Our old friend Terra Cognita has provided another thought-provoking essay.
Clear on the 1st Dynamic? I Think Not
When people weren’t going “Clear” during Scientology auditing, L. Ron Hubbard—or someone within the church; I don’t know who—decided that pre-OT processing only cleared people on the First Dynamic. “Clears” were told that they no longer had their “own reactive mind.” In other words, people who’d been audited on Dianetics and the Grades were now superhuman and self-determined, but still screwed up on their other seven Dynamics. Apparently, seven-eighths of their problems and hang-ups still existed.
Where was it written that Dianetic and Grades auditing only produced Clears on the first Dynamic? Certainly not in Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health. I also don’t recall reading this theory on any of the Levels (the materials and exercises used to train auditors on the Grades). Again, I’m not even sure LRH was the one who actually advanced this whacky concept.
Dynamics? What Dynamics?
Of the Dynamics, LRH wrote, “There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. We call these the Dynamics. These are motives or motivations. The first dynamic—is the urge toward existence as one’s self. Here we have individuality expressed fully.” (Google Scientology and the Dynamics for a full explanation of all eight.)
The Dynamics are artificial constructs, invented by LRH to try to identify and categorize different aspects of human nature. In reality, no such divisions exist. That all our drives, desires, and urges to survive can be sorted into eight, distinct divisions makes as much sense as categorizing sports by the color of athlete’s hair.
Our minds aren’t organized into eight, neat, segregated sections. Memories aren’t stored that way. Nor are our thoughts, urges, motivations, and feelings. The memory of a motorcycle accident I experienced years ago isn’t stored in a walled-off section labeled “Reserved for 1st Dynamic.” Images and thoughts of my family aren’t kept locked away in a special metaphysical room with a “Second Dynamics Memories Only” sign over the door. My desires for a better and more peaceful planet don’t reside in a special area set aside for forth dynamic issues, “Mankind.”
Even if we accepted the Dynamics as a useful paradigm, there is so much overlap and commonality, it would be impossible to establish that only one, narrowly defined aspect of our nature was “Clear” and operating like LRH described in DMSMH.
Since the eight Dynamics are made-up, subjective divisions, being “Clear” on one of them would not be logical—and would only extend the pretense. It’s illogical to think that a person would be completely free and sane on one tiny aspect of himself without regards to the other 87.5%. Are we to believe that LRH tailored Dianetics and the Grades to only address this first Dynamic? I think not.
But Why?
“Being Clear on the first dynamic” was invented because Dianetics didn’t work. What’s interesting is that so many people bought into the fiction. Accepting “being Clear on the first Dynamic,” is another classic example of cognitive dissonance within Scientology.
Since there is no such thing as “the Dynamics,” there is no such thing as being “Clear” on one of them. We can’t be “Clear” on something that doesn’t exit. Our essence can’t be divided into eight distinct divisions. It’s convenient to think that all our needs and yearnings are separated into eight, unique categories. In reality, no such grouping exists.
But LRH Knew What He Was Doing?
LRH invented the Dynamics to try to make sense of his muddled understanding of human nature.
The mind is a jumble of memories, thoughts, and calculations organized and accessed in a way that nobody fully understands. There is no separate section devoted solely to cats, dogs, and plants—the sixth Dynamic. There is no sector in which everything of a spiritual nature has been neatly compartmentalized—the seventh. Separating everything having to do with “self” from the rest of our lives is ludicrous.
If anyone reading this has ever undergone Scientology auditing, then you know that the questions asked in session—and their subsequent answers—aren’t restricted to so-called first Dynamic incidents. This would be ridiculous—and impossible. On the Grades, questions are expanded to include not only incidents relating solely to the preclear, but questions about incidents which happened between others. Questions and answers in auditing cover all the Dynamics, not just those on the first.
Terra Interview
I would love to hear a “Clear” explain to us how—for the first time in quadrillions of yeas—they’ve become perfect again on their first Dynamic—but not on the others. I would love for them to show us, that with regards to this Dynamic, their motives are pure and their existence as self has been fully expressed. I would love for a “Clear” to demonstrate how all their first Dynamic urges are perfectly aligned and in harmony while they’re still leaking oil on the other seven. I’d love listening to them explain how their flu, failed marriage, and bankruptcy had nothing to do with their first Dynamic.
You would think that one of these first Dynamic “Clears” on his way toward becoming Homo Novus would breeze through the upper reaches of the Bridge. And yet, on OT 7 alone, parishioners spend mountains of money and take years and years to get through this level. And afterwards? Graduates don’t return from Flag and “clear” their communities. Instead, they get in accidents. They get sick. They get divorced. They die at the same rate and from the same diseases as everyone else. They all get sent to Ethics for one offense or another. And of course, most eventually leave the church.
But What about All Those Pesky Body Thetans?
Resorting to the argument that what’s holding us back from being Clear on the other seven Dynamics are thousands and thousands of disembodied beings—all with their own reactive minds—clinging to our bodies is science fiction. To think that shedding these “unclear” freeloaders will suddenly free our tortured souls is farcical.
LRH based his “technology” on an unsupported foundation of false theories and lies, and thus, his vaunted state of “Clear” was never achieved. Nor will it ever.
Last Words
There is only one reason for inventing and promoting the idea that people go “Clear” on just one Dynamic to the exclusion of the other seven. That reason: Attempts to “Clear” people per the “tech” never worked. Nobody in the history of Scientology has ever had all his demons exorcised while holding the cans of an e-meter. “Clearing” people per Hubbardian therapy is a sham.
This isn’t to say that people haven’t had wins and gains in session. It only means that the flaunted state of Clear—on any Dynamic—has never been achieved. Or proved.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
“Clears” were told that they no longer had their own reactive mind.”
Around 1980 I was co auditing on the grades. Back then dianetic auditing came before the grades on the grade chart and I had previously attested to Dianetic Case Completion, I think it was called. The Dianetic Drug Rundown came out and it was deemed a priority and my co auditor and I were transferred to it.
After some hours of auditing my co auditor said “Locate an incident of . . . (whatever it was)”. I looked for a moment or two and then laughed out loud and said, “Joe, it’s just a joke. There’s nothing there!”
In today’s parlance maybe my statement might have squeaked by as a paraphrase of “I mocked it all up.”?
Back then things were different. The OT levels were hidden as well as Elron’s background and the machinations of the organization.
The man on the street would say, “You can’t change the past so live for today.” At that time back then I realized that nothing in the past need affect me in the present. No superhuman abilities, just a subjective reality. A pitfall of scn might be adopting an air of superiority by accepting or identifying with a label like Clear.
In the more recent past people from independent groups would show up and say they were having fun and getting benefits but they don’t bother anymore. I wouldn’t know if they add or subtract things from the subject or follow through on Elron’s upper level cosmology.
Per your statement in the early 80’s, it could have been called “Dianetic Clear”.
The grades had a lot of potential benefits besides a possible clearing, so it was worth continuing them.
Glad to see Marildi has returned to the fray here. She is steering her Battleship of Standard Tech into the shark-infested and misunderstood waters here and has let loose a few salvoes from her 16 inch Standard Tech turrets at all you laggards and miscreants, and is churning up the waters and the sharks with her vast propellers. Full speed ahead!
