalama Sutra of Lord Buddha.
      http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/buddhist-practice/kalama-sutta.html
      Have a wonderful day, Mike.

      • The act of assignment of one’s thinking or decision making process to another devalues the precious gift of individual responsibility.

        With Scientology especially, we have an organization that espouses its ability to bring about desirable conditions centering around “freedom”, but has NEVER, in it’s existence, permitted free and open communication.

        Imagine for a moment, if I were to walk into the lobby of the Fort Harrison and engaged Scientologists on the subject of David Miscavige beating senior executives of the “church”. How long would such a conversation be permitted? Is it not a relevant subject for discussion?

        You are free to believe that Hubbard was a prophet, and that you have body thetans, instead of lint, in your belly button, but Scientologists who believe in “fair game” and are encouraged to ACT on it, from no less than the “ecclesiastical leader” himself, as was done to Mosey and Marty, cross the line of the law, and human decency.

        The correct question to ask, assuming that Scientology has not corrupted one’s moral compass, is simply “Am I doing the right thing?”

        • Hi Mike,

          Thank you for your time and consideration.

          Please allow me to share with you, Mike. I feel like my life is part of a parlay. Both/all portions must win in order to WIN. The big WIN would be a healthy happy world, where individuals are embraced for their differences and encouraged to lend their talents to the whole and likewise supported by the whole to achieve individual satisfaction.

          My portion of this parlay is to dutifully listen to the voices in my head that accompany my studies, apply the Kalama Sutra to what I hear and try my best to determine what is good for one and all. I did my determining many years ago, however, I keep an open mind while considering new information. So far, my determination comfortably synthesizes with all new truths, as it should. What is best for one and all is HEALTH. See how wide that is?

          First we must determine what is healthy for each part of the whole. Make each part healthy and the whole will be healthy. If one part is ‘dis-eased’ then the whole is no longer healthy. Earth is diseased.

          I am currently blind to the other portion/portions of the parlay. I don’t even try and guess anymore, because I feel like much bigger beings are in charge of a much bigger plan that requires perfect timing and I am simply a pawn in their game. It is possible that some day I will be required to talk for 15 minutes to wake up the Dalai Lama. I know what to say.

          To that end, I live my spiritual life looking for people who might help me. I’ve tried to contact His Holiness on my own. I even lived in India and met with His Holiness’ secretary and his religious translator. Sadly, they lacked the education required to properly consider some detailed portions of my research, and are especially lacking in knowledge of math, which, if they understood, might have earned me the 15 minute audience I kept requesting. I am not a stalker and refuse to act like one, so I rarely write to His office anymore. I continue to look for help getting there, instead.

          I note wins and alliances along the way, but obviously no WIN yet, or the world would be rebuilding already.

          Dianetics was a late surprise in my journey. I compare ancient literature searching for truths passed down through the ages. The Ginza Rba came late in my journey, but that is because it was ‘in hiding’, in languages that I cannot read. But Dianetics was available and there was one minute that Tom Cruise made me consider reading the Dianetics book. I vaguely remember saying to myself that I should check that one out, but for some reason, I never did. That was years ago, while Marty was still ensconced in Scientology. Once again, perfect timing. I was completely ready for it when I finally did read it, and he was already out of Scientology and in the process of recovering his soul and his reason for being.

          Most of my wins and alliances start out with people not knowing what to think of my research. My ideas are ‘out there’ when first presented, as they should be, because lots of caring people have been trying their best to affect world change. This world still seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, so that means the correct course of action has not been made clear yet, so it kind of has to be something different and new.

          My goal of enabling Universal Health by motivating humanity to embrace their function as the Universal immune system would appear to be a logical course of action. IMO the ‘spiritual sleep’ humanity is experiencing right now is a result of our diet and our stress level. Most people eat all wrong, and that debilitates the brain. Most people have calcified pineal glands and don’t get nearly enough Omega 3. How can we expect them to feel spiritual? The people in charge of our world are very similar to David Miscavige. They stress out the masses. We are often sleep deprived and so stressed out that we become compulsive about behaviors that are not in our best interests. I wrote a short booklet about it set for free to read here; http://www.blurb.com/b/958269-dear-oprah-i-know-why-you-keep-gaining-it-all-back. If you read this booklet, you might understand why Dianetics made such a big impression on me. In Scientologese, I think I’m saying that the reactive mind is wide awake and reacting to our stress, not just a storage area for past data.

          Trying to overcome these compulsive behaviors and wake everyone up in time to save our world from Her current distresses is not a good plan. It would take far too long, as ‘awakening’ is a personal experience that can take many years. So I quit trying to wake everybody up spiritually. However, there is no problem waking everybody up in another way. Think of this: I don’t care what people think or believe – I only care what they do and don’t do. I don’t want to be in control of anything other than my own actions. I don’t seek money or fame, as both seem to attract rather large demons. However, I do want to do my part, and I want to motivate others to do their parts because I want the Universe to be healthy and I want Earth to be a great place for my grandkids and everybody else’s families to grow up, and I believe that can only happen when we work together as a team.

          I agree with what you’re saying that my question ultimately needs to be ‘Am I doing the right thing?’, however, there is a nuance here. I am not a natural leader. I’m a great follower. I would have been putty in the hands of Scientology. Had I not investigated Scientology on the internet after reading Dianetics, I may have walked right into the San Diego chapter and taken that personality test. Instead I found Marty’s blog and intelligent individuals such as yourself willing to consider things I write. Thank you, All.

          I believe we are all prophets and that our human brains were designed to communicate with Angels. Many people don’t choose to consider the thoughts in our heads anything more than that – just thoughts. I choose to consider the sources of the thoughts. I believe some can be from me, some from positive spirits and some from negative spirits. I think of L Ron as a gifted prophet because he got a lot of the good stuff on paper to share. Unfortunately, he was bothered by demons for his efforts. They turned him paranoid and Scientology suffered as its creator suffered (Dianetics predicted the same).

          That being the case, I don’t want to ask ‘What would I do?’ when searching for a course of action because it’s self centered and lends itself to spiritual manipulation. Therefore, I considered ‘What would a good Earth doctor do?’ to be a good start when considering what a right course of action might be. The end result I’m searching for from a personal standpoint is ‘Am I doing the right thing?’. The end result I’m hoping for in my desire to motivate others is for them to question the very idea of Earth needing an Earth doctor.

          Please know that I’m not trying to offend you or anyone else here. My desires to help others stem from my own past (alcoholic father, thereafter AA for him and alateen for me, later drug addiction for me and the suffering of my own children) and the things I’ve witnessed happening to others. We can do better. We got thrown off our track by a misinterpretation of a law of heavenly motion, and humanity still hasn’t found its way back to health.

          “Learn from the past, live in the present.” ~~~ Dr. Richard Kernochan

          “The greatest failure in life is not to try.” ~~~ Professor Gwen Thomas

  13. “False Data Stripping” and “Truth Rundown” = Mind Control Tech.
    Great presentation of another key layer of insidious manipulation.

  14. Note: What is a false data about auditing? It could be, that I had the data that auditing would ruin me or would make me crazy, or something like that. Okay – but if it would be my data, why I went into auditing in the first place? I had not such data neither from scientologists nor from somebody else ..

    False Data Stripping is used when you run into something which you can not grasp with clear certainty .. so you look for some counter intended data which stop you to get the right idea and purpose .. if I am wrong here with my view please correct me ..

    I myself had not counter intended data about auditing. Only something like should not look into my mind or into other minds. But this is bullshit data ..

    As typical on False Data Stripping you run whole track .. but there are no false data about auditing .. because per LRH it has never exist before on the track .. he alone found out that there is a reactive mind and that you can pull them with auditing procedures .. also auditing ..

    So the auditor asked me, with wich words on this subject you cannot think. Here I said: I cannot think with engrams. Who can think with engrams? It is not possible, because you do not know about .. critical point in this auditing was that I stated that I cannot know what I do not know .. why should my mind give up something unknown to me only because the meter says that there is something unknown to me? I mean forgotten, but then I knew at one time about .. but my auditing did ask for things about which I had never knew anything for myself ..

    I know, False Data Stripping was a wrong way to go over it. It was simply a way to push out my No Auditing dramatization .. but it was the idea of the C/S to handle it this way .. he was probably not very clever ..

    Going over this with a PTS rundown was also not clever, because it indicate that I would run some suppression as my own. Naturally I got the item “I” , because it was indicated as the source before I started the rundown that I would supress auditing with my own fabricated false data ..

    My original problem was that I did not find my auditing as auditing, but an attempt to fixate me on something which was illogical for me ..

    Marty is in my view completely right when he says that a scientologist goes downhill when he goes with False Data Stripping .. it may have some sense to do that .. but if done wrongly from stupid persons who use false data for themselves .. it is all bullshit ..

    Note: when I came into scientology I thought: why will LRH have that we all think all his ideas? I was sorry for him if he was such an idiot ..

    Note: I know a person who comes from Rumänien and learned in her youth a lot of 2nd and 3rd dynamic rules .. all false data ..

    • Friend: “why should my mind give up something unknown to me only because the meter says that there is something unknown to me?”

      Is that how a meter read be interpreted? To me a meter read is an indication of an inconsistency and nothing more. One needs to then determine what that inconsistency is without assuming anything.

      ________________________________

      • You are completely right .. but truth is (not for my proud) that the auditor convinced me that the read was coming from my reactive mind .. about which I would know nothing myself .. the meter would show up only my reactive mind responses. What could I say? Nothing! I had no argument.

        As I said several times before .. I had a big problem with my auditing, but went surely convinced that something was out there which did suggest my own beingness .. so following when I got auditor interest in a read on the meter .. then I figured me down to whatevernesses .. also to things from which I have never known ever before ..

        The only problem was, besides of the funny moments to find something which gave my auditor VGIs .. understand that right, my slogan was all over the time .. I brought my auditor to VGIs .. interestingly is that I got then also VGIs .. but where in deep trouble about myself ..

        Later I found out about this game. Answering a question which did not belong to me .. did not understand the sense of it and his intention or whatever did lead me into lower and lower ARC .. called ARCX .. so I looked for getting my ARC again up .. so when the auditor got VGIs with the ARCX needle .. I myself was also happy with VGIs .. I have caused somebodies VGIs ..

        It is stupid what I have said here, but it is true. I was gone with this for all my auditing. My inconsistency was always that I lost my ARC with the auditing procedures .. nothing else ..

        • “.. the meter would show up only my reactive mind responses.”

          As I understood in Scientology, “The meter reads just below awareness.” To this I shall add, “You are only aware that some inconsistency is there.” So you look at that inconsistency more closely to discover what is causing that inconsistency.

      • Vinaire

        Here is my take on what e-meters are capable of.

        The e-meter is basically a bio-feedback device.

        It simply registers changes in resistance to a small electrical flow, or perhaps it may respond to electrical charges generated within the body. It tells you nothing except that, for whatever reason, something in the body changed that had an effect on these things.

        Considering the complexities of body structures and functions, any changes visible on the e-meter needle is likely going to be an “average” of the overall changes within the body, at any given moment.

        The meter also responds to changes exterior to the body, at the interface between the electrodes and the body, such as sweat, changes in the contact with the electrodes, etc. These changes are then potentially also included in the overall needle response.

        As an electronic instrument It can “confirm” nothing other than that such changes occurred.

        By observation, it appears that thoughts are capable of having an effect on the body’s electrical and resistance values, which are then registered by the e-meter.

        Beyond that, one can INTERPRET the timing and specifics of needle movements any way he chooses.

        Personally I consider it a bit unwise to rely too heavily on any given interpretation.

        Eric

  15. Marty,
    Very well written. As I recall, Hubbard claimed that he broke from the Socratic tradition in the “Road to Truth” lecture. What you describe is also totally opposite to Buddhist tradition. The Buddha taught that ideas should be personally investigated.
    Thus Hubbard is breaking from both Eastern and Western traditions here.
    He is also breaking from the scientific method.
    Marty wrote:

    ” I’ll tell you how I did. I was heavily false data stripped. I recall specifically some of those nasty ‘false datums’ that were stripped from my mind through ‘false data stripping technology’ to make me amenable to doing it Ron’s way:”

    I never had intense data stripping as a public person. The data stripping I got was very light. I also never joined the Sea Org because I had heard of the intense pressure on mentality.
    Hubbard set out on his own path convinced that he had found the secret to life in the thetan. He secluded himself and only filtered in the most sincere devotees.
    There is this huge gap between the public and the Sea Org. I simply played the “bluff” game with Hubbard untill OT VIII. When I completed that level, I saw clearly that “the big fish” was full of contraditions.
    Thank you for your excellent analysis

    Kind Regards,
    GMW

  16. Leaves no room for value judgements.

  17. Great observation Marty. There is a lack of humanity and compassion that runs through most of this. The individual who is not contributing to the group always has O/W’s or is PTS, an SP, or pulled in an illness or situation. It made me wonder what the emotional or nurturing climate was in LRH’s house growing up as a child. I cannot imagine it as a warm and caring atmosphere. I don’t see it as having Christian values of compassion and charity. I suspect his pride and ego were fed and stroked a lot.

  18. Just re-name it data stripping.

  19. Great post Marty. Hypnosis is another subject Hubbard fed false information on. I did not think my mind could be influenced through any type of hypnosis prior to Scientology. Then I proceeded to get hypnotized by the “tech” and the commands – “Get up the Bridge”, “Donate to the Ideal Org”, “Go Clear”, “Donate, donate, donate”, “Scientology Works when S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D-L-Y (cough) applied and it is not working because we are fixing the world with broken pieces…etc. When I left the cult, I started to do research on Hypnosis – WOW – Hubbard hypnotized me without my knowing it. Thanks for posting all that you see as you see it…you have paved a road map for those that struggle as they leave Scientology.

  20. I’ve heard many people name false data stripping as one of the key brainwashing techniques in Scientology, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone break it down and clearly show false data stripping for what it is.

    Also, you made an excellent use of your own experience, and showing which data, when put under the coercive pressure of a false data stripping session, had to be considered “false”, only because it opposed the Scientology datum.

    One of the wonderful things that I have come to see after Scientology is that two opposite data can both be true.

    I have also found that long-standing arguments between people usually stick because both positions each holds is true.

    This level of seeing the truth, which is required to have good judgement, is not available to the scientologist who believes in L Ron’s theory of false data stripping.

    Anyone who disagrees with Hubbard or Scientology, and says so, must be a “hater”, or an “SP”, or as the Indies now call them a “sociopath!“.

    There’s a big wide world out there, with lots of viewpoints. And there was even a time – before Hubbard wrote False Data Stripping – where he said that “you are as OT as you can assume viewpoints“.

    That was during his recruitment period of the 1950’s, though. That kind of viewpoint would never run a cult. So he dumped it and subjected Scientologists to False Data Stripping instead.

    I wonder if he considered it “false”?

    Alanzo

    • Bodhisattva Alonzo speaks the truth:

      “One of the wonderful things that I have come to see after Scientology is that two opposite data can both be true.”

      “I have also found that long-standing arguments between people usually stick because both positions each holds is true.”

      “That was during his recruitment period of the 1950’s, though. That kind of viewpoint would never run a cult.”

      Exactly. What about the observations that Hubbard made in the earlier fifties?

      That NO datum can stand alone by itself in the universe. That all data is RELATIVE not only to each other but as to its TRUTHFULNESS.

      But if Ron actually pushed that instead, he would have had to acknowledge, Buddhism’s dependent origination insights into the nature of mind,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81daQuantum

      and Quantum Physics outstanding contributions into the field of reality.

      So Ron could not become Source, couldn’t It?

    • Allen, Remember I once told you about a new outpoint I thought of: Assumed contrary facts that are not actually contrary.

      • Dave wrote:

        Allen, Remember I once told you about a new outpoint I thought of: Assumed contrary facts that are not actually contrary.

        That’s right! We’ve had this discussion before!

        What’s interesting is the assumption that just because two ideas are contrary that this means one of them must be false.

        Not always true!

        Alanzo

        • What I think is this: if the two ideas actually are contrary, then at least one of them is false. But the problem is too often people think that two ideas are contrary when they actually are not. Then they have to pick which one of the two is false when actually neither of them are false.

