Skip to content

“The Most Ethical Group on the Planet”

April 28, 2010

Scientology styles itself as “the most ethical group on the planet.” But when we see such things as a group of senior Scientology executives verbally and physically attacking someone on a city street, when we see Tommy Davis telling bald-faced lies on national TV, when we hear about David Miscavige threatening and beating his juniors, when we see PIs and dirty tricks, we have to ask what definition of ethics these people are following?

I am sure that they all consider they are “in-ethics,” but what do they mean by that?

Hubbard describes ethics in terms of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” This is almost a direct quote from a guy named Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) an English philosopher known as an advocate of utilitarianism, which is a philosophy of ethics. Utilitarianism is often characterized by Bentham’s phrase, “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Utilitarianism holds that that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. This view is often expressed by the phrase “The ends justify the means.”

The basic problem with utilitarian ethics is, of course, who gets to define what is good.

I am sure that Hitler, for instance, believed that what he was doing was “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” He believed that the Jews were destroying Germany and Europe. Therefore, to “save” the greatest number, he had to incarcerate and kill off as many Jews as possible. One can say this is a ridiculous example, yet in Germany in the 1930s, it was Hitler who dictated what was “good.” And millions followed and supported him. The end of a pure Aryan race and a triumphant Third Reich, justified the means that he used – terror, imprisonment and mass murder.

And I am sure the Inquisition considered it the “greatest good” to arrest, torture and kill heretics.

Machiavelli (1469 –1527) was an earlier proponent of utilitarian ethics. In his famous political treatise The Prince, he argued that “the greatest moral good is a virtuous and stable state, and actions to protect the country are therefore justified even if they are cruel.” And of course the term “machiavellian” has come to mean the placing of political expediency above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain authority.

Aha. And we start to get closer to something that looks like the current Church of Scientology.

The Church of Scientology promotes “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” And of course the Church defines what is good and bad. The Church leadership is good. Miscavige is good. Anything which forwards Scientology is good. Anything which reflects negatively on Scientology is bad. Critics of Scientology are bad. Challenging the status quo is bad. To paraphrase Machiavelli: “the greatest moral good is the continued survival of the Church of Scientology, and actions to protect the Church are therefore justified even if they are cruel.”

Thus, threatening and abusing one’s juniors is justified. They are “downstat” and therefore harming Scientology. The “greatest good” demands that duress be leveled at staff to make them produce. After all, didn’t LRH say “Men will keep the accounts straight only because you can muster bayonets to enforce that they do”? (HCO PL 4 October 68, Ethics Presence) Didn’t he say, in the same issue, to use “power and force” when issuing orders? It’s all for the “greatest good.”

And one has to penalize downstats, right? So how do you do that? Well, throw them overboard or into a lake, have them run laps around a building, put them on “beans and rice,” have them work through the night. Assign them to the RPF. That’s the “greatest good,” right?

Donating money to Scientology strengthens the Church, therefore that’s “in-ethics.” Refusing to donate your money to the Church does not benefit the Church. So it’s “out ethics.” Buying up real estate with parishioner money is “good for the Church.”

And if someone tries to expose the abuse? Well, they are creating “bad PR” for the Church. That’s not the “greatest good.” So those people are SP. And how are you supposed to handle an SP? By any means necessary. After all, didn’t LRH say “One treats a real Suppressive Person pretty rough” (HCO PL 5 April 65 Handling the Suppressive Person) – a quote Miscavige loves to repeat.

So of course, ganging up on someone and screaming at them is for the “greater good.” Disconnecting people from their families is for the “greater good.” Making their pc folders public is for the “greater good.”

And when all this “goodness” gets exposed, how do you handle the Church’s resulting “bad PR”? Well, of course, you lie. You lie to protect the Church. You tell “acceptable truths.” There’s no violence. There’s no disconnection. There’s no abuse. That’s also for the “greatest good.”

And sure, you can say, no, no, no. This is a misapplication, this is an aberration. This isn’t what LRH intended, this isn’t…”

And I say to you, this is how Scientology is applied by thousands of staff members, Sea Org Members and public Scientologists, day after day, year in and year out. This is the culture of Scientology. This is how life is within the Church. Disconnection is tolerated. Cruelty is tolerated. Lies are tolerated. Abuse is tolerated. All for the greater good. And if it is a misapplication and a misunderstanding, then it is a universal misunderstanding and misapplication shared by the entirety of organized Scientology – for many years.

So if anyone is serious about “reforming Scientology,” how about re-examining Scientology’s “utilitarian ethics” system?

What’s the alternative? Well, here’s another viewpoint:

Ghandi said, “As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side.”

Ghandi saw means and ends as inseparable. He held that it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace. He wrote: “They say,‘means are, after all, means.’ I would say, ‘means are, after all, everything.’ As the means, so the end.”

You cannot use violence, threat, punishment, duress, lies, fraud and fear to attain “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war.”

Because what you actually get is violence, threat, punishment, duress, lies, fraud and fear.

As the means, so the end.

Or as Ghandi also said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”

  1. Redneck Thetan permalink
    April 28, 2010 5:21 am

    This is an incredible post. VWD, Jeff. You’ve clearly been there and can say this with certainty. This is the post that should be sent to all the publics who cannot see why others are speaking out.

  2. AlexMetheny permalink
    April 28, 2010 5:53 am

    Another great post Jeff!

    I have studied scientology ethics a lot. I did the ethics specialist course twice and the ethics officer full hat. I got quite a bit out of it. But I have to agree with you that the CofM is really the decision point of what is in and out-ethics if you want to be part of that group. If you are part of that group you really cannot act independently with your own view of ethics. Eventually you will have to face the counter view if you are not following command intention.

    I agree that the end DOES NOT justify the end. But the CofM obviously does. It is a sick application of ethics and a sick organization.

    They will also use the HGC as a means to convert your thinking to “see” what is in-ethics. They can punish you with costly security checks until you “cognite” that you are out-ethics. When you are fully assimilated into the “group think” you have made it to nirvana. When you too realize that you will do anything to help the church. Lie , abuse , discredit..if you are willing to do all of that then you are “good”.

    • April 28, 2010 2:13 pm

      Alex, in my experience, since I first stepped into Scn in early 78′, CoS was always the desicion point for what was in or out ethics. And this attitude of “the ends justifies the means” while being more subtle back then, was most definitely in play. And where I personally experienced this pragmatic POV was in my reg cycles. The “ends justify the means” mentality really burned bright in those cycles.

      IMO, DM just came along (or was sent in) and took the existing insanities of the organization and kept gradually turning up the volume to finally arrive where it is today. In other words CoM is the aggregation of all the unworkabilities, contradictions, abberations, NWO aspects extant in CoS on steroids.

      As a side note…for those folks who think or hope that the government will eventually ride in on its white stallion and save the day….well, then they aren’t seeing the government that I’m seeing (just look at the Patriot Act for starters). Personally, from where I’m looking at this, the government (such a broad and general term) or I should say, The Powers that BE, are more than okay with what is going on in CoM these days. In fact, I would suppose that the CoS/CoM is exactly where they want it to be and to stay.

      • VaD - seeking own truth permalink
        April 28, 2010 4:02 pm

        CoM provides much enterntainment for people at large, IMHO. 🙂
        “Victims” and “Freedom Fighters” are just like gladiators of Rome.

      • Mickey permalink
        April 29, 2010 5:23 am

        As I’ve said in some previous post (somewhere…it all becomes a whirling blur after awhile, there’s so much posting and commenting going on!), the drama we witness in the Scn. breakdown is a smaller echo (a microcosm) of the larger breakdown shouting of governments (the macrocosm)…both gone and going beyond their moral and good means and purpose for existing.

        For example, if you see parallels and are aware of what is happening within the major government’s global events and DM’s created events in, say banking (DM’s results – financial irregs/private inurements/wasted funds on lawyers vs. government leader’s results: bail outs/digitized thin-air created money) or say “security” measures against falsely created and perceived “enemies” (DM: constant security checking/harsh violence all done in the name of ethics looking for SPs vs. over the top airport screening/more checking into personal lives done in the name of “security” looking for now what’s been turned inward on it’s own citizens as “domestic terrorists”).

        The examples are legion and not the subject of this post other than to follow a bit on what Monte wrote. But, I maintain that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, before we can regain freedom of spiritual thinking (equal and opposite reaction) we first had to live through and experience the “action” of decades of slowly eroding removals and alterations of original works of not only the founder of a religion, but the erosion of works of founders of a country and it’s constitution.

        Just as you “cannot use violence, threat, punishment, duress, lies, fraud and fear to attain “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war,” neither will war ever, ever lead to peace. The minds of those in charge that think with these ideas are all insane and/or else invested in some outcome bringing gain only to themselves.

        Be not surprised then at what must follow to gain back what has been nearly lost. It’s nothing new in the history of planet earth.

      • AlexMetheny permalink
        April 29, 2010 4:06 pm

        Hi Monte,

        I got into Scientology in 1978 also. Back then I feel you were given a lot of leeway as to what you believed in and there wasn’t all that much to disagree with that I recall. No major events to speak of, no regging for the IAS, no Idle Org program.

        I suppose LRH had his own out-points as we all do. I was talking to someone the other day and they said it was like Scn. has an old and a new testament. Except in our case the “old testament” is the kinder and more ARCfull writings. It seems the “new testament” for us, is more full of, punish downstats, make the penalties too gruesome to confront, disconnect from all the awful SPs kind of stuff.

        I basically subscribe to the Old testament of Scientology. Of course I would use any part of it that I felt was workable. I think that the auditing tech is very good if not used with enforcement and crazy ethics and injustices. You would think that would be common sense, but it has been proven now how off the rails a group can go when lead by an SP.

      • lunamoth permalink
        April 29, 2010 8:26 pm

        Interesting choice of words, Alex. I don’t want to read too much into it on your part, but when you look at the sentence, ” …you were given a lot of leeway as to what you believed in …” it does kind of say it all.

        Who gives a person the leeway to believe what they want? I’m sure everyone here will agree that it should be that person, in question. Yet somewhere, and it was possibly different for all of us, we gave over that power to someone else, in this instance it was the church/lrh.

        For me, again, it was KSW. I’ve read a few comments on other blogs that there is nothing evil about KSW, and it claims no power over what anybody thought. I find that interesting, but while it’s been asserted, the case for that viewpoint has not been made, as far as I’m concerned.

        Any policy is only a piece of paper until someone enforces it. I don’t claim that the policy itself embodies evil, but I am saying that it has been used by agents of the church to suppress disagreement and thus suppress free thought, and those of us on whom it was used went along with it. We either agreed with it or we suppressed our own disagreement in order to “get along.”

      • AlexMetheny permalink
        April 29, 2010 9:30 pm

        Hi Lunamoth,

        As far as your comments about my feeling I was given a lot of Leeway early on in Scientology. Of course the person should be the decision point for that. You seem to be arguing that never in Scientology was a person allowed to be his own person. That is not real to me. In fact, I would argue that everyone has some agenda in mind that they are trying to forward to others, including you. So I think it only natural that people in Scn do the same. My issue is when it gets to an absurd fever pitch that you can count me out.

        Also I think in any “organized” group you will have irrational behavior. I do like the LRH reference about “absolutes are unobtainable”. That is true to me.

