By our regular guest contributor Terra Cognita.
Scientology and The Bank
One of L. Ron Hubbard’s more intriguing —some would say revolutionary—concepts was compartmentalizing the mind into two separate units: the analytical; and the reactive.
He defined the reactive mind as, “a portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills.” (Scientology 0-8)
Engrams are recorded incidents of pain and unconsciousness in a person’s mind. The unconsciousness can be anything from losing a bit of awareness from stubbing a toe, to comas lasting months due to severe accidents. Birth and death are considered engramic experiences, too. And since LRH believed we’d lived for quadrillions of years, the number of accumulated engrams is staggering.
As an example, let’s say Sam gets in a car accident, breaks his leg, and goes unconscious for ten minutes. According to LRH, this entire incident is recorded in the bank and from then on for all of eternity, Sam will react every time he is exposed to things in his environment approximating those things in the car accident. For instance, every time he sees a red sedan (like the one that hit him and caused him pain), his reactive mind kicks into action “warning him to be careful.” Sam only knows he doesn’t feel so good all of a sudden. That feeling is the Bank telling him to go somewhere else; red cars are dangerous; red cars must be avoided.
Not only did Sam’s reactive mind record the original red car, it recorded every image, every sound, every smell, emotion, everything imaginable associated with the car accident. The bummer is that everyone of these can act as a trigger for re-stimulating Sam and causing him to react in a manner not conducive to his best interests.
LRH wrote extensively on engrams and how to “erase” them but that isn’t the purpose of this essay. My purpose is to explore whether or not the LRH’s reactive mind is truly responsible for so many of our daily decisions. What got me to thinking about this was the common Scientology phrase, “That’s the Bank talking.”
That’s the Bank Talking
It’s almost second nature for Scientologists to blame the Bank on every thought, consideration, and decision that isn’t fully in agreement with the needs and wants, and goals and aims of the church. Anyone who’s been a member for any length of time has heard this reasoning a thousand times.
Joe isn’t sure about ponying up for his next level. That’s his Bank talking.
Sally needs to devote more time to her daughter’s needs instead of putting in more time on course. That’s her Bank talking.
Antonio needs to take time off to handle his business before he can start his OT levels. That’s the Bank talking.
Doris can’t come up with the money for Level 2. That’s the Bank talking.
Ted agrees with Leah Remini. That’s the Bank talking.
Boris questions David Miscavige. That’s the Bank talking.
Staff member Alex can’t function on post anymore on only two hours of sleep. That’s the bank talking.
And of course, the ultimate “that’s the Bank talking” is deciding to drift away from the church.
Virtually anything counter to the objectives of Scientology is considered the Bank talking. The examples are endless. But is this really the Bank talking? Is my decision to pay for my son’s education instead of writing a check to the registrar “my Bank talking?” How about supporting a friend by attending the theater instead of going on course one evening? How about putting off OT 3 so I can buy a new car to get to work on time? Reading a book on yoga?
Is there really some incident in my reactive mind that is being re-stimulated to cause me to not buy my next Scientology service? To read a “banned” book? And if so, what is this mechanism? Is there some component in some specific, re-stimulated engram that is causing these decisions?
The Common Denominator
In Keeping Scientology Working, LRH said that, “The common denominator of a group is the reactive mind.” And, “They only have their banks in common.” I disagree.
Groups can have common purposes, common goals, and common interests. Groups can have lots of common denominators. What they have in common doesn’t always have to be negative.
The common denominator of my basketball team is not everyone’s reactive mind. The common denominator of the Audubon Society is not the Bank.
But if the common denominator of every group was indeed the reactive mind, would it not make sense that the number one priority for Scientology would be to clear every new staff member as soon as possible? And yet, staff are often the last to receive processing. I’ve witnessed the staff at my local org serve for decades without having achieved the state of Clear. As for them going OT? Dream on.
LRH goes on to write in KSW, “It’s the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the bank that says we must fail.” Help me out readers. Why would the bank say this? Isn’t the bank just there to help me avoid what it “thinks” are harmful things in my environment?
In light of the “fact” that we’ve lived for quadrillions of years and therefore have accumulated thousands of quadrillions of engrams, I should think there wouldn’t be anything left that wasn’t “restimulative.”
Now I’m really confused. Which I’m sure many of you would agree is nothing new.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
TC said:’In Keeping Scientology Working, LRH said that, “The common denominator of a group is the reactive mind.” And, “They only have their banks in common.”’
In SCN’s case, what we had in common was Tubby’s bank.
IMHO, “command intention” turns out most times to be their 3rd dynamic bank talking. Do what *I* tell you to do or you’re just a DB submitting to your bank’s dictates is how they’d rather put it, though. Their calculated assertion that doing SCN’s bidding always is the best thing for all dynamics elevates scn above all our dynamics combined. That it’s self-serving & only said to try to elevate THEIR stats to the detriment of yours or anyone else’s can’t be stated, of course. That would be counter-intentioned, wouldn’t it?
Always an easy way to win an arguement: That’s the bank talking 😉
I live in Clearwater and would like to help anyway I can
Reading this article does help those of us who are not or have been Scientologists understand the mindset of a parishioner.
It is easier to understand why and how members rationalize the requests of the church. These types of articles will help to dismiss the harsh judgements that may be placed on them.
Keep ’em coming!!!
For you, yes. It would remain valid. So, Critics of Scientology and Counter Attack Tactics have not been canceled or replaced. Neither has Pain and Sex. Are all of those tech that you are bound to follow as a standard scientologist? Or only if u agree with them? They are NOT canceled.
Mike, I don’t really get you. What do you mean : “for you, yes”? Whatever HCOB hasn’t been cancelled it’s valid, period. There is no for me or for you… Disconnection is applied wrongly because SP declares are wrongly issued. Too many and to many wrong targets. Pain and sex… I don’t see why it would need to be an issue… this is planet Earth… those things apply especially here. A thetan had no much business monkeying around with all that stuff but he did. Now, he gets mixed up in all this. Sad but true. On Counter attacks and such stuff I think people overdo it. Judgement is missing many times. Many attacks could have been resolved with communication. A knife can be used to cut bread or throats. Who is to blame? The knife or the person who uses it to cut throats. Scientology is too powerful to be harshly enforced on people without them ever cogniting on stuff… Look at all those people protesting here against it. Actually they protest that it is harshly used. That’s all. They don’t understand that.
So it’s the forceful use of some data, straight to one’s face before he has even had some stable wins that breaks people. A light approach is more workable and closer to Scientology than harsh ethics. Look at Miscavige. All his staff leave or are in fear. That’s not Scientology. I was better in the basement of ASHO doing the CF project alone than have the Captain Rich Cohen or his communicator or even Yolanda Mcguire as amissionaire come down and “run” me. It was too much force when all it needed was to apply the org board and get volunteers to get the job done.
Wow. Best answer ever.
So you know, for me and many others here an HCOB is not valid at all. Whet here canceled or replaced or not. It could just be BS from the outset. U don’t seem to be able to think with that concept at all. Amazing.
OK Mike I see. Finally, I have a clear answer from you. Thanks.
I guess I’m not going to get that jargon-free definition of “as-issing” from you am I?
Roger, you have to understand that this is phenomena that have been fully defined after being observed and set apart by Hubbard. And have been codified for the first time for the lay man to have that knowledge. (Of course, many people do not even acknowledge the validity of them as genuine phenomena and principles that have to do with the human spirit but that is something that will be decided as time goes on as they will be put to the test: did it work).
So, the danger in giving other words for those phenomena (jargon -free words as you call them) is that people are immediately going to miss that very phenomena and associate it with other words and concepts that are not THE thing.
I used to be a translator and many times we had this problem. Do we use a greek word for affinity or not. Is there, what is the closest word? Affinity is a common word and not a jargon word but the closest we have in Greek is affection (affinity is Latin, not Greek and so there is no similar root in Greek). So, they translated it as affection and I believe this is wrong because affinity is something more and something different.
So this is the danger in using jargon-free words. Of course I can give you words like “erase”, “make vanish” but the as-isness is something different in that it does not contain survival.
AS-IS, to view anything exactly as it is without any distortions or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist. (Scn AD)
AS-IS-NESS, 1. the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival. (PXL, p. 154) 2. as-is-ness would be the condition created again in the same time, in the same space, with the same energy and the same mass, the same motion and the same time continuum. (PXL, p. 68) 3 . something that is just postulated or just being duplicated—no alteration taking place. As-is-ness contains no life continuum, no time continuum. (PXL, p. 91)
Theo, what you’re referring to as “codified” means putting something experienceable into words. The words Hubbard uses to define his jargon are common words. So why don’t you use common words to describe your experience of “as-issing”? Keep in mind, words only point to the objects they refer to, they aren’t “THE” thing as you suggest.
Therefore language is ALWAYS a limited means of communication but its the prevailing one. We do the best we can and we’ve gotten pretty far with it. So, I’m only asking you to answer a question in a straight forward way.
You say you could use words like, “erase” or “make disappear” to define “as-issness” but the “as-issness” is different in that it does not contain survival. How intriguing! Please explain what you mean by “survival” in this context and how the concept of “disappearing” contains it but the concept of “as-issing does not.
In fact, let us forget my request for your jargon-free description of the experience of “as-issing” and address this intriguing matter about how survival is contained in “disappearing” but is not contained in “as-issing”.
Think of yourself as a college professor and I’m a student. Explain that little matter to me, okay?
Hi Roger and thanks. It’s not so easy to have that explained. I spent some time yesterday putting something together. I hope today I can get it complete and get back to you with an explanation. The key is to understand how survival is made, how you get persistence. It takes a bit of putting together very basic data. Without being a professor on the matter, I too try to make it real to myself what it is. But one has to be proficient in this data and be able to think with the data before he can explain it and of course understand it.
Anyway, I will give it a try but the best would be to read the book Phoenix lectures.
My prayer is that you’ll keep your answer brief. There’s a logical fallacy known as “too much information”.
Theo, I have no intention of re-reading the Phoenix Lectures. I am not seeking to understand scientology better. I am not seeking ‘higher’ knowledge at all. I have acquired it to my satisfaction. I am here to deconstruct Hubbard’s doctrines and reveal them as false knowledge. That’s my agenda and I plan to proceed logically. If my logic and reasoning are faulty then those faults can be identified and used to disprove my arguments.
Roger: “I am not seeking ‘higher’ knowledge at all. I have acquired it to my satisfaction. I am here to deconstruct Hubbard’s doctrines and reveal them as false knowledge. That’s my agenda and I plan to proceed logically. If my logic and reasoning are faulty then those faults can be identified and used to disprove my arguments.”
What is the “logic and reasoning” you base your own belief system and practices on?
“What is the “logic and reasoning” you base your own belief system and practices on?”
Miralidi, I don’t subscribe to a belief system. I subscribe to an “inquiry system” called, “vedanta”.
My teacher is affiliated with an old ‘sampradaya’ (school) dating back to Adi Shankara. You may check it out at his website, Shining World.
Okay, then do you consider the basic tenet in vedanta – that the universe is non-dual – to be truth? And if so, is it because of your direct knowledge? (In which case you apparently have had what would be called an Awakening.) If not, then I would say you are accepting an idea on faith, i.e. you have a belief.
It would be just as much a belief as the tenets of scientology can be beliefs. I myself no longer relate to many of them as beliefs but as workable – or even as what you termed an “inquiry system.”
Yes, the non-dual nature of reality is a belief prior to experiential confirmation of it just as is the accuracy of Einstein”s mass-energy equation, “E=MC2” a belief until there is conceptual confirmation through math. As both claims have been proved true by qualified individuals they can be called “knowledge” as opposed to a ‘belief’ which is never confirmed, only strengthened. Stuff about Krishna or Jesus for instance. That is what I’m calling a ‘belief’.
Still, short of experiential confirmation of the non-dual nature of reality, vedanta offers conceptual confirmation of it through reason. That reasoning is a means to arriving at the experiential confirmation. That’s why it’s called an “inquiry system” as opposed to a ‘belief system’.
Well said, Rog. So then, getting back to the blog post topic, can you see how the bank offers conceptual confirmation through reason, and how this is a means to arrive at experiential confirmation? I can.
You see things I don’t. The “reactive bank” concept offers nothing but a false diagram of your experience. And there can’t be “experiential” confirmation of its existence. You don’t experience a mind you experience thoughts and feelings.
The problem with the “bank” is it refers strictly to thoughts and feelings we don’t like. The mind generates thoughts and feelings. Pleasant ones and unpleasant ones. There’s no need for a ‘reactive bank’ that job is filled already. The “reactive bank’ can find employment in the history books.
First, let’s keep in mind that we’re discussing Hubbard’s theory, not some other theory, and thus need to stay within that frame of reference for purposes of the discussion.
You wrote: “You don’t experience a mind, you experience thoughts and feelings.”
There’s more to it than that. The bank, or mind, is composed of mental image pictures of a pc’s experiential time track, i.e. pictures of his experience throughout the passing moments of time. These mental pictures – which make up the bank – consist of a combination of significance (thoughts) and energy (“feelings,” both emotional and physical). The energy in the bank is actual energy but of a higher, finer wavelength than physical universe energy. Both the significance and the energy in the bank were created, by the being, by duplicating/copying the significance and energy in the environment, moment by moment. The images are exact, which is why they’re called facsimiles (defined as “an exact copy”).
The thoughts and energy in the pictures can and do impinge on a being and his body when they are restimulated, which takes place when there are sufficient environmental associations (similarities to the pictures). This impingement is obviously something a person experiences. Thus, there can in fact be “experiential confirmation of its existence.”
Btw, there are a growing number of scientists who theorize that emotions are indeed energy with varying frequencies You can google “emotional frequencies” (without the quotes).
Listen, marildi, I’ve made my point about the mind. I’m done. What I stated is self-evident. If you don’t think it’s right say what’s not right. I’m aware of that convoluted and mangled mess called Hubbard’s explanation of the mind.
“There’s a growing number of scientists who think…” so I should think like they do because they’re scientists and they’re all smart and everything???
BTW those mental image pictures you refer to are what I’m calling ‘impressions of past experience’ and they’re all stored in the unconscious mind in seed form awaiting to be turned into an experience called a “thought”. If you’re lucky most of them fade away and disappear leaving you EMPTY and blissful. The “wholetrack” idea is an evil mind implant. Get rid of it. (It’s nothing but mass!)
Roger: “BTW those mental image pictures you refer to are what I’m calling ‘impressions of past experience’ and they’re all stored in the unconscious mind in seed form awaiting to be turned into an experience called a ‘thought’.”
What makes you think that particular construct is any more valid than Hubbard’s – other than the fact that it is the teaching you follow? Do you have direct experience of it? If not, how is your “belief” that this theory is the correct one not just that – a belief?
Actually, what you’ve described seems to me like just another way of describing the same phenomenon as the mental image picture which becomes active when restimulated. If there is truth to this phenomenon, then it would stand to reason that more than one person would come up with it.
But alas, it seems you are now going to back out of the discussion. That’s usually the case when the person starts resorting to assertions, such as “The ‘wholetrack’ idea is an evil mind implant” – and incriminations, such as “I’m aware of that convoluted and mangled mess called Hubbard’s explanation of the mind.”
You say, “I’ve made my point about the mind. I’m done. What I stated is self-evident.”
Oh, really? What did you state that was self-evident?
marildi, Peacemaker makes the pertinent point that a theory needs to be as simple as possible and this principle is also the basis of Occam’s Razor. Hubbard’s “reactive bank” hypothesis violates that principle by adding unnecessary complexities as I have been saying repeatedly.
Let me restate briefly:
1.The conscious mind has 1. the reasoning center for discriminating, 2. the emotional center for motivating to action and 3. the “I” thought, ego which takes ownership of experiences. “I think” “I feel” “I do” “I experience”, etc.
2. The unconscious mind (which is known through inference not perception) is the depository of impressions of past experience. Those impressions comprise the raw materials of all our thoughts and feelings. They exist in seed form. They are not experienced until perceptions trigger them and they ‘fructify’. That means they manifest as thoughts and feelings in the conscious mind for experiencing.
This model is consistent with your experience. It is an ancient one but it is also consistent with the conventional one used by psychology. It sufficiently and economically explains all experiences we have. That is what I mean by it being “self evident”.
I say “wholetrack” is a damaging belief because it creates a burden. If you think you’re carrying around trillions of years worth of important and data then you are burdened.
Roger: “The unconscious mind (which is known through inference not perception) is the depository of impressions of past experience. Those impressions comprise the raw materials of all our thoughts and feelings. They exist in seed form. They are not experienced until perceptions trigger them and they ‘fructify’. That means they manifest as thoughts and feelings in the conscious mind for experiencing.”
The above is another way of describing the bank and restimulation as well as general memory. However, it doesn’t tell us what the “impressions” ARE, i.e. what they consist of. In Hubbard’s construct, the depository (the bank) consists of all past impressions (pictures/facsimiles) – and the impressions consist of energy (actual energy) and thought.
Furthermore, Hubbard’s theory includes axioms which describe not only the nature and behavior of the depository and the impressions: they (the axioms) also the include the basic principles for a systematic means (the tech) for doing something about the thoughts and feelings that are UNWANTED. That’s the whole idea – handling unwanted thoughts and feelings that have been “triggered,” to use your word.
“Handle unwanted thoughts the same way you handle unwanted weather” …swami roger
There is no evidence there exists an entity to perform the four conditions (as-isness, etc) of axiom 11 nor is there evidence those principles can be observed in action. Therefore I say the axioms you referred to are fictitious and apply only to the fictitious theta universe invented by Hubbard. The relief you get from processing is the result of understanding, not the result of complicated principles about duplicating an object in the same time/space.
Saying that something is “energy” is like saying it’s “groovy”, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a way to confuse the issue. Let the physicists who know what energy is, talk about energy.
The impressions of past experience are seeds in the unconscious mind. They have the potential to become thoughts and feelings. Seeds contain information. A tiny seed becomes a giant tree. The seeds are NOT mental image pictures. The pictures are thoughts and in order for something to be a thought it has to be experienced in the conscious mind so there is something prior to the thoughts: impressions of past experience.
Also, all this importance given to mental image pictures and wholetrack is damaging and a waste of time. It’s a waste of time because it sends you down a fantastical rabbit hole in search of yourself. But the YOU you want to know has no past, no mental image pictures and no troubles. Nothing has ever happened to you! Wholetrack sends you down the dwindling spiral of your imagination. Let all that shit go, let it evaporate. Peace.
Roger: “There is no evidence there exists an entity to perform the four conditions (as-isness, etc) of axiom 11…”
The idea that there is an “entity” – i.e. an individual spiritual being – is the most basic fundamental of Scientology. Everything else rests on it. The spiritual being (thetan) is the source/creator of the mind or bank and all recordings (“impressions”) of the past. It is also the agent in the “uncreating” or release of recorded charge or force.
Releasing charge (the sole thing that is released or erased in auditing) is desirable because charge exerts force on a person and influences the person’s thoughts and feelings in many unwanted ways. The reason it can be released by auditing is because the person is guided to gradiently or gradually look at it (focus on it) and thus duplicate exactly what is there. That’s the simplicity of as-isness – seeing something AS it IS.