          • Dave

            I just have to step in here and give you an example that may alter your view on this statement of yours.

            You said; “What I think is this: if the two ideas actually are contrary, then at least one of them is false. ”

            Consider this. Two people are viewing a third person. One is viewing from the left, one from the right. One says the person is wearing a black hat, one says white.
            Your statement suggests that one of them is false.

            But consider that, the third person was wearing a hat that was black on one side and white on the other.

            You see where I am going with this?”

            The data apparently conflicts, but the reality is actually a synthesis of both.

            It would then seem that “the narrower the viewpoint, the less the likelihood of an accurate evaluation.”

            Eric

            • Exactly my point but when you quoted me you left part of it out. I not only said, “if the two ideas actually are contrary, then at least one of them is false”, but right after that I also said, “But the problem is too often people think that two ideas are contrary when they actually are not. Then they have to pick which one of the two is false when actually neither of them are false.”

              In your example, the two ideas weren’t contrary, though they thought they were contrary. That’s why I think this should be a logic outpoint: Assumed contrary facts that are not actually contrary.

              If the two datums actually were contrary, such as they both looked over the hat from all possible angles and one of them said it was totally white and the other one said it was totally black, then the two datums WOULD be contrary, and one of them (or both) would have to be false.

              • Dave, Eric.
                Mindfullness, as explained by Vinaire, Lao Tsu and several others, when understood and practiced, resolves most of these issues. The principles of Mindfulness under several titles, such as obnosis, should be studied and made a habit of life.

                It has become one of the keys to my solo auditing, a major reason why I can do my work without many of the problems encountered by some others. But don’t let that scare you away, it’s wide ranging principles can and will produce desirable changes in an individuals life.
                Mark

              • Dave

                OK. Sorry about that. And I like your added logic outpoint.

                I am just thinking though, that the exercise of “looking over the two ideas from all angles” would be the basis of your “Conflicting Data Analysis”.
                If the ideas or objects had actually been “looked at from all angles” in the first place, it is unlikely that they would have ended up being contrary.

                Not “looking over the ideas from all angles” in the first place, seems to be the nub of the problem.

                Eric

                • Yes. Maybe when the person hasn’t yet spotted the prior conflicting datum, it will seem contrary, but then after he spots it and examines it from the various angles and viewpoints, it will simply be a fuller understanding of the relative truths and untruths of both, and all, related datums.

  21. Beautiful observation.

  22. Marty: “There is a specific sector of scientology ‘technology’ that clearly betrays the subject’s hypnotic, mind controlling nature. That is L. Ron Hubbard’s ‘False Data Stripping’ technology. In short, Hubbard dictates that one identify the source of any data that is getting in the road of a person adopting, with 100% certainty and exclusivity, any datum from scientology’s indoctrination. Hubbard has the practitioner search for the data that conflicts with a datum Hubbard is attempting to get across. The objective is to eradicate the earlier datum utterly so that only Hubbard’s datum remains unopposed.”

    It is interesting to spot this angle of ‘False Data Stripping’ technology.

    What if the person finds the contradicting datum to be truer than Hubbard’s datum? Then Hubbard’s game is over. Hubbard seems to be taking quite a bit of risk here.

    But, maybe, Hubbard counted on earlier indoctrination to work.

    ________________________________

  23. The whole thing under Miscabbage is a bl**dy abomination…

    I haven’t left many posts of late, as I’ll admit that I don’t understand the deep stats/data-type posts (nothing personal) – but I do very much hope that all is well with your world and the lovely Mrs. and Baby Rathbun (and Chiquita).

    Love to all; keep smiling…
    IEG

  24. Just another attempt by Hubbard to inject his held-down-7s-infested-DNA into his subjects. One way of shortening one’s trajectory into — and out of — Scientology, is to encompass all knowledge when FDSing, and not get duped into accepting the held down 7s.

  25. Marty wrote:

    “So thorough is Hubbard’s ‘tech’ for ferreting out and disappearing ‘false data’ that conflicts with his data, ironically, that those steps applied to one’s scientology experience could actually de-hypnotize someone from years of mind control programming. “

    This is a very important point, Marty.

    I have seen the Scientology mindset collapse in just this way on a number of Scientologists over the years.

    For me, the concept of “intellectual honesty” was a datum from the value system I held before I had become a Scientologist. When I focused on this concept again, after years in, Scientology just started collapsing all around me.

    A writer friend of mine and I were discussing being a member of an ideology and trying to write true things. His contention was that you couldn’t because when you are pushing an ideology, you have to make wrong anything that opposes the ideology, or what shows the ideology to be false – even though it might be true.

    The topic between us became “what is intellectual honesty and how do you apply it as a member of an ideology?”

    I had grown up valuing intellectual honesty. My father was an engineer and my mother a highly literate and well read woman who encouraged literacy and critical thinking in me. I realized that this value system of mine had been lost when I became a Scientologist.

    Scientology was pretty much done for me when I saw that. It just started collapsing everywhere around me.

    And then I made the decision to never lie about Scientology again. And that’s what eventually made me an “SP” and brought OSA down on me.

    If a Scientologist compares points of his present value system as a Scientologist with points in his earlier value system, and he begins to see the values he gave up in order to become a Scientologist, Scientology will collapse on him.

    Hubbard knew this and talked about it on the BC, especially on the tape “Moral Codes, What is a Withhold?” That tape, more than almost any other, reveals what Hubbard was actually working on when he ran the BC. He was trying to create synthetic personalities, complete with moral codes, that he could instill and maintain in people who would do his bidding.

    When he took off and developed the Sea Org, he implemented this brainwashing technology he developed on the BC on a group of people he could have total control over on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

    Hubbard very intentionally created and instilled brainwashing techniques into Scientology. And you are touching on the very points that will undo it.

    Heh heh.

    Way to go, Marty.

    Way to go.

    Alanzo

    • That is so true about ideology.

    • Alanzo you said:
      “And then I made the decision to never lie about Scientology again. And that’s what eventually made me an “SP” and brought OSA down on me.”

      I think this statement sums it up. A free thinking person can never be a Scientologist. Ron’s redefinition of “openmindedness”, once accepted as true, will always be there to undermine sovereign thought.

      And I was also thinking Marty that a listing of all the major and minor steps taken to become a closed minded group member might be helpful.

      Listing them out and then having commentary. Maybe you can have it on this blog. For instance, you can present the data (I paraphrase) “all upsets that don’t resolve ALWAYS have a third party”

      All of us have applied that data when we were in the church. In ethics counseling etc. It drove me a bit batty during marriage counseling. Always looking outside of my relationship for the problem. Looking for a scapegoat because Ron said one was there: ALWAYS!!!!!!!

      By picking one at a time and having folks think about it and discriminate between the real and unreal, whole sections of wrong thinking can be revealed and dumped.

      Just have one statement at a time per blog. By keeping it simple, wide ranging comprehensions about deeply layed in falsehoods can then be brought to light.

      Look you guys, I have been out since the early 80’s, I am still uncovering some of Ron’s crazy ideas accepted into my naive and formative adolescent mind. I joined when I was 17 or 18.

      The Third Party “Law” may be a good place to start. It was understood by us all. It was a simple piece of information that elevated “blame” to “standard tech”.

      • Brian, I am sorry, but the “3rd Party” principle has been known since ancient times, Hubbard only brought it to the general awareness. It is a pivotal element in many dramatic scripts and many illustrations can be found in history, where 3rd parties can be seen in action, at least in retrospect. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsquent civil war is a good example.

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

    • Alanzo,

      “Hubbard knew this and talked about it on the BC, especially on the tape “Moral Codes, What is a Withhold?” That tape, more than almost any other, reveals what Hubbard was actually working on when he ran the BC. He was trying to create synthetic personalities, complete with moral codes, that he could instill and maintain in people who would do his bidding.”

      Are you referring to some angle other than his usual what others have done to us?

      Please elaborate a bit more about the “how to create synthetic personalities”.

      Thanks

      • Are you referring to some angle other than his usual what others have done to us?

        Please elaborate a bit more about the “how to create synthetic personalities”.

        There is a public congress tape series, which I can’t remember the name of, from the late 50’s, maybe even early 60’s, where he presents the GPM tech, which he had been developing on the BC, to the public for the first time.

        In one of his lectures there, he says that he has “discovered what a personality is made up of”.

        Now, that is not what he ever said about GPMs on the BC, that I can remember. He always told BC students that this was “how the case was constructed” and this was the whole reason for his “research line” – to create “Clears” and “OT”s.

        Most techniques of brainwashing – not just influence – target the self-identity of the person you are trying to control by replacing it with a self-identity that you have developed.

        Remember, a self-identity is who you tell yourself you are. This is the key element of this form of extreme brainwashing. If you can change who a person tells himself he is to something that you can control, then you have someone whose very life is spent doing what you want him to do.

        Some of the core pieces of your self identity are your memories (which Hubbard had always targeted with auditing), your goals (which Hubbard targeted on the BC with his SOP Goals tech, and later the GPM tech, and still later FPRD tech) and your moral codes or value systems, which he targeted using all forms of OW write ups and sec checking.

        Over time, Hubbard developed auditing as a gradient form of brainwashing to replace the self-identity that you were born with, and which you had been developing all your life, with a self-identity that had the memories and goals and moral codes that he could control.

        The BC was his Edison-style inventor’s laboratory where the BC students, who paid him to be there, were his lab rats and co-developers.

        And then the Sea Org was the highly controlled environment he created to apply what he had developed on the BC in order to produce a core group of brainwashed followers whose memories, goals and moral codes had been fully supplanted and who would do anything he told them to do, all on billion year slave labor contracts.

        From the use of TRs to create a hypnotic state in the pc, to the creation of false memories, to the development of SOP Goals, Sec Checking and GPM tech, Hubbard was doing something very different from what he was telling anyone else about.

        Scientologists were reaching for Clear and OT while Hubbard was always targeting them for everything of value that they had.

        This is the “long con” which L Ron Hubbard spent decades of work developing as Dianetics and Scientology.

        Alanzo

        • Alanzo,

          Thanks for your great exposition of Hubbard’s final intent.

          I too observed that was were the ship was going when I was in the SO. But I did not have the mental capacity to actually comprehend what was taking place, let alone be able to articulate the fine points of mind control, entrapment, etc..

          I’m telling you this has been an incredible education for me, however tough, I’m happy that I know why I know now.

          • Conan wrote:

            I’m telling you this has been an incredible education for me, however tough, I’m happy that I know why I know now.

            It has been for me as well.

            It is the oddest thing ever that learning about what Hubbard was really up to with Scientology has been one of my greatest spiritual lesson of this lifetime so far.

            This technology of brainwashing is being used in Guantanamo Bay, in North Korea, in China and elsewhere.

            When it is applied in a spiritual context, as it was in Scientology, it is the most profane corruption of the best impulses in human beings.

            For some reason, coming to see this has been a huge spiritual “win” for me, helping me to understand things that I always wanted to understand.

            Go figure.

            Alanzo

            • I think when you say “what Hubbard wws really up to”, you are electing to believe one pole of a dichotomy. It is entirely possible that he also really was up to trying to help people and develop a “bridge” to greater ability and higher states of existence.
              There is no reason, really, to think he was only up to one or the other. That is simplistic two-valued logic, “black or white thinking”.

              • Valkov wrote:

                “I think when you say “what Hubbard wws really up to”, you are electing to believe one pole of a dichotomy. It is entirely possible that he also really was up to trying to help people and develop a “bridge” to greater ability and higher states of existence.”

                Why just two poles of a dichotomy?

                There are many different hypotheses for what Hubbard was really up to.

                But this particular hypothesis is the only one which addresses both his public statements and PR manipulations of Scientologists, AND his covert writings and orders which were so much their opposite.

                This hypothesis is the one which explains the contradictory behavior, the contradictory writings, and the duplicity with which he conducted himself throughout his creation and maintenance of Dn and Scn.

                You can’t be sincerely trying to develop a bridge to greater ability and higher states of existence for people while ALSO crafting the chains for their total slavery.

                If you are creating the chains to enslave people, that is what you are doing, no matter how many PR pronunciamentos you make.

                Alanzo

                • I think Hubbard crafted the chains to slavery because he did not want anyone to achieve a case status higher than his own. The whole game of Dn abd Scn was about handling his own case… he went about it the wrong way and did not succeed.

                • Al: “You can’t be sincerely trying to develop a bridge to greater ability and higher states of existence for people while ALSO crafting the chains for their total slavery.”

                  Why not? Especially at different points in one’s life. But more to the point, why is it that philosophies that appear high-minded at their inception, often seem to fall from grace and become oppressive as their temporal establishment progresses? Why is that? What causes that?

                  • Very good point, Valkov.

                    I have seen that arc as Scientology’s temporal establishment progresses, as you put it so well.

                    But since Hubbard was lying about the results of Dianetics from the beginning, how can you say that Dianetics and Scientology were actually high minded at their inception?

                    Alanzo

                    • There is a difference betwenn deliberately lying, which is what I assume you mean, and being mistaken. Hubbard could well have thought he was discovering or trying to discover some things that would benefit mankind, without cynically “lying” about it. I take this to be the case, looking at his work between 1950 and, say, 1960 at least. There is nothing in his technical lectures that I have heard from this period, that would lead me to believe he did not hope to provide constructive therapies. That he was possibly wrong about some of the results the auditing “tech” would or could produce, does not produce the syllogism that “he lied”. He hoped, he bet on, etc seem to me to describe what happened more realistically. Because to say he lied simply does not account for the many positive results some people experienced. And are still experiencing, as posted on, for instance, on MS2.

                      This is an entirely different issue, than the deconstruction of any particular embodiment of “scientology” as a political entity, and Hubbard’s role in planning and establishing it. There is no doubt he created the CoS, and that Miscavige was “his creature”. However, the Freezone, Ron’s Orgs, etc were also “his creatures”. One might say Idenics and Knowledgism as well as other spinoiffs were “his creatures”.

                    • I don’t think Hubbard was deliberately lying or had bad intentions. He was an incompetent researcher. He just wanted to accomplish certain goals for himself at all costs,

                      Hubbard was no dummy, but, I think that Hubbard could not follow the scientific method systematically. He took intuitive jumps, and went by gut feelings. He assumed that other studies were lacking. Therefore, he didn’t explore the inconsistencies between his and other studies.

                      Hubbard was just a powerful force. Something definitely can be said in his favor. He is the main reason why so many people are discussing the possibility of scientific research into spirituality. .

                      ________________________________

                    • Valkov

                      Yes. I see your point here.

                      There seems to be no question that he said a lot of things that were not true, and likely knew it at the time. But, as you suggest, he may somehow have thought that they were true.

                      That would seem to suggest that he was heavily the effect of his own delusions.

                      If the goal was money, then one might think that the better his “technology” worked, the more popular it would become, and the more money it would generate.

                      Could be, at some point he realized that it wasn’t getting the results he had envisioned and so he turns to damage control tactics, like brainwashing, hypnotism, implanting, psychological control mechanisms, and such.

                      Personally I tend to think that it is likely some synthesis of him being a total charlatan, a megalomaniac, a compulsive liar, a creative storyteller, a plagiarist, and someone who had some valid insights.

                      Unfortunately we are left with the mess to sort out, and it seems that the charlatan in him laced the whole thing liberally booby traps.

                      Eric

                    • Of course choosing to “sort it all out” is not everyone’s game, myself included.

        • I got up and applauded you…

          • Thank you, Luis.

            I bow to your standing ovation.

            I don’t get those very often.

            So it’s always good to revel in them, when I get them, as much as I can.

            Alanzo (:>

        • “You are not who you think you are” is of course a central tenet of Buddhism.

          • Valkov wrote:

            “You are not who you think you are” is of course a central tenet of Buddhism.

            And “You are a thetan” and “Scientology ethics is native to you” is of course a central tenet of Scientology.

            Which installs and keeps fixed the synthetic personality of a brainwashed follower?