        I guess I never really got the point you were making to me, but it seemed something like: People were never allowed to be free to think in the CofS. That seems like an extreme statement to me.

        What I meant by giving me leeway was not that I was asking for a license to survive, but that people in the earlier years were more ARCfull and granted more beingness and tolerant. I don’t see what is so wrong with that statement.

        Just curious, are you against any type of Scientology?


      • lunamoth permalink
        April 30, 2010 12:03 am

        “I guess I never really got the point you were making to me, but it seemed something like: People were never allowed to be free to think in the CofS. That seems like an extreme statement to me.”

        No, you really didn’t get my point, because I said something quite different. I said that at the point where we agreed that there could be limits to what we thought (less “leeway”), and for me that point was KSW, we became responsible for the suppression of our own thinking.

        This was my experience. I was a scientologist for 31 years and can clearly remember what it felt like to be a scientologist both before and after KSW came into my life.

        How does the statement that I actually made make one against any type of scientology?

      • AlexMetheny permalink
        April 30, 2010 2:27 am

        Thanks Lunamoth,

        I guess it was my misduplication. I missed your original point and agree with the idea that once you grant someone the right to censor, you start down the slippery slope.


    • Roz Cohn permalink
      May 14, 2010 7:15 am

      Hi Alex,

      Are you related to Eric Metheny? I love Eric. But I also despise Scn now. Despise it because Hubbard lied from the get go. Yes, I had some good times in the beginning due to some lovely people…all who have said adios once I left – regardless of the fact that I gave my $,$$$ still on account to a lovely woman who is older and does believe. I will not shake someone’s faith but I also will not be a fool. I was for far too long. LRH was a total liar and DM only follows in his steps. Scn is not good. OK, maybe people like Rathburn are still conned by LRH and maybe they do need something to hold onto…but at least, from what I hear, he’s not raping people. The COS is utter rape…it is utter slavery and DM needs to be behind bars…or eternal SP hole.

      • AlexMetheny permalink
        May 26, 2010 5:35 pm

        Hi Roz,

        Ni I am not related to any of the Metheny clan. This is s made up name because I LOVE Pat Metheny’s music.

        I got that you don’t like Scn. The thing I like about being out is the open communication. I think there is a lot of good about LRH’s writings and I enjoy most auditing. I won’t pay those prices anymore though. Saying others are conned still by LRH is your opinion. In the end it doesn’t serve anyone well to be nasty. When you are rude people generally reject your ideas so you are not really changing anyone.

        Good Luck!

  3. lunamoth permalink
    April 28, 2010 6:04 am

    Thanks for the great post, Jeff. As a mutual friend once said, you are our Yoda.

  4. craig houchin permalink
    April 28, 2010 6:09 am

    Jeff, I agree with you completely. Scientology will never bring about “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war,” because, as you so eloquently point out, insanity, criminality and inter-personal warfare are the Church’s primary products, coming straight from the top. Thanks for another great post.

  5. John Doe permalink
    April 28, 2010 6:19 am

    Well Jeff…

    I don’t think it is accurate to blame utilitarian ethics, or the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” system to explain what is happening with the church.

    One thing I’ve spotted since stepping away from the church is that there is an unwritten culture, an unwritten, yet learned way to “apply ethics tech”. You are 100% accurate that the church considers itself the center of all things good and that all dynamics should align to its benefit. THAT is one of the main “held down sevens” that causes so much of the church’s actions to be wrong and creates such havoc and destruction for its own parishioners.

    This consideration, that the church is always best and right, has been around since at least the mid 70s and has only gained strength since.

    For an uptone person, the application of the greatest good way of working things out is very useful. The yardstick used to determine benefit, or good, is: Does this action or inaction promote the survival of the various dynamics, for that individual from his own unique point of view? Obviously, to mortgage your house and max all your credit cards and hand over the proceeds to the IAS cannot, in any rational sense, be considered the greatest good for the individual, his wife and children, his business, etc, etc, but the destructive consideration of “the good of the church trumps all” makes people do just such senseless acts as above.

    Why do people read and understand the concept of the greatest good, and then completely not apply it when it comes to giving money to the church? My answer: it is part of the indoctrination when you become a scientologist. Something like, “Staff know how to apply Scientology better than me, so I guess they are right”. It is not hard to see how this indoctrination comes about. The supervisor is constantly correcting one’s study tech, you go to cramming, etc. They “know more than you”.

    Now, LRH also wrote The Way to Happiness, which I think is a tremendously capable and valuable book for the culture as a whole. When I’ve given it out, I’ve noticed that the more uptone the person, the less impact it seems to have, and by that I mean, the reaction is something like, “Yes of course, this makes perfect sense and pretty much aligns with the way I’ve already been conducting my life.”

    The Way to Happiness is a moral code, that is, behavior recommended by a group or culture, vs an ethical code, which is one generated by an individual based on his own observations about what he deems is right, and what he feels is right. I have met many “wogs” in my time who live by their own ethical codes. These are people not particularly affiliated with any religion, people that have not had a bit of auditing, yet would put many a scientologist to shame in a side by side comparison of ethical conduct.

    Well, if the church was once “the most ethical group on the planet” it is evident this is no longer the case, and really, there is little evidence that it ever was the case. But let’s assume for a moment, that, indeed, the church was the most ethical group on the planet. Well, if you, as a member of such a group, considered that because you were the most ethical group, pretty much everything you did was completely right and justified, well, welcome to the slippery slope. You’ve adopted such a deleterious computation that you have shut off any ability to self-correct. And with every harmful act committed, it becomes that much harder to see, and to self-correct.

    Pretty much like the current scene with the church.

    But to blame an idea I think is not correct. Two cooks can be given the same ingredients, yet one is a tasty meal and the other is shit.

    • Jeff permalink*
      April 28, 2010 6:35 am

      I don’t think it’s a valid defense of an idea to say “well, it works okay when it is applied by sane, rational people.” Pretty much anything works if applied by sane, rational people. If an idea, such as Scientology’s utilitarian ethics, produces such consistently appalling results over an extended period of time by the group that is supposed to be applying it – and in fact is the only group trained in it…well, at some point you have to say, that’s not a workable idea. The point isn’t that some sane, rational individual somewhere couldn’t make it work. The point is that thousands of Scientologists have not made it work at all over a period of many, many years.

      • John Doe permalink
        April 28, 2010 7:00 am

        You make many good points, and I don’t disagree that that is the way ethics has been applied in the church. But if the individual is not going to decide on the basis of his owndynamics, then the question that must be answered is: who does one elect as the arbiter of what is good? Or who, really, is the next arbiter to enforce his idea of what is good?

        “Good” is continually being defined in our culture: We have local, state and federal laws in the country, and also we have religious codes. The church does not have any authority to countermand laws because it thinks it is operating for the greatest good, the will of God, or whatever.

        My point about the way to happiness is that I think this is a valid code of conduct, and if you were to follow it closely, you’d have a happy and successful life. Good conduct is defined. TWTH uses a road being traveled metaphor, not an arrival point metaphor. A means metaphor, not an ends metaphor.

        One of the valuable things about the independent scientology movement is that one can actually apply (or not apply) the tech as he sees fit. The church, and its attempts to be involved in your life that way it wants, does NOT have to be part of the equation any longer.

        So, hopefully, people can start to make some of this work. Because it has failed when applied in conjunction with the church’s arbitraries does not make it an indefensible idea

      • Fidelio permalink
        April 28, 2010 7:26 am


        EXACTLY! Thanks to put the record straight and keep it as it simply IS.

        All those meandering justifications to make deeply flawed things seem right is just tiring beyond imagination (to put it mildly…)

        My very best, Fidelio

      • Fidelio permalink
        April 28, 2010 7:40 am

        And yes, Gandhi had it right, q.e.d.

      • April 28, 2010 2:26 pm

        As I wrote to my friend, tone 41, the demand for inflexible application because something is “workable” is a flaccid argument. Cutting a lawn with a pair of scissors is “workable” but a mower is much better.

      • Another Jeff permalink
        April 28, 2010 2:52 pm

        Jeff- nailed it. John Doe- Cognitive Dissonance. Also have to add that for this ethics theory to work one has to have had case gain and actually come to love his fellow man. LRH did have an immense love and interest in others and a great ability to grant beingness and didn’t like to see others feel pain or harm, this is lost on the majority of PTS Scientologists.

      • John Doe permalink
        April 29, 2010 3:03 am

        @another Jeff.

        I think you are quite correct that one has to love his fellow man in order to make scn ethics theory work. One has to have some sort of reality on those divisions of life called dynamics, that they have something to do with you. Sadly, most do not.

        So, I guess my point is that the best way forward is to have some sort of a moral code. This is why I like TWTH. It is useful, and it IS based on common sense.

        Could this be perverted and made unworkable? Of course. Any idea can.

    • AlexMetheny permalink
      April 28, 2010 7:12 am

      Good comments John Doe.


  6. Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
    April 28, 2010 8:03 am

    From my own very personal experiences through family and other events truthfully told by others and documented, I believe the Church creates huge transgressions on its own members and denies the human and civil rights to staff.

    When staff members have to sleep standing up and are deprived sleep for 4-5 days in a row, that is cruel. It is a transgression against human rights.

    (Sleep deprivation is also used in Intelligence Interrogations as a form of torture.)

    Marc Headley’s spellbinding book reveals this as a regular occurrence at INT Base.
    FSO also have had long periods 100 hour weeks with no days off, ridiculous pittance for pay and are made to live like slaves. On the L-11, L-10 andf L-12 I had 2 different Class XII auditors who constantly nodded off and fell asleep in session, while auditing me. (At $1000 an hour !) I felt sorry for them. They are driven for production and get no exercise time or time for themselves, they are machines.

    “THE GREATEST GOOD”….is the Ser Fac.

    Present time horrific overts, denying people their civil rights, locking them in a Hall to have squirrel seances of giving up crimes and beating each other with no means of escape reduces the Church to a CULT.

    Yes Jeff, anything goes, gang bag sec-checking, slave labor, milking the slave for every ounce of production so that more $$$$ goes into the coffers and reserves so there plenty to pay the lawyers to defend the crimes. And also so Miscavige can live Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

    “THE GREATEST GOOD”….. and if you disagree you have ENEMY LINES, you are Ant-Scientology, you are SP, and perhaps you were implanted by shrinks or you have taken psychiatric DRUGS, perhaps you even have a relative in Eli Lilli or the FBI !


    • April 28, 2010 3:40 pm

      Fell asleep? My Gawd, insane working climate. Poor staff members. . Did you get something out of the Ls, were they interesting?

  7. VaD - seeking own truth permalink
    April 28, 2010 9:09 am

    Jeff, thanks for posting such fine analysis!
    The content fully resonates with me.
    KSW, Ethics and Justice policies and their application are the ones that demand closer look and re-evaluation on the part of each and every individual having been indoctrinated with them.
    History of CoS is the same as history of any other movement (be it communism, French revolution, Christianity crusades, WWI, WWII, et al). Somebody comes up with some “bright” idea that some others need to be defeated (government, tsar, dissidents, unfaithful, witches, SPs…), and tons of people are getting thoroughly fixated on this idea of getting rid of them or getting them isolated at least – “for the sake of making the world around them the better place”.