“And damn the torpedoes!” 🙂
And don’t bother explaining why Scientology tech has done nothing to improve the world in all these years.
No don’t worry about that as I can’t explain why Scientology tech has done nothing” – as your premise is inexplicable. You could ask the probably hundreds of thousands of people who have received auditing what they think though? Or did you just think that by throwing out your biased and malicious opinion that it would somehow sound or make it true?
I can’t ask them because they don’t exist. CoS never had that many people as members. Nice try. Also, Scientology was supposed to make the world better. Does the world seem better to you than when Scientology started?
marildi, there are more than torpedoes. You could add floating mines, like dwarmed.
There may well be 100 or 200 thousand “people who have received auditing” over the decades and are still alive. That only about 10% of them are still active in Dianetics and Scientology or identify as scientologists in censuses and surveys, shows that the vast majority have voted with their feet, and it’s a thumbs down.
Small and decreasing participation in both the CofS and the independent movement are the clearest reality-check indicator that they don’t provide any significant results or benefits, beyond placebo effects and the sort of occasional random phenomenon that impress gullible “true believer” types.
Dear Wooden Heads,
I thought I might reply in one fell swoop as it seems my quite simple proposition has restimulated a veritable barrage of entheta (haha) and stirred up a hornet’s nest and whirlwind of all those confused ideas that are seemingly still revolving around your dopey heads! Well, this is what happens when you failed to clear up the word “thetan” or “engram”, let alone “Remimeo” (I bet most won’t know the latter!) So here you all are years and decades later still nattering and complaining about it all.
I also seem to be becoming a cult figure now, even a “FoolproofJunior” has appeared in honour of me and my pithy and poignant comments – haha!. And it seems my comments are providing you all with a more cogent raison d’etre than those other things you have manufactured to explain away the fact of simply going past misunderstood words in your materials.
Still, one day the Lab Rats might come up with a “One Shot Clear” Prozac-type pill which you can all take with glee and thus avoid the arduous work of opening a dictionary and you can all get back to mistyping and misunderstanding – but never of course correcting your predictive text messages to your dunderhead friends on your cells.
Now, what was that word that you went by? Let’s start with “Remimeo”? Flunk!
Fabulous.
You might want to clear up the definition of poignant FP.
Haha – Mike thinks there is only definition or he only knows that one and it somehow doesn’t fit here. See – this is exactly what I mean. You might like to read Clearing Words HCOB. Mrs Rinder to Method 9 you before Thursday 2PM.
Another of your “poignant” comments?
Well it wasn’t one of yours!
Foolproof you seem to enjoy when Mike responds but when others do you seem to go flaccid. Word clear that schmuck. Here I’ll spell it f..l..a..c..c..i..d. Quit targeting Mike and start responding to all who question or respond to you. In other words…..step up Fool, don’t be a coward.
Probably because at least Mike’s replies are somewhat cogent and to the point, but then he’s had quite a bit of Scientology and quite a bit of word clearing.I am not “targetting” Mike either – he usually posts something to my comments and I respond. Learn to read – creep!
sorry….I work and actually provide for my family Eff Pee. I don’t have the time you do or should I say, or all of you who play Eff Pee do to cover all the big bad sp blogs out there. As for word clearing….. as I said above…..flaccid. Look it up, then tell all your OSA parasites to look it up. Get to know that word and learn to accept it. Cuz after Season 3…….it’ll be be the term most used to describe your uh…..church. Mike responds to you, this is true. Funny to read your responses while he plays you like a ping pong ball. Oh last thing…..I love to read and I’m very good at retaining information and regurgitating it back when needed. My 16 inch turrets are locked and loaded, but not aiming for sharks tough guy….you really should have just left it alone and stayed on topic. Going personal and using deragatory words to describe people is…..well, foolish. That’s what trolls do.
So “schmuck” isn’t a derogatory word and “going personal” then? Amazing – doesn’t even remember or read his/her own troll-like comments!
Your continuing childish petulance (just in case your dictionary fails you – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/petulance?q=petulance_1) is a never ending wonder. You remind me of a line from a Three Stooges short Half-Shot Shooters: “Every time you think you weaken the nation.”
“Remimeo = means that it’s to be copied and distributed (ie, not secret information). Other possibilities are Limited Remimeo, Non-Remimeo, and there may be a couple of others.” Yet another made up word by Tub O’Lard.
Will we see yet more of your effete attempts of barbed witticisms as you become angrier at yet another failure to prove that you aren’t a troll.
Well thank you for that definition. See – you can look things up.
And why do you think I am trying to prove I am not a troll? After all I am only trolling the most heinous trolls there are! Or did you think that this website is an old ladies tea party? I find it amazing that vicious trolls accuse me of – trolling! Well, alright. Guilty as charged.
“Well thank you for that definition. See – you can look things up.” What a yawn inspiring retort. Now, perhaps, you can tell us which dictionary “Remimeo” appears in to disprove that it’s not a fake word created by a dead pulp fiction hack.
The Scientology Admin Dictionary you fool – whoever said it wasn’t a special Scientology word? But actually anyone with a modicum of intelligence would realize what the .word meant from its construct and it does have a normal English definition and use.
Getting a tad angry aren’t you SFB? “Remimeo”, a made up word used in a made up dictionary by a pulp hack writer who made up a fake religion. If it had a meaning and use in the reality outside your crazed excuse for a “religion” then explain why the Oxford Dictionary makes NO MENTION of it. At least we’ll know that you are living up to the “Fool” part of your nom de plume when you go on another rant when you reply.
Oh yes, if you want to better your wit I would suggest that you read some Oscar Wilde.
Here’s another fool who knows nothing of Scientology – he’s even gone to the Oxford dictionary to try and prove a point that never existed. Remimeo is used as a special word in Scientology. Got it now?. Fool! But saying that combine “re” and mimeo” in normal English and even a microcephalous idiot would be able to work that out.
FP’s over the top angry (08/08/18 2.37 pm) reply with personal attack only goes to show that he doesn’t like his buttons being pushed about his supposed “religion” and it’s fakery.
“But saying that combine “re” and mimeo” in normal English and even a microcephalous idiot would be able to work that out.” You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with that comment. Doesn’t take much for you to lose your temper and resort to vileness does it?
You are consistently critical and scathing of people here, of the scientific method, of logic, of the very concept of criticism itself. Per LRH, you must also have M/Us and/or crimes to hide. In addition, he claimed that snide, arrogant or contemptuous personalities are always out of valence. It seems you are “being someone else”. At -8.0 on the tone scale, it is hardly surprising.
In Ability 90M, Feb 1959, LRH asks us “to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis – a very critical basis”, to compare what we have learned with the known universe, to question it and, if we like, reject it. This is exactly what we are doing, per LRH.
You have the tech. You encourage its application yet demonstrate a failure to apply it to yourself. Why?
mwesten, I think it’s telling when posters here use Scientology references to make their point.
And where you’re concerned, I’m surprised at you being so literal in your response to Foolproof’s style of rhetoric. Let me refer you to the chapter in *Science of Survival* titled “Literalism with Which Statements or Remarks Are Received.”