            Alanzo

            • You tell me and we’ll both know. My quote was, of course, something from Lipton. And in fact there are and have been in the past, “Buddhist” cults. This link doesn’t specifiy any in particular but mentions their existence.

              http://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1e7xd1/how_to_spot_a_buddhist_cult/

              It seems to me that “deconstruction” of the personality being central to Buddhism, the potential danger is there

              • Absolutely it is there.

                The idea of “anatta” could be one of the most abusive cult indoctrination beliefs ever.

                I am sure that it has been used that way many times, and still can be.

                The question is, does Scientology instill a synthetic personality?

                Alanzo

                • Of course that is one way of putting it, In mechanical terms. Does it “instill”? Here is what “instill” means:
                  in·still
                  verb
                  1.
                  gradually but firmly establish (an idea or attitude, especially a desirable one) in a person’s mind.

                  All “education”, especially any “moral education” attempts to instill ideas and attitudes in the people being educated.
                  The question is, “desirable” from whose point of view?

                  I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with Hubbard’s view of “auditors” as expressed in his early talks and writings, and his publicly expressed goals for scoientology. The “scientology personality” he was promoting was OK.

                  However the political personalities, (and I do think there was more than one), he built in to the organizational roles staff assumed, were something else. Especially in the Sea Org. This was fanatical from the start. This is why people were leaving in droves by the 1980s. So I think that it is simplistic to say that Hubbard was trying to create “a synthetic scientology personality”. There were contradictory elements from the start. He wanted Scientologists to “be free”, yet he wanted at least some, a core group, who were obedient to him and followed his lead. Sheep in other words.

                  In short, I think he promoted and tried to instill various and contradictory personality traits and attitudes in “Scientologists”. Early on, he expressed this in his heirarchical scheme of Field Auditors, missions, orgs, advanced orgs etc. Each level embodied a different level of fidelity to a standard of delivery he had in mind, and thus embodied a different personality.

              • This is the Chapter on Anatta from the book What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

                The Doctrine of No-Soul: Anatta

                .

  26. Marty: “First the practitioner and the recipient are indoctrinated to accept that holding conflicting data of any sort is a sort of aberration or mental dysfunction. There is no concept of plurality or synthesis when it comes to understanding in scientology. Please read this from the Hubbard indoctrination very carefully and try to think with the consequences of accepting it as Gospel.”

    If I were doing False Data Stripping on myself, I would simply identify the contradiction as something that does not make sense. I would look at it more closely. I would not assume that LRH datum is correct and the other datum is incorrect.

    This is because a datum can be interpreted in many different ways. So, I could be looking at LRH datum incorrectly. I would not take LRH datum literally at all. I would resolve the confusion by finding an interpretation of LRH datum that makes sense. This may not be what LRH intended, but I don’t know of that.

    A good example is how I interpreted Scientology Axiom #1 in the beginning. A literal interpretation of this axiom contradicts with the NETI, NETI principle of the Vedas. Scientology Static is not completely static because it is assigned certain potentials or abilities. Per NETI, NET even those abilities shall not be there in an absolute static. So I did not take Hubbard’s definition of Static literally from the beginning.

    Another example is when doing TR0. I understood that the datum “Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at random or becoming too fixed without sweeping.” was the senior datum when doing TR0. I kept applying that datum even when I saw others at Flag interpreting TR0 differently. I even used that datum heavily as TRs Course Word Clearer. Student’s were having tremendous wins as a result. But I was taken off that post under the charge that I was feeding cognitions. Others simply could not see the relative value of this datum.

    Anyway, the points I want to make are as follows.

    ‘False Data Stripping’ will be damaging only after the person has already been damaged with the belief of inetrpreting LRH data literally.

    .

    ________________________________

    • Many people who come into Scientology may already be damaged in thinking that authority must be taken literally. This may be due to their upbringing. It could be due to their indoctrination in Christianity.It could be due to other cultural factors.

      Under those circumstances, Scientology motto would appear to be:

      “To make damaged more damaged.”

      .

      • Marty said.. ” Please read this from the Hubbard indoctrination very carefully and try to think with the consequences of accepting it as Gospel.”
        ………………………………………………
        Vinnie.. Both of your posts indicate that you did not follow Marty’s instructions.

        Your above post

        “If I were doing False Data Stripping on myself, I would simply identify the contradiction as something that does not make sense. I would look at it more closely. I would not assume that LRH datum is correct and the other datum is incorrect. ”
        …………………………….

        You appear to be more smug and superior to others who replaced LRH data with their own through FDS..

        • “You appear to be more smug and superior to others who replaced LRH data with their own through FDS.”

          I don’t think I get this. Could you please expand upon this. Thanks.

        • BB, you sound like you are following Marty’s instructions in a literal manner.

          • “Marty said.. ” Please read this from the Hubbard indoctrination very carefully and try to think with the consequences of accepting it as Gospel.”
            ………………………………………………
            Vinnie said.. “BB, you sound like you are following Marty’s instructions in a literal manner.”
            ……………………………………………
            Yes, I did as Marty asked us to do.
            You wrote your answer in a manner that would suggest that you did not think with the consequences of accepting it as Gospel.

            You did it from a critical thinking viewpoint. Vinnie really you sounded like those who say, ” I could never be brainwashed, under mind control, hypnotized. I am much too strong and smart for that. ”

            Your entire post indicated that you did it ” Your Way” NOT as Hubbard directed. ( Gospel)

            • BB, do you have a confusion.

              • Baby do you think others have confusions similar to what you have already resolved?

                • I do not have the answer to this question Vinnie.
                  We were asked politely by Marty to do something and I did. And you didn’t.

                  I took his request literally and you didn’t. When you were a Scientologist you did things your way. Your way suggests that you were not under mind control while others around you were.

                  Thus your way was via critical thinking Not the manner in which you were instructed.
                  ……………….
                  ” I would not take LRH datum literally at all. I would resolve the confusion by finding an interpretation of LRH datum that makes sense. This may not be what LRH intended, but I don’t know of that. ”

                  ” So I did not take Hubbard’s definition of Static literally from the beginning. ”

                  So am I to believe that you were in Scn but played by your own rules? When others around you lock stepped?

  27. Thank you for your continuing work Marty
    Over 4 years I have several tablets full of the false datums I adopted from the study and activity called scientology, most of them written by Ron himself and some insinuated.
    Pretty much anything by Ron I now read has contradictions and/or false datums imbedded.
    In the SO we were made to store our TVs with security because of the subliminal messages. What a pile of crap. Lol!
    Recently an X posted his decompression history on Back In Comm Blog. Mine has been entirely different. A major part has been the False Data striping and the cognitions thereafter. I’m having fun with your posts and usually they are running right along with my own life ~ interesting it is.
    Lots of happy thoughts and wishes for you and yours and please say something if you need help with anything Marty.

  28. Marty! Boom. Bam. Sha-Zaaaam.😉

  29. The key realization I have had from recent Marty’s essays is as following. The key button is the Western society is the AUTHORITY BUTTON (Alanzo, please take note). This button starts getting enforced through the Semitic concept of God (which is very different from the Vedic concept of God). The Semtic religions have had a great time reinforcing this authority button. Hubbard used it in his turn. That is why he turned Dianetics into Scientology religion. Hypnosis doesn’t work without this authority button. Marty has to be very careful of misusing this button inadvertently.

    ________________________________

  30. Hubbard was all over the place with some of this stuff. At one time, “the greatest overt” was making others desire MEST. At a later time, it was “making others guilty of committing overts”. In the early 60’s, it was “enforcing a non-comprehensibility”.

    I sometimes wonder, in light of the Criminal Mind HCOB, what would happen if it were retroactively applied to Hubbard’s statements?

    • A one-shot clear fix on scientology which would take it a long way would be to put virtually all Hubbard material into the subjunctive. Liberal doses of ‘sometimes’, ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘might’, ‘can’, ‘would’. Convert it to the Nagarujunan four-valued approach. It is interesting that nobel prize winning economist/psychologist Daniel Kahneman in ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’, cites studies that demonstrate the more certainty expressed by experts (economic, military, social, Wall Street) the more faulty their predictions.

    • Making others guilty for overts seems as the greatest overt .. simply because of one reason .. you can go back the line for eternity .. it means, if you may realize it .. it is not said, making others guilty of commiting overts .. it is simply said, making others guilty for overts .. which is quite different as an action .. you can reduce that to make another guilty .. it goes itself the way that another did something or did not do something .. you can call both an overt if it caused harm ..

      But you can go this way further, somebody can pretend harm which not really exist .. so you have a long run with this making others guilty for overt

  31. Independent Spirit

    Last year I read Jurgen Ziewes book Multidimensional Man. It is quite interesting I think. Here is a link to a video where Ziewe presents some of his experiences and ideas to inacs.org about consciousness
    and other dimensions:

    Here are some more videos:
    http://vimeo.com/user5737590/videos
    And his website, if you want more information:
    http://www.multidimensionalman.com
    These are hands on experiences obtained through meditation and
    lucid dreaming in an awakened state. It reports about different types of realities and states of awareness.

    • christianscientology

      Thank you so much Independent Spirit for posting the link to Jurgen Ziewes’s website. I have watched several of his videos and found them amazing especially the ones on Reality and Out of Body experiences – Parts 1,2, and 3.

      For me it validates so much that I first heard about when I got involved with Scientology particularly the idea that we create our own reality and share in agreed about reality. I never went any farther than ‘Clear’ but what Jurgen is talking about is very much what the 7th dynamic is about, and the fact that he is speaking from personal experience I loved.

      Thanks again for the introduction.

      Love and ARC
      Pip

      P.S. I was amazed that the videos you mentioned did not even get a reply on the blog. “None so blind as those that will not see” comes to mind.

      • Independent Spirit

        Pip, I am glad you liked Jurgen Ziewes videos. I also find great comfort in reading books about the afterlife. I am currently reading Bob Olson’s, Answers about the Afterlife. We are not alone. We are in a big spirit world. It gives me a brighter perspective on our Earth lives. Love, Independent Spirit

  32. “There is a philosophic background as to why getting off false data on a subject works and why trying to teach a correct datum over a false datum on the subject does not work. It is based on the Socratic thesis-antithesis-synthesis philosophical equation.” ~ Hubbard

    I thought this came from Hegel and not from Socrates. Here is the reference from Wikipedia: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel never used the term himself. The triad is usually described in the following way: * The thesis is an intellectual proposition. * The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition. * The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths and forming a new thesis, starting the process over. According to Walter Kaufmann, although the triad is often[1] thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous. Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, also an advocate of the philosophy identified as German idealism. The triad is often said to have been extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, however, Marx referred to them in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) as speaking Greek and “Wooden trichotomies”.

    ________________________________

    • Hegel was also the smartass who stated:
      “War is a basic neccessity for peoples mental health”.
      Within the last two years I came to the conclusion that Hubbard adopted the principle for Scientologists.

  33. Interesting!
    I remember that in false data stripping the „false datum“ sort of blew like
    an auditing charge. I wonder if that also happens if one reverses it, like
    one false data strips the LRH datum.
    That is in a way what you are doing, blowing off all that Scientology,
    isn’t it. You might end up back in a sort of pre-Scientology state.
    A whole life’s work for nothing, though…
    Marcel Wenger

    • If you read my book, of if you read the Tao Te Ching, or even if you read HCOB False Data Stripping against my post, you wouldn’t likely make such a sweeping, arrogant remark like ‘A whole life’s work for nothing, though…’

      • Sweeping maybe, sorry about that, arrogant I don’t think so, don’t feel that way towards you. You were instrumental in me leaving and getting my badge of honor. I’ll always be grateful to you for that and that’s one reason it pains me to watch you travel down that road. I did read your books with interest, but you were still a Scientologist then, made the difference between the philosophy and the Dave’s Church. Now things have changed and are changing with mindboggling speed, LRH becomes the target, little Dave the victim, you even credit him with good intentions in a recent blog:

        „At some point he apparently threw up his hands in disgust and decided ‘to hell with it, you all listen to everything Ron said and sort it out for yourselves.“  

        He is an SP Marty.

        LRH is the guy who gave us a bridge to freedom.

        Marcel Wenger

        • As hard as you want to mock up your fantasies (as perpetuated by those profiting by keeping them real), the fact of the matter is Dave Miscavige is Ron Hubbard’s boy. As much as you want to demonize the former in pursuing the latter, maximal effort in that direction will only lead you somewhere short of the former.

          • Ya know, it is entirely possible both of you are right, that as Marcel says, LRH put together and outlined a “bridge to freedom”, and as you say, he also embedded it in, or built around it, a fanatic totalitarian cult-like organization.

            • iamvalkov,
              I run a successful Scientology mission in the seventies when LRH was still on lines and it had nothing of a cult. I was actually the only mission holder
              who in 1982 refused to sign the new charter with Dave at the Mission Holder Meeting in Copenhagen. For the very reason that it was obvious that Scientology was turning into a totalitarian cult. L.A. Org. where I became and auditor in 1971 had not much of a cult either. I wish Marty had been around an that time.
              Marcel Wenger

        • Marcel wrote:

          “LRH is the guy who gave us a bridge to freedom.

          If LRH gave us a bridge to freedom, then why aren’t civil and human rights recognized in Scientology as they are in every 1st world country on Earth?

          If LRH gave us a bridge to freedom then why don’t Scientologists have the freedom to criticize LRH?

          If LRH gave us a bridge to freedom then why did he say in “Safeguarding Technology” that you did not have the right to your own ideas?

          If LRH gave us a bridge to freedom then why did he make “unauthorized use of Dianetics and Scientology” a high crime?

          If LRH gave us a bridge to freedom then how could he have made it a high crime to remain connected to someone who had been declared SP by HCO?

          I could go on.

          But these are very important questions to actually ask yourself.

          And then please listen to your own answers as you give them to yourself. Examine those answers to see of they are really true.

          Are your answers to these questions above actually consistent with the concept of freedom as we know it in the whole tradition of western civilization?

          Marcel – please do this. Please really examine these things.

          LRH did NOT build a bridge to freedom for Scientologists.

          Alanzo

  34. ”So you wind up with the person either: 1. attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or 2. his thinkingness locks up on the subject. In either case you get an impossible-to-train, impossible-to-hat [train for one’s scientology job] scene.” ~ Hubbard

  35. ”So you wind up with the person either:
    1. attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or
    2. his thinkingness locks up on the subject.
    In either case you get an impossible-to-train, impossible-to-hat [train for one’s scientology job] scene.” ~ Hubbard

    ————-
    Marty: “In other words, it is Ron’s way (to the exclusion of all other ways, including even your synthesis of his way with something related you may have learned earlier) or the highway.
    Why could not ‘a’ [1] above have been ‘attempting to use a remarkably new, fresh and workable synthesis he has formed?’”
    .
    This is a very good point.
    One wonders, if Hubbard was pushing for him to be taken literally!

  36. Yep – all true: the only data stripped by L Ron Hubbard’s False Data Stripping process are any and all reasons why a person should not pay for more Scientology processing.

    I’m only a wog, so what would I know, but did any one ever verify for themselves the basis for this “technology” . . .

    . . . It is based on the Socratic thesis-antithesis-synthesis philosophical equation . . . It was the contention of Socrates and others that when two forces came into collision a new idea was born . . .

    . . . because, if they had, they would have discovered that it is utter bollocks. What L Ron Hubbard appears to be referring to is “dialectics”, a structured form of reasoned dialogue (rather than sophism) between two or more people, all of whom are seeking to resolve a disagreement. First off, we can ignore the quibble that it was Plato, not Socrates, who recorded the method, but note: it is a method, not an equation. The dialectic countering of a thesis with an antithesis was believed to bring participants closer to truth rather than generate new ideas. The truth being sought would manifest as the successful refutation of the original thesis, or a qualitative improvement in the dialogue, or a merging of opposing assertions, or, via sublation, a synthesis. So flawed is L Ron Hubbard’s basis for his Data Stripping “tech”, it is abundantly apparent that he never read Plato’s writings on the subject. Note also that it wasn’t until two thousand years after Plato that the narrower triad ” thesis, antithesis, synthesis” approach was actually the work of Hegel and subsequent development by philosophers such as Marx: Capitalism – Communism – Socialism . . . and all that.