    Yet, as I see now, KSW, Ethics and Justice policies and their application is only the top of an iceberg – things most obviously contradicting to a person seeking HIS OWN truth (by observing, learning and evaluating himself for himself and trying to apply what his knowledge is).
    My presumption is that there are two kinds of knowledge: 1.knowledge which is “the truthful information” from another which you accepted and certain of, 2. knowledge that you yourself feel or observe and certain of. Contradictions in those two in one’s head may create serious cognitive dissonance if what you observe and feel is at odds what you are indoctrinated with as “THE TRUTH. Period!”
    I’ve had experienced in many walks of life having in my head much of what LRH said at odds with what I’ve seen and felt. As an example, a statement that “the world out there is dangerous place” – which is NOT the case once you stably look at the positive sides of existence and avoid being fixated on negative ones.

    So, I took and want to take up here one step further/deeper from “there are only a few things that LRH was incorrect in having stated. (Interesting re-evaluation of KSW 1 is provided by Terril Park on Marty’s blog under post “Miscavige Meltdown” – comment # is around 650 (Wow, Marty rocks the house. ) – the longest I’ve ever read but worth reading it through).
    Nowadays, I am into re-evaluating LRH himself and HIS vision of the world. Especially, his vision of what “a human being actually is”.
    We all have been indoctrinated with his vision. And I mean, beginning with Touch Assist all the way though OTVIII. You may not agree but I personally consider such indoctrination a brainwashing technique. It’s well thought over to indoctrinate/brainwash an individual with “Number of times over materials equals certainty”, “If you don’t understand or can’t apply or can’t get result or get bad result you must find MU or write O/Ws or do conditions to LRH and/or scientology”… To me, it’s “bringing LRH’s vision home no matter how different vision of individual was when he started and thus RUINING his own vision and certainty in his perceptions. Now, look, they pull you and force you in the classroom to study LRH where they can “help you find your MUs and help your fastest progress”. “It’s not good to study on your own as you can pass an MU”… etc, etc. You see, it’s all part of the SYSTEM. No church member can think that you can discover your truth any other way than study what LRH taught and in no way other than he told to learn it. And learning anyone else can “only give you false data which will impede your progress in scientology”. It’s rigged by LRH this way so as to put HIM at cause, and put you in a tight corner and at effect.
    Well, that was about application of study tech. You can’t help but accept and PUT ON on yourself LRH’s vision of the world and a human being OR you are not allowed to approach what he had to say and therefore, denied your “eternal salvation” and “total freedom” and “total power” (which, BTW, LRH himself hadn’t been demonstrating. My question on Marty’s blog under “Sarge’s recollection Part IV” as to whether anyone ever experienced and felt LRH’s “OT abilities,” stayed unanswered, which tells me something.  )

    Now, what DO we learn from LRH about what an individual is? It’s important to understand because that is how scientologist (indoctrinated with what LRH said) sees himself and others around him.
    What does he see and feel? – I’ll tell about myself but I think you can connect with it…
    I try to toss out such attitude overboard now but I will say in Present Tense:
    I see myself as “thetan”. I’m “all-powerful nothingness, cause of things there are around me. I can do anything!” I “know it”… don’t feel it and don’t have much experience of it but I’m “definitely it!” I PERSONALLY don’t know it but “The truth” is that that’s just my low level of awareness and to accomplish my eternal potential all I need is LRH and further progress up the Bridge, step by step…
    So I treat others around me as if they were “thetans” like “I’m”. And that is because “I’m a good thetan (basically).” I wish them to know what “I know” and become all-powerful like LRH and like I’m I/P.
    All THEY know (besides Scientology) is trash and “it’s dev-t to spend time pondering about other unworkable practices”. Their perceptions and their feelings (if they see some meat in other practices and teachings) are just results of their delusions and illusions. There is NO truth in their vision of the world and humans. That’s just it. If they (my friends, wife, children, father, relatives, colleagues, contacts…) don’t come to realize they are “thetans” they will just end up in “endless degradation of “endless life-death cycles”. They are “poor souls” but I don’t want them to stay this way and lead “miserable lives” while there is “this last chance in scientology to revert dwindling spiral.”
    Sounds familiar? – Well, that’s woof and warp of culture of scientology.

    Then, I have a body. And what is body? – Well, it’s “JUST” carbon dioxide vegetable. It’s “JUST” meat. I can do and go on without food. Food is “JUST” energy which can be easily generated by “thetan” without any food. I “JUST” eat because body needs it and asks for it and I (“thetan”) don’t need it at all. Meals are not to enjoy (remember “Kate and Leo”?). Then sex. Sex is “JUST” for creating new bodies. It “Just” gives you “sensations” (not pleasures and good emotions but “JUST” physical “sensations” – recognize somatic mind and genetic entity at work). Sex is low order impulse (just like food). They are both WAY low on the scale. Sex is “invented by psychiatrists”. Sex creates undesirable emotional charge.
    Then, “whatever happens to the body” – whether it ails, gets injured or hurt, well, it’s not important since it’s “JUST” a body.
    Other people? – Well, they can well do and are better off without food and sex. Quality of either is of no importance whatsoever. Even deprivation of it won’t ruin them but will only make them better. If they are ill, hungry, hurt – they just need to get over it, and I can help them with assists which will be the ONLY effective help, and they don’t need anymore from anywhere. If they die, well, they “JUST” move to another body (like my senior in Gold Office, OT IV, Gold Rep Cindy Page told me about my mother’s illness explaining that I didn’t have to take LOA to go home to Russia from LA to be with my mother when she was seriously ill before she died year later).

    And the last point – the most important one that is SO corrupted (against obvious and perceivable by any human without any involvement in scientology or any religion or movement) in LRH’s vision that it’s not even funny.
    Is there a concept of SOUL in scientology teachings? (except “poor souls”)
    IS there a human soul?
    Well, here is how LRH “nailed” it – he broke down soul into “minds”. What is mind per LRH? – “endless track of pictures and full perceptics images.”
    So what do we have in scientology instead of what other people call “soul”? We have “set of images that have certain weight some of which should be removed” for your better (even if they hadn’t bothered you until you heard they are bad).
    In LRH’s vision rough breakdown of “what soul consists of” is “analytical mind”, “reactive mind”, “somatic mind”, “genetic entity” (I may have omitted some of the “components).
    And that is THE MOST bizarre thing in scientology and THE MOST bizarre in LRH’s vision of his fellow human beings. (You don’t have to agree. I speak how I see it and don’t impose my position. Just sharing).
    With such “vision” of soul how do I deal with myself?
    Situation: I’m depressed. – LRH’s vision: restimulated engram in reactive bank.
    Situation: I love her. – LRH’s vision: that’s genetic entity in action.
    Situation: I’m angry. – LRH’s vision: that’s O/Ws showed their head from reactive mind.
    Situation: My heart is jumping out of me. – LRH’s vision: that’s reaction of somatic mind.
    On and on and on…
    With that, how do I see other’s people’s souls? – The same way I see it in myself.

    And THAT denies any compassion or love to myself and other human beings that is innately belongs in souls of any being.

    So, how can a being live with concept Thetan – Mind – Body? – Just like we see dedicated scientologists. They don’t need to see, they don’t want to deal with people non-scientologists on THEIR terms. They just need MORE scientology. They apply scientology philosophy and LRH’s visions to themselves and others – no matter how silly or evil it comes out in the end (chainlockers, overboard throwing, abuses, coerced abortions…). All that is nothing else but LRH’s visions in action. And I mean PHILOSOPHY. (Technology is something else. It’s done under good codes and on good terms to those involved).
    Isn’t that what brainwashing is all about? Isn’t is similar to Joe Jones’s Kool-Aid drinkers?

    Scientology philosophy – with denying the concept that it’s SOUL that makes a human a human (not his mind), and that it’s SOUL not mind is the source and receipt point of all the good things in life and happy moments – puts me at odd with it.
    I personally think, LRH overlooked soul in his research, and disregarded what other people have valued in others the most throughout the ages.

    The concept that a human being is Spirit – Soul – Body is way better for me. It’s more humane, to say the least.

    Therefore, I unsubscribe myself from LRH’s vision of his fellow human beings and with that from his – based on his vision – philosophy.
    I DON’T unsubscribe from is tech which DOES give people and has given me good results, but that is no thanks to his twisted “philosophy”.

    Sorry if I have offended visions of someone and sorry if my statement was too long and poorly stated. Sometimes, it’s hard to put into words (for me even in Russian) to state exactly what I feel no matter how big vocabulary is at disposal.

    Jeff, thanks for giving me opportunity and platform to vent here.

    • Another Jeff permalink
      April 28, 2010 3:05 pm

      Sorry, but you have MUs.

      • April 28, 2010 5:59 pm

        Another Jeff,
        Yes, I do. Don’t you?
        My MUs don’t make my life less fun. Are yours?
        I DO understand that I can’t know everything and operate with what I know only. Do you?
        I can agree that I’m wrong whatever right I might be in my own heart. Can you?
        I speak my own mind and not anybody else’s. Do you?

    • VaD - seeking own truth permalink
      April 28, 2010 3:54 pm

      I would like to add to my previous post.

      Re: “it’s my way or highway!”

      DM means that, church members mean that, scientologists mean that (if they don’t tell straight).
      LRH kept hammering it into my head… KSW 1 (“one can’t be half scientologist”), “open-minded” (his own definition unlike the one in English dictionary “free from prejudice, and receptive to new ideas” but with his twist to it – to ban any close critical examination of him and his teaching).

      Those who are on the list “Sources of Trouble” found open-minded easily become “enemies of LRH/scientology” when they start speaking their own views if those are not in line with those stated by LRH. That’s just the “end of them” in scientology and with any scientologist.
      One just can’t be open-minded and a scientologist at the same time.
      It’s NOT what DM originated first. It’s at the core of the subject. Year after year scientology has become more and more solidified, rigid and fixated in the hands of LRH. Culmination is in KSW 1 (1965 and from there on out).
      I tend to believe that in the early years the subject itself was more flexible (just like LRH himself was), and he himself was more “open-minded.” But that his “basic urge to be right no matter what” took its toll.

      I’ve chosen highway. I AM open-minded, and unlike scientologists, I believe it is a good thing which I cherish in myself and others. I’m glad that I’m. Otherwise, I would have kept drinking that Kool-Aid.

      I don’t think “open-minded” is bad word. It means flexible, too.

      It seems to me now that the process that LRH got himself through and the one I’ve been going through are two opposite one. He had gone from being flexible and open-minded to solidified, rigid and fixated on the “ultimate correctness” of his teachings (at least, in my/our eyes). With that he was getting sicker and had more and more phobias. His world was shrinking and his walls were becoming more and more real.
      And I’m having fun of going through the process of having been fixated on rigid and solidified ideas of LRH (being myself solid and harsh towards anyone thinking not alike) toward more flexibility and more “open-mindedness”. I’m open to anything that makes sense (except another set of dogmas/beliefs/ultimate truths).
      It’s fun! I hope more and more scientologists join me in this process.