If I am not duplicating a comm in the spirit it is intended then I will revert to the source point and not some supercilious via. Thanks anyway.
Fair enough.
I must say, though, I found that particular chapter to be amazingly insightful. This is based on my own observations of people and not on any dogmatic belief in LRH’s all-knowingness or infallibility (just to anticipate any such assumption by anybody) but when he’s right, he’s right.
Yes, it must be awful for these people to go through life understanding things literally, literally! Causes all sorts of problems.
It is very interesting to see so many people who are now reading (not actually understanding) LRH’materials in order to make FoolProof wrong.
As a wise man once said “some auditing is better than no auditing”
Thanks Mike for publishing the comments.
It never dawns on you (and others commenting here) it seems, that a veritable barrage of criticism, snide remarks, name calling and quite vicious verbal attacks are made with the publication of every article and 95% of the comments posted. Just sort of “not-ised” that fact eh? My criticism (actually just stating the truth which of course none like to hear here) is so mild in comparison it’s almost namby pamby – haha!
This is a bit like Attila the Hun accusing his cook of not putting enough salt in his stew of human remains.
Of course it dawns on me. Yet as you freely admit, your response to said criticism is criticism. Typically you attack the messenger rather than the message (which is a shame as I’d genuinely love to see an enlightened, reasoned rebuttal from you to terra’s posts). So if such behaviour is a symptom of M/Us or O/Ws as you claim, then this also applies to you. Ipso facto.
As a scientologist you should be able to state your truth without descending into wogthink. If you act like those you criticise then what really is the point of doing scientology? What example are you setting for its effectiveness?
Well, it got you going didn’t it?
Oh why are you using words like “wogthink”, I thought this was not allowed in the “newspeak” posting community here?
Setting an example? Debating an issue? Rebutting the article? Do you really think people who post comments here are interested in such? Even if I were to painstakingly dissect Terra’s article paragraph by paragraph and explain everything for you all, most would still hurl it back in my face or find reasons that it was still unacceptable to them.
No no, I am not joining any debating society here. There is nothing to debate – either you understand Scientology and can use it or you don’t. .
Fool- Then why not just go away ffs?! Why are you even here? The only thing you are doing is reinforcing our opinion of what a Scientologist is- a smug, narcissistic, petty person with NO real logic, communication or debate skills who just wants to jump in the middle of the grown up conversation. You want attention at any cost and you argue just to impress yourself with your imagined importance. Are you jealous that Mike actually has a successful life now that he’s ditched the Cult? You must be. That’s the only possible reason you would spend so much time focused on him. If you think you are defending Scientology think again. Wrong blog. None of us here are going to agree with anything you say. Your time here has NO purpose. Except to show all of us what a Scientologist looks like. It’s obvious you aren’t Clear so perhaps the real issue is that YOU don’t understand Scientology. Instead of stalking Mike and looking like an ass, you need to go back and start again because if THIS is any example of the amazing confront and communication skills learned through CO$ Tech- FLUNK. You are WAY too reactive.
So here I am being accused of exactly the things that others posting here are guilty of. All of those traits above (plus a whole lot more nastiness) can be levelled at most people posting here. Or did you think this was an old ladies sewing circle?
As for “grown-up conversations” – don’t make me laugh. The comments here are about the level of the kindergarten.
Stefani, you are sounding like “pot calling kettle black”. Don’t mud-sling. Just articulate your argument.
“Setting an example? Debating an issue? Rebutting the article? Do you really think people who post comments here are interested in such?”
Yes.
“Even if I were to painstakingly dissect Terra’s article paragraph by paragraph and explain everything for you all, most would still hurl it back in my face or find reasons that it was still unacceptable to them.”
Some would, sure. So what? Now you know how Donald Trump feels (joke!) I think you’re being a wee bit precious. While most, if not all, agree on the abusive nature of the Co$, not everyone here feels the same way about the tech. And there are always going to be people who disagree and/or who throw insults. If you can withstand such responses now, why not then? Just keep your TRs in and communicate with those who actually give a shit. Those others are just nattery DBs anyway, no? Ignore them; they’re a lost cause.
“No no, I am not joining any debating society here. There is nothing to debate – either you understand Scientology and can use it or you don’t.”
If you’re not willing to educate or engage people on the subject, then what is there left for you to do? Continue harping on at people for being stupid and degraded? That seems rather puerile, no? Per LRH, you are simply advertising your own O/Ws and M/Us. Hardly a good example of the path to enlightenment you supposedly endorse.
If you behave like those you criticise then you are no better than they are. What use is scientology if it can’t lift people up into higher, more enlightened states?
I’m just here for the comments by Foolproof, and others, defending this like it was real and a serious study topic. 🙂
I know what you mean – the amount of drivel and nonsense that gets posted here it is no surprise that you find my poignant (see above comments so refreshing, like an island in a sea of insanity. In fact you couldn’t make it up! So I will try to post more, just for you, seriously, really.
This topic is all over the place. The auditor asks questions and the person gives answers. Did someone expect to go astral-planing around the universe because of it? I guess if I was supposed to “go clear” on eight, ten or fifteen specific areas of life I need a lot more auditing or meditation or biofeedback or prayer or . . . .
“The mind is a jumble of memories, thoughts and calculations organized and accessed in a way that nobody fully understands.” Okay – that’s one way to look at it.
Hey – it’s a topic on a blog and Terra is willing to share some thoughts and opinions. I wonder how it’s going with his novel.
I played sports in high school and didn’t have time to join the debate team. If Terra’s statement which I quoted above is a debate topic, then the opposing position might be, “The Almighty gifted mankind with a mind and a brain so human beings can unjumble memories, thoughts and calculations and organize and access them in an understandable way.” Did I get that right?
P.S. I look at Terra’s topics as a chance to take a break from discussing the more insidious aspects of the cult. 🙂
Terra’s statement is probably the exact sentiment of billions of people. In 1950 along comes Mr. Hubbard who says he has it figured out. Erase the “reactive mind” and now you have full access the the “analytical mind”. In reality I have to agree with Terra but it would still be a fun debate and a discussion of human potential.
Like a lot of other things in scn, who knows where Hubbard came up with the idea of dynamics. He probably isn’t the first person to look at life and place it into categories. He might have read about it in various places and compiled it and attached the term “dynamics” to it.
Actually the Buddhists have their 8-fold path of life. Back Porch Brian the squirrel Buddhist might like to confirm this but then he probably misunderstood and squirrelled that as well.
Yo mama.
I love this article. I agree that our mind is made of memories, thoughts, urges etc. To try and categorize them creates a lack of unification of the person, the one person, who wants to feel better, live life better and have some happiness etc. I think hubbard achieved those sorts of “gains” for a lot of us. We did feel better, gained some knowledge, lived better lives in a way if you were previously on drugs especially, some of us lived more ethical lives and we made some great friends in the church, we had a lot of support from each other during those dog days. But all this crap about you are clear, you are not clear, you are only clear on the first dynamic, you need the next level, you have to re-do the levels…now your life becomes a hectic mess of trying to “achieve” something with the mind. One can never relax, or enjoy life, or have an opinion even. “You must have an MU,” is a huge thought stopper. You can’t have an opinion or a disagreement if the old man wrote it even though it contradicts something else he wrote because… it’s all about YOUR MU’s. And if you continue to press your point because you see the contradiction right there in black and white, you get thrown out eventually. I agree with Terra in this article. You know if instead of inventing some kind of bridge, as if the mind can be organized the way he said it is, he could have called himself a life improvement center, without all the heavy ethics and had a much bigger following to this day. People want better lives not all the hocus pocus dumped on you whether you like it or not, with all their rules, their suspicions of you being a “plant” etc. Long story short…I agree. LOL
Hello everyone! I love reading the blog and all of the comments. Mike, keep up the great work. My question isn’t about the blog or comments. My question is about the photo at the top of this piece. Why does Scientology have a cross on their building?