    It is quite lulz worthy to consider that if L Ron Hubbard’s “Data Stripping” was ever submitted as a thesis using dialectic method, it would be refuted in a single exchange on the basis of it being pure sophism, or even one which examined just the statement . . .

    ” . . . Where the person has acquired a false thesis (or datum), the true datum you are trying to teach him becomes an antithesis . . .

    . . . ROTFLMAO ; )

    No so funny is that fact that many, many people have been suckered into paying good money for L Ron Hubbard’s “False Data Stripping” chicanery. Sure, the application of the process amounts to Brainwashing 101, but even people like Robert Vaughn Young who previously achieved a university degree in philosophy were fooled. So, while the FDS guff is certainly “ a specific sector of scientology ‘technology’ that clearly betrays the subject’s hypnotic, mind controlling nature” it is not, I suggest, worse than the “tech” which precedes it. That’s because the earlier Scientology processing is that which appears to have shut down the application of critical thinking skills which would, at least, prompt a person to double-check a few of the bald assertions if not recognise that the False Data Stripping HCOB fails the very test upon which it is predicated.

    There is an echo here from the last OP in that we see another classic example of L Ron Hubbard warning people of the very thing he was doing to them. In the False Data Stripping material he states . . .

    >blockquote> . . . “False data on a subject can come from any number of sources. In the process of day-to-day living people encounter and often accept without inspection all sorts of ideas which may seem to make sense but don’t . . .

    . . . such words are a wicked cocktail of deceit, hubris and malevolence. I mean, what mind would conjure the act of telling adoring followers that the fathers of modern philosophy had failed because they did not “look further” AND deliberately implant imagined agonies in the minds of the followers in order to prevent them from “looking further” themselves?

  37. Another slick little bit of mind control was “rollback”.

    What a sweetheart that one is.

    Not only is the datum considered wrong, it is considered an “enemy line”. It is considered that anyone who holds that datum as true has “taken on the color of the enemy”.

    It is an “ethics offense” to continue to hold and/or forward such data.

    It is also a method of ethics investigation aimed at ferreting out dissenters and silencing them.

    One of the lines in “The Creed of the Church of Scientology” states… “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

    Oh yes… the Church wants that… that way they don’t have to waste so much time using “rollback” to identify their enemies.

    In even writing that last line I had shadow twinges of fear that I was making myself even more of a target of Scientology.

    Eric

    • Rollback…what a gem. But, the granddaddy of them all has to be The Truth Rundown, what a mindfuck that is. I knew an ex-SO member who endured 7 intensives of the Truth Rundown. That shit should be illegal.

      • Statpush

        I guess I am very lucky to have never run into the Truth Rundown.

        I’ll have to have a look at what it even is.

        Eric

  38. I recall when I first got in Scientology and talked to the reg for the first time.
    He told me that he had never found anywhere that LRH was wrong.
    I asked him if he had read Dianetics.
    At that point I was totally amazed at his attitude.
    He was very patient with me but insisted that LRH made no mistakes.
    Later, I bought in to the same crap!
    I still wonder how this happened.

    • Oh Gail.. You were human and wanted to change the world. I am glad that you are out. Don’t beat yourself up.

      • Thank you Babybunker for reminding me of ‘beat yourself up.’ That’s exactly what I did for years. I joined the cult hoping to better understand people and help some family, which as it turned out neither happened, as I got caught up in who knows what. It only alienated me more from them through the years. Since my recovery, some family are gone or too late to help and other family, friends and my own life am trying to salvage.

        • Oh you are welcome deElizabethan.. I only wish you fabulous loyal friends that love you unconditionally. You can not change the past of course, but the present is yours.

  39. The other omission in FDSing is context. But, if you have adopted two-value logic you probably have little need for context. Certainly this process does not encourage a person to think or understand the datums in question.

    It’s been years since I’ve looked at this bulletin, does it include having the person determine what exactly is false about the pre-judged datum? If the person comes up with a datum in the past it is assumed to be false.

    As well, this does not reflect well on Hubbards view of his followers.

  40. Marty: “Datum: ‘The best a man can do is to do the best he can do.’ Wrong. The true scientology data is that if someone fails it is more likely that they are secretly engaged in criminal activity and have billions year old hidden evil intentions towards Ron and scientology, and that any failure should be interrogated intensively to uncover such.”
    That sounds more like indoctrination than stripping false data. It is as if the earlier held data was invalidated so that the new Scientology data could be installed.

    So it is more like ‘Earlier data invalidation’ rather than ‘False data stripping’.
    .

  41. Marty: “So thorough is Hubbard’s ‘tech’ for ferreting out and disappearing ‘false data’ that conflicts with his data, ironically, that those steps applied to one’s scientology experience could actually de-hypnotize someone from years of mind control programming. That is provided that on the last step ‘Have the person study or restudy the true data on the subject you have been handling’ one did not impose on the person what it was he had to study. In other words, free him from the implant and give him the freedom to start out at square zero to discover for himself the plurality of ideas (thesis, antithesis, synthesis, or otherwise) available in a free society.”

    This is an interesting idea to use False Data Stripping to rid the person of false Scientology data. Only thing different this time would be that overwhelming authority button of Hubbard is not there.

  42. Abomination = exactly ~ truth be told (Look at me. I can not spell!!!!!) Got the hyphens down pat ~ thanks Mike🙂

  43. The birth of False Data Stripping coinciding with the conviction of the Scientology 11 is a very interesting ‘date-coincidence.’ It is especially interesting in light of the fact that Snow White was LRH’s idea and obviously MSH and crew were guilty of poor follow through. Once again (as with the OT levels) we are auditing LRH’s case instead of our own or anyone else’s.

    One other interesting thing regarding LRH’s dismissal of anything other than 2 valued logic while maintaining there are 3 universes: ‘mine’, the objective real world of the physical universe and “the other fellow’s.” Apparently there really isn’t enough room for more than 1 other fellow hence the 2 viewpoint system of logic.

  44. I completely see your point, Marty.
    I have only done this action once on someone and it was off the meter in a courseroom setting. The results we got were very nice for my fellow student. He uncovered some actual false data he had from two subjects which he had studied earlier. He was very happy to get that straightened out for himself. But like I said I have not done a lot of this so I went and looked a few of bulletins on FDS in the the tech vols and I see what you mean. I can see that unless the “False Data Stripper” refrained absolutely from all inval and especially all evaluation, there would be hell to pay on the part of the student. In the hands of someone who did not follow the auditor’s code in word, deed and spirit, I can imagine the negative effects that would ensue, including as you mentioned, the hypnotic effect and a reduction of the ability to think freely. I can just imagine this tech being applied by Sea Org Nazis who are on some sort of “mission” and “don’t use” things like ARC or the auditor’s code. Interestingly, I noticed that the last question on the False Data Correction List is “Nothing wrong in the first place?”. But the auditor would have to be able to ask that question and hear the answer with no evalution or invalidation whatsoever in his or her heart in order to clean up a bad FDSing session. And I don’t think people have been trained that way for years.

    • I think you are way off base with this: “In the hands of someone who did not follow the auditor’s code in word, deed and spirit, I can imagine the negative effects that would ensue, including as you mentioned, the hypnotic effect and a reduction of the ability to think freely.” But, all this stuff comes off in layers.

  45. A different terminology for a similar concept:

    Cognitive dissonance:
    In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

    Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.[1]

    More there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    Festinguer also co-authored a book titled “When prophecy fails”:

    Festinger and his collaborators, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, examined conditions under which disconfirmation of beliefs leads to increased conviction in such beliefs in the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails. The group studied a small apocalyptic cult led by Dorothy Martin (under the pseudonym Marian Keech in the book), a suburban housewife.[49][50] Martin claimed to have received messages from “the Guardians,” a group of superior beings from another planet. The messages puportedly said that a flood would destroy the world on December 21. The three psychologists and several more assistants joined the group. The team observed the group firsthand for months before and after the predicted apocalypse. Many of the group members quit their jobs and disposed of their possessions in preparation for the apocalypse. When doomsday came and went, Martin claimed that the world had been spared because of the “force of Good and light”[51] that the group members had spread throughout the world. Rather than abandoning their discredited beliefs, group members adhered to them even more strongly and began proselytizing with fervor.

    Festinger and his co-authors concluded that the following conditions lead to increased conviction in beliefs following disconfirmation:

    1. The belief must be held with deep conviction and be relevant to the believer’s actions or behavior.
    2. The belief must have produced actions that are difficult to undo.
    3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and concerned with the real world such that it can be clearly disconfirmed.
    4. The disconfirmatory evidence must be recognized by the believer.
    5. The believer must have social support from other believers.[52]

    Festinger also later described the increased conviction and proselytizing by cult members after disconfirmation as a specific instantiation of cognitive dissonance (i.e., increased proselyting reduced dissonance by producing the knowledge that others also accepted their beliefs) and its application to understanding complex mass phenomena.[53]
    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger]

    Any resemblance to any contemporary group is absolutely non-fortuitous…

  46. Gerhard Waterkamp

    “So you wind up with the person either:
    1. attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or
    2. his thinkingness locks up on the subject.”
    Here we have another cornerstone of Scientology tech: The individual is not capable of handling his own mind, ergo 1 and 2 above.
    It is one of the key messages in Scientology indoctrination. An Individual is “victim of his mind [bank]”. ‘Auditor and PC are stronger than the reactive bank.’ There is no point of an individual inspecting his own mind and thought process within, because he will just do 1 or 2 above, or fall victim to his reactive bank. (which resides in his mind). Since Scientology programmed your mind, it does not want you to inspect that programming on your own accord, but only permits to inspect your mind when directed by a Scientology auditor using “standard tech”. So ‘do not discuss your session with others’, ‘do not discuss your case with others’, ‘confidential materials’ and this terrible dangerous stuff in your mind that if you are not prepared for it will give you pneumonia and kill you. So stay away from it.
    Some say LRH empowered the individual by putting therapy into the hand of the layman and into the living rooms. If that was true in the beginning of Dianetics in Scientology the mind rapidly became a dangerous minefield not to be messed with other by a Scientology card carrying and certified auditor. After programming the individual with Scientology data this subject was convinced it could not own his own mind but was owned by it and dependent on the help of the church to do anything about it.
    I think this is another cornerstone of keeping the mind control in place that was contained more or less obvious and direct in many Scientology data and indoctrinations.
    Interestingly auditing can open the door for an individual and kick start the ability for self-inspection if the individual would be encouraged to look and think for himself.

    But that seems to be part of the trick, assist an individual and follow up with methods to create dependency rather than encouraging him or her to find his own path.

    • GW: “Here we have another cornerstone of Scientology tech: The individual is not capable of handling his own mind, ergo 1 and 2 above.”

      BINGO! That was the premise in Dianetics and that was carried into Scientology.

  47. I am enjoying these deconstruction posts so much, Marty. Thanks for posting, I know you have a full life, and I do appreciate your choice to spend some of your time in this way. Good stuff.

    For me, this post recalls my upbringing in the church of christ, and specifically the teaching about false prophets leading one into damnation. Also, the constant warning to born-again parents about the “secular humanism” taught in colleges and universities, which made it a good idea to send your child to a christian school so they would not wind up using critical thinking to reject their only source of eternal salvation. My mother briefly considered sending me to a christian school, as I prepared to enter junior high. One place she considered was a baptist school, whose application asked “do you engage in worldly activities, such as music and dancing?” Well, I was a ballet student and played the flute and sang in the choir, so the answer was yes. I showed that question to my mom, and refused to complete the application. Thankfully, she was a loving and wise mother more than she was anyone’s “servant of the Lord”. I went to public school and secular college, and thrived, with plenty of that worldly music and dancing.

    “False data stripping”, of a kind, was avidly practiced by the christians from the beginning — through scriptures and catechisms, at the point of the sword in the crusades, or through the tortures of the Inquisition. This is how that religion was spread — previously existing beliefs of potential converts were demonized and labelled as the path to damnation, and stripped away by whatever means necessary. It is a consistent element, in some form or another, in every system of control extant in human history. Anyone who offers this path to clarity and wholeness is peddling a lie, IMO.

    Although I must admit, after all my education, those damn secular humanists could claim me as one of theirs… LOL.

  48. The last time someone offered me false data stripping (in the Sea Org) I refused. I told them I never got anything out of false data stripping. I hadn’t fully figured out why at the time. Reading this well considered post and looking back makes the answer obvious. False data stripping is thought control. Good riddance.

  49. I had to break this down for me to understand Marty. I hope I am understanding it correctly. I am comparing FDS to a Computer Programmer.

    ” Computer Programmers must debug the programs—that is, test them to ensure that they produce the expected results. ” ( Online Dictionary)

    So an Auditor must first determine what it is that I am having a difficult time with. I’ll use the Study Tech for an example.

    So I have a problem with Word Clearing..I think it’s method 8 .. ( Wog brain)

    (My mind) ” Because I know that it is a waste of time. I have to do each word. It takes me forever and it is boring ”
    ( Scn) ” Is there something that doesn’t make sense about the word clearing method ?

    So the end result : I will replace what I originally thought.. “Waste of Time ” with believing that word clearing is the way to go. I will do it for the greater good..

    ( But of course a slower process..) and so I have been debugged. .Like a computer.

    MY ideas have been discarded because it was False Data. ( I was so wrong to think that it was a waste of time. )

    It kind of is like deprogramming to me.

  50. Scientology seems to be based on two-valued logic. But, if Hubbard’s data are the only true data in the context of Scientology, is Scientology then not just ‘one-valued logic’? Or, in fact, is there any logic at all?
    Scientology = a no-logic system.
    Am I right or wrong? At least this is my conclusion for the time being.
    Although it is a fact that Hubbard wrote about multi-valued logic, apparently this was not applied regarding the tech itself, especially the application of it.
    It leads to another conclusion that Hubbard (and many Scientologists) did/do not practice what he/they preach(es).
    A reason for this might be that Scientology data are presented as a technology, something technical. In a technical subject it is understandable and workable if two things cannot be right at the same time, ‘a = on or off’, the binary system.
    Remains the question is Scientology really a technology? Can a therapy ever be a technology?

  51. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    I would like to write a huge post about this subject, but unfortunately I don’t have the time. Study Tech 100% applyed brings about beings that are 100% certain about their knowledge and shuts them 100% off from real learning and experiencing.
    This point is proved by the fact that there are no Scientologists that ever discovered or developed anything new for mankind. Only in the arts they have some success, but this is used as a cheap way for dissemination. In this subject Lrh let them do what ever they want and didn’t give them any limitations, as he did in all other subjects.

    Here what google (wikipedia) says about false data and is practice by modern human:
    Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, “liable to err”) is the philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs.

    In the most commonly used sense of the term, fallibilism consists of being open to new evidence that would contradict some previously held position or belief,[citation needed] and in the recognition that “any claim justified today may need to be revised or withdrawn in light of new evidence, new arguments, and new experiences.”[1] This position is taken for granted in the natural sciences.[2]

    In another sense, it refers to the consciousness of “the degree to which our interpretations, valuations, our practices, and traditions are temporally indexed” and subject to (possibly arbitrary) historical flux and change. Such “time-responsive” fallibilism consists of an openness to the confirmation of a possibility that one anticipates or expects in the future.[3]

    Some fallibilists argue that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible.

    Unlike skepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge; we need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen trilemma.

  52. I’ve always liked this quote from Steve Hassan..

    “Nobody sets out to join a cult. No one knowingly wants to give up their life, their needs, their goals. They come to believe they’re improving themselves and improving the world and it is then they are led into a psychological trap. It could happen to anybody.” ~ Steve Hassan, Leading American Exit-Counselor

    • Baby wrote:

      “Nobody sets out to join a cult. No one knowingly wants to give up their life, their needs, their goals. They come to believe they’re improving themselves and improving the world and it is then they are led into a psychological trap. It could happen to anybody.” ~ Steve Hassan, Leading American Exit-Counselor

      Exactly, Baby.

      I really appreciate you and what you are trying to achieve.

      Thank you so much for the time you spend, and the things you write.

      Alanzo

  53. I applied Scientology the way it worked for me. I may be squirreling, but when I found it did not work in the literal sense that Hubbard wrote, I changed the interpretation to the way it made sense to me.