      Am I right? – I don’t care. I don’t have to be right. And I won’t have any argument or fight with anyone who states differently or even points at my wrongnesses. UNLEES he/she becomes vicious and starts attacking me for having my views (verbally or physically). Unfortunately, scientologists can’t help but do just that. And it’s quite unpleasant to share YOUR views with scientologists. It’s much more pleasant to do with any “wog” (without getting them “to look for themselves in scientology”).


      • craig houchin permalink
        April 29, 2010 3:24 pm

        Vad, I believe you are right to be open-minded. But to express the concept more fully, we could use simply the word “open.” I am open.

        Open-minded, open-hearted, open-eyed, open to life, living and experience. I am open. I am not a ridge. I am open. I am not a black wall of rejection or denial. I am open. I neither accept nor reject. All is flow.

        I am open. I like it. It flows nicely off the tongue and through my being.

      • April 30, 2010 7:07 pm

        Craig, thanks.
        I AM open. Open-hearted, Open-eyed, Open to Reality (as it is and has been and will have become).

        Everything is a flow!
        I’m in a flow. And I like to be in a flow because ‘m PART of this flow… the flow where I can move further… whatever “further” for me it might be

    • lunamoth permalink
      April 29, 2010 3:26 pm


      This is wonderful. I enjoyed all of it. You have thought about this deeply. The one thing I didn’t expect to agree with was LRH’s use of “minds” instead of “soul,” but you make the point very well.

      “And THAT denies any compassion or love to myself and other human beings that is innately belongs in souls of any being.”

      Compassion is a huge missing factor. I certainly learned no-sympathy as a scientologist. I abandoned many of my attitudes of compassion for others over the years for just the reasons you describe, above. It’s engrained in the culture, as you said.

      The irony is that I used to think that scientology was really reaching out into society through programs like narconon, criminon, applied scholastics, and that they were making a real difference. After many years I see that their impact on society as a whole has been negligable. They exist mainly to reach out and pull people into scientology with the best possible pr, though there are many dedicated people working in those organizations who really believe otherwise. But compassion? No. I think it’s that lack of compassion, dramatized in it’s extreme in the form of a psychotically abusive leader, that is finally doing the church in.

      • April 30, 2010 7:14 pm


        Compassion for me is key ingredient of ANY equation. If there’s no compassion, then we’re speaking about some unnatural thing. In this case, it’s scientology.

  8. April 28, 2010 10:32 am

    I use to compare this with law. First you have the law of something, then you have how to interpret it. I think most of Hubbards PLs make sense (I object to Fair Game and lying), but they are applied in a very wrong way. An SP declare should be something very serious for somebody who wants to destroy the philosophy of Scientology, not for somebody wanting to discuss it. Disconnection should be completely voluntarily and useful if somebody is really antagonistic to Scientology, like being a close buddy to Mark Bunker for example. That could be a problem.

    So I would like to see MUCH less force and much MORE free will when it comes to applying these things.

  9. Grateful permalink
    April 28, 2010 1:35 pm

    I have long-since realized that Scientologists who are caught up in this way of thinking (most) are the least ethical people I know. If I am told something is true, I am pretty sure it is not. Even if someone seems to be treating me kindly, I have to wonder if there is an ulterior motive, because there usually is. True friendhip is near impossible. What a sad sad life.

    TWTH has values I can agree with – but almost nowhere is it less applied than in the C of M.

  10. Aeolus permalink
    April 28, 2010 2:10 pm

    Most institutions, at least the large ones that have been around for any length of time, seem to develop an internal culture where continued survival of the institution is the highest value. Individual members may have “other fish to fry”, but the one thing on which every member agrees is that the group must survive. Just as one example, our intelligence agencies routinely justify what we would consider criminal behavior, in the name of patriotism. In Scientology, you have the added fact that the institutional culture considers that it includes all of the other dynamics, so the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” obviously implies that the Church must be protected and supported at all costs.

    In the long run of course, violence, fraud and coercion do not do not bring about continued survival. Normal people consider such behavior to be evil, and even the most active members have to resent being treated that way. So the institutional culture starts to unravel, which we see happening right now.

  11. Karen permalink
    April 28, 2010 2:17 pm


    Now that is some real truth, I agree with your analysis and recommendations for reform. Ghandi, among others has the right idea.

  12. April 28, 2010 2:43 pm

    Sometimes I read a post that is so well crafted that I just nod, take a sip of coffee and whisper, “goodness.”

    Means are the material by which we build, and the quality of our building lies not only in our craftsmanship but our materials. A bridge of low grade concrete and cheap steel will soon collapse. It doesn’t matter that the finest architect, the best designer, the most efficient and conscientious construction crew lent their services to the endeavor.

    I left Scientology because of what you expressed in this post. I took the amazing plans with me, the beautiful blueprints of what could be, but I was no longer willing to use cheap concrete and weakened steel in realizing those plans.

    Scientology isn’t the only group using the “greatest good” scam, and whenever I hear some politician saying this I immediately realize he’s probably up to no good and trying to justify it.

    Much love,


  13. lunamoth permalink
    April 28, 2010 3:56 pm

    This post and the responses published here today constitute the best I’ve read anywhere in a long time.

    Thank you to Jeff and all the very astute, sensitive and insightful people who post here. What an oasis this site is.



  14. glh permalink
    April 28, 2010 4:44 pm

    Wow Jeff, for 30 some years I have had this quandary over the “greatest good…….” and just what the hell does this really mean. This insight explains it for me for now. I guess I just was looking to hard.
    On a related side note, I remember listening to one of David Mayo’s Sunday talks, he jested about their new “20 man ethics and justice team” to enforce ethics at AAC. The reason this was so funny was their was no such thing and people there who where there to honestly get services got them with no BS. This was one of the reasons why the AAC was such a threat to the church and had to be destroyed. As usual there was the usual church spies and pi’s, you know, the usual garbage.
    So thanks for sharing your insight.

  15. windhorse permalink
    April 28, 2010 4:55 pm

    Jeff — wonderful post. I studied Ken Wilber for awhile several years ago — he has a much different take on this old theme of “greatest good” — I recommend his 10 CD set – “Kosmic Konsciousness” — really excellent.

    I think what isn’t talked about very often is that EACH OF US, entered scn with our own hopes, dreams AND baggage and egos.

    Scientology helped to grow those dreams, as we became more competent and some of the baggage was lessened BUT the ego — wow — seems to me that scientology only helped INCREASE a very me-first ego — all in the guise of greatest good stuff.

    Those of us who have left — FINALLY said something along the order of — if I don’t leave, regardless of what will come of ME (I thought I would get cancer (didn’t) on the flight out of CW) — my SOUL is going to die.

    Or something of that sort.

    Everyone who has stayed is GAINING something they feel in their mind. They might say — it’s all for the greater good but believe me – they think SOMEHOW it’s helping their first dynamic – self.

    They are popular as a public scientologist, they have a “power over others” post in the SO, they have “hope” that their senior will screw up and they’ll be promoted etc ad nauseum.

    It’s very self oriented.

    And has zero orientation to service to others. True service to others, is self-less – without ego.

    And I believe starts to come about AFTER a person himself experiences the dark night of the soul — or his own complete and utter crash to the bottom (like leaving a wife and position after 37 years with $500.00) — and from THERE the road up — as one starts to awakening to his own true freedom and wish for others TOO to experience this.


  16. Moving Forward permalink
    April 28, 2010 5:46 pm


    I read your article and it made me realize that have still been doing mental gymnastics in relation to Scientology. It’s a 20 year habit and may take some time to break, but I’m working on it.

    “And sure, you can say, no, no, no. This is a misapplication, this is an aberration. This isn’t what LRH intended, this isn’t…”

    And I say to you, this is how Scientology is applied by thousands of staff members, Sea Org Members and public Scientologists, day after day, year in and year out. This is the culture of Scientology. This is how life is within the Church. Disconnection is tolerated. Cruelty is tolerated. Lies are tolerated. Abuse is tolerated. All for the greater good. And if it is a misapplication and a misunderstanding, then it is a universal misunderstanding and misapplication shared by the entirety of organized Scientology – for many years.”

    Yep, I have definitely said this. I still think that it’s true to a large degree, but it is endemic. I have to say that I’ve experienced too many personal gains in Scientology and so much of the philosophy that I have read is very true to me, so yes, I’ve been unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater (to use a worn cliche).

    To be honest, the extent of the craziness hasn’t been evident at all levels and certainly one gets blinded by the cognitive dissonance that occurs.

    Having spent a significant amount of time in a number of Class V orgs, I have to say that most public and staff have no idea of what really goes on in the SO. Many of the public who have left cite out-tech and off-policy, heavy handed ethics actions as main reasons for leaving — and most recently the crush regging that has become the norm. Yet what they describe is nothing compared to what has been happening at Int. Hell, even being in the SO at PAC was nothing compared to what’s been going on at Int. I had no idea until about a month or so ago that Int was anything but an idyllic place.

    However, that crazy has been leaking out more and more, pushing down the lines and now spilling out en masse on public lines, which is why more and more are either just drifting away or outright leaving.

    Oddly enough, I think now that the most on-policy and in-tech group in Scientology have been the public, probably by virtue of the fact that they’ve been further removed from the actual SPs on the line enforcing this insanity.

    What exactly the fatal flaws are in the organization, well, I certainly don’t know. Obviously they exist because of the scene we have not only today, but which has apparently been in existence to one degree or another for decades. Some thoughts I have had on this over the years:

    * The organizations are all composed of people who are, to some degree or another, aberrated. Not an invalidation, it’s just the way it is. I’ve worked at regular companies for many years and have seen enough corruption and crazy behavior dramatized that I know it’s not all perfect on the ‘outside’ either. The problem is that being on staff and in the SO so consumes ones life that the insanity gets dramatized across the dynamics — and the complete control that gets exercised opens the door wide to abuse.
    * Too many people don’t actually think for themselves, either within or out of Scientology.
    * One can pull oneself up by one’s ‘bootstraps’ only so long. No training or processing to actually help the person get rid of irrational behavior, move up in ability and really handle their underlying issues leads to more insanity. Staff and SO members for the most part do not go up the Bridge. It’s not an enemy line, it’s an is-ness.

    I’m reading Dianetics 55 right now for the first time and ran across this:

    “Moral conduct is ‘conduct by a code of arbitrary laws.’ Ethical conduct is ‘conduct out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty.’ When you enforce a moral code upon a people, you depart considerably from anything like ethics. People obey a moral code because they are afraid…

    “Ethical conduct does not mean promiscuous, abandoned or lawless conduct. It means conduct undertaken and followed because one has a sense of ethics, a sense of justice and a sense of tolerance. This is self-determined morality.”

    Clearly, ethics as applied in Scientology organizations is a huge departure from this. But why? Well, I believe that one reason is because almost all Scientologists *are* really good people who are willing to take responsibility. And this is used against them in a very suppressive way.

    It seems that it’s easy to keep beings who are reasonably ethical and responsible introverted by continuously pushing in that anything that is wrong is their fault because they are ‘responsible for their own condition’ (which is like taking an ounce of tech and making it a thousand pounds). They are willing to take responsibility for the scene. The person pushing this in on them continuously isn’t because he’s an SP. He claims ‘responsibility’ only for ‘fixing’ these problems that ‘everyone else’ creates or doesn’t handle. This is ‘Scientology’ being used to make the Scientologist wrong.