We could go into additional complexities, but if the existence of a spiritual being isn’t real to you and you reject the idea, then you will reject the Scientology description of mind/bank. And any description of it will be countered by you with ideas about the mind that match your belief – specifically, the belief that there is no such thing as individual spiritual beings. Therefore, I’m not into it.
Peace to you too, Rog. 🙂
.
Although the ‘spiritual entity’ is the mascot of scientology and most other religions, (not Buddhism) my comment that there is no evidence of an entity to perform the now disproved “as-isness” * still stands. Just because many people believe there are spirits, myself included, does NOT constitute the necessary evidence of them to prove the phenomenon of “as-isning”.
There is no release of “charge”. That is just an interpretation of an experience of relief. It isn’t your experience that charge was released. It is your experience that you suddenly feel better. That what was bugging you doesn’t bug you now. That relief was effected by knowledge in the form of a thought. One thought, a better one, removes another thought, a bothersome one. (Just as a thorn can remove a thorn stuck in your foot)
What is removed in auditing is not ‘charge’ but false understanding. That requires cognizance.
“Charge” does NOT influence thoughts. Thoughts ARE the influence.
* Mike disproved “as-isness theory” last night when he pointed out you can’t have a phenomenon without time if it creates an effect in time. I disproved the ‘persistence’ notion defining as-isness theory in a comment to Theo. By Hubbard’s own terms there is no such thing as ‘persistence’ of a phenomenon because it has to be altered to persist. But when you alter it you have turned it into something else so it is in truth, the ILLUSION of persistence not actual persistence.
I insist that all future references to those principles in axiom 11 be prefaced with, “the now disproved…”
Thanks Marildi. Though I have been declared by the church for insisting on the application of HCOBs (namely the Tape Series in regards to translations) I have seen the validity of Ron’s tech in life. Many times people ask for proof but it does not work as the fascinating thing is that life is experienced by each one of us on a subjective level. That’s fascinating. I am happy I have travelled this road to see that others too have travelled the same road and had similar wins like me.
I hear you, Theo.
You may be interested in Kenneth Urquhart’s new blog as of just a few days ago. Ken got into Scientology in 1957 and for most of the 60’s worked directly with LRH. After that he had a high executive post and the last one was Class IX auditor. All of this makes him as well informed as anybody, or better, about LRH, the church and the tech. He’s very straightforward about the pro’s and con’s of both LRH and the tech. It’s quite enlightening to read his views. There are several blog posts up already. Here’s the link: http://urqbones.com/t
Thanks Marildi, I am going to check it out.
Theo, I think you would like what Ken Urquhart had to say about as-isness in a comment he made in reply to a poster on his blog. It’s too long to quote, but here’s the link:
http://urqbones.com/2017/01/05/looking-at-failure-and-success-2/#comment-80
marildi, let Theo do his grieving process for the disproved axiom 11. It is gone now, he will miss it. These things take time.
We needn’t read what somebody else writes about ‘as-issiness’, we need only read what Hubbard wrote. It has no duration per Hubbard. If you alter it with an ‘alter-isness’ which has no duration either, you do not get duration because zero times two is still zero. Therefore Hubbard’s notions about how creation comes into existence and stays there for a while is demonstrably false. His ‘persistence’ theory doesn’t hold up to its own rules.
I don’t think Theo is grieving for the reason you would like to believe. If he’s grieving at all, it’s probably because he feels he wasn’t treated fairly. I imagine he felt that if Mike and others were going to mince no words in their opinions of him on a personal level, he had the right to do the same. Unfortunately, it put Mike in a weird position because as the blog holder he understandably feels he shouldn’t have to put up with personal insults on his own blog. I understand both points of view.
Theo, that link got an extra letter added to it. Here’s the right one: http://urqbones.com/
It’s ok, I found it. Gonna read it. Sounds great.
“Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. There is no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics” –Albert Einstein
We are talking about the mind and cognizance and if you think you’re going to throw me off by laying a quote on me by Albert Einstein about everything being energy….seriously? I think I hear Jesus telling me run!
ok, but how do you want to disprove something if you don’t understand it?
“… how do you want to disprove something if you don’t understand it?”
Why not let me worry about that? I want to hear you briefly explain what you said. You said it and if you know what you’re talking about you will be able to explain it thoroughly.
You said ‘disappearing’ contains survival but “as-issing” does not. I request a definition of ‘survival’ as it is used in that context and how ‘disappearing’ (for example: my aversion to her disappeared when I understood her motives) is different from “as-issing”.
Haha, Roger. it’s really intriguing but it’s not an easy thing to explain with language. Actually, now that I am thinking about it it’s not the language, it’s how it should be explained as all those concepts are pretty basic. All of auditing is based on that one condition: As-isness.
But in order to understand why as-isness does not contain survival, one must have an idea of how survival is created.
Now these are pretty basic and beautiful things to understand and one who deals with the subject of Scientology must have understood these things otherwise it can all look some kind of charlatanism.
in order to understand how survival is created you have to have in mind that there are 4 conditions on which we operate in order to bring about the mechanics of life and which are inbetween mechanics and consideration (the book with more details on that is the Phoenix Lectures, PXL):
1) as-is-ness (we gave the definitions) would be the condition created again in the same time, in the same space, with the same energy and the same mass, the same motion and the same time continuum. (PXL, p. 68) 3 . something that is just postulated or just being duplicated—no alteration taking place. As-is-ness contains no life continuum, no time continuum. (PXL, p. 91)
2) IS-NESS, 1. is-ness is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an as-isness. This is called, when agreed upon, reality. (PXL, p. 154) 2. something that is persisting on a continuum. That is our basic definition of is-ness. (PXL, p. 91) 3. is-ness is an apparency, it is not an actuality. (PXL, p. 175)
3. ALTER-IS-NESS, 1. the consideration which introduces change, and therefore time and persistence into an as-is-ness to obtain persistency. (PXL, p. 154) 2 .the effort to preserve something by altering its characteristics. (PXL, p. 53)
4. NOT-IS-NESS, 1. trying to put out of existence by postulate or force something which one knows, priorly, exists. One is trying to talk against his own agreements and postulates with his new postulates, or is trying to spray down something with the force of other is-nesses in order to cause a cessation of the is- ness he objects to. (PXL, p. 64) 2 . not-is-ness is the effort to handle is-ness by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an is-ness. (PXL, p. 154) 3. there are two different conditions of not-is-ness: one is just vanishment. The other one is an is-ness which somebody is trying to postulate out of existence by simply saying, “It isn’t.” A not-is-ness, in our terminology, would be this second specialized case of an individual trying to vanish something without taking responsibility for having created it. (PXL, p. 100) 4 . not-is-ness is manifested as and is in itself the mechanism we know as unreality. (PXL, p. 55).
Ι am trying to figure this out or rather put it in words and see if that makes sense. As I told you the best would be to read the Phoenix lectures book in order to get more data on the matter and get the data from the source, as we say. Otherwise, you get it second hand… hahaha and you risk quite some gaps and misunderstandings. It’s not a mechanism one can easily explain but what it is basically is that survival means persistence. A thing persists in time so it has survival. If it wouldn’t persist it wouldn’t have any survival. As people are accustomed to thinking only of things connected with Time it’s not easy to think of such things with No Time. However, in the band of postulates one operates outside of this MEST (I hope you know that Matter, Energy, Space and Time) Universe. He operates above flows there.
As-isness is immediate creation without persistence
1. the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival. (PXL, p. 154)
From PXL
“When you say survive, you’re saying time. Just put those together and make them synonyms and you understand all you want to know about time. It’s a consideration which leads to the persistence of something, and you can enter all the mechanics into time that you want to, and you can paint it up in any way you want to and you can write textbooks on it and test it and buy very fancy watches and chronometers and set up observatories to measure the movement of the stars, and you still have “Time is a consideration which brings about persistence”. And the mechanic of bringing about that persistence is, by alteration. And so we have Alter-is-ness taking place immediately after an As-is-ness is created, and so we get persistence. In other words, we have to change the location of a particle in space.”
Essentially you’re giving me Hubbard’s Axiom 11. There are problems with this elegant theory. The first problem is that it doesn’t have anything to do with anybody’s experience. For instance, you need to give SPECIFIC examples of what you’re talking about. Name something we experience as a “moment of creation without persistence”. What are you talking about?
Secondly, why does something have to be altered in order for it to continue to exist? Answer that please. That’s never explained only assumed. Let us keep in mind when you alter something you have a different thing from the original. The original is gone. The created object has been replaced with an altered version in Hubbard’s “alter-is” theory. That is not persistence, that is an ILLUSION of persistence! If you alter the thing it is not that thing anymore. Therefore by Hubbard’s own reasoning there is in fact NO persistence. He should have pointed that out. It’s not a small technicality or a trivial matter of ‘semantics’. But still, what in the real world are we talking about???
Thirdly, you don’t create things nor do you make them persist except in the most conventional sense (I created this sandwich and I will make it persist by refrigerating it). Everything is created, sustained and destroyed on the basis of natural laws. We can identify those laws but we can’t alter them. Our likes and dislikes, our “considerations” are products of those natural laws, they are not separate from them. I consider this self-evident on the basis of common experience and rational analysis. We think and feel according to the laws that govern such things otherwise we couldn’t have the discipline of ‘Psychology’.
“My fear disappeared when I saw the snake was really a rope.” That analogy represents scientology auditing and it represents any liberating effect gained by substituting ignorance with knowledge. If ignorance is the cause of all suffering then knowledge is the solution to suffering. Like his “reactive bank” hypothesis, Hubbard’s four conditions are unnecessary and complicated. They don’t fill a knowledge deficit. If you think they do I invite you to explain.
Roger, this is why they are called Axioms. I am lucky to be Greek. We gave so much to the world in terms of philosophy and defining basic terms.
When you give a contact assist that’s what you are getting: an As-is-ness. No Not-is-ness (ignoring the pain) or alter-is-ness will make the pain vanish.
Only when you see it you can really appreciate it. I am happy I did it so many times so I can now look further into that phenomena.
But of course there are those who ” know better”. Life is a bitch, anyway.
I’m confused now. Didn’t you say as-isness had no time? How does a contact assist not include time? It cannot be done without time.
Mike, you’re on your toes tonight! Indeed, the timeless as-isness is an urban myth I’m afraid.
You see, the very appearance of the as-isness marks a moment in time! It can’t be avoided I’m afraid. Perhaps when they say there is no time to it they mean relatively speaking. It’s duration is very very short, nanoseconds even. It’s VIRTUALLY timeless for all practical purposes.
Μike, thank you for the question. I am reading the Phoenix Lectures.
“You could change — the location of something in space simply by lying about it. And you’d get a persistence. You’d come off of the As-is-ness. The moment you change something’s location in space you come away from As-is-ness and it doesn’t unmock and so you get persistence.”
And another
“And we get the salient and horrible fact that this whole thing is monitored by Is-ness. No matter how much Not-is-ness is taking place, you see Not-is-ness always pursuant to Is- ness. No matter how much Alter-is-ness takes place — you’ve got an As-is-ness, then Alter-is- ness has to take place to get an Is-ness. Is-ness is something that is persisting on a continuum. That is our basic definition of Is-ness. As-is-ness is something that is just postulated, or just being duplicated — no alteration taking place.
As-is-ness contains no life continuum, no time continuum. It will just go — every time you postulate a perfect duplicate for anything: same space, same object, same time — boom! If you postulated it all the way through, without any limiter postulate hanging around at all, it would just be gone and that’s all there is to it. It would be gone for everybody else, too.
Now this, then, Is-ness, is your monitoring postulate. An individual couldn’t possibly get into trouble with As-is-ness. Unless you considered losing everything trouble — but it would be losing things which you either now didn’t want, or had just postulated into existence.
All As-is-ness is doing is merely accepting responsibility for having created it, and anybody can accept the responsibility for anything. That’s all As-is-ness is, when it operates as a perfect duplicate.
There are two kinds of As-is-ness:
There is the As-is-ness where you postulate it in the space and time — you postulate it right there, and there it exists.
And then there is the As-is-ness where you repostulate it. You just postulate it again.”
Honestly, that makes no sense to me at all.
It was YOU who said As-isness contains no time. I query you about it and you come back with some quotes from bad and often inaccurate transcripts of Hubbard lectures that were turned into a book (that is no longer published for that reason).
It’s OK, I don’t want to know anything more about this. I just have no further interest. I must have massive MU’s.
Hey, Mike. First of all it’s very interesting to know that Phoenix Lectures is not being published anymore! No wonder. It’s an amazing book.
Anyway, it’s not just MUs, Mike. These are very basic things and it is not easy to conceptualize them and understand them unless one can really put quite some attention on those matters.
I don’t have to prove anything. There are books. Besides Scientology wouldn’t have grown to a degree where a dictator would be able to lead it without even knowing the subject.
Theo I recommend you get the LECTURES and listen to them. Not the bad transcripts that were made into a book when the lectures were not available due to being poor quality. It will help your understanding I am sure.
ok, I can do that. Thanks s lot!
Theo you may be Greek but do you know an axiom is supposed to be self-evident? If you have to prove an axiom then it’s not an axiom. It would be a belief.
It still falls into the definition of an Axiom thought it is not self evident to some. It’s a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) ‘that which is thought worthy or fit’ or ‘that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]
The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. [3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]
As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: “logical axioms” and “non-logical axioms”. Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), often shown in symbolic form, while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, “axiom”, “postulate”, and “assumption” may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally “true” systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms – they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.
In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems. However, an axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa. Whether it is meaningful (and, if so, what it means) for an axiom, or any mathematical statement, to be “true” is an open question[citation needed] in the philosophy of mathematics.[5]
Hi Theo, are we still talking about the four principles of Axiom 11? Mike has already disproved the “as-isness hypothesis” and that automatically takes down the “alter-isness hypothesis”. I think we can keep “isness” and “not-isness as serviceable terms because they can be adapted to describe experiences known to everybody. Even if we loosen the definition of “axiom”, we still can’t call ‘axiom 11’ an “axiom” because it isn’t true. At the very least it must be true!
Roger, I am happy I got your attention on the four conitions, especially the As-is-ness. It’s not an easy thing to get down to. The Alter-is-ness of the subject of Scientology (like so many other subjects) proves my point. Recognizing the As-is-ness of anything looks like a tough thing.
Marildi, that supposed Einstein quote about “match the frequency of the reality you want” doesn’t sound to me very much like the Einstein, or the words of a scientist. I checked, and it is definitely not an actual Einstein quote, it looks like its source is something titled ‘The Ides of March’, channeled from Bashar by Darryl Anka – yes, material supposedly “channeled” from some entity.
I would suggest that in this discussion of the evolved complexities and largely inscrutable details of Hubbard’s theories, the following quote is actually relevant:
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.” – Albert Einstein “On the Method of Theoretical Physics” The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933)
(This second quote is often commonly paraphrased as something like “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”)
PeaceMaker, thanks for telling me about that quote. I’ll be more on the lookout for that type of thing from now on.
The Einstein quote you found is excellent. Here are a couple others, which one might not think would come from a scientist:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” – Albert Einstein
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.” – Albert Einstein
theo pondered, “ok, but how do you want to disprove something if you don’t understand it?”
Simple. If someone says that a brick, when dropped in a vacuum accelerates at 500’/sec/sec. Just test it.
If someone says that moments of pain and unconsciousness are stored verbatim in something called the bank and that by application of a process the subject can recall the contents of that pain and unconsciousness incident, you get a person proven in that application to run a standard test.
Which was DONE by scamologists and found to be an untrue theory.
So did you test it? When, how, how many times, how many years, which processes? As I said, have you ever done, you personally any touch assists to some slight, slight success. A contact assist is easily done and successful if done by the book (a very simple process but takes the certainty of an auditor: “I am going to do a contact assist now (not after 5 hours from the incident) and I am going to do it to get a perfect duplicate of the situation”.
Provide any details you or others can have as to what you are alleging. Otherwise, it’s NOT proven either. Oh and one more thing. If the only person you tested it is yourself then I am sorry that ain’t proof. My experience has taught me that people who do not appreciate Scientology either didn’t get it in the first place, had some very antagonistic person leading them to lose any win or were themselves what we call “no case gain” cases. And I am encountering many such people on such blogs.
theo, as linked on this topic already, it was tested by the Church of Scientology.
LMAO
And who constitutes the Church of Scientology? Robots or Martians?
These days, pretty much exclusively robots.
Theo, “some slight, slight success” sounds like what could readily be attributed to either observer bias or the placebo effect. The burden is on you to prove what you are claiming more rigorously and scientifically. And, anecdotes don’t count as evidence, in part because they are subject to observer bias.
Also, discounting “people who do not appreciate Scientology” would seem to then limit you to people who believe in Scientology, which is a flawed methodology and a form of selection bias:
“Selection bias is the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.” [Wikipedia]
Plus it seems to me that is also at least verging on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy:
“You make what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument. In this form of faulty reasoning one’s belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn’t apply to a supposedly ‘true’ example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one’s argument.
Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.” [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
I think it’s telling that Hubbard did not teach about or consider scientific method, logical fallacies or cognitive biases – both of which would seem according to his own theories to be something like “implants” used to mislead and control people. This suggests to me that he did not expect that his claims would hold up to scientific or logical scrutiny.
Hi PeaceMaker,
The only valid scientific test is the real life test. Let Scientology (not the Miscavige altered version but Scientology as laid down by Hubbard) be tested. It is being tested daily (even the Miscavige version) by the lay man. Do you disagree on that too? That’s the ultimate test, ok?
So, I don’t need to prove to you or anyone anything about what you are not willing or have not been willing to experience yourselves (or have misunderstood it, as I see in many people’s writings) or anything.
There is no proof and is no good for you to have proofs. It’s other determined.
One either finds out himself or moves on to another area.
This has probably gone beyond any useful commentary.
Theo, you have a point. The real life test is factually evidence that scientology has failed pretty terribly. Not for everyone it is sure. But the FACT is there are a LOT more EX scientologists than current scientologist. A LOT. Scientology claims that all of those EX scientologists are failures to apply “standard” scientology (or the people are SP or PTS). But, even if that were true, that is still a demonstrated failure of the technology that it CANNOT be applied correctly on such a large percentage of people.
Mike you know very well that I am not with the church. I am not with their ways of applying the tech not even with their harsh ethics and disconnections and I have fought too for what we call Standard Tech which is not applied in the church. It’s a new game imposed by Miscavige.
You surely do a great job in exposing his criminal mind and character and I am with you on this. Where I draw the line is on the application of the tech which has to be applied in a standard way. Now, that misapplication, connecting with our previous discussion, brings in Alter-is-ness and thus you get persistence. It’s how things (even churches and philosophies) persist in this universe.
All those ARC Xs of those ex-es should be looked upon exactly as they are at which point there would be an As-is-ness. This is what we are all striving. The perversion and lies of Miscavige have brought about all this atmosphere where thousands of people are protesting against Scientology.
All this, as I said, could be As-is-ed if one were willing to look at the situation as is. It would As-is then. No lies enter into the scene because in that would the situations persist.