Because it looks “religious”. ?
After losing the rights to Dianetics, Hubbard introduced his new therapy Scientology in 1952. Having been butchered in the press and by the scientific community for his quack claims, Hubbard toyed with “the religion angle” as a way to sell his pseudoscience more effectively. A marketing tool, in other words.
It is similar to the Rose Cross Lamen of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, an occult group whose membership included Hubbard’s primary role model Aleister Crowley (who would also appropriate the design for his Thoth Tarot deck). An early version, now used as the symbol of the Volunteer Ministers, was promoted via Scientology’s own “Golden Dawn” newsletter in 1954 (see https://bit.ly/2KvOF6d). The Rose Cross Lamen is itself based on Rosicrucian symbolism (Hubbard was once a member of a Rosicrucian order, the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosæ Crucis). But we are only just scratching the surface. Scientology’s occult roots run deep. (I’m currently researching the “Star of Trust” that the Co$ claims Hubbard awarded David Miscavige; the original trademark was of an inverted pentagram – a symbol that has significant occult associations).
Despite its early usage, Hubbard didn’t go into full religion mode until the 1960s, when the FDA began taking an interest in the E-Meter. In October 1962, Hubbard announced that all Scientology organisations were “religious in nature.” “This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization,” he declared. “It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors.” The project continued throughout the 60s and early 70s as Scientology faced increasing pressure from the FDA, the IRS and various government bodies around the world. In 1969, Hubbard ordered the implementation of “visual evidence” that Scientology was religious as a means of legal defence. “Any staff who are trained at any level as auditors…are to be clothed in the traditioned ministerial black suit, black vest, white collar, silver cross, for ordinary org wear. [The] Creed of the Church is to be done big and plainly posted in public areas. Stationery is to reflect the fact that orgs are churches. All public literature must state that [Scientology] is religious philosophy.”
The irony of all this is that anyone familiar with Hubbard’s output knows fully well how much he despised religion and that he considered it a form of enslavement. Heh.
mwesten – Thanks for the write up. Interesting. As a mission staff auditor I wasn’t required to “wear the cloth”. haha
It was required to do the Minister of the Church course in order to audit public people. This consisted of reading a book about comparative religion and go attest and get a certificate. A regular Reverend was I
They still trot out “Rev.” Pat Harney to this day. Seeing how Christianity is on the decline, it might be time for them to appropriate a religion that’s on the up. Islam, for example. No one’s allowed to criticise it either. Could be a great move for Mullah Miscavige, peace be upon him.
Interesting comment. Davie did seem to warm up to NOI.
I wish hulu would update the new season 3 aftermath episodes, I’ve learned so much from the show about tubby and lame-brain egocentric Miscabbage. : ) Thanks Mike!
Does anyone know when the Season 3 will start airing on A&E? I heard Aug and it is already Aug. Shouldn’t we at least be seeing commercials for the upcoming series?
The date is not final. It will be the end of the year, perhaps late November. But as I said, it is NOT finalized yet.
The Eight Dynamics are LRH’s version of “Doe, A Deer”. There are eight notes that circle back to the first. There are eight dynamics that circle back to the first. They are all about Man and Hubbard trying to justify Scientology as a religion. In Dianetics, there were four. In trying to give his psychobabble a spiritual gloss he added the other four in Scientology. I had an interesting conversation with a current Scientologist (even though I’m definitely an SP, lol) and she kept insisting that dynamics 7 and 8 are CO$’s spirituality. If you can look at those two objectively, which I can as a Never In, look at Scientology’s explanation for Thetan, read the Super Power Rundown, etc- taken as a whole the bottom line is that through the dynamics the individual is not working towards a spiritual being, but is rather working toward making himself God. There is no room in Hubbard’s writing for anything other than in making man the center of the universe and a god with godlike powers. The dynamics begin with Man and end with Man as god. Little Davie has removed the definition of Scientology being rooted in the great religions of the world and replaced it with a much less religious explanation culminating in “Scientology is something one does, not something one believes in.” Removing even further any semblance of spirituality. I believe that this is because it is impossible to sustain Scientology as a religion as it was never intended to be one in the first place. The dynamics, at least the last four, were a desperate attempt to weld bad, impossible science with bad, impossible spirituality.
Ultimately Scientology and the dynamics cannot work because Man CANNOT attain the status of God.
Very interesting Stefani Hutchison and an interesting analysis. To me, LRH was sort of running scared, wanted to be godlike because just maybe he was wrong about things and was afraid that his afterlife might just not be what he wanted it to be. I think it was Jeffrey Augustine who said when you make a deal with the devil the devil comes to collect his pay.
Stefani, “God” is embedded in man. Jordan B Peterson articulates that one out, as part of the Judeo-Christian western culture. Google it.
“Scientology is something one does, not something one believes in.” This is too wise for davie to come up with.
As for Scientology, there is the philosophy, the church and the cult. All 3 developed over years, and overlapped. Subjects change over time, and there were reasons for changes. If you want to evaluate only on today’s standards, then it is only a well established cult. But that doesn’t mean that things were never right.
The dynamics are a “subdivision” of the goal of “Survival”. The dynamics are not dis-related to each other, and there is a lot of interaction. It is a ‘Venn Diagram’ of survival. Use it as long as it is useful to you.
Very well drawn and illuminating.
Thank you for this article. It’s helpful. I’ve had the idea that I would never be able to shake the concepts of the dynamics out of my general sense of things. It was a part of how I thought so thoroughly for so many decades….
Your article helps me break loose of them a bit.. and I would be glad to use the gist of this article as something to throw out there to try to give someone a jolt. I had never looked at the farce of ‘clear on the first dynamic’ in this way previously. It’s quite powerful …in a false data stripping way.
Haha! This blog is (not even slowly) transforming into “After all these years, I would like to clear up my misunderstoods and I am hoping that by publishing my misconceptions of Scientology, someone might do it for me and save me a bit of hard work in opening a dictionary!” And then further: “This will attract all the other people with similar confused ideas to coo and wail about their misunderstoods, so I won’t feel so bad about them. Plus of course those who are terribly frightened of the E-Meter in laying bare their souls but then we’ll just have to live with them (somehow).”
From HCOB Confused Ideas:
“They will generate weird ideas and erroneous concepts of what the text says. They do wrong things and say the text said to. They ask strange ideas of their Instructors. They clamor for “clarifications.”
AND AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL THIS IS SIMPLY MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS.
There is not also misunderstood ideas. There is only the misunderstood word which breeds, then, huge towering wrong ideas.