    Well, that was long. Thanks much for your insightful articles, they instigate critical thinking.

    • John Doe permalink
      April 29, 2010 3:17 am

      @ Moving Forward

      Your DN 55 quote is salient here. However, I think it is most people’s experience that “ethics” has been wielded in the most brutal fashion imaginable within the church, and I doubt there is a single person who has been around for any length of time who has not been so bludgeoned by the church with “ethics”.

      • Moving Forward permalink
        April 30, 2010 5:40 am

        This is true, and it has caused widespread blowoffs, too. However, I had not seen widespread use of heavy ethics on public until the release of the GAT, and even that I think was limited compared with what’s been happening since the Idle Org programs have been going in. But that’s only my observation, I may be completely wrong.

        I wasn’t trying to excuse corruption at any level, though I suppose what I wrote may come across that way. Elsewhere (possibly Marty’s blog) someone compared what has happened to the slow boiling of a frog – and I think that’s very apt.

        I feel that I excused much along the way. I regret now not speaking up the first time I saw and RPFer and learned what goes on there. I remember to this very day how terrible I felt for the people I saw.

  17. Mary Jo permalink
    April 28, 2010 6:08 pm

    Another example of how the “tech” described above is used to manipulate is by recruiters use of “being in the SO is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”. They speak of the “dynamics” like they are some lump in the room. Who or what are we talking about here? The prospect is reduced to zero. I had recruiters tell my daughter that her writing, her wishes to open an orphanage, her wishes to become a doctor- all were invalid when viewed for “the greatest good..blah, blah”.!!! In other words, the ONLY thing worth doing in life is being in the SO and Scientology. Because, after all, “the SO is the most ethical group” and its job is to “put ethics in on the planet”!

    Oh, and another “datum” given is- you have already done everything in life, have lived everything, the only valid thing left to do is join the SO!

    The ultimate invalidation and nullification of others, using this concept as laid out so precisely by Jeff in this post.

    And if as a parent you protest, well you are “enemy line” and you are “forwarding black PR” – wow, an individual’s right to be himself, choose his/her dreams and life his/her life as they choose is out-ethics!?

    And we wonder why SO members and even some staff members act like robotic sheep! After all, they are nothing. Only the “cause” is something.

    And now there is zero ethics presence and altitude created or generated by SO members. They are only feared, if that. But mostly, public have contempt for them. Mostly unexpressed, of course.

    The toilet is flushing– the question is, how much water is in the tank?

    • April 28, 2010 7:17 pm

      Mary Jo,
      There is somethng that goes down to even Applied Scholastics ways of teaching.
      Benitta Slaughter (what a name for a former senior of Lisa McFerson 😦 ) has created this “ultimate tech” in learning English that’s become “the only tech based on L Ron Hubbard’s discoveries”. I DO understand and can agree to some of it but when it becomes mandatory to teach people THIS way, I’m at loss. And what do I get? – Qual Corrections from those who don’t even can speak English. But they “ARE” the authorities since Applied Scholastics is THE “ultimate knowledge after all”.

      My point is that LRH thought that everyone else is just plain stupid. He’s just bananas if he doesn’t agree with the fact that it’s due to LRH and no other that this technology exists and thrives.

      P.S. At this point I wouldn’t go as far as saying the tech is the one to blame. But I certainly agree that the attitude that anything else is wrong is not correct.

    • Moving Forward permalink
      April 28, 2010 8:38 pm

      Mary Jo,

      What you write about recruitment is so very true. I’ve seen some recruitment tactics that have made me truly ill. I’m so sorry that your daughter had to go through that. Those are some really great goals that she has!

      The recruitment of children into the SO is just plain wrong. It also indicates how phenomenally broken the organization is: there aren’t enough adults to recruit? (The answer, of course, is no).

      I had a recruiter tell me to basically abandon my child to my ex husband so that I could re-join the SO; that’s what he did. My response was basically, ‘yeah, that’s pretty screwed up and it’s not happening’ and I lost any respect I had for the guy.

      I’ve never really been a ‘public’ Scientologist. I was brand new when I joined the SO, so it has been difficult for me to assume the viewpoint of a public. I have seen mixed levels of respect for SO members, but again, I don’t know how much has been left ‘unsaid’. I think that SO recruiters and those doing invalid ethics handlings invalidate people so much that they definitely aren’t respected. I have seen that many individual SO members, usually auditors and supervisors, are greatly respected. One thing I have seen for sure is growing *disrespect* for the public by ‘management’, and ramping up considerably since GAT was released.

      I’m curious if what you say about SO members being mostly feared/resented now is something that has been going on for a long time or has been increasing over the last 10 years?

      • Mary Jo permalink
        April 28, 2010 10:09 pm

        Hi MovingForward,

        Thanks for your kind words. My daughter is retaking all her dreams and dusting off all her goals. My kids are doing great and are very happy after leaving the suppressive environment.

        The loss of respect I think started when Dear Leader made everyone (and that is everyone on the Org board) become a registrar – for the IAS, the Library campaigns, the basics, etc. etc. For sure this has been in the last 10 years. ALL staff have ridiculous quotas and every call, conversation or interaction became a reg cycle. For example. when your DofP, whom you love and respect, calls you very late at night asking for a donation for something or other and you know (or some even said it outright) that they won’t “hit the pillow” that night till that quota is met, you initially help (i.e. give a donation AKA something for nothing) because you love/admire/respect them and you also feel sorry, but after a while it gets reeeally old. Then you just avoid the comm and you may even go into anger after a while. And I found myself being rude to people I never would have been rude to before– I am not a rude person! And you know what? It worked- they left me alone after that. So public and staff/SO start to communicate a lot between 1.1 and 2.0 as a normal operating basis.

        Ethics Officers are the prime regges or minimally they tag with others to get donations. It is quite disgusting. For me, it got to the point where I did not feel it was about them giving me service or taking care of me, it was about what I needed to do/give for them. It is ALL about these campaigns and only your public money funds them. Very much a stuck, one-way flow.

        The disrespect and disdain is rampant now, not just from SO/Staff towards public. It is public towards SO and staff and public against public!

      • Eleanor Gehrig permalink
        April 28, 2010 10:30 pm

        Mary Jo + Moving Forward,

        I read your comments about SO recruiters with interest and ensuing nausea. I, too, have been on the receiving end of these despicable tactics. When they came after me I could fight back, refuse and get them away from me, but when they came after my child, I experienced a whole new level of low.

        In addition to issuing threats to non-cooperative parents, those cretins will say anything to get the kids to agree to join. But the most popular (i.e., invalidative and crushing) tactic is to denigrate the child’s purpose as an artist. Seems like we have resilient kids who can see through the bs, but I weep for those kids, and their beaten-down parents, who cannot.

        When Tommy Davis put forth the spin on recruiting kids into the SO–“We don’t discriminate because of age”–I can only hope those watching him could see through the lies and as a result resolved to keep their doors closed to recruiters no matter what they were threatened with.

        I salute all the smart mama bears who don’t take any shit. From anyone.


      • Karen permalink
        April 28, 2010 11:10 pm

        Mary Jo,

        Bulle’s-eye on the loss of caring for the public.

        I was on mission staff in the late 70’s and early 80’s and then on Org staff 2002 – 2006. The main difference in these staff cycles was the care factor.

        As an org staff member, I noticed there was a lot of emphasis on stats and quotas were issued for almost everything. I personally had quotas for First Service Starts (my main post), letters out, GI ( both Div 6 and Div 2), books sold (at events it would be packages sold), staff hired, event confirms and probably many other things I can’t immediately recall.

        In the mission, comm centered around how one was doing in their training or auditing. There were books sold but they were sold because the person originated something that the book handled/addressed. Letters were written and as that was my stat at the time, I applied management by statistics and there was never a push to make a quota. This is where you get insincere letters from people who obviously don’t know you or bothered to take the time to find out about you. Or when the academy students write you because the D of T has an enormous letter quota that he alone could not possibly make and do his post.

        Scientology needs to return to CARING for the public. I think that is one reason all these blogs are so successful. They have that care factor built in.

      • Moving Forward permalink
        April 30, 2010 5:54 am

        Mary Jo,

        Thanks for sharing your experiences and insights.

        Yes, quite in addition to all of these staff being completely off-hat (I even saw Flag Reps and LRH Comms going to publics’ homes for reg cycles… and EOs and auditors regging public is just sickening), all of this non-stop regging creates an unsafe and very uncaring environment. Regging is supposed to be all about caring about the person to get them up the Bridge, but that’s been entirely sidelined.

        As for denigrating purposes, it’s not okay at all to do this to anyone, particularly children. Disgustingly, it’s just easier to overpower a child and get them to agree that ‘clearing the planet’ is the only thing they should be doing and using their goodness against them by making them feel so terribly out-ethics because they ‘don’t want to help’. It really makes me very angry.

    • lunamoth permalink
      April 28, 2010 10:17 pm

      Mary Jo

      I’m glad you brought this up.

      My experience is that s.o. recruiters are among the biggest liars around. They will literally tell a child anything to get him or her to sign a contract.

      “Your purpose in life is to be the world’s best yodeler? You can yodel in the s.o.! You can get posted at Gold and be in the church’s yodeling band!”

      What a bunch of crap. If those people still had a conscience, they would be ashamed of themselves.
      I’m not impaired in that way, but I consider s.o. recruiters to be nearly subhuman in that department. According to my sense of ethics, tearing children from their families, often through coercion, especially of mothers, is fundamentally wrong. It’s not “ethical,” it’s evil.

    • John Doe permalink
      April 29, 2010 3:28 am

      @ Mary Jo

      Good points re the outright lies told to recruit children, and the strong arming of parents trying to look out for them.

      I’ve identified a certain “think” that has been around with recruiters since at least the mid 70s. That is, to get the recruit to arrive and then by doing product 0 and “becoming part of the most ethical group”, they’ll just forget about the promises that aren’t gonna be kept.

      To a degree, this is true, because if the person “gets with the program” (read: indoctrinates) then they won’t make too much of a fuss that they don’t get to be in the yodeling band.

      Another thing I would add to this SO thread: There is SO little personal havingness when being on staff that the only real currency amongst SO staff is STATUS. It is quite amazing the snobbery one gets from “higher execs” or those from “higher orgs” or those “directly on LRH’s or COB’s lines”. It’s hilarious and tragic at the same time.

      • lunamoth permalink
        April 29, 2010 3:47 pm

        John Doe,

        Yes. The “think” you describe is the same thing I see. Even if the recruit, once in, does NOT change his own mind, the culture of the s.o. is such that one’s personal dreams and goals have no real significance to the group. One does what is needed by the group. It’s the same on staff, though there is more freedom for the individual, who gives up less of his own power to join staff. That’s not duplcated by most kids who are considering signing up for the s.o. And neither are they prepared for the fact that whatever leverage they have before they sign the contract disappears completely once they physically arrive in the s.o. All their power resides in the freedom to say “yes” or “no” to the recruiter.

        Many young people who sign do so as an act of independence, many truly wanting to help and to take on more responsibility for their dynamics. The idea of finally being a real adult is intoxicating. But once in, they are more dependent than ever on a group and more stictly the effect of its rules and barriers. Real personal responsibility only exists where there is freedom to act. What they finally get in the s.o. is a lifetime of obedience and subversion of their own purpose and dreams to those purposes of the group, as those are interpreted by others. I think that if many realized that they were signing up for a lifetime of obedience, they would never sign that contract.