You’re fighting shadows Theo. I never said you were with the church? I dont know where that non-sequitur even comes from. I was simply agreeing with you that the proof is whether it works for people. And the FACT is that it has worked for a LOT less people that it has worked for. A LOT. Simple as that.
Mike, 8008. I don’t have to have all the lies and alterations, I don’t have to agree with all this. That was the purpose of any philosophy, I guess.
Mike: “You’re fighting shadows, Theo. I never said you were with the church? I dont know where that non-sequitur even comes from. I was simply agreeing with you that the proof is whether it works for people. And the FACT is that it has worked for a LOT less people that it has worked for. A LOT. Simple as that.”
It probably is a fact that “Scientology” has worked for a LOT less people than it has worked for” – IF we conflate the two uses of the word “Scientology” – one meaning the CoS, the other meaning the tech.
The reason you think Theo is “fighting shadows” is that you use the word to include both definitions, and Theo mainly uses it to mean the tech.
Mike: “But the FACT is there are a LOT more EX scientologists than current scientologists. A LOT. Scientology claims that all of those EX scientologists are failures to apply “standard” scientology (or the people are SP or PTS). But, even if that were true, that is still a demonstrated failure of the technology that it CANNOT be applied correctly on such a large percentage of people.”
The claim that “a large percentage” of people have left the church because of a “failure of the technology” is no more a proven fact than the claim by “Scientology” (by which you mean the CoS) that they left because of “failures to APPLY” the tech. Based on all the data you and others have reported, it would be more accurate to say that many have left because of ALTERATIONS of the tech and what we know about all the other the ABUSES.
Well there u go. That is the rationale for failure. It’s altered. It’s a pretty weak explanation as to why the ONLY route to spiritual freedom doesn’t work for a lot more people than claim it does.
Why is that a weak explanation for failure? If you alter somelthing, you aren’t going to get the expected results. Simple as that.
Besides, the other reason I mentioned for why people have left – the abuses – is probably the biggest one. It’s the reason you and I left, and many others here. I know from your own comments and posts that for the first few years after you escaped, you were still pro-tech but anti-CoS.
If the vast majority of people cannot apply it properly (I do not personally believe this is the problem) then it is not workable in the first place.
If you built a computer and claimed it was the best computer EVER, that it could do things that NO OTHER computer could do. And then if you sold it and the majority of people threw it away, asked for their money back or said “it didnt work” and the “explanation” is that they “didn’t use it right” you would say — no, it was not DESIGNED right as it could not be USED by the vast majority of people. That would constitute a FAILURE. And if the company that was selling that computer kept blaming the USERS they would be out of business. That is scientology.
By the same token, MIke, if the computer was purposely infected with a virus, it obviously wouldn’t work the same. Of course, those responsible for the virus (the CoS) could falsely claim you just “didn’t use it right,” but the people who had virus protection and used the computer as per the manual would continue to get good results and be convinced the original computer did work.
I’m not saying that it’s necessarily the case that the tech works the majority of the time on the majority of people, because I have no way of knowing that – just as you and others have no way of knowing it wouldn’t be the case if the tech hadn’t been “infected.” We only know our own experience and that of others we’ve personally observed or whose stories we happen to have heard. None of us should be making unproven claims, as it “infects” the communication of the actual known truths, IMHO.
OK. The proof is in the pudding. Scientology is going out of business.
It cannot deal with the virus even though it is the only organization in millions of years to have “Qual” — the great breakthrough that being omitted caused the galactic confederation to only last for 2 million (?) years…. It’s not even going to last for 100 years. But it is ALL the answers to immortality?
Come now. It’s getting painful to watch the fervent attempts you are making to explain this away.
Let me ask you this. If YOU know how standard tech should be applied and know how to avoid the virus, then you have the keys to immortality and eternal life in your hands.
Why aren’t you on the front page of every newspaper on earth — you have got the fountain of youth, the cure for cancer, perpetual motion machine and every other dreamed of goal of man beaten hands down. And by applying it there should be many others screaming out to tell the world they too can be handed their eternity. It should be the most astonishing movement/phenomenon in history.
But you don’t even post on this blog using your own name?
(And BTW, you not only have the keys to eternity, you have the ONLY tech of communication, marketing, sales, PR and administration to get it known and accepted by the world….)
I haven’t made those claims about it, Mike, so that is a Straw Man argument or you’re thinking of someone else.
I’ve only said I know of many people who state they had good or even life-changing gains from the tech.
Did you yourself not ever have good gains that lasted to this day?
What — now you are saying you have never claimed it works? Or that the reason it doesnt is that it has been perverted? It’s what you say over and over and over.
Those are EXACTLY what you claim. No Straw Man at all.
So, why don’t you use this tech to save mankind? Why aren’t you creating a sensation with it and salvaging this planet? That is what I am asking you.
In the previous comment, you wrote: “If YOU know how standard tech should be applied and know how to avoid the virus, then you have the keys to immortality and eternal life in your hands… you have got the fountain of youth, the cure for cancer, perpetual motion machine and every other dreamed of goal of man beaten hands down. ”
The above are claims I haven’t made about the tech. I’m simply saying that many people do feel they got good to excellent gains. And I would be surprised if you too didn’t get gains.
So, you don’t know how standard tech should be applied, but you do know that when it doesnt work it is because it was misapplied?
So, again, I ask you, if the tech works, why don’t you use it to save people, give them their eternity and in fact, save the world? That is what the tech can do according to LRH.
You keep diverting from the question, and now you have me intent on seeing if I can ever get an answer out of you.
Do not just respond with “I didnt say that”. Unless you are now going to say: “I do NOT claim the tech works on myself and I do not claim the tech works on others.”
I started this whole thing by agreeing with you about workability and noting that workability is NOT proven because there are many more EX scientologists than current scientologists. You deflected that by saying it is because it is not applied properly and has been perverted. I then responded saying that if a computer could not be operated by anyone, even though it was claimed to be the greatest computer on earth, it was not workable and the company would go bankrupt. You slithered around that with “but what if someone intentionally placed a virus in the computer” and I responded with the fact the LRH said scientology SOLVED that with the implementation of Division 5. ANd here we are.
Either say simply “I do not believe the tech works as promoted” or explain why it is you are not applying it to save mankind and have not had massive and magnificent success with this, the only tech that can give eternity, make Clears, achieve happiness etc etc etc
Geeze, Mike, I don’t have to agree with what Hubbard claimed the tech would do – and I don’t agree with all he claimed – or agree with what he said about Qual, to know that I and others have had gains from the tech. Not the exaggerated gains he claimed, but valuable gains nonetheless. And again, I would be surprised if you haven’t also had such gains.
We aren’t in the church anymore and don’t have to agree with everything. We can now differentiate and discriminate. That’s what I’m saying.
So, you agree there are way more ex-scientologists than current scientologists and that this is empirical evidence of the unworkability of the subject? This was the original point I made before you began dancing like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs….
Mike: “So, you agree there are way more ex-scientologists than current scientologists and that this is empirical evidence of the unworkability of the subject?”
Where did you get that? Nowhere did I say this was evidence of the unworkability of the subject. In fact, what I said when you brought it up was this:
“The claim [your claim] that ‘a large percentage’ of people have left the church because of a ‘failure of the technology’ IS NO MORE A PROVEN FACT than the claim by ‘Scientology’ (by which you mean the CoS) that they left because of ‘failures to APPLY’ the tech. Based on all the data you and others have reported, it would be more accurate to say that many have left because of ALTERATIONS of the tech AND what we know about ALL THE OTHER ABUSES.”
Then I added that both you and I (and most of the posters whose comments I’ve read over the years) left because of the ABUSES.
I can attest to that Marildi. And then came Mike and Marty and fucked them all up. Hahaha. And Mike hasn’t even gotten what As-is-ness is. Poor souls… That Roger guy, can’t even get a straight datum. they were all led astray like those inside by Miscavology. That’s nasty. All 3 of them ought to do major, major amends for all the lies they spred and keep spreading.
Your true colors are really showing now Theo. The superiority of the fundamentalist is always a sad thing to behold. Always “superior” and able to pass judgment on anyone not in lockstep with their views. This is not unique to scientology, it is a trait of all fundamentalists. There are a whole lot of fundamentalist christians who would say the exact same thing about you as you are now saying about me or Roger. And they would be just as convinced as you are that their “understanding” of you is so much better than your own understanding of you and that you should be spending some time in purgatory for your sins. It’s why so many wars through history have been religious wars. It is really hard to convince someone else their beliefs are not correct.
“It is really hard to convince someone else their beliefs are not correct.”
MIke, the above is just as true for those on the other side of the fence. Theo doesn’t even come on as strong or as “superior” as many of your posters who have opposite views – who are much more harsh and rude. But rarely do you or anyone else call them on it. And they are just as “hard to convince their beliefs are not correct.” It doesn’t require being in a fundamentalist religion, either.
When I read the latest lengthy diatribe from Theo (that I trashed) I realized why I treat them differently.
The fundamentalist scientologists tend to come here and use my blog to tell me how I am wrong, what is wrong with me, what I don’t understand, why I am in error in allowing certain comments, how I have misunderstoods, how I am a failed case etc etc
The so-called critics have not done that. Ever. They do not start attacking me personally.
Someone like Theo appears to believe he has a RIGHT to use my blog to tell me what is right and wrong with me. I had enough of that when I was in scientology. Why on earth would I create a blog so that someone could start it up all over again.
Absolutely no sense of the rightness of things. No apparent realization of the arrogance and asserted rightness of “I know because I read what L. Ron Hubbard said.”
Hope this helps you understand. I only really realized it when I read Theo’s latest ramblings, ordering me to “Tell Leah Remini she should interview me” and “you have overts” and “you committed crimes when you ran scientology for your own personal profit” etc etc etc Completely nuts.
I have given him a LOT of leeway. and many others too. But there comes a point where I just don’t have the time, nor do I have the inclination, to read endless explanations from someone about how bad I am, how wrong I am and how sorry I should be for straying from the one true path of righteousness.
Trashing my comment and not publishing it shows the type of operation you run Mike. One way! Only. Like in the old days.
Ha. The only one still operating in the “old ways” is you Theo. Anyone who does not agree with you or your interpretation of Hubbard is someone to be belittled, evaluated for, mocked and ordered around with an falsely entitled sense of superiority.
If the explanation as to why I trashed your comment didn’t make sense to you, I’m sorry.
I would also suggest that you start your own blog. You can have YOUR platform to tell the world what you think. You don’t need me. I am bad, nasty, “just like Miscavige” and a whole bunch of other things. I don’t think you should associate with me, I am making you PTS.
Mike, Theo has his good points and we all have things to learn, but I would have to agree that you deserve respect as the blog holder – and for other reasons too.
Theo, you may say to me what you think of me rather than making me hear it from the grapevine. You pulled a disappearing act on me a year ago at Tony’s when the conversation started getting interesting. And now you do it again and I forgive you because I may well have done the same as you had it been my argument instead of yours that got incinerated in the hot fires of rational thinking. Yes, I may have pretended that my untenable assertions, devoid of common sense, remained intact after having been torn to smithereens by a sensible argument, that is, had I been born a cyclops.
What did the as-isness say to the isness who gave him a watch for his first and last birthday?
“I don’t have time for this!” Get it? An as-isness doesn’t contain time? Funny huh?
Come on Mike, you know better than anyone else that on this planet the Powers that be don’t want anyone to find out about their true spiritual identity. What are you talking about? Who can be on the front page of any newspaper with such news? I even asked you to participate in the Aftermath and you said to me no publisher will be willing to pay money for someone who would stand for the views of LRH. And Marildi is going to do it on her own? Hahaha.
Mike, you know better than that. But what impressed me the most here, given the opportunity from Roger asking me why As-is-ness involves no time, was the fact that As-is-ness is not recognized as a condition neither by you nor him and probably many others.
Well, Qual would have a say in that. And if I were Miscavige and OSA who obviously spy on this blog I would take up this subject of As-is-ness and clear it up with every person who has gone in a polite letter saying: “we are attempting to clear up some things that might have been misunderstood. Please come in.” But they have lied so much that nobody trusts them anymore. Still, they could do sincerely and could get to some place.
Now, that’s Qual.
I understand the reassurance that having “absolute certainty” you have the answers to everything brings. It’s sort of like the feeling of calm and peace that morphine provides. It’s seductive. It’s apparently impossible to live without it. But sooner or later, the real world imposes itself – or you die.
Ι don’t die, Mike. That’s the difference. I had this certainty well before I encountered Scientology. And that’s our difference. All Scientology did was put some theory and mechanics to corroborate that.
You are so literal it is scary.
Μike, now I am gonna be very bold and straight. If you have a Mac and say it’s not worthwhile and PCs are better it’s not a problem of the Mac. In a Mac the environment is different and before you throw it away you have to get it’s basics first.
If you didn’t get to understand what As-is-ness is, then I am sorry, what are we talking about here? The most fundamental conditions between considerations and mechanics are those four conditions. That’s how this universe operates. If you introduce a lie, a chance to an As-is-ness it immediately persists. That’s a basic agreement no matter what you or me say.
Scientology is NOT understood by the masses. It’s a religion which is technical, it has terms, it has exact procedures, that is all we strived for. If you are not willing to see this anymore (as-is) then the whole computer is being thrown away.
After so many years I see how much I am missing on those fundamentals on which everything else is based on. Before I throw the subject away I will have made sure I know and have understood the basics.
I am talking to Roger here who is only willing to see Is-ness and Not-is-ness or someone else who wants “scientific testing”. What more than the application of something on real people. I guess you can recall of a win you had in auditing once. That was attained by you recognizing (with the help of an auditor) the As-is-nes of something there.
So, if you don’t see the As-is-ness as a real condition having no time or life continuum then I can understand where you are coming from. And believe me, too many, more than you can think, have a similar or even worse situation. Things just were not clear enough. They took their money and the exchange they were given was just BS.
As I said, I know it must be comforting to you to know everything and be absolutely certain. You understand me and everyone else and can neatly pigeon hole everyone. It is a skill scientologists have that is unparalleled in anything I have experienced.
Μarildi, I think we’ve hit on something that is soooo basic that couldn’t be detected really. Unless there is someone lying here. But I tend to believe they are not lying but are not getting the As-is-ness of something. They cannot recognize not just the As-is-ness of something but the fact that there is such a condition.
Now, that is something so fundamental that it blows up the whole subject and its application. All of Scientology tech is based on that very principle and condition, that of As-is-ness. If that is not known or has not been experienced or is not, in any way, real to a person then no matter what one says or does the person cannot have the wins of Scientology tech.
As-is-ness is the only condition that can bring about a certainty that the MEST universe can be finally dealt with and that the bank is real and can be dealt with too. But it looks like people do not get it and immediately will put an Alter-is-ness into the situation (a lie, a false thing, a change) and then things start going awry.
It’s very simple, sounds oversimplified to some but, hey, wasn’t that the key to any higher knowledge: simplicity of truth. The simplicity of something cannot be recognized and there always has to be some complexity there. And because the simplicity is not recognized as is, things get to be alter-ised and then because of too much Alter-is-ness too much mass tends to be around and the guy starts Not-is-ing as the only way to destroy the masses. Which is followed by more Alter-is-ness and more masses. Ain’t that what we are experiencing every day?
So, until one can recognize As-is-ness there is no way out. Up to that point they are gonna say: What wall? I think that’s what we are hitting on and I am very happy to see all this now so clearly that it makes my day!
Not-is-ness (application of force or ignoring) with the church will only bring about more problems and masses to persist. The only way is to recognize the As-is-ness of the subject (Standard Tech) and take it from there. Miscavige is primarily guilty of having Alter-is-ed the technology in numerous occasions. That’s his biggest crime. And having said others did when he was the one who did it mostly.
Here — I will give you an alternate view. Just for shits and giggles.
You actually have no idea what is going on, the prism through which you view the world is just a made up illusion. As-isness and Is-ness are constructs that mean nothing at all.
Now, consider this. The application of all these principles and “answers” has accomplished nothing of substance on this planet. After 66 years. Is that empirical evidence that perhaps there might be something flawed in the grand theory that this is the answer to all of life?
nothing of substance? When I, with little formal training (but a lot of intention and certainty about the fundamentals) can deliver a contact assist in less than 2 minutes and see the as-is-ness of the pain of a burnt finger in a person, what is anybody going to tell me. Mike, we don’t have to agree on this. But not-is-ness is not going to have any immediate solution for any of us.
I don’t want to enforce anything on anybody. I don’t have to and i don’t want to. I am ok with my own observations and application.
“I don’t want to enforce anything on anybody. I don’t have to and i don’t want to. I am ok with my own observations and application.”
I commend you, Theo.
take care Marildi, you are a strong, perceptive thetan.
I like you too, Theo. 🙂
Theo, the “as-isness” is a mental creation, a thought, an idea, which doesn’t have the means within itself to evolve, that is to say, “to alter itself” that it may ‘persist’. Whatever it is made of doesn’t last very long, it apparently just dissolves back into the universal substrate out of which it emerged.
The ‘alter-isness’ which supposedly saves the ‘as-isness’ from non-existence does not itself have the means to persist either so there has to be a continuous series of altered creations to keep the original persisting through time. Therefore per Hubbard theory:
1. There is no qualitative difference between an as-isness and an alter-isness as both are just mental creations without internal mechanisms to sustain themselves.
2. There is no real persistence because when you alter ‘X’ you don’t have ‘X’ anymore, you have ‘altered X’. This makes persistence an illusion not real thing.
3. The theory disproves itself because if the original creation has no time (persistence) and is continuously altered by alterations that do not themselves have time then ZERO MULTIPLIED BY A TRILLION TO THE TRILLIONTH POWER STILL EQUALS ZERO! Zero persistence.
In short the theory may be an elegant one but it seems to have no real-world application but worse, it can’t stand up against its own rules.
Roger, we said I am the professor and you are the good student. Not the other way around (hahaha, joke). Seriously now, I see this thing is persisting in your mind, you keep writing about it. Therefore it persists. You keep altering it so it persists. The moment you recognize the As-is-ness of it (that the As-is-ness is a condition that exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction but has no time continuum as such and therefore has to be alter-is-ed simultaneously in order to get a persistence in this universe) the thing will stop troubling you and it will cease. Until then we can Alter-is it, Not-is it and fight over it with words trying to make nothing out of the thoughts of one another but that will bring about more and more persistence.
Theo, what you’re calling my ‘persistence’ in nailing you down on this subject is what I’m calling “sport”. I have you cornered old boy and in my mercy I’m letting you go. Therefore you needn’t:
1. explain how an as-isness is different from an alter-isness when they are both merely creations without time
2. explain how piling creations without time on top of each other creates something that persists in time. You know, zero times a zillion equals zero.
3. explain why Hubbard calls it ‘persistence’ when the original disappears at once. You know, “X” does NOT equal “altered X”.
PeaceMaker, theo like EVERY other scamologists who sticks around trying to fend off logical inspection of the subject [scamology] HAS to resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy to stay “in the fight”. Otherwise the arguments forwarded by them collapse in dust.
I knew once I forwarded the scientific testing done by the Church to theo he would HAVE to go “no true Scotsman” or possibly spin in and end up requiring hospitalization.