A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD BREEDS STRANGE IDEAS.”
And with Terra’s articles you couldn’t get much stranger! (Well, you can, as we’ve seen from other examples posted here.)
The purchase of a good dictionary (Random House for example) is an excellent start to clearing up the above confusions. Good luck. And don’t forget to use your demo kits when needed!
Funny — a lot of people seem to understand Terra’s article perfectly. Perhaps it is you that has the misunderstoods Foolproof. You may disagree with the conclusions or logic, but to simply assert “see, this is the result of misunderstoods” is pretty lame.
Do you subscribe to the idea you can be Clear on the First Dynamic?
Hey Mike, why bother about feeding this imposter Foolproof?
I happen to know that’s not the real one. I have a friend of a friend who’s got a niece who has an adopted daughter who, before dumping him, was engaged to a guy who has an uncle who was on the Apollo. Via via I heard that said person told that the real Foolproof died almost 26 years ago.
No I don’t have any proof of this claim. I don’t want to do my, uhm, I mean your homework.
The “real” Foolproof? There is no “real” Foolproof. Just a pseudonym of one or more people who want to express the “scientology view.”
I find it instructive and almost uniformly enlightening to read FP comments. The more FP says the more evident it is to anyone reading this blog how toxic scientology is to thought processes and what a “scientology personality” is like.
It’s all grist for the mill and adds to an overall understanding of the dangers of scientology. It’s why I ask FP questions. The answers are often better than blog posts I might otherwise have to spend time writing.
I still have feeling that he’s just an annoying troll who, when he disappears for a few days or a week, is madly reading up on anything he can find on the ‘net about $camology so when he reappears he can “astound” us with his supposed inside knowledge. When commenters try to pin him with specific questions he goes off on his rant tangents then buggers off for awhile. You can bet he does the same thing to other sites not just this one.
We’ll now doubt hear from him because the “nasty people” are picking on him and he’ll need to bolster his weakened self-importance by showing that his unsubstantiated claim(and blowhard, trumpet blowing) of a 150 IQ is superior.
So, Mike, are you saying that if I extol the virtues of, say, Mormonism, on an anti-Mormon website, that my comment is proof of how “dangerous” Mormon doctrine is and that it should be avoided?
You can decide for yourself if the mindset and beliefs of Mormonism is something you want to be like. If you want to understand what Mormonism is and stands for who better to hear it from than anerdent believer. In my experience Mormons don’t try to hammer anyone else into thinking like they do, but perhaps I would be surprised? Who knows. But all views and attitudes are enlightening if you can think for yourself.
The above is a perfect example of Q & A.
“anerdent”? Or did you “pacifically” meen “hardent”, or evun uvver fings? I could give loads of eggsamples yor can get yor teef into! Pleas report to Qual for word clearing, or how to work predictive text on cell phones.
😉
Agreed Mike .FP ‘s comments are very enlightening .And really makes this blog more interesting.
I will be re-reading and word clearing the articles that Foolproof objects to from now on.
It seems when an accurate conclusion is stated, the scn’s tr bullbait goes out and gets reactive.
Yes, I can understand that. Without me it is really boring – week in week out just a load of fools and victims moaning on and on about their experiences in Scientology and also others wallowing in a cesspit of natter and destructive impulses.
Mike, I got the “Scientology Personality” lesson from the expert. Gemma Harris. God help me, I truly thought I could reach her if I tried hard enough. I discovered just how exhausting and frustrating and futile it is. I gave up. That was enough Personality for me.
Don’t expect an answer from Eff Pee. Dave only lets him out for short forays. Don’t wanna overstress that OSA bot transmission.
Yo Dave,
Doncha just hate it when yer ‘tech’ gets a good grilling?
Just to step in and try to give you poor deluded and lost thetans(TM) a glimmer of hope . MUs have been the source of many upsets and conflicts within the otherwise perfect and standardized processes of the teck of Scientology. L Ron Hubbard recognized this and put in Word Clearing to get the teck in standardly and with full conceptual understanding fully full. KSW KSW KSW KSW.
COB has recognized that SOURCE had become reasonable in trying to make the teck work with degraded beings by using too many words to explain the simplicities that he knew. What SOURCE did not have time for before going to Target 2(TM) was the thorough and detailed scientific research into dictionaries and their dichotomous ways. COB has diligentally been working for the tens of billions of dedicated and NON-dilletante followers to issue a truly non-dichotomous dictionary. COB has risked life and limb to go against the physical universe dichotomous nature in preparing a dictionary with NO dichotomous multiple meanings. This earth shattering breakthrough of the century is a dictionary of words with one meaning and one meaning only and as SOURCE meant to say. COB recognized that SOURCE was enturbulated and PTS to the SPees that were attracted to his perfectness and had clustered up his body. COB is free of these distractions and can now finish what SOURCE set out to do. An example of how utterly clear the dictionary works is this following excerpt:
Scientology = Money = SOURCE = Money = KSW = Money = COB = Scientology = Money.
Once the billions have got the full conceptual understanding of this simplicity COB will be in fat city ——— aaaaahh ——– Will have it made —— aaaah —- will be in greener pastures, forever ——–aaaaah — Hip hip hip Hooray!
FP, now that is a nice sarcastic statement.
FP, clear these words. GET. A. LIFE.
You’re making me yawn eff-pee!
Terra Cognita – there’s no better proof of the truth and cogency of your article than the fact that it brought the elusive FP out of the woodwork to try to muddle things with his brain-addled attempt at logic.
He is, in effect, shouting the old faithful “your mother wears combat boots!” rebuttal.
Next he will say “my dad can whip your dad,” but since most of us are years past having fighting dads, he will instead say something like “my job is, my income is, my car is, my toys are is, and I am is are better than you and yours.”
Why is that FP? Isn’t it because you perfectly followed the incredibly standard Standard Tech as outlined by Hubbard when he was loaded enough on pinks and greys to imagine and type up the secrets of the universe? Since I know what auditing is, and refuse to participate, that gives you the illogical but instant out of all women who don’t want a male gynecologist because he has never been pregnant.
Effie, before you speak of MUs, perhaps you should clear up some Hubbardian MUs, starting with “nuclear physicist” and “radiation effects” and “there is no second wife” and continuing through a few dozen of his made-up words that have no meaning outside of his fabulist shell game imagination, or the words he made up because the truly applicable words were well defined but did not suit him.
But I did not come here to bury eff pee, but to praise Terra Cognita. So thank you TC for one of the best articles to appear here. It is truth made simple, the best kind.
p.s. one word you wont see Scilons working their deep MU magic on is spelled c-u-l-t.
The thing that chaps my ass the most is that nearly everybody on this blog still seems to go along with the “fact” that “MU’s”, “Study Tech” , and “Word Clearing” are really valid, or minimally are less bullshit than “Clear”, “OT”, “BT’s”, “Ethics Tech”, and the rest of the crap that was shoved down our throats the entire time we were involved in this sick joke called Scientology……….. I start off by rejecting that premise.
As far as I’m concerned, FP, etc. can take your “You have MU’s…” bullshit and stick it where the sun don’t shine. You were conned just like the rest of us and still you refuse to admit it.