    • craig houchin permalink
      April 29, 2010 3:55 pm

      Mary Jo,

      Your comment,

      “Because, after all, “the SO is the most ethical group” and its job is to “put ethics in on the planet”!”

      is, for me, the key phrase. The intent was evident in that phrase from the beginning, and I just missed it.

      It was always a FORCE endeavor to PUT ETHICS IN. The intent is to MAKE (force) others to behave in a way that is acceptable to those doing the forcing; or to FORCE an acceptable cognition in others. Either way, it’s force.

      Strangely, LRH even said that one couldn’t force ethics — then he turned around and created a para-military organization to do just that. The idea seems to have been, and I’m paraphrasing KSW, the SO would “rather have us dead than outside their brand of ethics.” We, human beings in general, are either part of the team or a waste-able part of the problem.

      That’s why compassion and love do not exist, for the most part, in Scientology. Of course there are those SO and staff members who “break the rules” and behave like compassionate human beings when they can get away with it. But that is certainly not the norm.

      Scientology seems to have been LRH’s personal battlefield where the two sides of his character, the dark and light, battled for supremacy. Sanity and goodness on one hand. Force, vengeance and cruelty on the other. It is a challenging subject to say the least.

    • earthmother permalink
      April 29, 2010 5:41 pm

      Wow, I had to get up and go outside and breathe fresh air after reading these responses. I literally felt ill.

      Eleanor, I am a Mama Bear, and woe to any recruiter who tries to get one over on me. My husband is a Papa Bear. He would leave no evidence!Having our daughter recruited is of huge concern to us. If she wants to go to a sleepover, I ask so many questions, she probably thinks I am a nut! One time she went with her buddy’s parents to an Org to help with some project. I freaked when I found out. What if there had been recruiters there? She has a big heart, and would be an easy target for them. She does not yet know to what extent I have disconnected from the COS, but will know soon, and it may be hard for her to think with.

      Mary Jo, I know your daughter, and I am so glad she is continuing with her writing and her other very noble goals.

      • lunamoth permalink
        April 29, 2010 8:29 pm

        Earthmother, is this the virtual equivalent of saying “I love your shoes” to say to you,
        “Love your avatar (what does it say)?”

        (currently shoeless)

  18. Karen permalink
    April 28, 2010 6:38 pm

    “Those of us who have left — FINALLY said something along the order of — if I don’t leave, regardless of what will come of ME (I thought I would get cancer (didn’t) on the flight out of CW) — my SOUL is going to die.”


    “And I believe starts to come about AFTER a person himself experiences the dark night of the soul — or his own complete and utter crash to the bottom (like leaving a wife and position after 37 years with $500.00) — and from THERE the road up — as one starts to awakening to his own true freedom and wish for others TOO to experience this.”

    And, YES!

    • Martin permalink
      April 28, 2010 10:47 pm

      Yes, interesting – people aren’t too able to think for themselves sadly. It’s very evident in voting patterns and intentions. A great example is being played out right now in the UK. A socialist government with 13 years history of nearly bankrupting the country is spinning its record as a resounding success. One day the opinion polls show they are a dead duck. Next day the Liberals put on a half-decent performance in a TV debate and they are the country’s saviour. Next day the PM says (thinking his mike is off) the woman he was just speaking to is a bigot, and he’s lost the election again… and so on.

      I know this is a little off-topic but I always thought democracy, as exercised here anyway, is a complete con. The government one elects never does even remotely what it promised before the election. (And actually the government we get isn’t even the one voted for anyway. In England more people voted Conservative than Labour at the last election yet somehow Labour “win”). The choice in the UK in the current election next week is between 3 parties. One would finish bankrupting the country quite quickly. Another would do it more slowly. The third one doesn’t really care as long as it becomes ok to legally bugger 16 year old boys and smoke dope in Brixton. (All completely irrelevant since the EU and IMF own Britain now anyway).

      The CofS spinning and outright lies are very similar to the current UK government, the use of double-speak and newspeak, the acceptable truth etc. Billy Connolly had it about right when he said “Don’t vote, it just encourages them”. Another bright spark noted that if voting really changed anything they’d have abolished it ages ago. Ironic that “Democracy” is foisted off on the world as the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything when it doesn’t even make any sense in the oldest democracy in the world. I guess it’s just a way of making people believe that they really can influence their environment and create an effect – a pretty cruel trick really.

      Sorry Jeff – what was the topic? Oh yes. the most ethical group. I heard our very own Dear Leader Gordon Brown use this very phrase today. Giving countless billions of our money to wealthy bankers was the “most ethical solution” – and anybody who says otherwise was either evil or stupid or both. Anybody questioning immigration policy is automatically branded a swivel-eyed Nazi. And so on.

      Mind you electing a new CofS management team couldn’t possibly result in anything worse than the staus quo – could it?

  19. April 28, 2010 6:54 pm

    * Too many people don’t actually think for themselves, either within or out of Scientology.

    Moving forward,
    You’ve brought up many good points. Among them is the one above I can understand the most.
    95% of population would rather not think for themselves but be directed.
    It’s not a scientific fact but it’s something to think of – 95% of population will fall for anything that gives them some resemblance of having “truth” in thei hands.
    It’s an instinct. And I don’t say that I’m “the other 5%”. It’s just that I’m aware that I’m among this crowd of idiots who are willing to fall for anything rather that sustain their own view.

    What I said is not political, or economics, or religious or anti-religious. It’s just this: if you take 5% of horses and excite them to run, other 95% horses will inevitably run after them (Sorry, I can’t give you referene in Russian but you can surely find it in English).

  20. Eleanor Gehrig permalink
    April 28, 2010 10:32 pm

    Jeff, thank you so much for this. You are a compassionate, intelligent philosopher who can truly see things for what they are. I look so forward to more enlightenment.


  21. Just Me permalink
    April 29, 2010 3:22 am

    Ah, ethics and morals—the easy stuff.

    And then there’s the hard stuff: How do we make decisions and solve real-life problems? What information do we seek (or avoid seeking) when facing tough situations? Are there absolute rights and wrongs, or can our agreed-upon ethical and moral codes and individuals’ resulting decisions be more complicated than that? What is the right choice when presented with a real-life Sophie’s choice?

    I have a sister who has high confidence that everything in this world is either right/true or wrong/false. Her belief system is as black and white as a French bistro tile floor. For many decades she has developed lists of rights and wrongs and can quickly judge people, movies, music, political candidates, countries, cars and couches. Although I love her dearly, she reminds me of someone I’ve never met but whose name I’ve heard more than once on these blogs—Jojo Zarwawi who’s been portrayed as one of Scientology’s mean girls, bullying Facebook friends about whom to unfriend.

    My sister and Jojo and many others whom I read on these blogs apparently no longer have to cogitate about what’s right. Their knowledge comes from their upbringing, a minister, a guru or the voice of God. However this knowledge arrives, they know it in their gut. Some schools of thought say people like my sister and Jojo are hard-wired to make decisions this way and other people are hard-wired to make decisions differently.

    I’m in that other group with John Doe—“the greatest good” camp. My world is full of grays where situations are unique and may change. In my world moral and ethical decisions may be either easy or difficult to make and, once made, are either easy or difficult to carry out. To be completely tautological about it, the easy stuff is easy and the hard stuff is hard.

    For instance, here’s a real-life decision that’s both difficult to make and difficult to execute: Should I invite my elderly mother to move in for us? For how long? Are there limits to my husband’s and my financial, energy, time, and other contributions, which we should not exceed in caring for her? What if my mother gets Alzheimer’s or breaks a hip? What if she would be miserable in a nursing home, compared to how she would feel living here with us?

    Now, just imagine I have a friend who is facing the same decision about caring for her mom. Must my friend make the same decision about her mom’s care that I make about mine before I will approve of her decision, i.e., consider her decision to be ethical and moral? Should either of our decisions be held up for judgment by others?

    Ethics and morals are the easy stuff. Decisions are not.

    Just Me

    P.S. After six years with us, my mother is doing fine. She has recovered nicely from her broken hip and, despite her Alzheimer’s, is very happy here with us at home. My husband and I are doing (mostly) fine, too.

    • lunamoth permalink
      April 29, 2010 4:04 pm

      Just Me

      I’m glad to hear you made the right decision for you, and that you’re all doing well. You’re absolutely right that the world consists of shades of gray (IMO), and I consider those who see it in b&w as being at the far end of the scale, themselves! LOL! You and I, then, would be somewhere towards the middle!

      One thing I have never been able to do, probably because I didn’t WANT to, was to to negate or diminish the importance of my first and second dynamic when consider “the greatest good.” And that always seems to have been required of me when making decisions regarding the church. This has been the basis of most of the disagreements I’ve had with the church over the years, and has fortunately kept me out here, toward the fringes of the group and not so intimately involved in the day-to-day nonsense.

      This conflict of viewpoints brings us back, of course, to the idea that whatever is good for the church is good for the greatest number of dynamics. This premise is false, as I’m sure we all agree by now.

      I’m well aware that lrh wrote that no one dynamic is more important than another, but I’m sorry, that is not true for me. At any given time, one dynamic is probably more important to me than another. I don’t think there is ever a time while I am living my life when they are all of equal importance. Does that speak ill of me? I no longer care. The external judgment of whether I’m doing this “life” thing correctly no longer holds any power over me. This is how I choose to live my life, and I grant others the right to do so, as well.

      • John Doe permalink
        April 30, 2010 12:02 am

        Ah yes…remember this slur: “They’re just so first and second dynamic oriented!”

        Well, so what? I think in Fundamentals of Thought, LRH said that some people stress one or more dynamics over others.

        It is self-evident that if one neglected one’s first dynamic, for instance, that the other dynamics would suffer accordingly. For example, one who is gravely ill is not putting a lot of create on their various groups, etc.

        The above slur, when I heard it, almost exclusively came from the mouths of Sea Org members. I recognize, with compassion, that sentiment; when a Sea Org member is working late hours, not getting proper nutrition, sleep, time off, etc. or even getting to see his/her spouse, quite a bit of resentment can and does build up against the very people they are trying to deliver service to.

        Ya know, LRH railed quite a bit about how psychiatry and psychology continues to exist only because they receive vast subsidies by the government. Well….organized scientology, historically, has only been able to continually exist due to its continued subsidy by hard working individual staff members, and that subsidy is extracted from the time, energy and money that would otherwise flow towards those staff members’ first and second dynamics! This situation is the NORM, and has been for the decades the church has been in existence. Sea Org gets cheapest possible living quarters and 40 cents and hour, if that. CL 5 org staff get 60.00 a week, maybe, for a 60 hour week. I challenge anyone to name one org that would not be bankrupts in a matter of months if they had to pay just the minimum wage!

    • Just Me permalink
      April 29, 2010 7:29 pm


      Many thanks for the response.

      Last night after posting I had another thought about this topic Jeff brought up for our consideration — the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. For the first time it occurred to me that all eight dynamics serve as a system of checks and balances.

      In other words, respecting and honoring each of the dynamics keeps us from going off the rails and becoming (ahem, literally) unbalanced.