Mike Wynski, this is a very non sequitur comment. Can you please explain? Sorry, I might be a foreign language person but my level of proficiency in english is high so I can tell you please write clearly. I didn’t get what you are saying.
theo, take an ESL class. What I wrote was in SIMPLE (no higher than 6th grade level) English and makes complete sense to those whose level of English language comprehension is at that level or higher.
Or, do what L Con says and “clear your words/terms”.
Οκ so what did you say? Say again. As plainly as you can, thanks.
If the only person you tested it is yourself then I am sorry that ain’t proof.
Exactly. Thank you.
Theo, you write that “The only valid scientific test is the real life test.”
I’m not sure quite what you’re getting at there, but the actual definition of a scientific test is generally to the effect of “A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.”
Yes, any scientific test takes place in real life and not just in thought experiments or discussions – but it still has to be subject to controlled conditions and proper scientific method. If you are just referring to “real life” experiences, that is merely anecdote – or possibly religious witness.
And on an another aspect that several posts have referred to, claims that the lack of results of Scientology “tech” can be blamed on something like alteration of the tech within the CoS, how does that jibe with the lack of notable results outside the CoS such as the “freezone,” either? Despite apparent access to all the tech material, and some of the most highly trained former CoS personnel, no external group or practitioner seems able to offer the sort of standout results that would attract large numbers of people away from the CoS. And if the freezone can’t somehow recover an unaltered form of the tech that is evidently workable and effective, how could that ever be expected to happen within the CoS?
PeaceMaker, the explanation of why groups outside the CofS haven’t made any great impact on the planet using the tech lies in the fact that they haven’t duplicated the Admin Tech. Scientology is a 3rd dynamic activity. Without crashing the individual, still it’s pivoting point is the 3rd dynamic. Failure to apply the org board outside the CofS and failure of CofS to keep the group and the individual flourishing has been the way to hell.
If one was able to get a good org board and many people on it, like LRH did, he would be able to deal with the planet. Even the CofS can still keep going no matter how much alter-is has gone in there. The group as an entity of its own keeps going. It has a momentum. Outside the CofS this notion has not been grasped. Individual auditors keep auditing individually. They don’t want to be bothered by seniors or juniors. They want to be left alone. But you cannot have a great impact without enough force.
I would peg the beginning of the decline of scientology to the mid-60’s and the implementation of “admin tech”/org board/ethics. Scientology is NOT “third dynamic activity” other than the effort to get everyone to commit to the “org is all, you are nothing” think.
Besides, the other reason I mentioned for why people have left – the abuses – is probably the biggest one. — Marildi
Well, what about those who do a few courses and then quit? How many people try introductory or some lower bridge scientology but then walk away long before they see anything remotely resembling an abuse? Maybe Mike or Jeff H know more regarding the retention stats but I’d imagine there are far, far more people who fall into this bracket than those who leave after witnessing/suffering abuse.
In his 2017 New Year’s speech posted on TO’s Bunker, I heard Miscavige make a reference to Terra Cognita. Can someone tell me what this phrase means to Scientologists?
PS- I really, really enjoy reading your contributor posts, and love reading each time that you are Still not Declared. Each time, I picture Miscavige getting indigestion over that very fact. I hope it drives him completely nuts that he can’t figure out who you are. Keep sticking it to him!!!!
Terra incognita is a reference to the opening of Dianetics – where the Fatman used the phrase to welcome the reader to explore “lands unknown.” Terra incognita is an old map maker’s phrase for uncharted territory, and the Fatman – fancying himself a sailor of the seven seas – apparently thought it sounded romantic.
Terra Cognita would be an informal turn of the phrase and would mean something like “familiar territory.” (cognitus = known) (Latin)
It’s only special meaning to scientologists is simply its use in the introduction of what they call Book One – Dianetics.
PS: It’s pronounced: TARE-uh in-COG-nit-uh
For all its importance, many scientologists seem to pronounce it wrong.
😀
If you do Scientology – you will rid yourself of your reactive part of your mind that SAVES your life. You will replace it with the Scientology implanted “reactive mind” which has stimulus response circuits wired to give Scientologists messages such as:
1. Ex members are exposing the criminal organization = WE ARE EXPANDING (no one is coming in – more people leaving).
2. You expose the fact that a Scientology Clear and OT is no different than anyone else – they have no powers of psychic ability = You are hiding crimes
3. SP’s are howling with an A&E DocuSeries, a Documentary about the criminal RELIGIOUS organization sitting on BILLIONS while members live in squalor = Scientology is clearing the planet
In other words…
A=A=A
“If you do Scientology – you will rid yourself of your reactive part of your mind that SAVES your life.”
Thank you. I needed to read this. Another layer peeled.
Wognited quote: ” If you do Scientology – you will rid yourself of your reactive part of your mind that SAVES your life….” (endquote) This has always made sense to me too… if we indeed do have a “reactive mind” we have it for a reason. If it causes us to have automatic responses, we probably need those. Fight or flight, an automatic catch when something falls, our normal “gut reaction” to something, serves a purpose in man. No need to replace it with artificial Hubbardisms. I’ll keep my reactive mind, thanks.
This is pretty cool… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVJgmp2Tc2s it’s a song from the musical “Book of Mormon”. It’s always interesting to compare belief systems.
Another great essay and I can help with your confusion there. There is no such thing as the bank. It is invented nonsense used to control people once they believe it exists.
Thanks Pedro. Sounds right to me. 🙂
The true power of any subject is its ability to improve conditions…….
Just a rip off of Freud’s id, ego and superego, with a few extra flourishes.
The difference being that Freud understood that id, ego and superego were theoretical concepts and not actual scientific biological fact.
I am always amazed when Scientologists say ‘LRH discovered the analytical mind!’
No…..no he didn’t. He may have been the first one to claim he ‘discovered’ something that was the equivalent to the discovery of fire, but that’s about it.
I’m always amazed when I hear reasonably intelligent people throw all reason out the window and spout back these ideas as FACTS.
Terra Cognita..Sounds like an alias..Either way,Love the blog
Loooved your comment about the speed at which staff should receive auditing. Very long story hopefully short, here’s my opinion. (Harbored in my bank…lol…)
The Prod Off/Org Off System screwed over the entire concept of getting staff any training or enhancement so they could get better at what they were doing (considering that they are not trained before taking the job), and receiving the benefits of processing partially in exchange for their work.
By making the Product Officer senior to the Organizing Officers (and also the Establishment Officers from the Esto System), they just run their fire-breathing selves over anyone who suggests that someone cannot be on the job for any reason–even though they shoot themselves in the foot when negating the necessity to take someone away for a while to train them, correct their errors, or get them other forms of enhancement that would actually help them do better.
It took me years of being gone to finally have that Aha moment. What if the Estos and Org Offs were senior to the Prod Offs? Wow. You’d have so many people wanting to be on staff because everyone was being successful at their jobs, were happy and productive. They would actually be fulfilling their desire to have others have the same benefits that they have gotten.
Yes, it’s important to insist on certain amounts of things done by certain delivery dates, etc. But if you have 20 trained people ready and able they can have their 8-hour days, proper breaks, time off, and get it done before you need it. Way better than 5 crushed, pressurized staff who have to get the same amount of work done by the same time, sacrificing meal times, sleep, and who live on coffee and sugared drinks to stay awake. More mistakes, anyone?
I know, I’m so worker-oriented….lol.
gato rojo, I think the principle of “cope and organize” backs up what you say.
Gato rojo ~ sooo worker-orientated! If it all ran easily there would be too much time for other fish and practices to slip in … can’t have that can we?
That’s part of the control mechanisms of a cult. Deprive workers of sleep, food, unify them to a pressing purpose, tell them they are the only ones who can do it, etc.
Terra Cognita: “In Keeping Scientology Working, LRH said that, ‘The common denominator of a group is the reactive mind.’ And, ‘They only have their banks in common.’
To my understanding the above idea is essentially what is taught in various spiritual teachings called “non-duality,” which include both modern and ancient teachings originating in The East. The term “ego” is defined by these teachings as a completely fabricated identity with no actual reality – rather, it is an identity that has been created through indoctrination. Thus, the concept of “the ego” is essentially an identification with “a group,” and this would correspond to Hubbard’s idea of “the bank” being the common denominator of a group.
Obviously, the CoS has insidiously twisted the meaning of “the bank” to include anything that doesn’t align with their purposes, but that was not its original meaning.
In the east the group is called the Sangha. It is a place of learning. The Sangha is a holy place based on mutual respect, selfless service and seeking higher knowlege.
The idea that groups are based on an aberration called the bank has abdolutely no comparison in the east.
That is not true Marildi. Absolutely false.
It is simply another Ron looney tunes.
I have lived in ashrams and belong to an eastern group Self Realization Fellowship.
The common denominator is love and learning, not the insanity of Ron’s insanity!
Brian: “The idea that groups are based on an aberration called the bank has absolutely no comparison in the east.”
I see you can’t specfically state what was false in what I wrote, so you alter it and then say the alteration is false. This is the usual logical fallacy from you – Straw Man
How wonderful to have differences of view and still respect each other, heh Marildi?
Thank you for your passionate views. I honor your sincerity and authenticity.
And I honor mine.
We are both limited by our experience and knowledge, which defines how we perceive “reality.”
If I have ever faltered in my perception of truth you must excuse me. I am still a student.
“Thus, the concept of “the ego” is essentially an identification with “a group”
Typical of you (Marildi) to spin Hubbard’s words. You well know that “the bank” he is talking about is the R6 bank — that series of implants given 75 million years ago by Xenu. With that understanding in place it throws your rationalization into question.
You are reaching with this spin of both Hubbard and non-dual teachings.
If you were looking for more egocentric organization than Scn you’d be pretty hard pressed to find one. The entire concept of OT is about as egoic as you can get.
freebeeing “You well know that ‘the bank’ he is talking about is the R6 bank — that series of implants given 75 million years ago by Xenu. With that understanding in place it throws your rationalization into question.”
That’s not the understanding I have or what LRH says here (my caps):
“The Reactive Mind is composed of significance and masses as old as the Universe itself and is the BASIC cause of the decline of the individual. Each person has his own BASIC bank but they are all exactly alike.” (HCOB 12 Jul 65)
The universe is much older than 75 million years, and it’s this “basic” bank that is alike in each individual.
But whether 75 million or 4 quadrillion, all this significance and mass vanishes when the person simply realizes they were “mocking it up” or the BT realizes “I am me” and is suddenly “Clear.”
There is an awful lot of describing this bank and it’s mechanisms and how it controls every man, woman and child — and then to find out two questions to a BT can produce a “Clear” is sort of anti-climactic. Often wondered by not just ask the pc “What Are You” and “Who Are You” and just be done with it? Works on degraded being BT’s, why wouldn’t it work on non-body thetans?
Anyone have a theory on this?
The problem with the “reactive bank” hypothesis is it is unnecessary. The conventional schemata of the ‘conscious mind’ and the ‘unconscious mind’ are adequate to explain observable phenomena and our experiences. Introducing a third mind into the mix causes complications and begs questions that third model can’t answer. Thus, Hubbard had to invent BT’s to fill a knowledge void created by his prior invention, the “reactive bank”.
The reactive mind wasn’t actually a third mind. LRH said he didn’t continue the use of the term “unconscious” because it was misleading, since this is the mind that is always conscious – even when the conscious/analytical mind is unconscious.
Actually marildi, the mind is NOT conscious. Neither the so-called, “conscious mind” which has three primary functions, Intellectual, emotional and the “I” thought (ego), nor the “unconscious mind” which contains impressions of past experience that generate thoughts and feelings in response to perceptions…are conscious. Only consciousness is conscious and that is what you are.
For instance, a thought is not conscious nor is an emotion. You are aware of them, they are not aware of you. Therefore, as consciousness you are the conscious agent, not the thoughts and emotions. The only thing that is conscious is consciousness.
I understand that use of the word consciousness. But I was using it in the sense of “awareness,” another definition
Mike: “Often wondered [why] not just ask the pc ‘What Are You’ and ‘Who Are You’ and just be done with it? Works on degraded being BT’s, why wouldn’t it work on non-body thetans?”
The complexity of clearing a human being is described in “The Nature of a Being” (HCOB 30 July 1980). Here’s an excerpt:
“What you see as a human being, a person, is not a single-unit being.
“In the first place, there is the matter of valence. A person can be himself or he can be under the belief that he is another person or thing entirely. This removes him a step from being a simple being.
“Then there is the matter of being in a body. A body is a very complex contrivance, quite remarkable, quite complicated. And it is also quite subject to its own distortions.
“There are also the entities (as discussed in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pages 84-90, and also The History of Man, pages 13-14, 43, 75-77). These follow all the rules and laws and phenomena of single beings.
“And then there is the matter of influences of other people around this human being.
“From a single, simple being there is a progressive complication setting in as one adds all these other factors.
“The single, simple being, without any further associations, can be out of valence even miles away from other contacts.
“It is the aggregate of all these factors which you address when you seek to guide or handle the usual human being.”
The whole bulletin can be found here: http://www.carolineletkeman.org/archives/13537
Sorry — that doesn’t answer my question at all. Not even slightly. I dont think you even understood my question. You do realize BT;’s are also part of that “not a single-unit being” and “complex contrivance” (the body?? what does that have to do with theta??)
If this one shot clear command works for BT’s that are part of all this mess, why wouldn’t it work for the much more capable “non-BT” thetan? Hell, those BT’s are DB’s and “almost dead” but they can be “cleared” with two questions in a matter of seconds or minutes at the most….
Mike: “If this one shot clear command works for BT’s that are part of all this mess, why wouldn’t it work for the much more capable ‘non-BT’ thetan?”
As I understand it, the reason is that a human being is a composite of viewpoints but only one viewpoint can as-is the mass of each of them and that is the viewpoint itself. In clearing the thetan in charge of the body, all the other viewpoints get in the way and complicate the auditing and lengthen it. A BT is a single-unit is degraded and has relatively low energy, and only needs to be directed into as-ising its own mass.
Wow. Crazy. Really, this is the theory?
Maybe I didn’t explain it well. Why does it seem crazy?
Sorry, Mike. I see I wasn’t very clear on one part. I meant that the only one who can as-is the mass of a particular viewpoint is that viewpoint itself. And as for the body, it too has pictures.
Sorry. This is not making anything clearer. I recommend u stop digging now. The contradictions and illogic are growing not diminishing.
I wasn’t “digging,” Mike, I was just trying to fill in the blanks of my description of the theory. You haven’t been specific about the “contradictions and illogic,” and for all I know it might be the basic premises of the theory that you think are crazy – which is your right, of course. The theory itself I believe is coherent, but I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I was just responding to your orginal question. If you aren’t that interested, no problem.
I don’t think it’s worth discussing further. If you don’t see the illogic in saying a deadbeat thetan is able to go clear with one command when according to the theory of the reactive mind he is almost completely at effect of it, when the “able-bodied” thetan is apparently incapable of doing so because he is too encumebered by deadbeats, even though he no longer has HIS reactive mind… then I don’t think anything I can say is going to achieve anything meaningful in bridging the understanding gap. And the bodies have pictures is another one that just blows me away…
Okay, thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. To sum up mine, all I can say is that the thetan has many other factors to contend with than a BT does, as per the bulletin I quoted. And by bodies having pictures, I was referring to the somatic mind, which to my understanding is a whole network of “pictures” that take care of the automatic mechanisms of the body.
I am happy all this makes sense to you. Seriously.
Those BT’s have exactly the same factors to contend with — they have to be “woken up” to be given commands. As soon as they are woken up they are in exactly the same position as the “thetan” — stuck to a body with lots of of BT’s and Clusters attached to do it (that are theoretically benign until woken up — another thing that makes no sense because how then do they prevent a thetan from anything if they are unconscious?)
No need to answer.
As Hubbard is the authority on the “bank”, J.R.R. Tolkein is the authority on Middle Earth.
LRH goes on to write in KSW, “It’s the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the bank that says we must fail.”
Well that about wraps up the entirety of cult think.That is what Scientology says and does. You are nothing ….without us and we are everything. Our purpose must become yours …… or you need more ethics.
Newcomer, it’s exactly the opposite. KSW is in fact fully anticult, misinterpreted willingly by Miscavige and other to make a totalitarian cult of scientology.
A truly amazing comment. Wow. What part of KSW is “anti-cult”?
Maybe we could just use a one liner from the tripe such as “Hammering out of existence incorrect technology”. If we could get that done maybe it could be considered ‘anti-cult’ as long as we have the correct target.
🙂
Yo Dave,
You are in the cross hairs good buddy!
FG, I fully agree. KSW was what saved my ass when I spoke about the Tape Course Series (Translations Series) HCOBs which were never really applied in the church. They are to be found in Vol 7, 1970-1971. Apart from their enormous value to the world (all the translations per those HCOBs are to be done by UN caliber sight translators so the learning rate in aural societies could be increased. But the church never cared to retain such translators but used staff and public who supposedly knew how to translate) the point is that those are HCOBs and no other HCOB has cancelled those.
That became my stable point in all the confusion that was going on (abortions on the grounds of “we don’t have the time to take care of the 2nd dynamic”, the Golden Age of Tech, New Era of Management, disconnection, all those gross things which were passing in the name of “Scientology and reinforcement of standard tech”).
Now, if it was’t for KSW I would have been reasonable and have agreed why those HCOBs shouldn’t be applied.
But KSW saved my ass and I walked out with my head straight. Scientology had become a Cult where the leader was being a Maker of Game now instead of being the lead player. The players had become pieces in that they didn’t follow the rules but obeyed the rules as dictated by the players.
I stuck with the original Maker of the Game and the original rules (the epitome of Standard Tech) and run out of there once I saw they wouldn’t even apply the very HCOBs they were saying they were the guarantors of. Any reasonableness on the matter would have ended the matter. However, KSW was the ONE fully anticult piece of writing that saved me and made me see that as you say Miscavige misinterprets it willingly to make a totalitarian cult of Scientology.
To corroborate my point, Miscavige in the maiden voyage of 1999 or 2000 (I don’t recall which one exactly) on the Freewinds at an event named Going Global just quoted from that very HCOB, Dianetics and Scientology in other languages from the Tape Course Series the part “ON SOURCE”.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 NOVEMBER 1971 Issue I, DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY IN OTHER LANGUAGES
…..
[start of quote]
“ON SOURCE
It will be found in all countries where Dianetics and Scientology and orgs have been successful that a key part of the success was keeping the subject “on source”.
The public at once distrusts persons or groups who alter the materials or “use some of them” or attribute them to others. This is quite factual and the public is right.
All great and lasting successes have been made by orgs that were on source and whose materials were straight and correct and used that way.”
[end of quote]
It just says it in there. “Use some of them”…..
So, when I saw him with my own eyes quoting from the very HCOB which he wouldn’t apply (the rest of it, which was also the essence of the whole thing, how the translations should be done and which materials exactly should exist ON TAPE, not transcript primarily, in any org) I said to myself: This is it. The guy just uses bits and pieces of Scientology to promote his aims.
KSW WAS MY STABLE POINT AGAINST A CULTISH APPLICATION OF SCIENTOLOGY BY MISCAVIGE AND HIS ASSISTANT PLAYERS.