From Ability Issue 90 M, ca. Feb 1959, HOW TO STUDY SCIENTOLOGY:
“You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis – a very critical basis.”
“Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve. Is the theory correct, or isn’t it correct? Only you can answer that; it cannot be answered for you.”
“When you have applied it as it should be, and applied as it is taught…and still find it unworkable, it is your privilege to question it and, if you like, reject it.”
“Compare what you have learned with the known universe.”
“Do not allow the Authority of any one person or school of thought to create a foregone conclusion within your sphere of knowledge.”
M Weston, these are lovely words that I read when in. I believed them, like I believed the Code of Honor and Personal Integrity. Wellll, bit of a problem there. When my friend critically thought about the SRD and wrote a four page KR quoting LRH here and there and pointed out inconsistencies, etc, this person applying the above and keeping it ‘on the right lines’ was declared.
So as nice as that sounds, in the real-fake world of scientology it does not apply.
Dear Foolproof,
I remember when I found LRH’s ‘data’ confusing the supervisor would send me off to ‘go earlier’ in my studies and find my MU. I had one supervisor who if we were alone in the courseroom would talk to me about the tech and help me understand it with examples. But so she wouldn’t be out tech she’d have me ‘demo it out.’ I’d mess it up because I didn’t get it, then she’d do a demo and tell me a story about how it could work. After this torturous way of justifying talking to each other about the tech while really we were being ‘out-tech’ I’d either understand what LRH had said more, or decide to pretend I got it because I was sick of looking for non-existant MU’s and just was done spending an hour to get through one convoluted sentence of LRH’s.
The answer was never, ‘well LRH likes to bend the grammar rules and tell stories.” Or “Maybe he isn’t being literal here, maybe he’s making a point and got distracted half way through and never finished his point because the amphetimines were kicking in.’ Etc.
When you try to send TC to the word clearing closet because he shreds clear on the first dynamic, you remind me of every supervisor who sat on their ass and wouldn’t have a two-way-comm with me when I didn’t understand LRH, but would make me wrong for not applying study tech.
Well FP, the study tech has it’s good points, but it’s sad point is that if LRH wrote a grocery list and released it as an OT process, supervisors would pull the MU card when the students said it made no sense.
You FP are pulling the MU card. You are refusing to talk to the point of the article. Were you a supervisor while in? Because that would make a lot of sense to me if you were. Just sayin.
Love your essays Terra! They really highlight the absurdities of Hubbard and I thank you for your point of view. Above all else, he was an ideological thief and regurgitator. Puking up other peoples’ ideas via his skewed little drug addled thought process. His noggin was a nonsensical mess on it’s best day. How I wish it were Dr. Seuss would have created a religion. Worshipping Star bellied sneeches, green eggs and ham, or Grinches would make a lot more sense.
This very specific “glued in” explanation of the Dynamics defined is all part of the trap. So much of Scientology contradicts itself, especially concerning or relating to Dianetics. I don’t know about anyone else but I listened to a lot of what Hubbard rambled on about in the 50s/60s. He claimed he had the way out, yet I’ve never met a Scientologist who wasn’t auto-convinced next lifetime will occur and is beyond their control, it’s just an underlining fact of operational life! Well… not according to Hubbard it is! Well…mmm, this is where it gets confusing. Cause over Life/MEST surely must include a ‘take it or leave it option.’ We are Gods right? According to Hubbard we are. We just got a little waylaid by our innocence and thrill for a game. But now that Scientology is here we have a ticket out. What the fuck is OUT! It sure doesn’t rhyme with Free.
The Hubbard business model relies almost exclusively on a person’s desire to be themselves or to find themselves. And that, as evidence accumulates is the last thing Scientology needs or wants from you.
Works 100% on all cases… well… yeah right. Being convinced you are/have a case aligning with the Dynamics and Clear is the antidote is akin to what Hubbard claimed is your entrance ticket to a life in the MEST universe in the first place – a gross invalidation of the PC. It’s a pretty good trick to convince someone their freedom is always just around the corner. Come on, shoulder to shoulder effort required, donate today, for tomorrow you will be free (or out, whatever floats your boat).
I guess the one law that brings Scientology undone pretty quickly is the ‘conservation of energy,’ but there’s no fun or profit in trying to come to terms with that. Hubbard claimed its existence is observable in that you can put energy into the MEST universe but can’t take it out, mmm… yet a cursory read of the axioms says you can. Just what universe or set of rules was Hubbard specifically raving on about? The one that suits his imagination or purposes at that time. Scientology has some seriously good, but very misleading lies in it!
Whenever a Clear did stupid things, I’d hear this Cleared on the first dynamic only. If they were out ethics, or slept with another Scn’s spouse, the excuse was, “Ethics is a personal thing.” If they got sick, “There’s SPs on their case.” And lastly, when a Clear back stabbed, ripped off others, got caught lying or breaking the law, the excuse was “Clears still have an FPRD case to get handled.”
Cleared on the first dynamic seems like an out.
Just as a reg is indoctrinated per policy, never, ever guarantee results and always leave and out, such as “If this auditing didn’t handle your ruin, the next one might.”
LOL @ “Jane (Now I have) Dough”
Clever. 😀
Ok so question for you. I walk into an Ideal Org and say I want to go up the Bridge. I’ve read allllll about it and alllllll about Scientology. However, I’m not willing to make any “donations” for any “services”, and I’m not going to join the “Sea Org” so I can “work on my case” and “clear my bank” for “free”. What happens next? Anyone know?
Yes. No auditing for you. It will be explained to you that your “exchange” is out unless you “donate.”
I’ll throw in 2 cents…
A. McCallister, I’d chat with you about what you even wanted by coming into the Ideal Org. But that would be from my viewpoint, through the lens of Hubbard’s rules which I personally agreed with at the time I was pouring over all his rules and regulations. As a sort of “reporter” class person, if I identifyed you as “interested, but not personally” then you are in the “reporter” or outside observer category, and “we’d” skip you, and I’d do it politely. I’d say something positive to validate your interest at all, and invite you to come to the next graduation Friday night, and I’d presume you are NOT at that moment you showed up, that you are NOT interested in taking the 200 question survey, nor that you are there to see some of the “intro” movies.
I’d treat you at one of the PTS A-J, which means you wanted a look see of the org, and weren’t necessarily there to cause us trouble, and Hubbard was rather dumb to the smarter people in the world, and you instantly fall into that category (I’d be secretly thinking, even then I recognized that the smart wogs do NOT waltz into Scientology, but rather people with problems who had some vague idea Scientology was going to help them, and YOU do not fall into that category, you fall into the smart wog who does NOT have problems for which Scientology can “help” you). (Help from Scientology’s view includes them helping themselves to your money and force Scientology’s views onto you so you realize how much MORE help you need by continuing up Hubbard’s snipe-hunting Bridge to Total Freedom stepladder of quackery pseudo-therapy and Xenu’s “body-thetan” exorcism secret levels of Scientology OT 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, a whole of exorcism you didn’t know you needed.).
But honestly, per the PTS A-J, you are a “know it all” and have no desire or ability to see that Scientology will help you, so I’d just offer you come back for Graduation and hear the firsthand stories and testimonials of recent Scientology graduates and thus get a feel for what others are getting from Scientology (as their wallets empty).