      Just Me

    • Karen permalink
      April 29, 2010 9:47 pm

      Just Me,

      Great story and great example.

  22. Mary Jo permalink
    April 29, 2010 6:40 pm

    Wow – what an amazing thread!!

    I realized something after reading the last posting (thank you Earthmother, and hopefully soon you will be out and end the continuous threat of false recruiting this group poses to kids).

    Disconnection is the consistent operating basis– Inside, if someone is ill or had an accident, they are “out-ethics” and we shun and disconnect (i.e. we avoid and let them “take care of it with ethics or in session”). If we are in disagreement or question anything (on policy or not), we are sent to ethics and removed from the group till we fess up and pay up. The RPF is a disconnection. Anyone other than a Scn is “less than”, and that is a disconnection from society!! If family or friends don’t agree with Scn, then we must “disconnect” even of it is in the form of “Fair roads-good weather”. And the list can go on and on–

    It is all the opposite of “embracing, confronting, helping”!

    So disconnection is there all along- -not just when you are declared! As far as that area is concerned, there are for sure shades of gray in the church. Anyone not freely communicating or expressing themselves is disconnected already!!

    How can that be what is needed to get “case gain” or improve conditions around us? It does not add up, does it?

    • Karen permalink
      April 29, 2010 10:47 pm

      What a great observation. I hadn’t thought of that before but it has truth to me as well.

      My first thought was the world begins with TRO. The power and simplicity of applying TRs to life seems to have been bypassed for these other handlings, which I think are valid, in the right situations.

      It has been my observation that people are basically good and when I talk to someone with that in mind, I find that most ARCxs are a result of some form of miscommunication. The TRs have been my tool to locate when the understanding went out and repair it. This has been so successful in my life. When I apply basic TRs, things are really pretty smooth. I myself am a very light touch on the handlings person. It does not take much for me to notice a change in the level of ARC and correct it. Some of my most effective handlings of problems were as a result of simple 2 way comm. There is no need to disconnect as solutions come easily.

      Likewise, I think that most people want to do the right thing. Granting beingness and given enough data to correctly evaluate the situation, people genaerally choose to operate in prosurvival ways.

      Screaming, force, and out ARC Comm draws in one’s anchor points. I think the other handlings come in to play at these times provided the person is not given false or unevaluated data. Also if a person is highly keyed in, a quiet space away from others might help calm them down.

      • Freedom Fighter permalink
        April 30, 2010 11:59 pm

        Spot on, Karen, absolutely spot on!

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 1, 2010 5:47 pm


        It was seeing people like you operate in the world, and being the recipient of such beautiful theta, that first told me that scientology had something wonderful, real and completely magical to give. Thanks for reminding me.

        As we go along this path we’re on, we are all re-tasting and re-evaluating all that we’ve held true for so many years. Your post is a good example of what is valuable and what should be preserved of what we are now holding at arm’s length and re- examining.



      • Karen permalink
        May 1, 2010 11:10 pm


        It was actually the rehabilitation of this beingness that resulted in my returning to staff in 2002. After receiving some very incredible, intensive auditing, I found within me was a very theta person. Every aspect of life was wonderfully beautiful and I knew that I had discovered pure theta, me. It was an overwhelming discovery that I wanted everyone to be able to experience.

        My ARC was so high that I was in a completely effortless band. Those were the good days. One day things changed. I was hit with too much force and spun into a suppressive implant. It was the first time I’d ever been aware of it happening as it was happening and I reacted because of it. And I got slammed for having case on post and was thrown into lowers. Unfortunately I had gone appetite over tin cup on the whole incident. The full result was devastating and I was off post for over a month. When I finished up my lowers, I was able to get a review and handle it. The whole experience was very eye opening and I had many life changing cogs. It was very interesting to see the dichotomy of theta and MEST in regards to one’s case.

        That was the first of many “too forceful” communications. I roller coastered like crazy for years while trying to get the correct tech in on my life. I did FPRD, PTS/SP, Ethics handlings and cramming, all to no avail. It was bizarre to be almost unlimitingly powerful and then completely unable as a result of another person mood. My biggest barrier was that I had an “unacceptable” item and even though I knew that this person was not an SP, I was the effect of them nonetheless because they habitually had low toned comm. At one time, I had reached a snapping point and blew the area. About a month later, I was recovered in a correct recovery cycle.

        At that time I was able to have my item be accepted and I don’t quite know how I managed it but someone else became by senior (a middleman so to speak). Things were glorious for quite a while. Real magic occurred. All I had to do was “be” and people walked into the org for service. Some real heady stuff I tell you. As we headed toward the stretch of achieving Ideal Org my buffer slowly disappeared and gradually the my senior changed and the force came back and degradation kicked in, entheta building up once again.

        It was while reading Science of Survival again that I found myself again. What I understood about myself, ARC, theta and MEST was all there. One thing that really stood out for me was the cycle of theta impinging into MEST, gaining knowledge and experience. It helped to discover something helpful in this whole enturbulating cycle that was my life. But, eventually there is death. As things became unbearable again and I found that I was behaving more as a degraded being than my true self, I realized that my survival depended upon removing myself from the source that was drawing away the theta in me. I’d blown through all the failures of abandoning LRH and realized that I was no good if I was ineffective. My survival depended on the degree of ARC that I can create in my life and on my dynamics and I was not able to do that in the church.

        As I held the phone at arms length, listening to my senior screaming at me how I had better have such and such product by the time she got back…I had decided, it was time to leave.

        It has been more than four years and I have not roller coastered since then. I am now able to use what I know on all of my dynamics. I am surrounded by people who although they lack the tech of Scientlogy grant more beingness than what I experienced as a staff member. I have absolutely no problem handling my own dynamics and am able to help people, getting them to examine the greatest good for their own dynamics using what I learned about ARC and life.

      • Mary Jo permalink
        May 2, 2010 1:12 am

        Karen! What an incredible story- here is a classic example of how it is the wonderful, caring and valuable members that are being blown off this group! Thank you for sharing this with us — I had many similar thoughts that led me to leave and to do so noisily– it had to be heard, even if it wasn’t listened to by the cult. Many others did hear it.

        The world is so much a better place for your journey, decisions, courage and integrity- thank you!

        There is a great definition in the Tech Dictionary –
        Unhappy person – One whose acceptance levels are continually being violated. (UPC 13 5046C)
        Universe Process Congress- Process of exteriorization – 1954

        One of the most brilliant definitions by LRH, in my opinion…completely changed my life! And I continue to use it, it has become an operating tool for me. This is a good one to “chew” on.

        Hugs to you-
        Mary Jo

      • Karen permalink
        May 2, 2010 2:06 am

        Mary Jo,

        I love the fact that every day is an opportunity for me to discover something new. Today, it was the definition of an unhappy person. I have never heard of that one before and it was very real to me. It’s in the “keeper” box to share with someone else on another day.

        Thank you for your kind words and all you have done to speak out. It takes courage to do that, an attribute I admire greatly and possed by many independents.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 2, 2010 2:17 am


        That’s just remarkable. You are certainly persistent, and I’m very happy for you to have
        finally freed yourself from the quicksand.

        Undoubtedly, you’re a valuable and valued member of your current group. People need
        that to be happy. I’m glad you found it.

    • John Doe permalink
      April 30, 2010 12:05 am

      Wow! Good point. We are supposed to be expanding on our dynamics, but in practice, we are disconnecting from them, bit by bit!

    • lunamoth permalink
      April 30, 2010 12:09 am

      Wow, that’s one I hadn’t seen! Ha! You’re right!

    • Moving Forward permalink
      April 30, 2010 6:38 am

      Really great insights and you’re totally right! It’s so much more pro-survival to treat people with affinity. I’ve never understood this need to ‘kick someone when they are down’ and shudder to think when I have acted in this manner. There’s just no need to treat people so poorly. It doesn’t serve them or any of us well.

  23. April 29, 2010 6:48 pm

    Nice. As a proponent of deontological ethics, I didn’t expect this blog of all places to speak up against utilitarianism and quote Gandhi. Good work.

  24. Just Me permalink
    April 29, 2010 8:52 pm

    Mary Jo,

    Yes, I agree — “embracing, confronting, helping” certainly seems to be at the core of a successful life.

    In fact, I can’t think of a single dynamic or aspect of life — personal, family, friends, work, citizen, nature, creativity or even “God” — that doesn’t require entanglement.

    Life is sexy, theta, messy stuff!

    Thank you,

    Just Me

    • Mary Jo permalink
      April 29, 2010 9:42 pm

      Thanks for all your comments Just Me. My mother had Alzheimer’s and you are doing a beautiful thing taking care of her and your family.

    • craig houchin permalink
      April 29, 2010 9:47 pm

      Just Me,

      I want that bumper sticker! Ha!

      “Life is sexy, theta, messy stuff!”

      • lunamoth permalink
        April 29, 2010 11:55 pm

        I just got it tatooed on my, er, body.

  25. April 29, 2010 10:12 pm

    Would like to share my new realization here.
    May be it will help someone else or you.

    I’ve been wondering for some time now WHAT exactly kept me stuck to scientology. Even now – I’m “compelled” to read and post on the subject.

    And I have parallel here with scientology. It’s communism.

    How DO you control people? – LRH says “lie to them.” But that is, as I see now, not the full answer.
    You keep them carefully wrapped in MYSTERY.

    Fathers of communistic ideas set forth the ideas of communistic society, “communes”. It’s based on utopia. It’s mysterious and appealing.
    These ideas are somewhere beyond “borders of reality”. So, they get people who doesn’t ACCEPT existing reality into followers.

    Same here with LRH. He created bunch of ideas beyond anyone’s “borders of reality” and said “it’s attainable”. I mean, detailed descriptions of states of Clear and OT, his own “whole track adventures”, “knowledge derived from the whole track” – like org board and Qual… On and on and on… It’s all mysterious and seriously appealing (like “The world without war, insanity and criminality.”
    No wonder people fell for it.

    And you keep them in mystery and feed them lies and some minor truths.
    THAT gives you total control of an individual and group. As long as they are mystified believers he’ll stick to it. And do most weird stuff (from POV of an outsider. Being inside you wouldn’t notice anything strange with it).

    One example of mystery in action is auditing/sec check.
    Have you ever wondered what your needle was doing, what was the auditor writing there, and what was he/she REALLY thinking at the time he was (not) auditing you? Did you want to know? Could you know? Did it keep you interested in further auditing actions (as given by C/S whose C/Ses from his “Ivory Tower” are no less mystery)?
    One is not allowed to see his PC folder, his E-Meter reactions. It’s Mystery. Doesn’t IT keep one glued to the subject of more “discoveries of self to your auditor”?

    Meanwhile, one has to “stay connected to the source” and hear or read more of his mysterious “discoveries and “breakthroughs”.

    I think LRH carefully plotted scientology and procedures this way so person is surrounded by total mystery that “opened its doors only to the ones human being” (out of several billions) and that person (scientologist) shouldn’t ask questions and get answers but listen to LRH and follow laid by him path.

    The proof is this: once you know the truth, you are not stuck to a theory that gave you that truth. You have it and you move on in life. None can control you after you have it.
    But if you don’t have it, you can be easily controlled “to get more…” of the same stuff.
    And you WILL want to buy more if you are mystified and electrified by the source about it, won’t you?