Definition of Assistant players: those how merely obey the players. In this case, all those who obeyed Miscavige dictating the new rules and haunting down people who dared stand up for Standard Tech.
Everybody had become a piece. They did not know the rules and couldn’t follow them but they obeyed the rules as dictated by the players. Of course the rules where not the original rules and KSW and Standard Tech would be the first targets of the Cult to promote their aims.
Miscavige wanting to become a Maker of Game (his own version of Scientology) had ruined the game as this is what happens when a piece or a player want to arbitrarily upgrade their roles without respect to the rules. Wrong Source. And the game was over in the church.
Theo – you are stickler for the exact reading, duplication and application of the words of L. Ron Hubbard, correct?
Mike, I am a stickler to what makes sense. LRH made sense in many, many ways. I was never willing to leave my family, country and profession as a lawyer, go get paid 50 bucks a week (if I would) and have the rules changed on me and everybody else…. The Game Maker I sign with was LRH, not Miscavige, not anyone else. And LRH had vaporized into the… Tech. That’s all I had to have from any LRH. Just the Tech. I was no slave to anyone ever. For some reason I knew I should have the Tech this lifetime.
Now, Miscavige changed the game. He wanted to be Maker of Game where he runs by no rules and make everybody an assistant player and a piece or even broken pieces (his opponents, those big thetans who would dare disagree with his squirreling). But he didn’t exactly understand that those sticklers (like the disposables in another case) would be around and would make sense by sticking to the original rules and the original Maker of Game.
When I can deliver an assist in less than 2 minutes and as-is the pain, imagine what could happen when people would be so well trained in as-ising pain and unwanted conditions just by learning to create perfect duplicates. These are the fundamental principles to which the MEST universe surrenders. Miscavige would have no chance if those principles weren’t still applied even in the church. However, he uses all that theta and distorts it to suppress executives, staff and public and forward his own aims. The alleged purpose of the Suppressives is to debunk Scientology and Standard Tech. But their true purpose is to render Scientology defunct and lose that technology (deny their is a game, hide the rules from the people to make them pieces again) and thus disorient thetans and keep them working. KEEPING THE THETANS WORKING VS KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. Make them look like but forbid their being like players. Look like God but uh… you can’t be God. That’s the game of Miscavige: make them look like God but forbid them to be God. LRH was making players. Miscavige denies there is a game, alters the rules, hides the original rules of the game (takes on the position of “Source” and Maker of Game) and turns everybody into a piece.
How to make a piece (from the PDCs #39 5212C12A)
This is how to make’ a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals” – all goals. “Enforce them.. their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their
being like players” – look like God but uh.. you can’t be God.
“To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players.” Never let the pieces find out that there are players.
[end of quote]
Pure Miscavige and pure Elitist stuff…. That’s what they do:
Deny there is a game.
Hide the rules from them.
Give them all penalties and no wins.
Remove all goals.
Enforce their playing.
Inhibit their enjoying.
Make them look like but forbid their being players.
So the issue was that the TRanslation Series “made sense” to you so therefore you were rightly indignified about it not being applied? You can’t have it both ways. So, someone in a higher position than you considered that translation series did NOT make sense to them? So they didnt follow it…
But that is NOT what KSW says. If you DONT agree with the “tech” you are not a real scientologist. You have MU’s. CI. Bank think. whatever…
Wow, Mike… hold on a minute. What do you mean “someone in a higher position than you considered that translation series did NOT make sense to them? So they didnt follow it…”
What were the rules of the game? Follow HCOBs. No? Weren’t those the rules of the game? Who is going to say an HCOB doesn’t apply? A senior? God? Who? Nobody, unless it’s cancelled by another HCOB. Otherwise it’s called fraud.
And that is exactly why KSW was put there. To eliminate any such instances of the Gods coming down and saying what goes and what doesn’t. But it looks like Homo Sapiens always needs such gods so they can be told one way or another what to do.
Well, there is a new game in town and the rules have been coded and are to be respected even by those gods now. That’s what drives Hollywood and those supporting it crazy. They want they game ended.
So, what do you mean “someone in a higher position than you considered that translation series did NOT make sense to them? So they didn’t follow it…”
The point is that u can decide what makes sense and not follow it and it’s ok. But if someone else does that u find this unacceptable. And apparently you don’t even notice the arrogance of your position. You know what is right and wrong but others don’t.
I call that Bull shit to you.
The abuse was happening LONG before Misconidge. LRH invented it and Mr Con fueled it further. I can’t understand how you believe the dribble you are writing.
I don’t know if this comment is going to be allowed to appear even beneath your’s Mike as I cannot reply to you any further but it would be good if you published it anyway.
I don’t decide what makes sense nor does anybody else. That has been decided by a Maker of Game and that is the rule. That is a RULE. Rules are there to be agreed upon so a game can be continued.
Obviously you have nothing to do with the Scientology rules anymore. I don’t know what’s wrong with that but the rules are the rules and are to be followed by everybody who wants to participate in the game. If that is your level of certainty no wonder Scientology ended up like it did. A lot of you helped Miscavige build his empire and now you are trying to bring him down or complain about his abuses.
All you had to do is understand THERE ARE rules and protect them. If you cannot understand that, please step aside. Because you are not players anymore in this game. You don’t know the rules of the game, you don’t follow them and you hide them from the rest of the players in order to make them pieces. That’s all you do and you can now call it arrogance as I don’t care now. But before it wasn’t arrogance it was THE rules. Which of course you don’t care about and you pretend you don’t understand in order to spread confusion. Hahaha, I’ve got news for you. An idea can bring down anything… anything and any force. And the idea is…. Standard Tech.
You talk in circles Theo and you apparently don’t even understand the contradictions you make from comment to comment. You stick by Hubbard’s rules unless you don’t. You pick and choose and think that is standard tech?? Ha
Mike you just accuse me of what you are actually doing: going in circles. ANSWER a straight question: is an HCOB valid until only cancelled by another HCOB? Now, let’s see if for the third time I am going to get an answer from you.
It’s fascinating. Sometimes people actually believe there is value in LRH’s “tech” despite the unproven assertions and negative results. Sometimes they actually do not, but fool themselves into believing it because they cannot face that they wasted so much of their life in believing it. So they rationalize, justify and defend…
Great theo. Well since the CoS is no longer attacking Indies I am SURE that you will have big booming org going ANY time now..
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The test of Hubbard’s model for the mind is whether it jibes with our experience. It doesn’t. For instance his “reactive mind” operates on a strictly stimulus/response basis while his “analytical” mind is consciously manipulated. (?) That’s off the mark.
In truth, what we experience as our mind, our individual field of awareness, operates on a stimulus/response basis only. Somebody asks you your name and their words trigger memory functions in the unconscious mind and viola! your name appears as a thought in the conscious mind. You might want to take credit for knowing your own name but the unconscious mind slipped you the answer. Thought is generated by the unconscious mind in strict conformance to 1. it’s conditioning 2. its intrinsic, universal nature. It’s all done for you not by you. That’s your experience.
What scientology calls the “bank” is merely the conditioning of the unconscious mind from impressions of past experiences. Every mind is conditioned differently and that is our “bank” and our “case”. Scientology applies those labels to attributes we don’t like but all our attributes are products of the conditioned mind, good ones and bad ones alike. That’s our experience and our logical reasoning.
There is no evidence for a separate “reactive mind” because the concept doesn’t fill a vacancy of knowledge. That is to say, it doesn’t explain things that would otherwise go unexplained. Nor does engram theory. All human behaviors can be explained by our conventional model. The continued presence of perverseness in those who are supposedly “clear” of engrams goes a long way in undermining the belief that Hubbard offered any breakthroughs in the knowledge of the mind.
According to Hubbard, Dianetics will eliminate the reactive mind.
And the reactive mind considers itself essential to your survival.
Therefore, the reactive mind will try to prevent you from doing Dianetics so as to protect itself, and you, from danger.
One obvious problem with this idea is that the reactive mind is supposed to work on a stimulus-response basis only. How then does it understand that it has an existence and should work to protect itself? Even if there was a prior incident in which the reactive mind was reduced in power and it led to a painful incident, the reactive mind, as described by Hubbard, would not be able to understand that this is what happened. It would only have a recording of the painful incident and the perceptions associated with it.
So later, when Hubbard got much more clever about controlling people, he forwarded the idea that we are all God-like thetans, but we are holding ourselves back from having this limitless power due to the bad things we’ve done when we had great power. We are tying our own hands behind our back so that we won’t hurt ourselves and others again. This was part of his creation of a culture of confession within Scientology, after pretty much telling auditors not to dwell on overts during the 50’s. From this theory, which wouldn’t qualify as a theory or even a hypothesis in real science, as there is no way to disprove it, it follows that when you refuse to hand over your cash, it’s because you’ve been a bad, bad thetan.
And later still, Hubbard became obsessed with body thetans, and led followers to believe the R6 Bank and all those dead aliens were really what prevented folks from getting their super powers back. Just compare this idea with the previous one and you can see how much he had declined mentally by 1967.
When you consider what you are up against, it’s amazing anyone can take a single step in Scientology! When you manage to completely ignore your responsibilities as a parent, your obligations to lenders, and your innate sense of dignity, and plunk down the money and keep taking the steps to total slavery, everyone applauds, because you’ve done the impossible and risen above the bank. Hip-Hip! Hooray! Hip-Hip! Hooray! Hip-Hip! Hooray!
You make a connection that is important: the evolution of the ¨tech¨ is not based on scientific research but on the twin agendas of Hubbard exerting more control over/extracting more money from his followers…and dealing with his legal troubles in a way that solidified that control while escaping incarceration and fines(while making himself unassailable/unquestionable within the cult by assuming messiah status). Look at the timeline of scientology´s international legal troubles(Spain, Portugal, England, Greece, Australia, Rhodesia, USA, etc.) and the timeline of ¨new tech developments¨(e.g. so-called ¨ethics tech¨). Telling.
“witnessed the staff at my local org serve for decades without having achieved the state of Clear” oh yes, I remember ones standing and watching at org orgboard (both shifts), there were 2 OT (both ED, one OT-3 and second OT-5) and maybe half a dozen of clears, and that’s for a almost 100 stuff.
LRH was always talking about function, not structure. He had no interest in the body, the brain and little interest in the so called “mind”. It’s a thetan’s behavior he was trying to describe and how his behavior was changed by processes. Those tests and results are voluminously documented and can be experienced by anyone getting auditing or training. I wouldn’t bash LRH, I’d blame DM.
And Maria, LRH was writing about engrams in 1950.
“Tests and results” in Scientology “voluminously documented”? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA…gotta stop to breathe…HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…gotta try to stop now before I…
…oh, good, regained my composure.
Dude, nothing from the research side of Scientology is documented, much less voluminously. L. Fraud created routines and rundowns out of thin air and presented it to his sheeple like Moses coming down the mountain. Take the Introspection Rundown; it’s the result of one, repeat, ONE case, and that was trial and error. Don’t believe me? Ask our proprietor. He was one of the guards on the victim…sorry, “subject”.
+1, Espi
I’ll raise you ten!
+10 Espi
Keener, the ONLY scientific test ever done (no, Hubbard refused to test) showed that the FUNCTION as desribed by Hubbard was FALSE!
Can anyone answer this…….I am curious…..does David Miscavige receive auditing?
Take your pick from below.
1.) Surely you jest.
2.) You must need help!
3.) HELL NO!!
If he does it isn’t working.
If Miscavige is getting auditing it would have to be done solo. No one would dare tell that guy to pick up the cans and dare run rudiments.
“The bank says the group is all and the individual nothing” Doesn’t it sounds familiar?
That is exactly how scientology has operated all along: “the 3rd dynamic is above all”, “do it for the sake of the group”, “nothing more important than Scn’s (group) goals and purposes” and et al.
You want to relax with friends instead of going to course? Flunk! How do you dare?
But is a scientology dramatization that confirms the individual is nothing.
From LRH’s own words we can conclude Scientology is only “bank”= group is all, individual nothing.
Well said Silvia.
I’d say the human brain research, what the different parts of our brains do, how our perceptions are stored in the different parts of our brains, and the minutia of brain parts, and neuronal activity, and then speech, talking, scribbling with sticks, drawing pictures, writing, and then all of the feedback that our symbolic communication gets input back into whichever parts of our brains, stories, narratives, logic, all the advanced higher level thoughts.
But it’s all in the brain, I think that’s just overwhelmingly the gist of our thinking and reacting to things, and all the technical brain stuff.
There ought be someone who puts up the best ongoing links to brain neurology and stuff, 101, 201, 301 and then links to the best summarization of it all, so people (I admit I fit) can see what we’ve missed in our education.
You can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebrum
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzuXqzdYmTQ
Τerra Cognita, in my opinion you oversimplify things or even mix a lot of things together like the very existence of the mechanism of the bank with its misuse in the church. Obviously you are amongst those who dealt with Scientology and never got even this basic thing: that the bank exists and it does trigger in and takes control over a person. So, then why do you say “Still Not Declared”. If you have not yet experienced yourself and become aware of the automaticity of the Bank then you don’t even need to be declared, my friend. You can just say that you are not a Scientologist as you have questions and doubts even for most basic things like the existence of a reactive mind. It looks like you haven’t any awareness of the existence of the bank or cannot relate it to any life experiences, which of course is rather careless for a person who has dealt with Scientology.
Below, 2.0 or even 3.0 (conservatism which is a higher harmonic of apathy) the bank triggers in and gradiently as we move down the Tone Scale, it takes more and more control. As we move down the tone scale the fruits of observation are more and more absent and knowledge is achieved not through looking but through evaluations which are the reactive mind’s conceptions of viewpoint.
The basic mechanism of the bank is the A=A=A with the = symbol representing automaticity and the “As” Anything. Anything equals Anything. On automatic. We have a saying in greek that whoever burns with the porridge blows the yoghurt. I couldn’t find the exact saying in english but it’s something like “once bitten twice shy”.
I am sure everyone of us has seen people around (or even ourselves sometimes, if we can see that) just fearing or attacking or protesting against wrong things and wrongs persons and to not really be able to grasp the situation.
The automaticity of the bank (reactive mind) is such that there is no hope for the individual to ever see this unless one can really start observing there from a higher tone, kind of an exterior and unbiased position.
It is true that pain and unconsciousness rest in areas where there has been a traumatic experience. If that is novel in the 21st century then I am afraid we are not making any progress towards a more analytical society.
I do understand that the mechanism of the bank has been misused to make people wrong, get them to pay huge amounts of money or do other no optimum things in the church. That alone does not diminish the actual mechanism that has been put there to serve the thetan but it can take over control over his analyticalness.
As to allegations of some people like Tony Ortega and his followers on his blog that all those mechanisms discovered by LRH should have been subject to scientific test what more would have the scientists done that has not been done? Which is that all those procedures have been put to a real, actual life test with thousands if not by now some millions of people and out of those many thousands have experienced and gotten through a lot of those incidents which before wouldn’t just make sense. If that was not true there wouldn’t be a squirrel church of Scientology because it would have no chance. That is the ultimate test: did it work in real life for a majority of people.
Well one problem is that apparently all this proven mechanism just disappears once you realize you were just “mocking it up”. So it is all imaginary in the first place apparently.
The idea I have about “mocking it up” is that the mental pictures in the bank are a continuous creation that occurs below a person’s awareness level – and this is what makes his own bank (his own reactive mind) persist. When a person realizes this, s/he stops “mocking it up” and is then Clear, i.e. “no longer has his own reactive mind.”
Marildi, thanks for being around. I surely do thank you.
I thank you too, Theo. 🙂
theosismanides is a perfect example of what to much Hubbard does to your brain
It doesn’t take much of a brain to have nothing to add to what was actually said than to throw out the logical fallacy of Ad Hom.
no need to reply on such comments.
is that an answer to my comment, Mike? it’s looks too general and unsubstantiated, if it is.
I maintain it’s a bit on the pretentious side to expect a body and it’s travails in life to completely obey the awareness of the being running or connected to it. From the alcoholic on the sidewalk to the platoon commander picking up body bits of his comrades, mere cognitions of existence don’t have much of an affect on the reactions that interweave there way around the serious side of life. Of course one can deny there is any such thing as a spiritual side to life and get swept along, as we generally are already.
I’m no fan of Hubbard but also I’m no fan of sky pilots either. What’s that Hubbard quote, a cleared cannibal is a cleared cannibal. Being rational about something is just as imaginary as getting up in the morning and expecting you’ll be around to see the next morning. You pay’s your money and take your chances in life if you’re lucky enough.
In other words…Make Believe. And make believe can be fun! As long as, you know, you’re not handing over all of your bank accounts, your kid’s college fund to increase your status…….
That in essence is the great truth of everything.
We are the experiencer, the experiencing and the experienced; all at once.
We are the dictionary of all of our circumstances. We define the moment and our reaction to it.
That is cause. The rest, BT space opera is imagination. Ron’s imagination.
Mike, the rective mind is mocked up subjectively. Doesnt mean the incidents dont exist. It just mean you can create it or uncreate it as will. This is the state of clear. The fact that you are fighting church’s abuse doesn’t make you less clear, on the contrary one has to be a very poor clear if he doesnt fight those abuse and the disctatorship of Miscavige.
Does it work in real life for a majority of people? But, Theo, Scientology is supposed to work 100% of the time when applied standardly. Just one failure would thus invalidate the whole thing. And I can cite one right now that can’t be blamed on the Toxic Dwarf: John McMaster, Clear Number One, who failed to rise above his bank and succumbed to alcoholism in a New York flophouse.
What say you to that, Theo, you homophobe?
You surely have some fixations, buddy. They are chasing you around. Stop hating. Get a life!
Such a scientologists’ response, deflect, deflect, deflect. Without writing him off as having fixations chasing him just answer the question.s
Scientologists are not good boys and good girls…. And I am not a Scientologist per se… I am declared so…. I use Scientology, ok? I am NOT it. I use it. Now, that guy, eSPiando has… fixations… You don’t know our comm cycles on Tony Ortega’s blog. So, you just evaluate without knowing. And in any case I am not obliged to have a comm cycle with a person who calls me homophobe every time he sees a comment of mine and responds to it. That’s nasty and sorry to say he just shows how some homosexuals are so fixated upon their being discriminated against by everybody else. So, I told him to get a life.
I’m not Theo, but great comment Espi. Of the first 100 “Clears” 52 were declared SP later. Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself Theo:
https://androvillans.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/the-first-hundred-clears-what-went-wrong/
The problem is, most people who achieved “Clear” and OT, and I’m one of those, still “react” to things per Hubbard’s definition of the bank. I’m not going back in to re-re-re-re-re-re-re do the material even if it is now supposdedly semi-colon free. I’d rather take my risks in the real world with real people these days.
Of course they would be declared. With Miscavige on the helm? What would you expect?