Chuck Beatty
ex Flag Course Sup and Word Clearer (1977-198e)
ex Computerized Routing Forms researcher, writer and pilot program
ex Sec Checker Course Sup
ex INCOMM computer operations
ex ASI computer operations
ex RPFer, about 7 years on the damnable RPF
quit finally, 2003
bravo. resonates.
Visit forums & blogs I guess?
But one question will always remain. Who introduced the concept of the “Bridge” you now desire?
Ever seen a dog suddenly realize it’s got a tail?
You realize you’re out of the Cult:.
If you seem sincere, they should, per policy, hook you up with a student auditor for some free sessions. Enough to get you more interested…and willing to pay. If not, you’ll be shown the door.
An “open minded” attitude is not tolerated; those who can’t pay are considered “degraded beings” and those who won’t pay are “PTS Type D” (a “woe is me” type who blames everyone but themselves for their problems). If you’re not prepared to join staff as an alternative then you really won’t get far.
Also, “below need of change” and thus in need of coming UP, supposedly, to “need of change” which is not something that happens overnight, and good that people are tentative and rightly cautious and averse to coming into Scientology.
1. Clear has 12 definitions of “Clear” in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary as of 1981.
2. How come these BTs get it off so easily?
That’s what I wanna know! I mean, my BTs party all night! It’s nerve racking! Plus, they make fun of me.
Favorite passage, “Since there is no such thing as “the Dynamics,” there is no such thing as being “Clear” on one of them. We can’t be “Clear” on something that doesn’t exit. Our essence can’t be divided into eight distinct divisions. It’s convenient to think that all our needs and yearnings are separated into eight, unique categories. In reality, no such grouping exists.”. Bam 🙂
If there’s no such thing as Clear, Scientology shouldn’t exist.
Oooh! This will be fun once the Hubbard diehards show up.
Great piece today, Terra.
Can someone tell me where Hubbard is buried? I’d like to set up a porta toliet over his grave and charge people to use it.
Deanna, I doubt Tubby was buried. More likely his ashes were scattered in some body of water.
I LOVE your sentiment, but any free money I discover is going to the Aftermath Foundation, which is a far better FU to his memory, IMO.
Deanna – They knew his burial site would be overrun with blubbering, bawling Scilons pressing packets of cash into the soft loam of the final resting place of his cast-off shell of blubber and bad teeth, so they made certain arrangements.
To help the millions of grieving Scilons and their hop-a-long BTs, the minders allow, encourage, cheat, trick, and lie to get those packets of cash routed to the IAS, so grieving Scilons can muffle their tears while increasing in Status, as their BTs quake in fear of being cast out into the cold, cold world, bereft of body, friend or family.
As for the final resting place of the creator of the world’s longest-running and most destructive party joke, look no further than deep on the ocean floor, where his final grainy bits of burned bone settled, except for those captured by ocean dreck and deposited on popular California beaches, where will stick to people like those pesky BTs until the end of time, or until California slides into the ocean, whichever comes first.
As to your out-housing adventure, please be considerate of the ocean creatures who share our planet and have already endured Hubbard’s nasty remains and blackened bits raining down and despoiling their only habitat. In other words, don’t pee in the sea to get back at elron. But if you find a grainy black bit of detritus on a beach, it might be the remains of a rotten incisor from you-know-who. Feel free to pick it up (don’t touch! use tweezers!) and remove it to your domicile.
Then what you do with some black shit in the privacy of your own loo is, of course, only your business.
He was cremated and the ashes scattered on his property, If I recall correctly.
They were scattered at sea, near Morro Bay if I remember correctly.
TC,
FWIW: I got this on the materials provided on OT2 at AOLA in 1972:
ADVANCED COURSES GENERAL ISSUE , 20April1967, Revised 15August 71:
CONFIDENTIAL ; THE STATE OF CLEAR:
What happens on the Clearing Course is that the individual himself becomes clear on the first dynamic. He himself becomes clear. He has separated out – cleared out and away from certain other complexities. It does not mean he is without bank. But he will find that his recognition of the first dynamic has improved dramatically.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
four more paragraphs
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
LRH:BW:BG:dz Flag Adv. Course Supervisor
for
Training and Services Aide
for
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
“If anyone reading this has ever undergone Scientology auditing, then you know that the questions asked in session—and their subsequent answers—aren’t restricted to so-called first Dynamic incidents.”
Terra Cognita, I think you have a crashing MU. The “dynamics” don’t refer to divisions of one’s mind – they’re divisions of existence. And LRH did say they were arbitrary divisions.
I can see why this fundamental MU has affected so much of your other Scientology concepts!
With regard to being Clear on a given dynamic, there is such a thing as 3rd-dynamic engram running, for example. Any 3rd dynamic can have its own painful experiences – i.e. its own “engrams,” loosely speaking – and these engrams affect the group and aberrate how it operates.
I would say that a good rundown for former Scientologists would consist of word clearing and 3rd-dynamic engram running.
marildi,
Good point. I especially agree with the need for 3rd dynamic engram running: The topmost and most accessible 3rd dynamic engram for most ex’es would be their recent incident with the CofS. The running of attitudes, emotions, sensations, and pains (physical and spiritual) would take up at least 5 intensives! Then the ex’es could move into scientology and run all of the processes on how the CofS ‘ruined’ their lives.
Mmmmmmm. Attention all independent auditors I just gave you a practical Program. Free of charge.
Jim: “Then the ex’es could move into scientology and run all of the processes on how the CofS ‘ruined’ their lives.”
With lots of TA to be had – some of it on other flows. 😉
Sorry M,
What I meant by ‘move into scientology’ was for the ex to go from Dianetics incident running to doing scientology processes BUT NOT IN AN IDEAL ORG!!!
From what I hear of CofS in 2018, no auditor would ack an origination/cognition that the CofS had committed an overt—– ever. Or a C/S sign off on a program completion that consisted of the outpoints of CofS producing FN’s with VGI’s, Or an MAA allowing that sort of enturbulation in their tech center. Nope I would not route an ex back into the CofS.
The independents have no trouble finding items to run .
Jim, “What I meant by ‘move into scientology’ was for the ex to go from Dianetics incident running to doing scientology processes BUT NOT IN AN IDEAL ORG!!!”
Oh, I fully got that. And I fully agree.
Thanks for the explicit examples, too — there couldn’t be better examples of cult think.
Hi Marildi, nice to see you and your standard procedure.
Hey, Dee. Nice to see you too. Been a long time since we sparred. 🙂
Does any of this lead anyway useful?
Only if you clear your MU’s and stop yawning a lot. 😉
marilda – my research shows that at least 50% of humans like and revere their MUs and would not clear them for all the bridges in China. For example, take the word “cult” and delve deep into its many meanings and defining features; even Hubberd would agree, were he not so busy elsewhere.
Yawn, of course it can ‘t lead anywhere useful; by definition, no discussion of Scientology CAN. Tubby designed it that way.
Why does it have to be useful? I’ve been non-usefull my entire life. And proud of it!