    Who is to say whose interpretation is correct?

    There are many interopretations of the Bible.

    .

  54. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    The right words for false data stripping should be:
    wrong thoughts stripping.

    There is no need in learning to have such a technology. As soon as the mind recognizes a false datum, it instantly corrects it.
    You just tell somebody that he has a false datum and give him the right one and that’s it. No need to go through this technique.
    Somebody thinks it’s 08:00, while it’s 09:00. You just tell him his watch is broken and give him the right time. He’ll be happy ! If you keep asking him about false data about the time that is, he’ll not know and rather become confused.
    Simple isn’t it ?

  55. Marty, I got a different understanding of the false data stripping theory that you quoted, with respect to the grammar of it. Below is the specific section I’m referring to (my caps):

    ——————–
    In other words, these two things collide, and neither one will then make sense to him. At this point he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis, OR HIS WITS SIMPLY DON’T FUNCTION. (Synthesis: a unified whole in which opposites, thesis and antithesis, are reconciled.)

    SO YOU WIND UP with the person either:

    1. attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or
    2. his thinkingness locks up on the subject.
    ——————–

    The word “SO” in the sentence that begins “SO YOU WIND UP…” I see as related to the clause just before it: “OR HIS WITS SIMPLY DON’T FUNCTION.” In other words, what I get is that if it doesn’t happen to be the case that “…he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis,” the alternative (expressed with the word “OR”) is that “his wits simply don’t function.”

    Thus, the question you asked – “Why could not ‘a’ [#1] above have been ‘attempting to use a remarkably new, fresh and workable synthesis he has formed?’” – I believe was already accounted for with “he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis…”

  56. I think that it is very important that people follow Buddha’s Kalama Sutta with respect to Marty’s Blog as much as with respect to Scientology and Hubbard.

    Kalama Sutta
    .

  57. Hubbards way or the High way

  58. Natural Philosopher

    So true Marty, Every datum stated in policy and tech was deemed ‘true data’ and thus you always had to find the ‘false data’ that didn’t agree with it in the FDSing. This assertiveness tended to hit buffers when you ran into 2 conflicting ‘true data’ from different policies! But what you have outlined here is what I have recently been wrangling with myself, that I needed to FDS myself from what in Scientology was true and workable, and what was in reality – BS. Your blog has provided excellent comparisons and data of comparable magnitude to shake off what is clearly nonsense and what was actually a true datum that works in life. Thanks for following the course you are on – much appreciated!

    • I would like to hear about ‘false data’ that people struggled with.

      >

      • Okay vinaire: It did me quite a long time to find out about myself, but the auditing and auditor and C/S did not find out ..

        I had false data about PTS. All given from the church. The sense was to give me reason for my no case gain and protest about data which I did not accept as true ..

        It started with extensive Wordclearing to the word “Es” (german) .. I felt very bad about such idiocity, because the word is extremely simple in his meaning, but the dictionary gives very large examples about .. so I did run from “Es” to 100 others words which I should clear .. the suppervisor was completely convinced that I must do that per LRH tech ..

        So I did quit my Comm Course and called it idiotic to give time and money for such stuff. We routed me to the ethics officer, and he indicated me it would be sign of PTSness that I would refuse standard Scientology tech

        So we started to interview me about illness and unsolved problems and antagonistic persons around .. going down to failures I made, and also accidents I had. All of it was bullshit, because it had nothing to do with the original situation I did protest against .. all what I have said was always a sign of PTSness .. and that I had to solve that, otherwise I could not be a scientologist ..

        So on, so on, so on .. whenever I had a protest later .. it was always called as a sign of PTSness and that suppression was around me ..

        The stable data became in this game that a protest would be caused by suppression .. and that I should define my suppressor .. but couldn’t do that .. my answer was the church is the suppressor .. but this was never accepted as an answer .. it was only another sign of my PTSness ..

        One time, many many years later (about 32 years) I found a data also from LRH, that a person is as much PTS as she cannot resist or fight or refuse against .. Oh my dear, I found a False Data .. all the work with me about PTS did not fit anymore .. it blew like a sun goes up in the morning

        What was the right data about? I found, it is again LRH tech, but more reliable and understandable .. a protest is not a sign of PTSness but a sign of an ARCX .. so I went the whole way down and found it at all time true .. we did always mix max PTS with ARCX ..

        It means finally, the church and staff did always implement a False Data in me as truth .. although it never worked for a second .. to honor for LRH, he has never written such bullshit which was used on me as tech ..

        Finally I wrote that down for the church, and said that the no case gain is solved .. we should not run over an ARCX .. but as said already here in this blog, the product was declaring me ..

        thanks for having heard me ..

        • Friend.
          This is a very important story you have posted. It helps in understanding the dynamics involved in the relationships of suppression, PTSness and ARCXs. These relationships are very fluid and change with each situation. With good understanding, and if one pays attention, the complexities fall away.

          I wrote an article on “The Desire and Effort to Control Others”. We have all operated on this purpose from time to time, but for some it became a basic operating purpose. I later went on to write “…This separated one further from Theta, a lower form of affinity was established, considering others as underlings, pets, lower than oneself…”

          This last sentence is very important and you have just added some vital data to it. The moment this occurred, it was a major ARCX between the individual and all of other life. This ARCX, for some, became a basic operating principle for that individual from then on.
          Thank you for your help, Mark

          • Mark, what bis your own understanding of Theta independent from what Hubbard said?

            My understanding is as follows:

            A New Slant on Theta-MEST Theory
            .

          • Mark: thank you for your acknowledment .. but see I have used 32 years to find out about my no case gain .. I found out that we had mix max PTS with ARCX .. but there is a bulletin about from LRH ( I have not the HCOB at hand) ..

            But be sure, taking the idea of PTSness made me to an idiot .. it means if I had an ARCX in one way or another, small or greater, I had the feeling of restimulated suppression. You may not properly understand that, but as said it needs me 32 years to find that out .. scientologist found that at no time .. never .. I mean, the e-meter never get this accumulated charge as real .. the charge was pointed to PTSness .. no chance to get it over to ARCX ..

            Anyway, I have studied this stuff from LRH .. you can misduplicate nearly everthing if you do not understand it. It means, an ARCX person looks like a PTS .. simply because any suppressor causes ARCX .. it is his butter on the fish .. he will win when you go out of ARC .. and you will hang up on his ARC .. and you get more ARCX because you are an idiot and introvert only in suppression ..

            I can tell you really that I did introvert in this PTS indications and all of the interviews about. I did not realize that we run me down deeper and deeper into ARCX .. present time cycles .. I did not respond as expected, and I was finally declared as an anti Scientologist ..

            You may not realize that running around 32 years with a false item in this field is degrading like mad .. I think today that scientology is on the way to create SPs .. unfortunately I am not interested in that .. but I think they have tried to do it ..

            Again, running around for 32 years with the idea that all ARCX where about my PTSness is quite idiotic .. but I did run this way .. I am an idiot

            • Afternoon my Friend.
              PTSness and ARCXs can be a daunting subject, especially when you are depending on others to “know all there is to know” about it and assist and guide you through any difficulties. It doesn’t take long to discover that they don’t know everything about it. Relationships are much more subtle and complex than described in Ron’s tech.

              But there is knowledge there to be found and used. My solution was to read everything written on the subject I could find, with a mindful attitude, then spend a few years intently observing those I come in contact with. This with the intention of discovering which parts are true and workable, which are not, and which are partially true. In addition, filling in all the holes between the words. That done, or at least in progress, simplifies the subject greatly. Any subject well understood removes it’s perceived ‘importance’.

              You are far from being an idiot and well on your way to simplicity. I’ll try to keep up with you.
              Mark

        • Friend, thanks for this example.

          I have noticed that PTS Tech has been used as a way out when the “standard tech” does not work. This is not to say that PTS Tech does not have its uses, but that use is not as wide ranging as it is made out to be. More often than not it is applied as a wrong target in the case evaluation. It is a catch-all kind of a handling that primarily serves to park the person on the sidelines.

          The first inconsistency that I see is not starting from where the person’s attention is getting messed up. and going elsewhere trying to addrss something else.

        • Friend: “It started with extensive Wordclearing to the word “Es” (german) …”

          Well, did you ever get the original protest or ARCx sorted out? What was the original inconsistency that you were looking at?

          .

          • vinaire: Well, did you ever get the original protest or ARCx sorted out? What was the original inconsistency that you were looking at?

            No. It was the whole way always called as PTS .. today I think, that it was what it was .. I do not believe in books or information which I MUST have, and when we hung up on words .. especially 100 words associated with ES which had no real relation to ES .. all nonsens .. basically it was the protest about MUST clear words .. I had already grasped what I should do on my OT TR0 (not so complicated to be there) .. but the fear of the supervisor that I could do it wrong made me crazy about him .. he did run a must do, must have, must be on me .. I did not like that ..

            I use only words which I understand. So is my english a little bit short in words .. lets take abomination (a word formerly unknown to me) .. but I would say “something out of order, badly dones” .. it means the same, but for an english people it may be not adequate words ..

            See what I mean? Words and hearing and speaking and writing is an art where you only have to get through what you wanted to say .. but it was told me that the word had the meaning .. but it was completely untrue for me .. because the meaning gives the word ..

            Lets say somebody says to me: Bwandris dei dei foma .. Ohh, but I would look at him .. and would say, say it again .. I would pick up his intention,

            • Looks like it all started on OT TR0. The whole purpose of clearing words is to understand some concept. If the concept is already clear then there is no need for word clearing. Looks like somebody was insisting you to clear words when there was no need. It was probably the supervisor’s misunderstanding. How did that misunderstanding come about? Why was the supervisor so afraid that he evaluated you incorrectly? Something around this area does not make sense.

              What year are you talking about? What was the environment like? Was it relaxed or very uptight? How long were you in Scientology at that time?

              .

              ________________________________

        • Good job tracking that down! 🙂

  59. Take a good hard look at the TR’s, Training Routines that is:

    PAVLOV Much ?

  60. Marty,

    Thanks for this latest installment of the deconstruction of what is now being laid bare.

    Hubbard started out perhaps admirably. He sure did end up like the power hungry and delusional personality by the name of Cecil Rhodes. It seems LRH liked this whole concept of empires.

    If it can be believed he (Ron) can be quoted from one of his last lives:

    “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for making the Anglo Saxon race but one Empire? What a dream, but yet it is probable; it is possible.”

    Delusions, like empires, always die ugly deaths…………

    • Tom,

      What is so interesting about your observation, is that those were the first people who kicked Hubbard hard and fast.

      I think he attempted to court British Empire players, to see if he could weasel his way into their power structure with his science of the mind thing.

      Well, those people play hard ball as you know, and I don’t think they would let an ambitious nobody into their game. Good catch!

  61. Marty said:
    ” In other words, free him from the IMPLANT and give him the freedom to start out at square zero to discover for himself the plurality of ideas (thesis, antithesis, synthesis, or otherwise) available in a free society.”

    I put the word IMPLANT in capitals.

    The whole subject, the entire period of time, the residual effects after leaving, the sorting through adopted false datums …

    Fall apart when viewing this vast big subject — so hallowed, for what it really is:

    An IMPLANT.

    Thanks Marty. Another one out of the park.

    Windhorse

  62. I would not be writing this if I had not read this statement by Marty in response to a comment made in the previous post: “The simplicity of what I wrote is that scientologists have been programmed with dead certainty that they have not been.”

    His latest detailed examinations of the entrapping mechanics existing in Scientology are, to me, standing ovation quality.

    In pursuing my own path towards the achieving and achievement of my spiritual goals I started noticing the common denominator to the vast majority of the things I was freeing myself from: My attachment to each to the point each had become an inseparable part of me that rendered me unable to recognize them and, of course, made it impossible for me to separate from them, to create space between me and them so they could be controlled and “set free”.

    Each one of them had the invisibility characteristic until they popped up spontaneously and unpredictably in my world as the next item to free myself from. I was many, many times shocked to see that something I considered a part of me, that I thought with or from. experienced with, and/or blindly was guided by was not me at all.

    Marty’s statement above took me to a higher step in the ladder of clarity and certainty consciousness, to seeing much more clearly the invisibility that is an intrinsic major part of the soul-dimming contents of one’s universe, including mine and that can exist in any area.

    Invisibility of conditions is a horrible state of being, to me, as it prevents so many wonderful accomplishments, ESPECIALLY connecting with oneself.

    What is best way to get a soul to entrap itself more and more, to become easy to control, to limit or reduce its abilities, to disempower it and to render invisible what one has burdened itself with?

    Have it become attached to beingnesses, to viewpoints, to experiences, to conditions, to a guru by making those beingnesses, viewpoints, experiences, conditions, and guru quite valuable to a soul and quite needed to the magnitude of “can’t be without them” – can’t feel secure, can’t be powerful, can’t be happy, can’t have a bright future, can’t be superior, can’t be right, without the attachment to it. Then get the soul to believe that those things are the one and only truths.

    What makes Ron Hubbard quite evil was that he knew this and did it.

    He knew, not only that establishing viewpoints that must be assumed (that one must attach oneself to) and by creating a voluminous number of identities one must seek to identify with, especially his clear, OT ones, that were not achievable, he was enforcing the transforming of a soul into a limited and pretended state of being, into having to make them right, into creating them at the expense of altering and/or denying the real contents of one’s universe, into despising and attacking those who made any wrong, into causing, in oneself, a severe condition of artificiality which prevents the soul from seeing, from realizing, and from growing and evolving. One can only change conditions and improve when one can see them as they really are being, not as one in influenced to see them or needs to see them.

    So what is, to me, the cure for these conditions, the actions which will inoculate the soul from this “virus”?

    The actions that worked and are working for me will not work on another. Following my path or anyone’s path is, to me, a very wrong approach, in the long run, as my universe and the way it is constructed, the contents it has had and has, and the way it is organized is very unique to me. One may get initial wins, even great ones, brought about by the initiation of a self discovery process but in the long run one is imposing another’s universe into one’s own, and trying to make it fit can be quite disastrous.

    But, to me, there are some basic truths, common to all universes, which help one accomplish finding and following one’s own path.

    Finding them and using them to discover, establish and be following one’s own path is to me, the most valuable goal because there is nothing more debilitating to a soul than continued dependence on any outside source for one’s awareness, existence, evolving, and well being that lacks, having as an ultimate goal, the achievement of independence.

    • Thank you Luis. A heartfelt and brilliant comment.

      Indeed our individual lives, our pain and our sorrow and our joys are unique to us and us alone.

      “No one shares our fate and no one knows our suffering.” (Shantideva)

      And to that I will add this wonderful speech by a young woman – known to Harry Potter fans as Hermione

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/emma-watson-un-speech-celebs/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

      If the link doesn’t come through – just go on CNNDOTcom and watch her speech at the UN. It’s remarkable.

      Moreover — within our community — Marty has lent his “celebrity” status as 2nd in command, long time Sea Org member, Inspector General to raise a call to each of us to BECOME human beings and free ourselves from the constraints of what scientology/LRH/technology/admin has done to our INDIVIDUAL AND UNIQUELY OWN MIND.

      Kudos again to Marty … as Emma said — she thanks her mentors.

      I add Marty as one of mine.

      Windhorse

      • I enjoyed that speech by Emma very much. I am with her.
        Thank you.

      • Thanks Windhorse.

        And thanks for taking me to a wonderful experience with the video.

        What I admire the most in an individual, what I rejoice about the most, what brings my eyes to water is seeing a strong presence of the heart in someone, with the genuineness, the vulnerability and transparency that accompanies it.

        The experience of love towards that person arises beautifully when I experience a “heart”.

        And I got that experience from her.

        Regards,
        Luis

    • Luis: ” What makes Ron Hubbard quite evil was that he knew this and did it.”

      I think that Ron Hubbard was trying to handle his own case through others, but was arrogant enough not to admit it even to himself.

      Remember his affirmations. He was still trying them out through OT Levels. He was still trying to handle his own case. Any gains in others that took them to a state higher than his own were not acceptable to him.