Now, to end your life long question about Clear. The “Clear” in the Dianetics book was really the OT…. I am trying to find the lecture where I read that. I remember it (sorry for the verbal data, I will make some research to see if I can find it) very clearly. LRH says the Clear we were referring to in Dianetics was the OT really. Clear is kindergarden, my dear…. OK? You want to get something done, move on. I take my risks with real people, too. Nothing wrong with this. I still study though and wordclear myself and listen to OT tapes. It’s not easy and the result is not so big. But it’s better than just sitting on my butt and saying all this was for nothing or we were all hallucinating or didn’t know what we were doing.
There is a war in the world. Will man become a brighter and a better being or deteriorate into some sort of animal state unaware of his spirituality?
Theo: It is a shame you are so arrogant. I do not now nor have I ever had a life long question on clear. Most of us who leave scientology suffer from an excess of arrogance bred into us by believing we are superior beings by swallowing Hubbard’s balderdash. I too was arrogant when I left scientology and offended people with my superior attitude before one day my uncle actually called me on it. He left me in tears, but he made me look inward, and I changed because he was right.
Most of us are able to escape the mind trap and the belief that we know all there is to know once we escape scientology and we learn that arrogance and assuming that we know how others think and feel is simply wrong and makes you sicker.
For you to ASSume that I have deteriorated because I left is so so so so so asinine and also so wrong. I have found my peace and have also for the most part been able to escape my holier than thou attitude. I also do not feel as though MY way is the way others MUST go in order to find peace. It is how I achieved peace and spirituality in my own right and am not, contrary to your arrogant belief, wallowing in shit.
Arrogance and assumption tends to offend people. You have offended me. I do hope some day you wake up and realize just how arrogant and assumptive the practice of scientology has made you and that your pushing your personal agenda on others does NOT help them, it just offends them.
You, Theo, are not some almighty god who we should worship. You are not better than us. I generally do not respond to arrogant pricks because I am well aware that they do not even understand that they are being arrogant or a prick. If you truly want to gain spirituality, however, I recommend you take a good look at yourself before you continue to preach.
That being said, my apologies to Mike for blowing up and Theo I will not take the bait again. This is the last response I will make to you.
Theo, you are talking about something that has no valid evidence to support its existence. For you, this is a matter of faith, not science. You may as well be discussing the mechanisms of karma, the holy trinity or big mo flying up to heaven on his winged horse. Just because someone hears their god speak to them, it doesn’t prove “god exists” or the “workability” of prayer. Similarly, if returning to painful incidents ad nauseum helps someone “feel better” or provides some sort of insight into their re/actions (what Korzybski referred to as “consciousness of abstracting” – Hub would know, much of Dianetics was swiped from General Semantics afterall) it does not automatically mean engrams/reactive minds/clears exist. That is the ultimate A=A=A.
To claim that dianetics “works” is to ignore the ridiculous, unproven claims made for it by the dude who sold it to the world. Considering that same dude sold it as a science, based on actual scientific research and “laboratory fact”, and considering that it is still sold as such to this very day, it is not unreasonable for dianetics to be dismissed as pseudoscientific bunkum in the absence of any verifiable evidence to the contrary.
This does not mean that its application does not provide some sort of therapeutic benefit. Considering that the only actual scientific study undertaken to date afaik (Fox et al, 1959) could not substantiate Hubbard’s engram claims suggests that any therapeutic benefit dianetics may provide is achieved in a very different way to what Hubbard had you believe.
“The appalling thing revealed by dianetics about our culture is that it takes a 152-page book full of balderdash to get some people to sit down and seriously listen to each other!” — Samuel Ichiye “S. I.” Hayakawa, “From Science Fiction to Fiction Science”, 1951.
Have you done any assists, at least? Any auditing as an auditor? Have you ever experienced an As-isness either on self or effected it on another? Obviously, not to any results. You want “scientific evidence” to believe. You won’t look by yourself.
I understand this is the most basic basic a true philosophy should teach its followers: how to attain as-isnesses of unwanted conditions.
The moment you create a perfect duplicate of something….
A good auditor knows his basics… If people have no certainty on that they cannot go on much less appreciate any of this stuff or understand it. Scientology is way ahead of all this. I am listening to lectures… well, that’s not easy. It’s not like a contact assist. It takes a bit to deal with the human spirit.
From Axiom 11: “As-isness is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.”
You posed the question: , “Have you ever experienced an As-isness either on self or effected it on another?” Presumably you are referring to having an object of perception disappear due to the invented natural law of Mr. Hubbard as explained in Axiom 12:
From Axiom 12: “The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.”
Allow me to repeat your question in plain English: “Have you ever experienced relief from the burden of an unpleasant thought or emotion when you looked at it and understood it to your satisfaction? Or did you ever facilitate that experience on another?”
We’re talking about thought forms. The objective is to get rid of the fear the thought forms generate, not get rid of the thoughts forms themselves. We do this by shining the light of attention on the thought and finding there is nothing intrinsic to it that is threatening. The fear was due to unexamined assumptions about the thoughts.
When you examine an unexamined assumption it is no longer unexamined and therefore it’s voided. Fear is based on what won’t look at not what you ARE looking at. That is because fear is an attitude of avoidance. Nothing has been “duplicated”, only recognized on the basis of preexisting knowledge.
Thus, Hubbard’s law (axiom 12) about things not being able to occupy the same time/space is a fabulous, albeit legitimate-sounding, contrivance.
As I thought…. Many people didn’t get the results supposedly they should attain. Have you experienced As-isness as a question should be answered like any other simple question with a yes or no. Like: have you ever eaten an apple? It’s a yes or no answer.
All this significance and plain english speak tells me people do not yet possess the ability to as-is mental images or unwanted thoughts or surely pain at will.
Some think this is bogus. Some not. We’ll see. We cannot argue over such things especially as-isness. One either is aware of the phenomena by having applied certain principles and processes.
It’s simple as have you ever eaten an apple. Or it should be at least.
“The fear was due to unexamined assumptions about the thoughts.
Rog, I’ll add to what Theo wrote with this: you are showing your lack of auditor training. Auditing isn’t a figure-figure activity (such as with psychoanalysis) in order to discover WHY emotions such as fear have particular irrational associations. What auditing does, and the only thing it does, is to remove the emotional charge (such as fear) which is part of an incident or “thought form” (to use your term). It accomplishes this release or discharge – i.e. as-isness – by the pc looking at it fully and in that way duplicating and as-ising it. Then, when the charge is no longer there to block the pc’s ability to examine the thought form or incident, he is able to view considerations that had been associated with it and thus to have a realization – in other words, to have a cognition.
The fact that two things/objects cannot occupy the same space is also a law of physics – and per Hubbard’s theory, charge is actually physical energy although of a higher frequency than the material universe. Of course, that hasn’t been proven by science – yet. But also keep in mind that even scientific theories are adopted as “truth” for the sole reason that they explain existing data (and they are no longer “truth” when new data proves them insufficient).
With regard to Hubbard’s theory of the mind, I would say there have been minimally tens of thousands of “experiments” (auditing sessions) basically testing it. – but unfortunately, many variables have been involved. Nonetheless, the odds are such that the number of successes claimed would tend to indicate Hubbard’s theory has merit and can’t just be brushed off.
The above comment should have come under Roger’s post, and the quote at the beginning was from his post.
“The fact that two things/objects cannot occupy the same space is also a law of physics…”
marildi, actually Hubbard’s Axiom 12 principle about ‘as-issing’ and duplication REFUTES that grand old law of physics.
He says two objects “must” not occupy the same space and when that (rule?) is “violated” then you get the duplication principle he invented to achieve “as-issing”.
So, that law of physics has to be broken every time “as-issing” takes place!
I’m just kidding of course. I know scientology is deemed by its adherents as beyond empirical science knowledge so deconstructing it’s science-sounding principles is wasted time and effort. What is left is humor.
“With regard to Hubbard’s theory of the mind, I would say there have been minimally tens of thousands of “experiments” (auditing sessions) basically testing it. – but unfortunately, many variables have been involved. Nonetheless, the odds are such that the number of successes claimed would tend to indicate Hubbard’s theory has merit and can’t just be brushed off.”
The primary therapeutic factor in any form of counselling is the quality of the therapist-patient relationship. Beyond that, there is little evidence to suggest the benefits of talk therapy are anything more than a form of placebo effect. Please keep this in mind before jumping to your next nonsensical conclusion.
What’s more, such a brazen leap of faith is evidence that you have absolutely no experience of the scientific method and, even worse, a piss poor understanding of it.
mwesten: “What’s more, such a brazen leap of faith is evidence that you have absolutely no experience of the scientific method and, even worse, a piss poor understanding of it.”
It wasn’t a “leap of faith.” Even when only subjective experiences can be known, the research can still use the scientific method. For example, pain medications are researched on the basis of the subjects’ statements as to how well they relieve pain – or, as I worded it above, “success claimed.” Also, it isn’t expected in such research that there will be 100% successes, just a better percentage than placebos are known to get. It seems you didn’t know this about the scientific method.
It wasn’t a “leap of faith.” Even when only subjective experiences can be known, the research can still use the scientific method. For example, pain medications are researched on the basis of the subjects’ statements as to how well they relieve pain – or, as I worded it above, “success claimed.”
Yes, but just because a medication is shown to “relieve pain” does not automatically mean that the theory as to how and why it relieves pain is valid. eg. the fact that methylphenidate can be effective in “treating symptoms of ADHD” does not prove the existence of ADHD. Do you understand?
You are engaging in circular reasoning. Google it. A is not necessarily true just because B might be. What’s worse is that you haven’t even defined B appropriately, let alone substantiate it. Putting aside the extremely limited scientific value of anecdotal evidence, what does “successes claimed” even mean? Be specific. What would you test for and how you would conduct your experiment? More importantly, how would you measure for any element of placebo or suggestion? Please, I’m dying to know.
mwesten: “Yes, but just because a medication is shown to “relieve pain” does not automatically mean that the theory as to how and why it relieves pain is valid.”
I never said it did. Nor did I say anything like that about the underlying theory of auditing. My words were “the odds are such that the number of successes claimed [for auditing results] would TEND to indicate Hubbard’s theory has MERIT.” The validity of a theory is how well it explains discovered data and how well it can predict.
Other than that, I have no further interest in an exchange with someone who is continuously sarcastic and rude.
My words were “the odds are such that the number of successes claimed [for auditing results] would TEND to indicate Hubbard’s theory has MERIT.” The validity of a theory is how well it explains discovered data and how well it can predict.
Sigh. Yes but I repeat, what “successes”? Define your terms. What exactly is being “tested” and for what purpose? What is this “data” you are referring to? Vague anecdotes about “expanding dynamics”, “clean space” and “being in present time”? Is that really what you are basing your conclusion on? Again, not a whiff of consideration for placebo elements, suggestion and any number of cognitive biases. Yet you have the audacity to suggest this isn’t a leap of faith…? Oh my.
Other than that, I have no further interest in an exchange with someone who is continuously sarcastic and rude.
It’s probably for the best. You appear to be using the trappings of “science” to rationalise your religious faith – sadly by sacrificing reason, logic and a respect for the scientific method. I have no wish to knock your religious beliefs…but at least have the balls to admit that’s what they are.
It’s possible to answer a question with a definite, “yes” or “no” ONLY when the question is understood. That means, you have to explain what you mean by the experience of “as-issing”.
I don’t know if I have ever “as-issed” if I don’t know what it is. If you can’t explain it in jargon-free terms then the rational conclusion would be that you don’t want to take a chance on having your beliefs examined in the clear light of critical thinking.
It sounds like you’re making some kind of elitist statement where you know some great thing known only to the few. Some great thing beyond description, that mere words cannot begin to convey, or some shit like that.
“Scientology Speak” = “Spiritual Handcuffs”
Have you done any assists, at least? Any auditing as an auditor? Have you ever experienced an As-isness either on self or effected it on another? Obviously, not to any results. You want “scientific evidence” to believe. You won’t look by yourself.
I have had some therapeutic benefit from dianetics, yes. As an auditor, I have delivered it somewhat successfully to others also. As I said in my previous post, just because there may be some therapeutic value does not mean the theory behind it is valid. I repeat, just because someone may experience some form of relief by going through a painful memory over and over, this does not automatically confirm the existence of engrams, the reactive mind or indeed a state of clear. Those are theories, hypotheses, unsupported by science. Don’t take it personally. The scientific method allows us to test the shit out of the world, to question things, to discard those theories that don’t hold up and to continually build better theories as to how life works. To improve our understanding. To inch ever closer to “truth”. We should embrace this process. It has resulted in magnificent breakthroughs and achievements for our species, particularly within the realms of medicine, communications and technology. That you cling to the words of a book in light of all this, attempting to dismiss me on the hope I have had no positive experience with dianetics, suggests you, perhaps, are the one unwilling to look. To differentiate between science and religious faith. To separate your wins from the actual claims Hubbard made for them. To separate you, the being, from the beliefs you have taken on.
“Certainty” and “knowingness” of things that cannot be scientifically verified is faith. Belief. And there is nothing wrong with having beliefs. Just have the balls to own them and be honest with yourself as to what they actually are. You have the right to have them as others have the right to criticise, mock and ridicule them. Can you imagine if we all lived under sharia law? Or by Hub’s justice codes? F**k that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having wins either! Just have the balls to be open to the possibility that what they are and how they have been achieved may well be very different to what Hubbard told you. Continuing your education in fields such as logic, critical thinking, physics, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, etc., will likely provide you with far more “workable”, more rigorously tested and debated answers to help you learn, grow and compute with than Hubbard’s bombastic, authoritarian junkscience. Answers that will in no way diminish your wins or the insights you’ve had on your scientological journey.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” — Bertrand Russell.
mwsesten, thanks. Quite a nice comment and advice. I do take the time to have other viewpoints and study the world around and sciences as much as I can. Physics is a fascinating subject. However, one has to examine those sciences from a perspective and I don’t know if the perspective of “NO LIFE FORCE behind the MEST” is a correct one.
Just the fact that such inner knowledge is subjective makes it hard for scientific proof. You have to admit that there is a certain area in our lives where one cannot be convinced by any external means. Be it science or the Pope or even God himself. And that is the beauty of life. And I am happy to see that Scientology is being put to the most rigorous test there is. That of personal examination. This is no little thing if you consider the number of people that have subjected Scientology and Dianetics to a test with some success, wouldn’t you say?
So, the ultimate test is not needed. What is needed is, indeed, knowingness which we tend to invalidate in a scientific world we live in. I am not saying science is bad but it’s not a panacea. It couldn’t be, it wouldn’t be fare to us, thetans, because it’s our ethic that is more important finally and that spirit of play that we all strive for and seek in life.
I am so sorry to say so many people had so many mishaps and troubles with Scientology. It is not an easy subject. And there are NO AUDITORS anymore around. AUDITORS were meant to be buddies to guide people through and up the troubles they are stuck in. That is my opinion. Now auditors are just another cog in the wheel. But that was not meant like that. It shouldn’t be like that. Undoing this whole thing is rather difficult and one cannot do it easily alone.
The fact that I was also betrayed by the Sea Org made me think and see how big is the trap and how big is the fear in thetans.
Anyway, it was nice to talk with you and let’s see what happens. We have in common the ending of the abuses within the church. I hope there is more we can have in common. Life is so expansive and it takes a cooperative effort to deal with it.
Just the fact that such inner knowledge is subjective makes it hard for scientific proof. You have to admit that there is a certain area in our lives where one cannot be convinced by any external means. Be it science or the Pope or even God himself. And that is the beauty of life. And I am happy to see that Scientology is being put to the most rigorous test there is. That of personal examination. This is no little thing if you consider the number of people that have subjected Scientology and Dianetics to a test with some success, wouldn’t you say?
The danger of personal inspection as a sole measurement of efficacy is that it allows for a whole host of cognitive biases, it ignores any element of placebo or suggestion, resulting in highly questionable anecdotes of limited scientific value.
See here for a bit more info:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
While that may be fine for you as a basis of your religious faith, it is not necessarily fine for others who have subjected themselves to a course of therapy based on highly specific claims being made for it. Or those who feel they have been harmed by said therapy and wish to understand how and why. Or those who simply have an enquiring mind and choose not to end their mental/spiritual education within the pages of a 1950s self help book.
Nice talking to you too, Theo. You’re a good lad 😉 When you get a moment, have a look at Derren Brown’s documentaries on YouTube, DailyMotion, et al. “Fear and Faith” is a real goodie. As is “Pushed To The Edge”. Interesting stuff! 🙂
Theo: You say I oversimplify things. I say, LRH kept making things more and more complicated in order to explain things that didn’t work. My purpose wasn’t to say definitively whether a reactive mind actually exists or not, but to question some of Ron’s basic assumptions that Scientologists have been taught not to do look at or simply took for granted.
On this I agree. Many Scientologists and especially in the Sea Org do have that attitude and frame of mind. Bank talking. That does not mean the bank does not exist. You have to make sure you differentiate between the two. I am sorry people are still not sure if this is true phenomena or not. It shows how slow this whole thing moves. Staff members used to say that from the perspective of a 3rd dynamic. Beings who have a fixated viewpoint on a dynamic and destroy or neglect the rest are unbalanced being in any case. Those extremes happen in the presence of semi-education in any field. In Greek we have a proverb saying Semi-Education is worse than No Education.
“In Greek we have a proverb saying Semi-Education is worse than No Education.”
In English we say, “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” 😉
ah, ok I will remember that, thanks
Actually, TC, the situation is a lot simpler than it appears.
The “First Real Clear”, John McMasters went clear on March 9th, 1966. It is odd that Hubbard was not the First Clear, and odder still that none of the “test subjects” from the Dianetics days or anyone from the 16 years since then could be called Clear. But that is what Hubbard said.
“Keeping Scientology Working” (KSW) was originally written February 7 1965, almost a year earlier. So when Hubbard talks about the “bank” he referring to the theories current at that time. They are too complex to try to explain in a comment. If you are familiar with these materials, also known as “Routine 6” (R6) you will know what I mean. If not, don’t worry. It is all bs anyway.
But when Hubbard talks about the “carefully taped path” that must be followed exactly in KSW he has to be talking about the techniques of that time. R6 supposedly contains materials that explain all human behavior as some kind of dramatization. An acting-out of scripts embedded in the mind long in the past. Supposedly it explains religious activities, politics, the whole panorama of human existence as a sort of puppet play, a Punch and Judy show with “the bank” holding the strings.
So it makes perfect sense in that context to say “the bank says so and so”. it just means that the script calls for a particular action in a particular situation. If you are “cleared” you no longer follow the script.
This is perfect pseudoscience for Hubbard. He can say that anything that contradicts his will is from “the bank” and his followers immediately snap back into line. Not reluctantly or grudgingly, but with grateful thanks to Hubbard for putting them back on the straight path.
It is not so good for everyone else.
The KSW policy was revised and reissued over and over. It is the cornerstone of the Religious Technology Center, the essay that Dave Miscavige forces down your throat if you stray from his carefully taped highway to hell. For him it is “my way or the highway”. Thankfully many are taking the off-ramps out of there.
I really like your post Bruce.❤️
You describe the devious use of technical concept to try to be be right or enforce seling. Technical terms are part of the data an audtor learn in order to be able to audit. A big part of so called “scientologists” are unable to audit anyone. They don’t understand scientology, they use technical terms to reject or insult.