Like almost Of Hubbard’s attempts to simplify and codify life, he made it so everything and human fit into neat categories. Talk about speaking in generalities. Terra C has it right. Clearing MUs as far as Hubbard is concerned is a joke. He contradicted almost every axiom he stated.
And if it isn’t BKmole. Just like old home week. 🙂
Yes.
How long were you in Scientology proper? I’m sure you’ve made it clear in earlier comments. There are many stages of deprogramming. How quickly people achieve that seems to be related to length in.
I was in for a couple decades or so. Long enough to get my confusions cleared up, for the most part. But I had an advantage over other people — I was a word clearer for several years.
How long were you in for?
It’s a characteristic of delusional disorders that the person can and will make up ad hoc excuses and explanations in the face of any contradictory evidence, no matter how convoluted and contradictory the resultant explanation becomes. The thing about Scientology is that it engenders such delusions in people who did not have them before.
Thanks, Terra, for unraveling and exposing more of it. My wish is that it helps those who are still hooked by some of Hubbard’s mass-marketed delusions.
I was told by the D of P when I queried it, that the “clear on the first dynamic” meant you may be Clear, but the BT’s and Clusters attached to you are not Clear, so therefore the rest of the Bridge above Clear is to handle the BT’s and Clusters and clear them,
Cindy – I’d say you had a clever and quick-thinking D of P to come up with that excuse on the spot – or maybe he had spent a lot time struggling with the same concept, and invented that particular rationalization to ease his own cognitive dissonance. Of course, he was not yet OT VIII, else he would have known the truth about BTs, which he could not reveal anyway, lest it curdle your brain and kill you, or, even worse, cause the org to lose donations.
I thoroughly loved this article today Terra! Well written. Clear and concise. Easy for peeps to understand.
As I’ve said many times, Scientology is completely make believe. Everything is just made up. There’s no science in Scientology. None. There are no Super Powers. And how about paying $2,500 to run around in circles! RUN AROUND IN CIRCLES!!! The insanity is right in front of us!
End of rant.
I completely agree with you OSD! Yet I still find the details fascinating about why people believed it.for some reason. ☺
They still think, for one reason or another, that if they just stay with it, they’ll get Super Powers. And, of course, they don’t. But some just keep going.
Wouldn’t worry a Jedi Knight.
Damn right! We don’t worry about a thing!
Right, that is why RTC arrived in early 2000s and cancelled the State of Clear of 100s of OTs and below.
Why? Because the exact words hadn’t been voiced exactly whenever the person attested to Clear. Heaven forbids, KSW violation!
That is also why a ‘special process’ was used, sometimes, when the OT person was feeling awful after running again Dianetics. The process – very subtly – guided the OT person to give the answer that will now satisfy RTC that he he/she was now a ‘real’ Clear.
This gave a lot of income and hight stats to RTC, that is how they kept them up for at least a couple of years.
Silvia, just proves that with Scn it is always, always about the money.
A ‘real’ clear, huh? So if you say the ‘magic words’ to satisfy what they want to hear, you become a ‘real’ Clear? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. Now that’s some funny shit! Just like I refused to attest to the state of Beer…..I mean Clear.
On NOTS, Hubbard (Mayo) wrote a BT went Clear when it had “the me” cog and blew.
I think the “Reactive Mind” was BS, as well as this nonsense about wholetrack implants, hence going clear was just more hokey poke.
If you do the hokey poke do you turn yourself around? Is that what it’s all about?
Hokey poke?? What you talkin about Willis?
It’s, What chew talkin’ bout, Willis?
Opps, standard Willis is a bad boy!
It’s a bit unfair that a lowly BT gets to go clear so simply, for free, when the numpty its attached to has to grind away for years, paying through the nose. I’d rather they stuck around and helped me out, make amends, put a good word in for me with my boss, etc. Frikkin’ freeloaders.
Terra Cognita, that’s one of the best critical essays of Dianetics I’ve ever read!
I never heard about the First Dynamic explanation about Clear before. I agree with the subjective part about the Eight Dynamics. It is an attempt to organize a complexity and to simply the infinite. I would say that the Eight Dynamics are a part that I actually understood. I think L Ron Hubbard stumbled onto it much like Dmitri Mendeleev stumbled onto the periodic table. He was writing a book and the Eight Dynamics came out of a simple need to explain the subject he was writing about.
So much of this relies on the subjective. Do I think someone could have had a religious experience by realizing the state of Clear? Yes, just as much as I do about the guy in the Double Rainbow songify video on Youtube. It’s all subjective to the observer. Do I think it is an objective science that works for anyone body routed off the street? No, absolutely not.
“Do I think it is an objective science that works for anyone body routed off the street? No, absolutely not.”
Very true & poignant sentence, especially if you’ve ever invested in Scientology. It’s one of the first lies glossed over so very easily when swept up in the false promises made by Hubbard.
I’m reminded of a tape he made in circa 1951, “Methods of Research.” If I still have the transcript I’d love to relay how Hubbard just carved up intellectual thought at a whim and threw it in the garbage. I do recall a horrible dark thought briefly entering my mind when I heard that lecture – “this is his scientific approach? You’ve got to be kidding me I thought. But the kool-aide was strong in those days = ‘I wanted to believe’.
By understanding the scientific heritage Scientology is allegedly based upon, there can be no such thing as 100% workability for all cases. For if that was true it makes a lie out of dichotomies being the basis of the reactive bank. Without opposition there is no game, no problems to solve, zip to do, life would be meaningless according to Hubbard. If Scientology worked we’d all be thetan high fiveing right now, but sadly it doesn’t. Just how much time is enough time to prove or not prove something? I’ve got my own 25+ years of observations and experience to keep me warm now. Scientology vs evidence – there’s ground zero!
BTW, there wouldn’t be a back door through Qual if it’s so damned effective! And disconnection wouldn’t be required – would it? Solve it with Scientology – ha, the joke of the century… gotcha, ka ching!
Yawn: Tubby and “Scientific” don’t belong in the same sentence. The only importance to him was whether he could make money with it. Talk about MUs: Ron didn’t understand Math, Science, or human nature.
So glad we have you around to guide us instead.
“I think L Ron Hubbard stumbled onto it much like Dmitri Mendeleev stumbled onto the periodic table. He was writing a book and the Eight Dynamics came out of a simple need to explain the subject he was writing about.”
Stumbled on it…and then swiped it. From Jack Parson’s pal, Manly Hall. Lifelong Rosicrucian and 33rd degree Mason.
Read Chapter 5 of Hall’s “Lectures On Ancient Philosophy” (first published in 1929). There’s a pdf version at https://bit.ly/2MsdMZh – start at the last paragraph on page 95, gasp at the illustration, then read on. It gets extremely familiar from page 102 onwards, once he delves into Ptolemaic astronomy and the dharma.
And when I say familiar, I mean identical.
I looked at page 95 and the illustration and read a bit further. That book could provide a couple of hours of rainy day reading. (joke!) On a book like that I might just start scanning and stop at whatever gets my interest. I like the scholarly presentations of Alan Watts on youtube. Manly Hall would have captured a large audience on the internet.
Elron said he had synthesized Eastern philosophy and applied Western science to it. Why bother reading a bunch of books if there was a shortcut? (joking again)