      He was suffering from a severe case of the Guru Complex.
      .

      • Hi Vinaire.

        You could be right.

        I have not been able to fully understand or assume Ron’s “case condition” which drove his actions.

        I am limited to the very strong knowingness that he knew what he was doing by what he wrote about what the soul was all about, about the things that entrapped it, about what he preached about freedom, and by my perception, in his videos of the energies he was emanating at the time of the video in which the heart was absent (see my comments to Windhorse).

        Enjoying our first connecting.

        Regards,
        Luis

        • I think that Hubbard was highly driven and a very individulistic person. He wanted to accomplish certain goals for himself at all costs. All his other dynamics were subjugated to his first dynamic. The word “sacrifice” was not part of his vocabulary. He was mankind’s friend only if there was some advantage in it for him.

          • Hi Vinaire.

            I agree with you and I will expand on it.

            Ron Hubbard was never able to reach, what he called, the 7th Dynamic.

            His major flaw and the one that ended up literally destroying his ability to reach his spiritual goals,to end up in a horrible state, and for his Scientology to fail, was an incontrollable and overwhelming, to the soul he is, impulse to be an immensely valuable, superior above all, powerful, deserving of worship and worshippers individual. To have the Supreme identity. That impulse severely dimmed the soul he was. He became the identities he created which entrapped him and robbed him of the “heart energy”, of the soulfulness necessary to grow and reach spiritual goals.

            A soul… let me state this way, when I am able to be being a soul, free from egotistical impulses which I still house, I see myself and others as souls. I don’t see them as identities, especially fixed identities or fixed conditions. I don’t assign them or labels either. I don’t seek to find fault with another to be superior, I just don’t seek to be superior.

            As a soul, I don’t give anyone or anything the power to dim me, to make me ugly and seek to insult and revenge and cause pain even though another may be doing it to me. I act with kindness and seek to understand what is going on in that person’s world that I can take responsibility for. I see the soul and the energy that is affecting it as separate. The energy of hate, of revenge, of resentment, of making wrong, is not able to stay long in my universe when I am being a soul, I just don’t swallow someone else’s poison..

            As a soul, my willingness and eagerness to recognize when I am being wrong or have been wrong; to admit to my flaws and my weaknesses; to be transparent and open even if it makes me vulnerable; to be kind, caring, supportive of another but towards the goal of helping him/her be self reliant is immensely strong and much stronger than the impulse to be right, to make wrong, to be praised or be thought of highly, to be superior to another, to brag about my accomplishments.

            Ron Hubbard’s main failure, to me, was that he failed to accomplish being a soul or assuming that viewpoint, even for enough time to recognize and start disarming the monster ego he carried.

            And thus his Scientology became relatively soul-less and driven by the ego desire to reach being the most superior status, the most valuable and most needed group on earth.

            I just got a request from my ego to allow him in a bit:

            I am very proud and overjoyed that my main spiritual goal changed after I left Scientology, from being super powerful with super abilities to realizing who I was and be very satisfied with it, and to be as genuine and as free to be me as I could be, Then it simply became to be following my heart (the dictates of the soul I am), and for it to have a very strong presence in my life.

            I know now that when I am able to be in harmony with the dictates of my heart, with my current principles and values and wisdoms, the physical universe will mirror that condition and become harmonious to me, where things just go right and there is an absence of negative situations.

            I am really, really sorry that Ron never could create the circumstances of encountering someone who could not be intimidated by him and his reactions and had the soulfulness to help him see what was going on in his world so he could dissipate it.

            • Luis: “Ron Hubbard was never able to reach, what he called, the 7th Dynamic.”

              This observation is spot on. Hubbard had no clue of what spirituality was. His concept of “thetan” translates better as “ego.”

              A lot of people are attached to this concept of “thetan”. They think in terms of their ego and they are conditioned to think that they are being spiritual.

              The key characteristic of spirituality is compassion, and that is completely missing in Scientology. It is replaced by a mechanical concept of “affinity,” a phenomenon of space.

              Hubbard did not have spiritual goals. If you take a closer look at his goals, they were entirely first dynamic goals. Even the concept of STATIC is a first dynamic concept. It seems that he presented the “mystery of deep subjectivity” as something spiritual. Essentially, he equated “individuality” with “spirituality.” He did not have any clue to real spirituality.

              I knew Hubbard was spiritually lost when he insulted Buddha by invalidating nirvana in Scn 8-8008. He worshipped individuality (self, ego). I discovered that pretty early and just took it in my stride. My goal became simply to learn what I could about Hubbard’s treatment of the mind. That is what I did. My spirituality was already established through my upbringing in the east.

              I can see, Louis, that you have a strong concept of spirituality. I wish you all the best.

              >

              • I answered you last e-mail first so I will add to this one:

                Another very wise statement which aligns strongly with mine and adds new viewpoints for me.

                I am very glad you are quite aware of the conduct of the ego and how subtly it seeks to be identified with spiritual. After all, spiritual is to the ego, a superior state.

                In my view, one of the best, most life changing “awarenesses” one should achieve is the recognition of the ego in oneself, especially when it “turns on”. Once that is achieved all one has to do to be weakening it is by disobeying its dictates.

                Regards,
                Luis

              • vinaire,
                ” I knew Hubbard was spiritually lost when he insulted Buddha by invalidating nirvana in Scn 8-8008. He worshipped individuality (self, ego). ”

                My upbringing was in the West. When I first read Hubbard say in Scn 8-8008 something like “there appartently is no nirvana”, I interpreted him as being unsure. This was my first clue that he would be constantly “flying by the seat of his pants”.
                However, I continued with Scientology study because I saw some workable technology and I liked early auditing.
                As time went on, I realized Hubbard was in way over his head.
                Hubbard implied he was the Buddha’s teacher. Hubbard also implied he was present 10,000 years before recorded history, a full 7,400 years before Gotama. Hubbard also implied he was the historical fulfillment of the the next Buddha. This is all nonsense. A series of Buddha’s that don’t teach nirvana!
                The more I study the Pali Canon, the more I see that Hubbard was more like Mara, the evil one. It does not surprise me that Hubbard wanted to be the Lucifer figure in the West. However, he knew too little about Buddhism to clearly see that he would be discovered as a fraud in regard to Theravada.
                GMW

            • I would even venture to say that the concept of God in Semitic Religions is a first dynamic concept as it is talking about some glorified self.

              This is what I have been calling a self-centric or human-centric view.

              • Very wise statement.

                Made me realize that Gods are indeed created with the attributes of the ego (terribly insecure so it needs and requires constant praise and worship, thinks of itself as perfect and needs to be regarded as such, etc.),

                I am liking this realization!

                I admire you for looking way past what is accepted as realities and coming out with your own truths.

                Regards,
                Luis

  63. But Marildi ….. Marildi …. you are obviously ignoring the IMMEDIATELY following LRH datum that as one of the ONLY two outcomes is that any synthesis by Ron’s s own definition is necessarily FALSE and unworkable.

  64. I would have no strong objection to FDS if one was “Allowed ” (and the word should actually be “encouraged”) to have complete self determinism of CHOICE over all the data including LRH data – choice to reject or accept in whole or in part. An intelligent choice would entail understanding not only the LRH datum but also the labelled “false data” and this would mean of course some study of this latter datum, not just identifying it as “false” and making less of it, very possibly due to one’s ignorance of the “false datum.” Obviously this cannot occur in a fundamentalist and authoritarian religion, whether Scientology or any other.

  65. IMPLANT is basically defined as data which somebody collect under force or confusion .. and it means that one collect it .. but is never forever ..

    Scientology is another stuff .. you get it as a solution for freedom and your eternity .. so now, LRH spoke about 5 Mio words and he fix all the universe on his words .. that seems as an implant .. but good ..

    The tech is a self enforcing utility .. but without question it is self implanting because of your overts .. you make yourself guilty for overts .. so you do an overt against yourself .. that is the way this universe it build on ..

    See, once in old times thetan were collected for this universe and were on the way to undo the overts .. they thought that they can do it here .. but this universe is an overt universe ..

    I have read about the accident one on OT III .. furious story but it is never happened .. why? Collecting Sea Org members or publics is the same way as collecting members of this universe long long ago ..

    For my own knowingness .. this universe was once alive with good ARC and in good game. Simply a playing ground. I can here not explain my original viewpoint about, And then somebody found out that he should take it over .. for all this lost thetan out of other universes ..

    LRH invented a story from where this thetan came .. he said all of them were implanted .. but he missed the point that an implant does not work forever .. at last and finally, LRH planned an implant which would hold forever .. and it is to make yourself as yourself guilty for overts ..

    • Friend wrote:

      “See, once in old times thetan were collected for this universe and were on the way to undo the overts .. they thought that they can do it here .. but this universe is an overt universe ..

      You are using a context, and a frame of reference, for your own existence that was implanted by Scientology.

      The idea that you are a “thetan” and have a trillions year old “whole track” which makes up much of your memories of your self all comes from Scientology.

      What if this isn’t true?

      What if this whole context for your existence that you are thinking with came about because of the forced imagination, constructed out of Scientology books and tapes and cultic social agreement, that an auditing session requires to answer its “earlier/similar” commands?

      I’m not saying it’s all a lie.

      I am saying to be aware that you are framing your existence in a very particular way, and that context, that frame has many assumptions that cause your thinking to stay within certain bounds, and forces you to come to conclusions about who you tell yourself are that are dictated by the scientology mindset.

      So I am saying EXAMINE THIS, QUESTION THIS, TEST THIS.

      Is it really true?

      What consequences does it have for you personally when you think with this context for your life?

      That is what I am asking you to do, Friend.

      Alanzo

    • Friend: “LRH planned an implant which would hold forever .. and it is to make yourself as yourself guilty for overts ..”

      The idea of ‘sin’ seems to have come from Christianity.

      From Book: What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

      “According to the Buddha’s teaching, doubt (vicikiccha) is one of the five Hindrances (nivarana) to the clear understanding of Truth and to spiritual progress (or for that matter to any progress). Doubt, however, is not a ‘sin’, because there are no articles of faith in Buddhism. In fact there is no ‘sin’ in Buddhism, as sin is understood in some religions. The root of all evil is ignorance (avijja) and false views (micchd ditthi). It is an undeniable fact that as long as there is doubt, perplexity, wavering, no progress is possible. It is also equally undeniable that there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.”

      .

  66. When a person is moving through his life as if hypnotized, the entrance point to resolving his case is attention. Maybe his attention was free when he was a child, but now he adheres to irrational beliefs and strange rituals to get by in life. This is because he has a lot of unresolved inconsistencies stacked on top of each other.

    He does not recognize the inconsistency that is so obvious to you because he has probably explained it to himself as “life”. Such earlier inconsistencies are somehow taken for granted by him because his attention is now on inconsistencies stacked on top of them.

    The inconsistency available to be resolved in any case is the one where the person’s attention now rests.

    .

    An inconsistency becomes obvious to you only after you have resolved it for yourself. There may be other inconsistencies in you that you are not yet aware of. As you see in others those inconsistencies that you have resolved for yourself, you want others to resolve them too. But you do not know how inconsistencies are stacked up in the other person. He may need to resolve some other inconsistency first.

    But if you feel compelled that the other person should be resolving some inconsistency that is so very obvious to you, then there is something wrong with your effort. You are trying to bypass the order in which inconsistencies are stacked up in his case. This compulsion points to some inconsistency in you that you are not aware of.

    Compulsion to “help” another get rid of some aberration, is an inconsistency within oneself that one is usually not aware.
    .

    • Vin said:
      “Compulsion to “help” another get rid of some aberration, is an inconsistency within oneself that one is usually not aware.”
      Very true.
      Once the ‘compulsion’ is resolved, the true and basic purpose to help others becomes apparent.

      Ron once wrote, or said, that processing toward togetherness or oneness drives one downtone and is the wrong direction to go. (Marildi help me here.) I believe that was a major error. Processing AWAY from individuality is the error. Working toward oneness, togetherness, IN ADDITION TO INDIVIDUALITY produces quite a different result. This may have been a major turning point in his work, or perhaps he always had an unresolved mental block on this subject. Perhaps some self serving purposes that he could not let go of. Either way, it ended up having far reaching effects. Sad.
      ARCL, Mark

  67. MarkNR wrote:

    “Get rid of, or gain an understanding of just 1 or 2% of that case and one would appear far above the average earth human. But the person is still acting in an aberrated manner with 98-99% of his case.

    I might see some unspoken (uninspected?) assumptions in this small piece of writing of yours.

    You are saying that 98-99% of human behavior is “aberrated”.

    Question for you, Mark:

    When did human behavior come to be interpreted as “abberrated” by you?

    I think that you can learn a great deal about human beings from studying other primates. Have you ever done this?

    Have you ever watched a TV show or documentary that featured chimpanzees or bonobos or orangutan’s? What did you see?

    These are other primates that share many of our traits.

    I think that what you are calling “aberrated” is just simply “human”.

    So why do you think that auditing will “fix” human behavior?

    Why not seek to understand human behavior and have more affinity for it than thinking it is “aberrated?”

    That human behavior was “aberrated” was Hubbard’s make wrong/service fac on the human race. It does not have to be yours.

    HAVING SAID THAT, I think the rest of your post and especially your conclusions were very constructive and productive, and you make a very reasoned argument over all.

    I continue to be impressed with your writing and your reasoning, Mark.

    You make a very productive and constructive case for the Scientology cause.

    Alanzo

    • By the way, Mark, comparing human behavior to primates, rather than thinking it is “aberrated”, is only one comparison that can be done. There are many other ways to compare human behavior.

      I’m just asking, why “aberrated”?

      What possible pragmatic, constructive good can it do to consider human behavior in this way?

      (Real question, not rhetorical)

      Alanzo

    • Hi again Alanzo.
      Again, see my reply to Marty.
      Also.
      The only animal I have seen which to me, had a close enough similarity to people to be of much use in study, was Mighty Joe Young. The largest ape in captivity from the early 1900s who was used on stage and in movies.

      There was life, an awareness, a beingness, call it what you will, that I have not seen in any other animal. He was special, different, more than an animal. I have a great love for animals, they have life, emotion, but it is not the same. I have had many relationships with animals and considered them my friends. Me and my cat, Buster, converse often, with a surprising amount of duplication. He looks just like a lynx, with tufts of fur on his ears and cheeks, about 25 pounds. The foxes and coons which cross my yard often leave him alone.

      In addition.
      I see in every individual I meet, an enormous being, full of love and potential action, restraining himself to a tiny fraction of his capability. Similar to keeping a genie in a lamp.
      Mark

    • Alanzo said:
      “You make a very productive and constructive case for the Scientology cause.”

      Now come on. On this site that is just down right dirty rotten mean. I’ve come to like your posts, don’t give me a big ole ridge. Oops, forgive my Scn. speak.
      Laughing Out Loud.
      Mark

  68. Alanzo, you may find the following interesting.

    The Guru Complex
    .

  69. The last paragraph of this post really got my attention:

    …ironically, that those steps applied to one’s scientology experience could actually de-hypnotize someone from years of mind control programming….

    Recently I find myself wondering how much my views today are affected by my involvement in Scientology. In other words, wondering to what degree
    my beliefs, actions and responses to things are based on rational observation or experience as opposed to “Mental Scientology Muscle Memory”.

    I think I have made progress but It’s too bad we do not have a “Restore To factory Default” button. I would have, without fear of consequences, pushed mine long ago!

    • Don.. Marty is offering a safe place to land. Regaining yourself after years of indoctrination will not happen over night. You are at the right place. Go at your own pace.

      ” I think I have made progress .” You are on your way just with this statement alone. One day you will say.. ” I know I have made progress..”

      And just think about it.. You would not have even posted that if you didn’t believe that you have made progress. Good for you. Baby steps to running.

      Good Luck.. and I sincerely mean that.

    • Don, I wondered about just this thing a few days ago, and asked on this blog how one might go about spotting such thoughts and automatic responses. Marty was kind enough to answer, and recommended I read “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. I think it’s a good recommendation, and would like to pass it on to you🙂

      • I follow the simple procedure of spotting inconsistencies (for me) and resolving them one by one. I call this procedure contemplation.