“You are banky” “you are service fac” “Out ethics !” “you’re full of overts”
All that is of course breaking the auditor’s code. It participates to give scientology a bad name.
Wow. If THAT is what is giving scientology bad name we need to change our TV show big time and spend some hours clearing words. Should be fun!
Chortle, chortle. Last week it was Harvey. Now YOU are a goddamned riot.
Well Mike, your TV show is the ethical part : you expose abuse and heavy crimes of the devious church under the guidance of Miscavige, you expose the abandon of sound principal by the church of scientology. If the church was sane, there would be only one suppressive declare : David Miscavige.
You are assigning ethics condition. Once Miscavige removed and disconnection canceled, then there will be of course a cleaning of destructives policies, a clearing of the subject, and an up to date of assertion that it is the only tech in a world which is now changing fast. Some assertion which might make sense in the 1960 are no longer valids 50 years later.
FG I do agree. A big part of scientologists do not understand Scientology, much less can audit in a competent way. Nevertheless they misuse terms … Typical homo sapiens style.
Homo sapiens…just another “homo” that you hate, Theo.
And don’t you realize that it’s the shit-don’t-stink attitude of some Indies, convinced they’re Homo Novis and are the only ones that can save the world, that turns a lot of people off of Scientology as a subject? Thanks for doing your part in my crusade to rid the world of L. Fraud and all his works by being an unmitigated asshole, Theo.
You know nothing of Scientology… however you are on every anti-comment and post. Who hates who?
Espiando. What make you think Theo is homophobic? Are you paranoid? Personnaly I couldn’t care less of your sexual pratice. it’s a complete no subject. Miscavige is fucking homophobic like any good fascist.
Now saying that Hubbard was homophobic is highly stupid. I remind you that the all fucking world was homophobic in the 1950/60. You could go to jail for homosexuality at this time. In the 1950 the treatment for homosexuality was electric shock.
I was not homophobic in the 1960, I actually fought for them to be free. I am opposed to supression of human beings. hubbard was also, he became authoritarian going older. But going older in any case is a catastrophy. All your organs goes shit even your brain. You can be the smartest spiritual being you are not proof to body degradation.
Thanks FG some good sense here, finally. God… it’s so hard to communicate and agree sometimes on the internet with some people. Makes it rough, people talk bad to one another. I think what you are saying is very correct. My body goes to 57 now and I start feeling it shaky. Quite an experience.
As to the homophobe thing, I won’t comment on it. It’s no issue to me. We move on in this kind of crazy world. I have friend who are homosexuals and we get along great.
FG: Over at Ortega’s one time, I asked Theo if he believed word-for-word what Hubbard said about 1.1.s in Science Of Survival. He said yes. I responded saying that he believed that all LGBTs needed to be converted to the heteronormative or be eliminated, quietly and without sorrow. He attempted to deflect. He has never denied this belief. I feel I’m perfectly within bounds in calling him a homophobe.
I don’t give a shit about context, which was the same argument that Marildi and others tried to use to defend Hubbard in Mike’s article on Scientology homophobia. The fact is that he said it and that his sheeple still believe it.
Or are Scientologists just being banky with their homophobia?
FG: I never claimed to know everything, have no MU’s, or be completely overt free. But to insist that others and I are wrong because we don’t understand what LRH wrote, can’t apply anything we ever “learned” from him, or have never had a win in our lives, is to put it in technical terms, a pretty lame argument.
Mike, I would like to see more support on this blog and less bickering. It seems that some are taking over the comments, trying to be more right that anyone else. I remember when there was more people supporting and helping each other recover from leaving Scientology and now it’s just upetting. I don’t mean to put you in a hard position but is there anything you can post to help make this more positive again? If I had read the blog the way it is now, back when I got out, I don’t know if I would have had the same experience. As always, thank you for your courage and caring.
Sorry — I just dont have a lot of time for comments these days…
Of course, I’m glad you posted my comment. Thank you.
Off topic, I hope Mike will allow this 🙂
http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink4370.html
“…if the common denominator of every group was indeed the reactive mind, would it not make sense that the number one priority for Scientology would be to clear every new staff member as soon as possible?”
It sure would! However, if you were already keenly aware of the fact that those who’d attained the supposed state of clear were, in reality, no more capable and no less prone to illness and idiocy than non-clears, then you might want to slow staff progress up the bridge, so as not to make this glaring out-point even more apparent.
Indeed, the same scam is being applied to all these wealthy OaTy 8’s who’ve topped out on the bridge and have been patiently waiting for OaTy 9&10 to finally be released so that they can, at very long last, actually attain those long-dreamed of suppa powerz. Lil davey has gone through endless tricks and scams to give these sheeple something to spend their money on in $cn while they’re waiting, such as doing hundreds of hours of objectives and submitting to endless sec checks.
But lil davey can’t afford to release whatever extra space opera nonsense that Elron left as his legacy to the cult’s members because if it doesn’t work any better than the previous crapola, then there’s no more “carrots” to dangle in front of the sheeple.
Great essay Terra! Thank you for scrutinizing these disempowering doctrines.
It is my opinion that “A LOT ” (that’s for Marildi) of Ron’s explanations of our condition was always to blame some external thing.
Ron’s attempt at freeing himself of his demons “A LOT” of times put the cause on something other than himself.
1) the bank
2) SPs
3) Xenu
4) BTs
5) clusters of BTs
6) druggie BTs
7) FBI
8) psyches from Farsec
9) CIA
10) Russian agents
11) out lists
12) miss applied tech
13) Journalists
14) British Parliament
15) AMA
16) PTS
17) Third party
18) GE
19) Rock Slaming staff
20) Dev-T families.
ON AND ON AND ON.
Inherent in Ron’s world view and thus Scientology as a subject can be viewed as the religion of victimhood masquerading as teaching responsibility and cause.
Inherent in the doctrines of Scientology is the “ubiquitous evil other” that is woven into the very fabric of his writings.
The doctrines of the yogis, the in depth understanding of the mind, their permanent records, understanding of the root cause of the mind, understanding of the mind’s relation to the soul, understanding on how to neutralize the mind has already been written.
Ron’s understanding of the mind and spirit can be said with great confidence was partially true, sometimes completely false, and an attempt at understanding from a man who was completely ignorant of who he was.
Ron was trapped in an identity that his ego created. Then he created a church that would punishment anyone who sought to pull back the curtain on the man from OZ.
L Ron Hubbard DID NOT understand the mind, the soul, God etc.
What he was genius at doing was articulating his assumptions, deliberate lies, make believe research, intricate mind numbing complexities that he only knew about.
Then, with needle reactions becoming the new replacement for logic and reason, L Ron Hubbard’s mind became our mind. His views became our views.
And that process, Scientology’s process, IS beyond a doubt the death of reason, the death of intellectual sovereignty and the assumptions of falsehoods as undisputed, and enforced by punishment world views.
L Ron Hubbard institutionalized his unbalanced crazed paranoid mental state which always blames externalities for internal conditions.
It because Ron was not Liberated. He actually did not know what he was talking about.
But he played a good game. And we bought it lock stock and barrel.
The yogis say that our incarnation as humans, with the highly developed central nervous system with its physical plexuses nerve bundles in the spine (the more subtle centers called chakras), and highly developed brain center has allowed us to recognize our sovereignty over the mind.
And that the mind, when reactive, is a by product of our own actions, and sometimes a left over from lives where we were evolving through nature and her automatic laws of being guided by natural instinct.
As humans, we are now in a position to see, that the mind is none other than an extension of our capacity to externalize thoughts and feelings into a recording device that has as its delivery system the 5 senses.
So the mind of human beings is filled with the recorded experiences of the five senses.
We are reactive and act like robots to the degree that we do not have self realization.
Practicing meditation brings one to recognize that the mind can be dissolved in its entirety.
Having the direct experience of being able to find that ineffable peace is the only experience that allows us to recognize our relationship to the mind, and that we are the creators of the mind.
The mind is an impediment to soul awareness. Because the mind is made of grosser energies and facsimiles of the material world.
Cause over mind, cannot be had by constantly remembering the past to find pain.
True cause over the mind lies in being able to, at will, create the mind and dissolve the mind………at will.
Then all aspects of mind are seen as tools of perception, creation of habit machines to make action easier, and our innate powers of the DISCRIMINATING INTELLIGENCE: the crown jewel of being human.
Ron did not have a deep understanding of these things. The more I educated myself with dreaded “other practices” the more I saw this to be true.
There is a reason Ron did not want you to find spiritual refuge in other practices: the man behind the curtain would be found out.
And if there is one thing LRH sought to do his whole life; make it impossible for us to see him for who he truly was. If we did, the house of cards would fall.
I think I hear the clacking of falling cards as we speak.
Nice to read all this Brian. yes the mind is a trap that has to be finally dealt with and dissolved.
I am happy there are more ways to achieve this (alas, Scientology is not the only way).
Have you read the PDCs? Ron abandoned Dianetcs surely after 1952 and he did state that the best place to be from one’s mind would be some light years away.
I am afraid people do not know Scientology for what it is. True, it’s too much sometimes but what the heck, there is so many things to know about the human spirit.
Scientology by the watly deals with the human spirit and not the human mind.
Scientology by the watly deals with the human spirit and not the human mind.
What then is R6EW and the Clearing Course and OT II? Dianetics?
Theo..Brian is very familiar with LRH, Dianetics, training and auditing. He was “in” back in the ’70’s at least, when the Land Base, the FH was first established. Whatever “wins” you have experienced as an auditor and PC are valid, to the degree that you experienced them, and I am sure such is true for Brian when he had his own wins… I went through the “old” OT111 and also NOTs….and within minutes realized I was creating it all and we were running LRH’S “case. Dial wide FN.. Not long after that, as I had “woken up”.. and started seeing that things were not right in the Land of Oz… I made my own escape off S.O Staff. Brian’s subsequent research, study and application of the more Eastern approaches to Spiritual freedom and awareness, which have been practiced for over 2,000 years, do pretty much have it down. And it’s free. And so much more loving. IMHO.
Hi Madge, not been on the OT levels yet. So, I don’t know. What I am doing by study and some lower bridge auditing is getting my own reality and cognitions on the game called Life and on the human spirit. I am happy I can talk with people who have other experiences and beliefs and we can communicate in a free and polite and civilized way. That’s what I call decency and respect. So I am happy.
On Scientology and the upper levels surely there are things that do no make sense. It’s not easy. My take on those things always was that spiritual people (people who know they are spiritual beings) should unite and not fight each other to make something out of it all. I am still of the same frame of mind. So, I do enjoy the conversation and their viewpoints and I hope they enjoy mine, too.
Hey Theo, I have listened to so many Ron tapes I can’t remember them all.
My wife and I, at Celebrity center La Brea; we had full run of all tapes in archives. We spend hrs and days and weeks and more.
My view of Ron has morphed since coming here. When I first posted in Marty’s years ago I was ecstatic for the Independent Scientologist. So supportive of the tech finally being free.
But as I continued to read for the first time in 30 years, Ron’s writings, I started looking at some things like the GE, Bolivar, KSW, Fair Game, and Mike’s wonderful compilation of Thug School-How Scientology Deals With Criticism; I started seeing certain low vibes behavior.
I started reading Ron’s doctrines and started peeling back my moral acceptance of some of this dealing with critics, when I was a believer.
By seeing his writings, how I first accepted and word cleared them, I peeled off some crap assumptions. Some downright dangerous.
Like Bolivar which is my next unpacking. And how it affected Miscavige.
The other thing Theo, the truth is: the more you study other doctrines, the more you will understand Ron……….. as he was, not how he’s been mythologized and well marketed.
And by expending my own knowledge, I am able to tell the difference between the real, in Scientology, and the unreal.
There is “A LOT” (that’s for a Marildi ❤?) of looney tunes in Ron’s doctrines. The real task is to sort out the good stuff from the Cartoon Star Trek doctrines, and the critics are evil psycho babble.
I’m glad you are enjoying your practice of Scientology Theo.
Τhanks Brian, the most important thing is that we can talk. And talk in a manner which is polite and civilized. No need to fight over spiritual matters as those ridges do no good. We get ridges and dispersals all over the field of spiritualism and we are losing ground.
Is Man an animal or is he a soul? That’s the bottom line. And the people on this planet gladly and unaware accept the former. The brain and neurons are the center of life and all living creatures. That’s 21st century wog (let’s use that word now, it perfectly fits here) technology. 21st century. I cannot even tell my children about a thetan or a soul as when they go to school and start talking about that, everybody will go: what are you talking about? They think we are nuts maybe.
So, this is the bottom line. Will Mankind make it to accept its spiritual inner self or remain in the animal realm?
Now, in regards to Scientology. I know of the abuses. If you google my name under Freezone you can find my write up and what happened to me. Scientology is not an easy subject and its vast. That’s a liability. But since we are in such a state I guess we also need to know some things before we seek higher states. I have not seen any broad results from other fields. Sorry, this is my reality. The world is in a bad state. It’s not just a 1st dynamic thing, or even 3rd. It’s a 4th dynamic proposition and that dynamic is not doing that good at the moment.
Hey Theo, you said:
“I have not seen any broad results from other fields. Sorry, this is my reality”
This is your reality because you “know” Scientology is the best.
So if you have the best, the most workable, founded by someone who only found the “real” truth…………….
which cause you to end your investigation and be limited in what you know.
Here is one fact:
Scientology has never produced one product that can demonstrate the abilities gained. Not one.
In other fields there are countless. But you will not or can not know this be your investigations have ceased.
If you are truly interested in other roads that have produced liberated beings read Autobiography of a Yogi.
It was voted in the top 100 most important spiritual writings of the 20th century by major publishers.
Steve Jobs read this book every year since age 18 and was the only gift given at his memorial to family and friends.
In this book you will read stories of actual freed beings. You will also read about how we descended into the body and the process of transformation that leads to freedom.
It will blow your mind Theo. You can google it on Amazon and down load it.
Ok Brian, thanks. I will put it on my reading list. I have heard of it. There is a lot I am reading lately so I will add this too. Thanks
Thank you for your civil conversation. ?
You can read it free online: https://www.ananda.org/autobiography/
And yet amazed that he had such a following.
Brain, you make people like me who is on the learning curve of all this ,understand better. Thank you.
I’m going back to read about the Bank again though.
Personally, I see “Scientology” as an applied religious philosophy. Religious is spiritual, and applied is usable / workable. Philosophy is a bunch of wisdom ideas. If LRH generated some, altered some or grabbed some items from somewhere else does not matter much, as long as it can be effectively used.
There is a lot of “data”, and it is quite compacted, so it helps to be easy to locate. Data is individual and different, but related.
One of the most interesting data is “Absolutes are not attainable in this universe”. In other words, individual data are not necessarily 100% correct in a given instance. This means that intelligence and logic are needed to evaluate if a particular datum is applicable in a given instance or situation.
Data is also arranged in different categories, so this should help finding applicable data.
Western ideas tend to be towards making efficient machines, I do not trust automatic machines. One has to supervise it, and make sure it stays on track. The same with organizations.
Scientology started as a philosophy, morphed into a church (for various reasons), and then devolved into a cult. The organization, like any others, make mistakes. (One of the solutions was Qual. That’s very nice if it is used properly.) In general, the organization diverted gradually, without correcting itself, and continued until it is in my estimation about 180 degrees from it’s intended direction in a lot of areas.
“That’s the Bank talking” looks like a workable datum. The church, by it’s own actions is demonstrating it. (Or maybe, “you get what you resist”.)
There are lots of data that can be shown to be wrong in a given situation. That does not mean that it is useless. It is wrongly used. Just put it back in the tool box, and get a better tool.
Bottom line is if works for you, keep it. If it doesn’t, put it aside and move on. You are the one that counts.
Pretty sane comment, thanks, 1984.
I am so glad I am not at Tony Ortega’s bunker… hahaha. There is so many people here who make decent and really sane comments.
Scientology is an applied religious philosophy, which morphed into a church and then devolved into a cult. Are we seeing the DEI scale here? Desire, Enforce, Inhibit? Ron talks about that extensively in PDC tape #35 . And that’s in fast forward. What happened to Christianity or any other religion or what happens with the DEI scale. From Desire, you go down to Enforce (church) and then you go down to the last ditch and that is Inhibit . And don’t tell me that the Miscavige Cult is not at Inhibit. They are now inhibiting getting Scientology as shown by so many who have been hurt or protesting around the Internet.
I always liked the idea of the dei scale. Anyone know where he got it?
Theo, I think you’re right that the DM cult is at inhibit. Look at the speed of SP declares. They’re even declaring people who’ve been out for 30 years and trying to tell non scientologists to disconnect from SP’s.
You know what I think?
That’s the bank talking!
I think the DEI scale and the later expansion of it is based on the tone scale, which was derived from observing pcs in session as they went through an incident and it was discharging.
Clearly non clear,
Why don’t you get hold of PDC #35 and read that? You will see where the DEI comes from and how it’s explained. In another tape he explains how little DEI scales are included in the bigger scale of the Cycle of Action that is described also through the Tone Scale. It would be worthwhile for one reading such stuff as it explains phenomena like the flows, dispersals and ridges (that each point on the Tone Scale corresponds to, like enthusiasm is a flow and fear is dispersal). I think, if I remember well, he explains that Desire is Flow, Enforce is Dispersal and Inhibit is a Ridge. It’s not bad to know all this.
1984 you said-
“One of the most interesting data is “Absolutes are not attainable in this universe.”
So can you please explain these absolutes:
1) All critics of Scientology have criminal pasts- an absolutism
2) Scientology is man’s last chance – an absolutism
3) all psyches are from Farsec- an absolutism
4) Scientology is the “most workable” philosophy and tech- absolutism
Hubbard’s work is strewn with absolutist dogmas.
If there are a few thing absolutes about Scientology my list would be….
1) inconsistency
2) falsehoods
3) Ron lied about his history
4) there was no real scientific research
5) there are no products of exterior at will
6) has the capacity to kill objective reasoning skills.
This is one of those comments that’s makes me say aha!
Thanks Brian.
Brian, you don’t seem to understand what I said. Perhaps you should read it again.
As for “absolutism”, you are demonstrating it more than anyone else. Enough with the ad hominems, please.
“In Keeping Scientology Working, LRH said that, “The common denominator of a group is the reactive mind.” And, “They only have their banks in common.””
Hmmm…so per what LRH himself wrote, scientology is all just a group of people reacting to their reactive mind?
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
By missing this warning by LRH, the church became a cult that seems to have devolved along this line.
“It’s the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing.” Isn’t Scientology a dramatization of this principle? Where in Scientology is the individual validated for anything other than supporting the group?
I never realized that contradiction before, that Scientology is nothing more than a bank dramatization.
That all the reges, execs, staff members, gung ho public, hours spent on course, in session, solo auditing, being on post, FSMing, the stats, the all important thursday at 2 pm, money paid for services, donos, doing conditions, disconnections, forced abortions, abuse of staff, fair game, OSA, TR – L, draining bank accounts, running up multiple credit cards, bankruptcies are keeping The Group alive at the expense of the individual’s freedom, state of mind, family & friends, say nothing of financial obligations – in essence the person is sacrificing his present individuality for his future eternity as an OT individual?