        >

        • Please give an example of a realistic inconsistency in one’s thinking and how one would resolve it.

          • Before I give you an example, let me make a couple of points very clear.

            (1) Each person has unique “definition-logic” matrix for their mind, so what appears inconsistent is unique to them. What appears inconsistent to me may not be inconsistent to you. What appears inconsistent to you may not be inconsistent to me.

            (2) What appears as a resolution of inconsistency may also be unique to each individual as well.

            (3) Inconsistency is preceded by non-optimum attention. I find my attention becoming fixed or dispersed much before I become aware of the actual inconsistency. Therefore, non-optimum attention in an area may be used as an indicator for the presence of inconsistency in that area.

            Now here is a recent example of an inconsistency, the resolution of which led to the essay THE GURU COMPLEX, which you can find on my blog.

            Something started to bother me about the last two postings on Marty’s blog. It was not the post content, but the way Marty was coming across and the reactions to it. He was hammering Valkov and Marildi on what they wrote as comments. It was Valkov’s reaction that particularly caught my attention. He didn’t seem to be resisting Marty. He seemed to be struggling with himself. His was trying to maintain his integrity while trying to resolve Marty’s criticism of him. For a moment he appeared mentally naked and helpless to me. There was no doubt in my mind of Valkov’s sincerity. Marty was being sincere too.

            I didn’t consider anybody to be right or wrong. I just saw the situation. I questioned myself why should there be such a struggle. Why is it not easy for somebody to see in all sincerity what Marty saw, or what I could see. That was the inconsistency. Contemplation on this situation led to THE GURU COMPLEX essay.

            Contemplation does not involve consciously figuring things out. Figuring goes much faster if you let the mind do it. Your job is to simply look more closely at what is not understood, suppressed, hidden, etc. You may find the outline of the procedure here.

            Mindfulness 11: Contemplate thoughtfully

            But this is only one of the 12 points that are important to know about the practice of mindfulness. Please look at the other 11 points too.

            I hope I have responded adequately to your request for an example. Inconsistencies can be much simpler than this example. Just use you attention as an indicator.
            .

            • Of course I did not resist Marty in that situation. I had no doubt Marty was trying to communicate something to me. Why should I resist that? In fact I don’t disagree with his deconstruction of the mechanics involved in the creation of the cult built around the subject of “scientology”.
              Marty was simply trying to get me off the “automatic associative thinking” mode I was in at the time. In other words, turn off the “cruise control” comment posting and get my TR0 back “in” and really read the posts.
              I may, however, interpret the data in my own way, keeping in view the overall context. But I think his explication of the mechanics of the creation of the CoS culture is accurate.

              • This was just an example of what I perceived as an inconsistency and how I resolved it.

                • It was not clear to me from your post, what the inconsistency was that you resolved.

                • The inconsistency in my mind was, “Why should there be such a struggle.”

                  It is my understanding is that if a person’s attention is directed to an area of a case that is accessible to him then there will be no struggle. The more buried that area is under other inconsistencies in the case the less accessible that area is going to be and it would require more struggle to resolve it. The solution is un-stacking of the inconsistencies as outlined in

                  Inconsistency in KHTK

                  The effort in Dianetics has been to get at the deeply buried engram right from the beginning. Hubbard’s effort has been to devise tricks and methods to get at the engram. Any occlusion is there because of the inconsistencies stacked on top of the engram.

                  Struggle comes when the stacked up inconsistencies are being bypassed. The Guru Complex tries to address the other person’s case based on the experience with one’s own case. It ignores the fact that the way other person’s case is stacked up is unique to that person.

                  • Vin.
                    Very good observation, and it further explains your idea of ‘unstacking’ to me.
                    I was never comfortable with repeater technique. It’s purpose, to me, was to push you into incidents that you were not necessarily ready to look at.

                    Worse yet, many processes on the OT levels try to by-pass actually ‘looking’ at incidents in favor of blowing the mass associated with incidents that Ron has decided are necessary to handle. But the mental mass is not the incident, it is a reminder, a via, a ‘facsimile’ of the actual incident.

                    Any emotion, pain, decision, postulate etc etc. will not resolve fully if one is not ready to look at it, no matter what the method…….I believe.

                    Thanks for the additional insight.
                    Mark

              • Hey Val, I like this: “Marty was simply trying to get me off the “automatic associative thinking” mode I was in at the time. In other words, turn off the “cruise control” comment posting and get my TR0 back “in” and really read the posts.”
                I’d only add too ‘read the posts’, to understand them before reacting. ‘Cruise control’ is funny, lol!

                • Hi deLiz. Yes, cruise control. What would we do, how woud we live, without all these machines and automaticities? 🙂

                  Did you know Google is working with Ford and GM to put driverless cars on the road? Put that together with apps like Uber, Lyft and others have developed, and it’ll be a “brave new world” very soon. We are busily making the “outside” like the “inside”……

                  • Val, hah yes, but I haven’t used cruise control in many years, as actually found it distracting and bothersome.
                    Reminds me of current ads for autos putting on the brakes for you. Indoctrination to be sure. Sounds good, but to rely on them would eventually be fatal for an individual’s attention, awareness and control of his surroundings.

                    • I can’t see living without automaticities, myself. From heartbeat to breathing, or holding it until I get to the bathroom, to driving a car or even walking, remembering where I live, etc. Sure, some monitoring is required but to have to do all that consciously, 24/7? Automaticites are time and labor-saving devices. Can’t see getting along without them!

                    • I do not see anything wrong or untoward about automaticities either, as long as they can be brought back into awareness as desired.

                      ________________________________

                    • Val, automaticities are fine. I was narrowing my thought or example to “autos putting on the brakes for you” type indoctrination. Seen the ad? Whereas someone relies on that instead of their own attention or lack of awareness to control safety in driving. Should one get used to it or conditioned that the car is in control, driving another car without the feature could be dangerous. I suppose we could get used to anything in time.

          • Please not that inconsistency is the product of the interaction of one’s thinking with its context. The context may be provided by one’s perceptions and how they are interpreted by the mind.

      • Thank you. I think I will take a crack at that book.

  70. THETA is best postulated as an activity-less energy (Shakti in Hinduism).

    MEST (more correctly PHI) is best postulated as a dormant field (Shiva in Hinduism).

    Both of these postulates exist side by side. None is generated from the other. I know this understanding is different from how Hubbard formulated it.

    PHI activates THETA. THETA disturbs PHI.

    The disturbance is manifested as awareness. The outer form of awareness is the electromagnetic wave. Awareness is the pattern embedded within the electromagnetic wave.

    Both postulates – THETA & PHI – are static.

    But the resulting interaction is dynamic from which come about affinity, reality, communication, space, time, energy and matter.

    It seems to me that you figure a little around in symbols .. THETA maybe is a static but PHI is not .. THETA is also not a static as given fom LRH ..

    You stay like me with a body and you live your life with all of his cycles and it has to do with Theta and Phi .. but only in general .. but the basic of all is your ARC .. so LRH invented this word, but it was seen by him that all man do it every day .. bad or good .. so you may see that Theta & Phi is always outside of your doingness but centered on it .. everybody is doing that in his own way .. it is always Theta & Phi .. spirit of play ..

  71. Mindfulness (seeing things clearly as they are) precedes logic (associatings things with each other).

    Both Valkov and Alanzo are stuck at the level of logic, and their logics are different.

  72. So and so .. against what is here written .. I feel myself not hypnozised .. sp on whe can say that I am probaly hypnotized by this universe and the game in it .. but this is a complete other story .. it is called agreement .. but this universe has in his pattern that you agree or disagree .. it is build up on this general rule .. I mean it is build on the idea that you can say Yes .. but also can say No. Interestingly – isn’t it?

    Why? Please mock up a universe for yourself .. everybody in it will say yes, and if he would say no, he would be not there .. so you get tricky states of Yes to your No if it occures ..

    But there is a tricky game in it .. if all say Yes or all say No .. the universe would crash as a ground for a game .. all thetan would go away ..

    Buddism and Christianity or Islamity gave it since thousand of years, but all of it gives is a Yes and No proposition .. you go only in economics ..

  73. Here is some more on hypnotism. It applies to broadly to all form of conditioning as well, such as, cultural, religious, national, etc.

    The Secret of Hypnotism
    .

  74. I have not had FDSing, or given it, so have no personal experience, although I can easily imagine its power to rearrange the mind.

    After reading the article I wondered if O/W write-ups (of which I have written my fair share) can have a similar effect, in that one assigns new significances to events in the mind? For instance, one might take an action that one did not feel guilty about (say, masturbation or sex) and view it again, this time with the morals of church culture and the Pain and Sex bulletin in mind. It now becomes an out ethics act. One figures one is too much in deep shit and simply not enlightened enough to understand why it is so bad (it was fun, after all). Regardless, it ends up on file as an overt, and ever after one hates the body and is ashamed of one’s low-toned condition when indulging again in such guilty pleasures.

    Has one effectively reprogrammed one’s own mind by virtue of confession with condemnation and punishment instead of absolution?

    My mother said it essentially is like DAing (dead agenting) yourself. I agree. You become your own enemy in your own mind.

    • Hi Letting Go

      Yes, you are describing a variation on “conditioning,” or “indoctrination,” if you will.

      To split hairs a bit, what you are describing seems to fall more into the realm of “morals” (socially acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.)

      Here is a brief summary of something I have come up regarding “ethics” and “overts”, and their relationship.

      Suppose one did a review of some of the principles of “ethics” as written by Ron. You have to “cherry-pic” your data, but you could come up with something like this:

      Lets define “ethics” as “rationality toward the highest level of survival, (optimum survival) across the dynamics”. (I know, I have been quite free with that definition, but that concept is basically there in the Tech Dictionary.)

      So, if one were to consider that that is what ethics is, and one wished to pursue it, then it would seem to behoove one to have a concept of “optimum survival” across the Dynamics.
      If one does not have such a concept, then how would one determine “rationality toward” it? (which is our working definition of “ethics”.)

      So… How do “overts” fit into all this?

      One definition for “overt act” is: “an overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the greatest harm to the greatest number of dynamics.”

      So how you determine what an overt is, is by weighing the contra survival effect it has on your dynamics. Basically things that you do that harm or detract from your “rationality toward the highest level of survival, (optimum survival) across the dynamics”.

      But again, without having some concept of what “optimum survival across your dynamics” would be, you wouldn’t have much reality on which “omissions or commissions” would actually be “overts” for you. When this is the case, what tends to happen is that the person falls back on what they have been indoctrinated into believing are “overts”, things unacceptable to the group, or society. These are actually “morals”. They may or may not be “overts” to you (and your dynamics).

      The information above may be helpful in sorting it out for yourself, if you so choose.

      Curiously, I have never seen anywhere in the “church” where one is asked to consider what “optimum survival across your dynamics” might be… but the “churches” morals are heavily indoctrinated, and pushed as YOUR overts.

      Eric

      • This is a good summary of how I view it, too. In the first edition of the Intro to Scn Ethics book, around 1971, it states quite plainly that “Ethics is Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”.

        • Valkov,

          You might view it that way, but your opinions here are as irrelevant and moronic as ever. Since by actual experience Ethics, FDS & enforced confessionals were used by Hubbard and his cult as the main tools for mind control and behavior modification.

          You keep opinionating on stuff you have no personal experience. The entirety of your gasligthing here can be summed up as:

          I read Ron’ Santa Claus story, I liked it and I believe what Ron-Santa said, because it is in writing and therefore it MUST be truth.

      • Eric, This is a good point. It brings to my mind how I looked at my obverts when i was aked to write them.

        I simply went into TR0 mode and let the mind bring up my overts. If something came up I wrote it down. If nothing came up then that was that.
        I NEVER DUG INTO MY MIND FOR OVERTS.

        Now I see that as application of mindfulness.

        • Valkov and vinaire

          Another interesting thing to note, is that in the “ethics conditions” the first, and ONLY place, that one is asked to “Get in your own personal ethics by finding out what you are doing that is out-ethics and use self discipline to correct it and get honest and straight.” is in the “First Dynamic Danger Formula.

          You notice it states “personal ethics”.

          The way I figure that is, that if one were in a condition below danger, then they are not likely up to the point where they can readily view their concept of “optimum survival across the dynamics”. One has to actually be attempting to move forward before one runs up against things that are apparently inhibiting this motion.

          Again, curiously enough, it is at “danger” that one does “why finds” and handlings. (it is written into the formula) I consider “why finds” valuable above this too, but again one has to be up to the point where he can envision “ideal scenes”. (optimum survival?)

          When I was more “into Scientology” I spent some time discovering and working with various relationships between “Ethics, Tech, and Admin”.
          I came to the conclusion that they are virtually inseparable.

          Disclaimer:
          Of course I was working with my own views about what these things were and how they worked. These views do not necessarily align with either “the church’s” or Ron’s “actual” views or uses of these subjects.

          Eric

          • The idea of optimum survival can easily be influenced by others in Scientology. That is where the danger is.

            Optimum survival comes about by itself as one mindfully addresses inconsistencies in the situation one is confronted with. This automatically takes care of one’s overts as well, as one looks at one’s contribution to those inconsistencies.

            Please see the 12 aspects of mindfulness in another recent post of mine.

            • “The idea of optimum survival can easily be influenced by others in Scientology. That is where the danger is.”

              This is a very true statement. But how is it with optimum survival that includes others? I am beginning to see that most of what I think I know about other people is actually my assumptions. How much do we really know of each other? And on that basis, how can we ever make a decision that includes another’s optimum survival, when we have no real idea of what that would be for them?

              Perhaps the best one can do is to attempt to avoid consciously harming another. However, it seems unlikely to me that we will ever know what is ultimately good for another.

              • One may do such a computation of optimum survival on very broad terms only. It an unworkable proposition otherwise.

                Best is to assess your skills and your environment and see how best you can contribute and meet your minimal survival needs. The old adage is, “it is better to give than to receive.” I find this to be the best formula for keeping yourself happy, healthy and to sleep well in the night.

                • That is where optimum survival falls down, because the moment you move out of 1 into 2 – 8, you are considering others.

                  Question: How on Earth am I to know what is optimum for god (or the supreme being)? What is optimum for spirits? What is optimum for MEST? What is optimum for plants and animals? What is optimum for mankind, groups, friends, and families and partnerships?

                  Your formula is a tried and tested one, and ties in with what Marty gave as a datum ‘The best a man can do is to do the best he can do.’ However, it does not seem to cover the optimum solution for the greatest number, which was the formula for ‘sane’ decisions. And looking at it, how can I know what is best for god? Incredible, in the truest sense of the word.

      • Eric, it is very difficult to put the subject of sex into the realm of morals when in scientology it is clearly designated as a low-toned activity (on the minus scale) and has technical definitions assigned to it (see SOS and COHA). Irrespective of the PL retracting intrusion on the 2nd dynamic, the tech is riddled with disgust over and condemnation of sex (see exhibit A, Pain and Sex BT). With such technical definitions in mind, one redefined one’s own experience. So how do you discern what is a moral angle and what is technical? The technical angles assumes things are the same for everyone.

        I think the conditions are not called that in reference to states, but that the word is used as a verb. To condition, or conditioning.

        My final question was: “Has one effectively reprogrammed one’s own mind by virtue of confession with condemnation and punishment instead of absolution?”

        In reference to utilitarian ethics, or the greatest good for the greatest number, do you believe the dynamics are an all ecompassing system that really names all things in life?

        • Hi DollarMorgue

          You have some good questions there. I will see if I can address them.

          The difference between “ethics” (as I have defined it above) and “morals”, is that ethics is a personal thing. You should be the only one deciding what is “ethical” for you.

          “Morals”, on the other hand, are a “social thing”. Any time someone is attempting to tell you what is “ethical” for you, they are actually attempting to impose or install “morals” of some group, society, Dynamic 2,3, and 4, etc.

          Regarding “the tech” I invite you to consider that much of what is called “tech” (particularly in Scientology) is actually “indoctrinations” of one kind or another. I consider the “sex issue” that you refer to, as one such example.

          I consider “tech” as mostly “what to do, how to do, and when to do something.” When you get into the supporting data or reasoning, you open the door wide for rampant evaluation, and opinion, and various forms of indoctrination, whether introduced knowingly or not.

          I get what you say about “conditions” referring to conditioning. I would have to say that that seems to be one of their uses (or perhaps mis-uses).
          Based on my post you likely see that I am not forwarding that use.

          If I were to re-define “conditions” I might chose to say “states you might find yourself in”. I have spent considerable time de-constructing the conditions, and I consider that there are a lot of flaws in some of the reasoning and also in the “what, when, and how” parts.

          Regarding reprogramming, I do not consider that to even be a worthwhile goal at all, but of the two you mention, I consider the latter better.

          I consider that any process or procedure that does not allow you to re-evaluate your own data, on your own terms, is undesirable.

          Regarding “utilitarian ethics” as you call it, I would say that regarding the “Dynamics”, by definition all aspects of life in this this universe are supposedly included, but they are certainly not all mentioned.

          How many there are, and what is in each is an arbitrary, so long as everything is considered to be included somewhere.
          In the “eight dynamics” of Ron you will notice that they are tailored to a human viewpoint. The eight dynamics, as stated offer a very simplistic view. You have probably noticed that they are not so easily separated, and you will find that they overlap on many levels.

          Eric

          • Hi Eric, I am also DM (I chose that name when Mike made his blog, because I felt this one didn’t really fit the theme – kind of like going to a techno party dressed in sinner’s garb). I usually manage to keep the two apart, but I was having one of my foggy days when I wrote the message and forgot to change the name.

            ‘I consider that any process or procedure that does not allow you to re-evaluate your own data, on your own terms, is undesirable.’

            I think this is a very important and valuable statement. I would add that one would need to be very alert to possible influences, and know that one never truly decides matters in a vaccuum, but that one should always consider the possibility of hidden influences (such as peer pressure, coercive persuasion, psychological manipulation). The invisible things are sometimes the hardest to see, especially at the time they are happening.

      • Eric, another point is that when a person does fall back onto indoctrinated views on what constitutes an overt, they do so also because of peer pressure. It may be that for the person it never was an overt, but the E/O or MAA insists it is, therefor, the person writes it up.

        Perhaps the system can be useful, but I now believe the entire ethics system as proposed in the church is esstentially a ladder to the top for sociopaths, and a set of instruments to keep everyone in line while appealing to their inherent goodness.

        • Letting go

          Yes, at this point it would be far safer to just avoid the whole subject, unless you are willing to take the time to de-construct it and then re-evaluate the whole thing.

          Eric

    • I don’t have much experience with “writing up O/Ws”, just one time on the little Personal Integrity course, but my impression is it is a practice that can easily be abused, if it is allowed to descend into the “enforcement” band
      I think to be healthy one must be able to withhold as well a to “confess”, and the ability to judge when it is appropriate to do one or the other is paramount. Otherwise self-determinism is undermined.

  75. Marty, I liked your blog to begin with, but I’m starting to like it even more. Your last two posts are absolutely spot on – spending the time you do on dissecting Scientology and helping others (especially those who spent many years as “true believers”) look “under the hood” and understand how we could eat up everything Hubbard preached, hook line and sinker, is something really helpful and I wanted to thank you for this insight. Creditable to reading your blog to some degree, as well as a lot of other reading and study I have done, I’m a hell of a lot more free than I used to be while I thought Scientology was “the way”. Considered as one of the guys you can learn a thing or two from, Hubbard is actually an interesting character, but that’s about it… if you are not fixated on LRH being your only “source”, you can just treat him like any guy who wrote a few books, you can read them, take what you want and throw the rest out and move on. There are a lot of more credible sources, more scientifically verified sources, more humble sources – those who just share their experience without an agenda, and once you are free of the “LRH is THE true source of wisdom” crap, you can actually start building up your own wisdom. Hubbard has a place in my collection with a few tidbits and practical tools, but ultimately, I got myself back and I’m free to think and learn for myself (that was the idea in the first place, wasn’t it?)🙂
    Thanks!

  76. It is quite interesting to find the historical significance of FDSing. I think you are rather right on that. Once, I had someone FDSed on “Madman/Messiah” (of course I never read it at that time), which I can see immediately indicated to the person that info was “false”. The only other actual times I have used it was to assist actual life areas people had trouble in, but, my God, the use of it is can actually be extremely mind or thought controlling, I find now.

    Wow, the pitfalls continue to appear, years after leaving the subject.

    Amazing.

  77. It is great that I could speak here about my basic failure in scientology. The church has never accepted it as a truth .. maybe or whatever, I had only to say that we mixed up ARCX with PTSness .. it is true that we did that, and after all it is not very complicated .. but certainly was it at all time Out Tech and made me to a dog preclear, this type of case who get no case gain ..

    When I found this equation myself, it was good, because it blew away all this introversions for many years into being PTS as the reason for my not having progress and failures for the church ..

    It is a manner of it could not be what should not be .. but it was .. and it had cost me a lot of money to identify and find this bloody SP who was able to bloke my life so in generell .. okay, okay, it was False Data .. but nobody gave me ever a reference about .. I got only references about PTS, and then references about Overt and Withhold .. especially Withhold .. because the idea came up that I will wildly protect my suppressor ..

    Anyway, nobody came ever up with the idea that I collect with all this failure more and more and more ARCX .. it means very basically, when you start a Cycle of Action it should be completed at some point .. it should not be run into eternity without any way out or completion ..

    It means, starting me on PTS handling was never followed by a change and there was no stop in sight .. never at any time .. total disorder, but we went over to conditions .. we began with Liability (my liability was because of my no change) .. I originated some doubt about this condition, because it was a wrong assignment to me .. so we went to doubt .. so I originated my doubt .. with this origination I went instandly in enemy, because I did not trust the work which were run on me .. so I went down to treason, but I had nor treason at all .. and it end up in confusion ..

    So what, here we were at the final stage .. I did not accept that confusion is an ethics condition .. I said it is a case condition out of all the confusion which we delivered to me .. there was nobody around who has understood my words .. I was more or less an idiot .. and absolutely total PTS since the last 5 trillion years .. means, I was totally wrong forever .. no help possible ..

    How do you would feel if you get such indications? You can introvert like a hurrican and feel like the center of all bad .. not? Okay, then you are better than me.

    I myself am basically stable to myself, I am always intersted in others and to hold my ARC alive to them .. also, how I could be so a bad thetan?

    The church convinced me that my ARC was so bad that it would destroy all scientology ideas around me. I would strew out so much entheta that no one in my environment would ever be able to do scientology .. they would be all PTS to my wrong ARC ..

    They have made me ready for a suicide .. and my last service was then an introspection rundown .. at this I went really nearly death .. there is nearly no way to stand this auditing .. you are only crazy ..

    I am still alive .. but I lived many years in a real bad state .. I am not really out of it .. but I have cleared most of ARCX in my environment, and have still some friends ..

    Again, for this thread .. it was experience with False Data .. I gave my story, and it is true what I have said .. but the false data stems from scientology and not from somewhere else .. but the false data are not given from LRH, the false data stem from people who has not known what they are doing ..

    I am an idiot .. but a lot of people in scientology are much more idiots than I ever was .. they do not know what they are doing ..

    thank you for hearing me ..

    Note: I have no trouble to claim me as an idiot, because I am .. for me you have to confront idiocity .. not to fight about ..

    • With tears running down my face I can say, ” I’m glad that you chose life friend.”

      I heard you. And thank you for sharing such a painful heartfelt story. . your painful journey. Please just keep coming back.

      “The first step toward success is taken when you refuse to be a captive of the environment in which you first find yourself.”
      Mark Caine

      Life is a series of starting over friend. Who among us haven’t been an idiot?
      Maybe you are ready for Chapter 2 in your journey? ((HUGS)) baby

    • PTSness means suppression. This means that, basically, a person is not allowed to express himself. On the other hand, ARCx means upset. This means that a person is unable to make himself properly understood.

      Suppression can occur with the evaluation of one’s case by categorizing it as PTS. It appears that this Scientology Tech works against itself with wrong assignment. Actually, this PTS tech came about as general bucket assignment when regular tech failed.

    • ”It means, starting me on PTS handling was never followed by a change and there was no stop in sight .. never at any time .. total disorder, but we went over to conditions .. we began with Liability (my liability was because of my no change) .. I originated some doubt about this condition, because it was a wrong assignment to me .. so we went to doubt .. so I originated my doubt .. with this origination I went instandly in enemy, because I did not trust the work which were run on me .. so I went down to treason, but I had nor treason at all .. and it end up in confusion ..”

      That is funny. It is the result of mechanical thinking in Scientology.

      “Protecting one’s suppressor” is way left field. One should go back to the original communication and the tech, which failed to handle any miscommunication. PTS assignment came later as a cover up for failed tech.

    • ”Again, for this thread .. it was experience with False Data .. I gave my story, and it is true what I have said .. but the false data stems from scientology and not from somewhere else .. but the false data are not given from LRH, the false data stem from people who has not known what they are doing ..”

      Did the problem came about because of difference in languages being used?

  78. Another point not mentioned: Misunderstandings, not defined words. It is an experience with the child in family now 9 years. One and one is two, and three and eight is eleven (german elf) .. it was difficult to clear that .. my wife is france people .. they have a lot more of this stuff ..

  79. This poor guy, has it better than the inmates at the INT Base.

    PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) – An American man recently sentenced by North Korea to six years of hard labor says he is digging in fields eight hours a day and being kept in isolation, but that so far his health isn’t deteriorating.

    “Prison life is eight hours of work per day. Mostly it’s been agriculture, like in the dirt, digging around,” Miller said when asked what conditions were like in prison.”

    http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/25/us-mans-n-korean-prison-life-digging-isolation/20967473/?ncid=webmail1

  80. Vin said”
    “Mark, It is wonderful that you have resolved this issue for yourself.”
    This is related to the ‘smug, superiority’ issue I mentioned.

    Thanks, but I do want to emphasize that this was MY inconsistency and I don’t consider it a common aberration that anyone else should necessarily look into.

    The authority button that you mentioned earlier, on the other hand, is a common issue that many should investigate ONCE IT BECOMES VISIBLE TO THEM.
    Mark

    • Yes we all have our own inconsistencies. We should un-stack them as they become visible to us. This is unique with each person.

      We can help each other in this endeavor per the following procedure.

      Application of Mindful Discussion
      .

      • • The area where his attention dwells most of the time.
        • The area when talked about, disperses his attention.
        • The area when talked about, lessens his awareness.
        • How the person thinks, behaves or dramatizes.
        • How the person reacts to things in the environment.

        It is from your blog .. but you will come mostly into justifications with this stuff .. and you has to justify what goes wrong, not the person itself .. it is not teaching mindfullness ..

        Mindfullness is basically that you know that you are a part of all what is there .. if you were not there, you would not know anything about .. the first rule of mindfullness is that you know that you are/were a part of it ..

        • Let’s say in addition: justification does not mean what LRH says in regard to overt .. it means in my sense only that somebody put in mindfulness later .. so he can justify .. but it is not what really happened ..

        • Hi Friend. what you quoted above from my blog is not the stuff of mindfulness. Mindfulness is defined here.

          Mindfulness
          .

        • This is a Google translation into German. I hope it translated correctly.

          Achtsamkeit ist Aufmerksamkeit. Die Funktion der Achtsamkeit ist, um Klarheit zu dem, was wahrgenommen zu bringen. Der grundlegende Ansatz ist:

          “Dinge zu beachten, wie sie sind.”

          Wenn man etwas, das unvereinbar ist und keinen Sinn sieht, dann gibt es einen Mangel an Klarheit, die Verhinderung einer von Verständnis der wahren Natur der Dinge. Die Wahrnehmung ist entweder unvollständig oder verzerrt. Achtsamkeit hilft, begradigen die Wahrnehmung.

          .

  81. I think that it is better to use Subject Clearing as a guide to look into the past.

    Actually, it is looking at the “definitions” and “logics” that make up the matrix of one’s mind. These definitions and logics may have to be broken down further in order to understand them fully. One’s past provides the experience to visualize these definitions and examples to explain the logics.

  82. I discovered this while snooping and found it quite enlightening.. I wanted to share with you..
    http://www.yogabrains.org/philosophy/setting-the-table-for-the-imaginary-feast-of-knowledge/

  83. vinarie: It is is not because of language .. we spoke german, and I am a german too .. I myself did not speak english at this time, and following I got only translated reference from LRH .. but I assure you it was sometimes pure nonsens what I have read .. made sometimes totally no sense what I had to read .. because of very confused german ..

    babybunker: do not feel sorry about me .. it is still me who was part of the game. See only that they presented me a series of mysteries which I could not solve properly. It needs me then 32 years to find a proper answer to all this balderdash. But it needed so long, because I was still in the church, and was always pushed to get it handled .. nobody has ever handled anything about .. but with all new tech it should be done fast .. I remember the False Purpose Rundown .. everybody around knew at this time that we will get me through very fast. I read the references .. and said NO has nothing to do with my case .. means simply that I was not interested to push in evil purpose as a reason for the desaster ..

    Lets say something more to give a broader view about. The C/S decided often enough that I should get Out Int handled. Unfortunately I had a complete other view about exteriorization than LRH, and following also my auditor and C/S .. so we could that not clear, because I had to take the definitions from LRH .. and this definitions did not work on me .. because I had no idea about Go In etc .. my idea was to go closer or wider .. and it has nothing to do with going in a body or out of a body .. t had to do with my willingnes to take space .. which space .. how much or how little ..

    One point about is sure interestingly, because normally I take the space which I want .. together with a girlfriend I took a very close space .. when runnin with my bycicle I took some hundred meters as my space .. when went to sleep I took normally the whole planet or more as my space ..

    So on, there was no reason for me to go out of my head .. beside of this, I had never the idea that I would be in my head .. it is to small for me ..

    So I had never any meaning to the Int Buttons as given from LRH. None of them made ever sense to me. But we did run that often on me ..

    It is the same with engram. I had never in my life an engram. My birth was not an engram for me. No trauma. But we convinced me that a bite of an mosquito would be also an engram .. because it was unconcious happend to me .. very good, but on this way I would have billion of engram, because in my body are dying every day millions of body cells .. why should this bite of a mosquito be an engram for ME .. it kills only some body cells ..

    This figure figure made no sense to me .. it made simply no sense to me, and so I have always answered to question which made no sense to me ..

    So to vinarie again: I have never grasped what was done when we did try to handle an ARCX. I did not get what was done with this assessment of the DEI scale .. I have never acknowledged any indication, because it was only False for me .. had nothing to do with anything ..

    But the other day I found out that the last of the list was originally False and not Refused as actually in use .. but in german we gave me “abgelehnt” or “verweigert” as item .. and both of had nothing to do with False .. it has to do with not accepted .. but in different gradients ..

    So the indication of PTSness instead ARCX was simply False .. but it was not Refused by me .. but was indicated as FALSE by me .. this single point makes the difference .. one second in my life .. I said it is False, and then everybody did run Refused on me .. and tried to convince me that I am False .. I hope you get what I tried to say ..

    babybunker: It is my failure that I said False .. had better simply said and demonstrate my refusing to this stuff .. so on scientology is a tricky religion there are nearly all miseducated on fixed analysis about which there know basically nothing ..

    I mean to say it is False is the same as refusing it .. but with saying False they came up to try to convince me that they are right .. means LRH were right .. that’s the game ..

    • Hi Friend, looks like Scientology has been a big incident in itself.

      ________________________________

      • Yeah, that’s right .. big incident in itself .. never experienced such stuff before .. no early similar .. I refer sometimes to the lecture “free being” if you may understand that ..

        • I don’t think one can run out Scientology as an incident, using Scientology techniques.

          In my opinion, the best way to run out Scientology is applying Subject Clearing in the wider context of knowledge.

          That is what I did, and I am still doing it.

    • Friend.. Oh I don’t feel sorry for you..just compassion for what you went through.. but recognizing that Scn is a game is big! Good for you.

      Mosquito bite was an engram..Wow they were desperate weren’t they. Sounds like you are on the mend and straightening out your mind!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s