Where do I sign up?
Mimsey
PERFECT! lolol
If each and everyone of us is a thetan, how does our physical mind make us do things? Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Lron.
The ‘bank’ is just another way to blame anyone not doing what the staff wants. I.e. paying money and cheerfully echoing Lron’s brain farts. It is just another control mechanism.
I mostly agree with your last sentence on this article, yes, you are confused and grasping at straws.
Take the criminality and Hubbard’s self-centered delusions of grandeur out of the subject and there are interesting concepts thrown about within Scientology. It deals enough with the truth to make it an effective booby trap for the unscrupulous behavior running it. You do not make a good opinion leader Terra if that is your objective for your articles.
What I have worked out over too long a frustrating time with some of my family still in that horror of an organisation guzzling the kool aid, is that it steels their resolve considerably if they notice attempts to make ALL of Scientology or them personally wrong. They simply label it as SP attacks and stand behind Miscavige no matter what. It’s my personal opinion that attacking the whole subject generally and every little part of it because it’s Scientology is counter productive. Scientology’s weakest aspect are it’s members, the organisation itself is strong legally and financially. If we can get the grass roots members to begin to recognize the abuses and human misery caused by the actions of its management the odds of the organisation collapsing are greatly increased imo.
Even the hate sites like ESMB and Ortega’s general followers are being slowly tempered by the length of time and frustration by the fact that the Cof$ still has its doors open and large amounts of money are still being donated.
The arrogance of Miscavige is bewildering, the exposure of his criminality has yet to be exposed sufficiently enough to those that matter most, his minions and his money sources. The subject of Scientology is precious to them, no matter how fucked up and booby trapped we know it is.
Yawn: “The subject of Scientology is precious to them, no matter how fucked up and booby trapped we know it is.”
I thought your post was excellent until you concluded it with the sentence above – which contradicts everything else you wrote, doesn’t it?
Not particularly. Scientology I’ve always try to maintain should be a result based activity. I got results from it but not exactly what they advertised or promised. If anyone gets results which they are happy with, well… more power to them. The New OT levels are complete bs in my opinion. For the sake of the trap the Cof$ represents I now maintain an active resentment of it. I agree with Mike that it needs to be exposed and exposed again and again until it is wiped of all the abuses, which by the look of it will need the whole organisation to be eradicated. The deliver of services by the Cof$ is booby trapped and is very much fucked up deliberately. Hubbard totally lost the plot with introducing KSW1 imo and his ethical standard for everyone else varied wildly to what he was doing. I personally like the old Bridge and have a good understanding of R6 stuff. Not everyone’s cup of tea but organised Scientology is a pretty much sick joke. It needs to go.
I have faith in human beings in that if you really want to know about Scientology, you will find a way, bad PR or not. This campaign against the Church is now encompassing the whole subject, (if you couldn’t predict that would happen… well… back to books for you) which I don’t particularity agree with but opposing it to defend the good parts of Scientology is a mistake at this time. Get rid of it all to wipe the crime slate clean, the good stuff will always be there. Why people have to jump up and down about it is simply beyond common sense. All of Scientology is available somewhere if you look, why does it have to mainstream? That’s Hubbard think and paranoia, as distinct to some of his earlier ideas.
Surely there’s a bit of rebel in everyone?
In the first comment you wrote: “It’s my personal opinion that attacking the whole subject generally and every little part of it because it’s Scientology is counter productive. Scientology’s weakest aspect are it’s members, the organisation itself is strong legally and financially. If we can get the grass roots members to begin to recognize the abuses and human misery caused by the actions of its management the odds of the organisation collapsing are greatly increased imo.”
And then you turned around and wrote: “The subject of Scientology is precious to them, no matter how fucked up and booby trapped we know it is.”
The last part of that sentence seems to me to be (as per the first quote) “attacking the whole subject generally” – and it is “counterproductive” (quoting you again) – because I believe grass roots members reading it would conclude you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is what I meant.
And I am not in any way “opposing [the abuses] to defend the good parts of Scientology” (quoting from your post above). I have said many times that I am all for it, so please don’t dub in things about me that fit some preconceived generality. Okay?
I’ll add that I do understand your overall point of view. And I appreciate your willingness to say what has been positive in your experience. Good on you.
Tough area to get your head around overall. But this is a war we are fighting, and the rules will always get fuzzy and muddled in battle. Scientology invades all perspectives of the life and the mind. It’s a tough game being you in it and not only to having to have allies but getting on with your allies own agendas, which aren’t always clear or obvious by what they say.
And one last comment on this train of thought. If Scientology did indeed produce what it claims, why or does a being still crave/require agreement? Havingness is a Theta/MEST inspired objective, death sees to that termination more or less on a regular basis. Beyond that is where one must come to terms (cause) with… if you believe Hubbard was on the right track that is – immortal spiritual beings and all. What’s that cracker of a process Hubbard came up with a lot of people have a very hard time with?
“Conceive a of static”.
‘Each to their own,’ is more of an OT term than most care to appreciate, such is the lure of reality as it takes us away from such objectives.
“Conceive of a static” it should read. Guess I was running it (again!).
Yawn: “Scientology invades all perspectives of the life and the mind. It’s a tough game being you in it and not only to having to have allies but getting on with your allies own agendas, which aren’t always clear or obvious by what they say…‘Each to their own,’ is more of an OT term than most care to appreciate, such is the lure of reality as it takes us away from such objectives.”
Yes, it’s tough “being you” in any game, including the whole game of life. In Hubbard’s saner days, when he had some awesome insights and his ego had not yet gotten the better of him, I think he had the right solution to this point you make, where he said this:
“Now, the trick is to be an individual and be a member of the team at the same time. The only way one solves that is just come uptone until he can do it. Nobody is trying to make a pattern individual with processing or anything else – training or anything. Nobody is really trying to make a pattern individual. This information is available, these technologies and so on are applicable, they are sound and they’re usable. But if that starts wiping out the individual, why, then you have lost to that degree, because it is the individual initiative working in the midst of a team and making things go right that eventually brings the whole thing off.”
Remember that? In this new unit of time, I think it’s an interesting piece of data.
Tony Ortega’s blog (and its “followers”) is a “hate site”?? Are you serious? How exactly is it a hate site?
I’ve been reading and posting there for almost three years. The majority of people who post there who have never been in $cientology are quite sensitive and understanding about the power of mind control and realize how and why people stay in the CO$. Sorry, but I simply don’t see any logical reason to call it a hate site.
Not to mention — Mike, being who he is and considering the work he does, wouldn’t refer people to Tony’s articles and speak highly of the Bunker if its content and commenters spewed hate.
From the early days of ESMB and Ortega’s site the attacks were not in the least bit courteous. Those sites were forced to reign in the uncouth and vile incriminations made against anyone who showed even the least bit of objectivity. It was open hunting season out there for along time on the net. I don’t know what bubble you view things from but I remember what the uncontrolled, biased and vindictive nature of posters can and will do. Hate is good term for their history. Mike Rinder is to be commended for his manners and sane site management. I don’t think you’re being objective at all, rather just a step away from hating my postings yourself. Pick another target.
If that was your experience a few years ago, that’s all you had to say.
My post to you wasn’t out of line, so it’s pretty uncool to suggest that I “view things from a bubble”, “hate your postings” and have made you my “target”.
I could say many things about leaving Scientology when it meant walking away from your friends, family and massive investment in time and money and then getting involved in internet sites which I thought were friendly and understanding but weren’t. No worries, I apologize for my comments if it rubbed you the wrong way, you can lead the charge forward now – I’m tired.
That one commentor may or may not be serious.
The group which is serious is OSA which follows L Ron Hubbard’s order to “divide and conquer” and which has spent decades in programmes pretending to be one person or another, all the while building up credibility in one group just so that they can drag everyone into a phony fight with the other group.
Some critics and exes fall for it some of the time, but it takes something special to fool everyone all of the time, and I don’t think OSA has ever gotten there…
(for the record, I’m not accusing anyone of being an OSA plant, I’m just highlighting one source of what appears to be outrageous statements.)
Yawn: I am perfectly okay with NOT being an opinion leader. That has never been my intention. I’m just another recently-out, full of pent up communication and who is having fun for change in the world of Scientology. For the first time in decades, I’m free to look at and question things that were taboo.
I don’t believe this site and the people who come here are “counter productive.” For too long, they weren’t allowed to question and speak out. Not doing so would be playing right into the hands of a suppressive regime. Not speaking out contributed to why we’re all here at Mike’s site.
It’s not enough to simply speak out against David Miscavige and his band of merry henchmen; we need to uncover the half-truths, and untruths that led to the current situation. Once this is all over, people can do whatever they want with the truths that are left standing.
TC, I agree. Some common sense, for christ’s sake. We can talk at least and be courteous to each other. Mike definitely has some power in this hands. He earned it. But definitely he owes some of it to Scientology as he was known as the CO OSA INT and highest PR person for Scientology. Miscavige must be a monster and those people have been tortured mentally like no other. I keep thinking of this.
My take is that Miscavige managed with the help of others to create a new game and become the Maker of that New Game. No rules for him, penalties and no wins for others. Denial of the “old” (original) game. Perfect way to make pieces out of everybody. And no one can do anything about this within the church.
To go to the other extreme and say that Scientology is to blame for all this, is stupid. Scientology is just writings and principles which, you very well know, are misinterpreted, misapplied and misused by misinformed staff or just pieces and broken pieces within the church. Only those who follow Miscavige’s rule “Do as I say” can be players now. But that is not the original game. What went wrong is that we didn’t protect the original game and the original rules. Now a new status quo is there ready to alter anything that doesn’t help them forward their purposes.
Oh I hear you, and don’t have too much of a problem watching the subject being put under the microscope. At the end of the day it’ll all settle down to a socially acceptable rabble anyway. That’s the way I see things develop on social media. Posters will say and do the darn-est of things especially concerning Scientology, where we all have our personal horror stories to live with.
Getting out of the Scientology system in the late 90s I’ve see the changes come and go but I was vilified out of family and friends in the new millennium as they were still drinking the kool-aid, and now have seen many of them join the ranks of the disabused. But the friendships have remained dissolved. It’s tough getting on with the effects Scientology leaves behind and now everyone is a Scientology expert in one form or another. I just happened to like auditing some of the stuff, it made people happy.
Excellent article. LRH was clearly reading the work of Fritz Perls and Robert Goulding who wrote about gestalt and redecision therapy in 1965-1970. Other psychologists posited the idea of the cognitive brain process and the emotional brain process that is controlled by the lim box system. I use redecision therapy in our practice every day. It does not tap into engram but the neural pathways which establish responses to behavior can be simply altered by allowing the cognitive mind to revisit the trauma through visceral remembering. However, as powerful as it is it is useless unless a person willfully chooses to change and the most powerful element in this process is NOT the technician, clinician or reader of the engram. It is the client. The voices are based on the early memories of the individual. The “Bank” LRH described is the early description of the Goulding-Perls PAC model where PAC stands for parent adult child. The Bank is the parental voice. This is consistent with your thesis that the whole theory LRH claimed to develop was really his own PAC model acting out externally through Scientology. It was his brain-child (pardon the pun) so any deviance from his idea would be perceived as a critical parental voice which should be rejected. You are absolutely spot-on in your observation!
It is unfortunate that LRH never really understood the PAC model or Redecision Therapy. It might have helped his soul grow to see he is nothing without love because the primary requirement of any therapist using a humanistic or existential psychology model such as this knows THE most powerful tool in our toolbox is Love. I deeply care for and love my clients. I would be a lousy clinician if I didn’t!
Excellent article!
http://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/redecision-therapy
Excellent comment. The giant missing piece in scientology is compassion. It is drilled out if you from the moment you enter the door. It took me years after I left to stop feeling guilty because I cared.
Not sure, but I think LRH came up with the idea for the “bank” in Dianetics which was written in th 50’s. So he couldn’t have read the actual science about it you are referring to.
But since almost all of the foundational concepts of both Dianetics and $cn were already in place by the early 50’s, the seminal ideas and models of the mind that he borrowed from to create his hybrid mash up of sci-fi and pseudo science need to have come from an earlier period in the history of psychoanalytic theory and the various theories of the mind’s origin and development that were already extant prior to his formulation of DMSH, first published in 1950.
For example, the most central concept in Dianetics is the “engram,” which Elron misappropriated from its much earlier author (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Semon ) and used as if it were of his own creation.
By the period that you describe, 1965-1970, Elron had already moved on to foisting his sci-fi space opera nonsense – purporting to be the previously untold history of the pre-Big Bang Cosmos – onto the gullible sheeple and perfecting his procedure for the telepathic exorcism of space alien spirits that supposedly possess us all and which account for why those who’ve attained the state of clear are still so fucked up 😉 Elron may have glanced at the work of Perls and others of that period but he was already well “beyond the stars” in creating his grand cosmology by then and he was never one to go back and edit or revise anything unless he just absolutely had to.
Dr. you said,
“It might have helped his soul grow to see he is nothing without love…….”
Never a truer statement. The man had a huge deficit in emotional maturity.
His constant seeing enemies numbed his capacity for trust and thus connection and thus love.
One of the easiest summaries of the ” therapy” known as auditing of the ” bank” and how it becomes a trap or prison of belief and Scientology a training center for the unscrupulous behavior in its organizations is Tracey Brook’s essay circa 2000.
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/stacy.htm
Here is one of the any nuggets from it.
But having already installed L. Ron Hubbard in my mind as the unerring dispenser of Truth, there was no way for me to reject the information. I remember feeling completely numb and making sure to arrange my expression so that the course supervisor would not realize how stunned I was.
Thank you for posting that essay by Stacy. That is the most succinct explanation of the upper levels and how it turns caring and compassionate people into ruthless groupthinkers.
Reading Stacy’s description of her auditing and her excellent analysis of auditing and especially the OT levels, stripped away something inside of me that needed stripping.
I am wowed to have read this and hope others will read it.
Thanks for commenting on Stacy’s assessment of scientology auditing. It caused me to reconsider my initial decision to skip it. I’m glad I’ve read it. It’s one of the most interesting and revealings critiques of scientology ever. Stacy is one highly intelligent lady.
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/stacy.htm
Thanks RogerHornaday
I read that and it’s almost euphoria I would imagine……easier to see out here that it isn’t.
During my time in the sea org. The phrase I remember is “no case on post or quit dramatizing your case.” You were ” given ” the entire bridge once you joined. Which basically amounted to dangling a carrot. As very few staff actually advanced up the route. There were a few but they had money on account and were treated like public.
It seems like giving sea org members the bridge is just a set up. when they finally start to wake. The first thing that is told to the staff in doubt is that their eternal freedom will be at risk. There is no empathy or compassion or a feeling of my Fellow human is going through some stuff and I as a human need to understand and help him get to A better place. Like what you think a religion would behave. Branden R comes to mind.
Thanks for putting the time to think through these datums that the COS operates off of. I enjoy reading your insights.
If there’s a reactive mind, after quadrillions of years, the bank would be so full, It would overwhelm everything else so Scientology is hopeless. OK, that’s a clever way to look at it, and I appreciate it. But isn’t it easier just to point out that after 66 years, there’s still not a shred of scientific evidence for the reactive mind, and it’s quite obvious Hubbard pulled these ideas out of his ass after reading about how early computers worked in articles he skimmed in Popular Mechanics and Readers Digest while he was taking a crap?
Interesting… I remember many years ago hearing people refer to a “bank of computers” or “computer bank.” Plagerism thy name is LRH. Not sure you can prove the taking a dump part, though.
I well remember written and oral references to the “memory bank” of a computer in the 1960s (we’d now say “date storage”) of computers back in the 1960s, when computers were still little known to most people.
I remember a science-fiction novel in which all of human knowledge was in a “memory bank” located in a vast cavern under a mountain somewhere, and somebody in their home with a question could enter it into their home computer and receive an answer from this date center. That prefigured search engines, didn’t it? So of course, sci-fi professional L. Ron Hubbard would have gotten the “bank” concept from this term. I haven’t heard anyone say “memory bank” in decades.
*data storage
If you read “Dianetics, Evolution of a Science” and “Dianetics The Original Thesis” you will see where the terminology goes from and the theory of the Reactive Mind as a flawed computer.
I remember at one point in the church, I had this sick feeling of,” holy shit, this pain in the mind thing is trillions and trillions of years old.”
I had this sinking horrible feeling that auditing would never friggn end!
These chains of associated events in session would go on and on and on.
It could be said that Scientology is that practice which introverts a person into constantly looking into the mind, on and on, to find happiness.
Constantly looking into the mind, BTs, has caused people to have mental breakdowns. My x wife was one of them. She ended up becoming a homeless person.
A very Powerful comment Brian.Love Always to you and yours.?
Brian, ESMB thread Licorice “Likkie” McKechnie post #10. It’s a very old post and I haven’t been able to get the search engine to tell me if the poster is still around. The Mods are very helpful. Good luck!
Oh, Tony. $cientologists don’t need no stinkin’ scientific proof since they think Hubbard’s quack theories are based on actual science.
Excellent post. And damn funny! Great post on the Bunker today about Monique Blink-a-Ling and her lying bullshit.
Tony sizzles today.Love the name, M. Blink-a-Ling may I add ding dong greedy woman a ling too!❤️
Sounds like a system possibly created by a repressed Homosexual trying to suppress any unwanted urges they may be having.
MK Ultra also supposedly used this tactic of trying to fracture or divide the subject’s mind into two or more compartments. Create multiple personalities etc.
System seems to value the Rational mind over other natural parts of us as humans such as intuition, natural instinct, empathy, emotion, etc.
Leave our Gay friends out of this!
LRH had much larger problems than possible homosexuality. In order to have a sexual relationship of any kind you first have to have the ability to care about other humans. No sign of this in LRH. Evidence: Nibs, Quentin, Alexis, Polly, Sara, Mary Sue, his mother…. betrayed everyone, including everyone who ever believed in him
Not innovative, just a relabeling of Freudian concepts and then putting a space opera spin to cover up the plagiarism. LRH never had an innovative thought in his life.
Which is very likely the reason he was so adamantly against psychology and therapy. He did not want followers exposed to the sources he plagiarized and repackaged for profit in his books.
The whole reactive mind (bank) theory is SUPER easy to test scientifically. That Hubbard never commissioned such a simple test to be done independently shows that he had no faith in it being true. Because, such a test corroborating his theory would have REALLY put Dianetics on the map.
The LA Dianetics Research Foundation did cooperate in a study by Fox et al in 1959. Needless to say, “the engram hypothesis was not substantiated.” http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/dianetics_test.html
Thanks mwesten. That is what I meant. And of course, Dianetics was a COMPLETE fail and false.
If you’d rather put money rowards something in your private life, than towards scientology courses, your mind must be telling you that scientology is bad, am i right?
Yep! You are, indeed, right.
Scnist:: I can’t write you the check, the bank said it would bounce!
Reg: That’s the Bank talkin’
Scnist: Well…yeah
ROFL sounds exactly like my bank!
My bank doesn’t talk to me anymore….right after I pulled all my money out.
Good one! I’ve been in real banking my whole Life! Not the LRH kind that is.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Now that’s some funny shit!