    Just food for thought about “having to belong to the most ethical group on the planet”.

    P.S. Ah! an answer to get unstuck from scientology will be, I believe, in full acceptance of reality and world as they are (even if it as it is is not good enough to your mind). And if something needs to be changed, it should be done with that one thing not “the whole world”. IMHO

    • Minerva permalink
      April 30, 2010 3:36 pm

      When I left the SO, I re-read some of Carlos Castaneda’s writings. One of the things that Carlos said his mentor explained was that a person should choose a “path with heart”. Carlos asked, “How do you know if the path has heart?” The answer: “The path will teach you how to NOT NEED the path and will set you free.” (I’m paraphrasing — this is what I got out of it.) In looking at my experience with scientology (and forays into other religions), I realized that none of them wanted me to learn from them and then MOVE ON. They all had some hook — I would have to follow their “teachings” or “practices” forever. If I did not trust my own ability to make decisions, whether ethical, financial, or personal, I would ALWAYS have to turn to them for an answer. I now know that no one has all the answers and that it’s hard to be on one’s own, but it’s truly the only way to know what is right for me. And it’s actually more fun than always looking to someone else, especially Hubbard (who I worked for briefly). His life was most definitely not a good model of his “philosophy”.

      • John Doe permalink
        May 1, 2010 7:51 pm

        Good points. BTW, you’re not that other Minerva, are you?

      • Martin permalink
        May 2, 2010 9:19 pm

        Unless you are an OSA missionaire Minerva, a change of monika might be advisable!

        BTW this thread is in danger of heading into the “legendary” section along with The Bridge to Nowehere. Fantastic stuff!

  26. April 30, 2010 4:03 am

    Jeff, this blog post of yours has proven yet again to be another case of “swimming in the deep end of the pool.” We might also call your blog the deep thinkers corner. Hey, all you commenters…what a wonderful job you’re all doing. Great comments!! Comments that not only enrich but also bring portals into manifestation that open into some potentially incredible subthreads. Alas, I only have time enough to read but not time enough to pick up some of these nuggets of gold and run with them. However, if not running with them here they are still very much influencing my ponderings. So, thank you all very much for the inspiration and evocation of the profound.

    Now, speaking of the greatest good for the greatest number…personally, I consider that notion to be not only enormously limiting in scope but it’s also a critical component of an effective control operation. A while back I wrote a blog (sort of lengthy) wherein I spotted what I think (at least until I make some other discovery) to be the KEY component of this universe and all that implies. IMHO, this observation goes way beyond “the greatest good for the greatest number.” I didn’t set out with a purpose to look for this. Instead, I set out to find myself a new label. Since after 30+ years of referring to myself as scientologist and then arriving at a point where I no longer wanted to do that, I went looking for a new label. If you’re interested here’s the link to the blog:

    • AlexMetheny permalink
      May 1, 2010 2:51 am

      Hi Monte,

      I read your article on Optimumism. It was real good. A good blend of thinking and the result seems to be a real comfortable fit.


      • May 2, 2010 2:43 pm

        Hey Alex,

        Thanks for checking out my blog on optimumism and much thanks too, for your kind words. I do believe that there is a “just right”, an optimum state of balance, for everything. And, if ALL that exists were to be brought into a condition of optimum balance there would be serenity. And, as I write this I’m thinking to myself that maybe this is THE GAME. Maybe what we’re doing here is playing a game with the objective to put a very out of balance universe into balance. Notice that I did not say “back” in balance. I’m inclined to think that this illusion that we all seem to be so invested in, was out of balance from the very beginning. Then after we enter…ummm…I’d better stop here.

        Side note: Usually, when I post blogs on that site where you read my blog (a local site) I do not get so many kind words. Instead, more often than not, I am ignored. I suspect that this could be due to the circumstance of me obviously not being of the same “reality” as the collective here in Fort Smith where I live. I believe that both myself and my wife, Joy, are just “too much” for this environment. We are Being too much and we are Communicating way too much. Also, we won’t go away. We’ve been here almost 9 years now and were still considered strangers. And as you know, people are strange when you’re a stranger when you’re a stranger people are strange. 🙂

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 2, 2010 8:46 pm

        Ah, yes, Monte, many of know what life is like “when you’re strange…” All I can say is,
        Embrace it, Baby.

        I love your musings on the optimum balance in the universe, and would go a little further to say that truly optimum balance would be stasis, and so would signal the end of the game! But I do believe that the pursuit of that balance is the force that drives all existence.

      • AlexMetheny permalink
        May 3, 2010 5:12 am

        Hi Monte,

        I can see that you are a Jim Morrison buff. I too am enchanted by the electric Shaman!!

        Have you ever heard (I’m sure you have) the song Horse Lattitudes? That is a cool song, pretty eerie, but some real nice poetry.

        I can see how you could be too much for your area. But you are right on my wavelength and on a lot of others wavelength also. It’s rarified air. At least I like to think we are special people… I still believe in thetans and I do have some abilities that others do not have. I do think that I honed some of those abilities through Scientology.

        Keep on writing, we enjoy it, you rider on the storm.


      • May 11, 2010 1:38 am

        lunamoth, “embrace the strange” So true. And, I always have. For me, being “strange” to others was never an introverting factor. However, if anyone ever considered me “normal”, that would most definitely introvert me. 🙂

        Also, lunamoth, I agree…achieving stasis would signal the end of the game! I feel, though, that we are going to have this game for quite a while (illusion time) longer. Side note: people sometimes ask me why I refer to human life, the earth, the universe and so on as an illusion. My reply is given in terms they can understand. I just tell them that eternity by definition is without time – no beginning and no end. But, here we are with all this time in our lives. Thus, we are obviously in an illusion that, for whatever the reason, exists within eternity. This is a new thought for them. Gives them something to ponder. 🙂

        @ Alex, yes, I do like Jim Morrison and the doors. I do know the song Horse Lattitudes, in fact, I just went to YT and listened to it. Like you noted, eerie, but some fine poetry indeed!

        Alex, we may or may not be “special” people…I really don’t know about that but I would definitely say that we are different. We march to a different drummer than many. You consider how many people over the years that you’ve see or I’ve seen or many here have seen that have walked up to the door of Scn but never stepped over the threshold. Then ask… why us? We not only stepped over the threshold we set up house, ordered new drapes and furniture. In other words, we weren’t going anywhere. We had come to stay and were here for the duration. Yeah, we’re somehow different and while I would like to think that we are special too…I’m not certain about that.

  27. Soderqvist1 permalink
    April 30, 2010 7:06 am

    I am little sad to see that so many people here have so much bypass charge on application and close to no reflection about fundamentals, may I quote Socrates?

    ” .. If he did begin in error, he may have forced the remainder into agreement with the original error and with himself; there would be nothing strange in this, any more than in geometrical diagrams, which have often a slight and invisible flaw in the first part of the process, and are consistently mistaken in the long deductions which follow. And this is the reason why every man should expend his chief thought and attention on the consideration of first principles: —are they or are they not rightly laid down? and when he has duly sifted them, all the rest will follow. ”
    (Socrates, per Cratylus by Plato).

    I have done just that went back to fundamentals and considered if disgusting tings like the “greater good” even “the greatest good for the greatest numbers of dynamics” can have any sound deduction from basic principles? And my answer is a resounding YES! And I have thusly seen that the “diagram” nowadays is an aberration, or deviation from those fundamentals, but strange enough said fundamentals can be found on CoS home site, but the organization doesn’t care! Then what are these fundamentals? The first Axiom is Survive, and the rest follows, and I have even written an essay, or a short reply about it, the essay in question are talking about “fussy” logic which is a subset to infinite valued logic which can be found here as scientology logic 7.

    My Essay or Reply

  28. ButterflyChaser permalink
    April 30, 2010 3:52 pm

    Wow. Such great comments from all the posters here.

    Although there were many “breaking points” for me in Scientology, the concept that “the means IS the end” finally busted my last tether. I wasn’t reading Gandhi, I was reading Krishnamurti and I remember the actual moment of cognition which hit me like a punch in the gut. Suddenly, I knew that Scientology, as it was currently being practiced, had no chance of clearing the planet and, indeed, was adding to the collective negative energy and poisoning this earth.

    In addition, Krishnamurti introduced me to the concept that what was going on in one’s mind (or soul) would be projected out from him and into the world. LRH had touched on this, but it wasn’t given due importance. Inotherwords, if your mind was full of anger, agitation, force, etc., then you would manifest this out into the world. So, it’s an extension of “the means is the end.”

    I realized that, if this were true, I was generating a tremendous amount of negativity as my mind was a jungle of monkeys constantly fighting and chattering at one another. I was filled with a tremendously toxic inner dialogue which basically was a self-imposed “thought police”. Because I was so afraid to have a “negative thought” about Scientology or any Scientologist – that’s all I seemed to have! In addition, I always felt that somehow, I was out-ethics, or constantly committing overts of omission because I wasn’t “doing enough”. Yes, I was smiling on the outside, but on the inside, I sounded like a crazy street bum screaming on the corner. So, if you have thousands of “inner crazy bums” walking around – how exactly do we end up with a “world without insanity”? In order to have peace and love in this world, there needs to be peace and love in one’s heart. Simple.

    After being out for around a year, my mind finally became quiet. After three years, it’s still quiet. And for the first time, there are spring blossoms of REAL love and compassion for my fellow man. And, finally, some actual UNDERSTANDING. “The means is the end” is a datum which I always hold dear to me as it has completely tranformed my way of thinking and operating in this world. Thank you, Jeff, for seeing it as well – and writing such a beautiful article on it.

    • Mickey permalink
      April 30, 2010 7:17 pm

      Oh, ChaserofButterflys…, whoever you are, echoed in your words exactly, I mean exactly, what happened to me. Lots of inner conflict (those “inner crazy bums” – perfect description!) that reached a boiling point until I said, “I am not doing this anymore.”

      The idea you expressed as learned from Krishnamurti is universal. The Buddhists, Hindus and most of the early “old age” mystics speak of our outer world being a mirror reflecting back what is in truth our inner wishes, thoughts and is all that need be addressed. How one works with this concept is as varied as there exist separate individual minds to ponder such. There really is no “New Age” wisdom. And there is no such thing as a universal theology/religion/route out, only a universal experience of arriving.

      What has been so beautiful about removing ourselves from the mentally controlling factors of the church, is we now were free to explore other paths. I have seen many people on these boards share their tale of voraciously reading all sorts of books, exploring other wise teachers and for the first time realizing there exists a plethora of other more gentle spiritual means toward the same ends, that being a state of inner peace, which I believe is all any of us really ever wanted. I read once that the peoples of the world will never live in peace until they have individually come to an inner peace.

      Thank you again for your inspired words. And to Jeff again, for this rich blog-place of meaningful gatherings and mindful meetings.

      • lunamoth permalink
        April 30, 2010 11:52 pm

        Mickey & Butterfly Chaser

        You both gave me goosebumps.

        You have evoked the awakening of some very deep wisdom I had forgotten was there. Holy Christ. I feel like Indiana Jones. Man, that stuff was dusty, too.

        A couple of freakin’ jedis, that’s what you two are.


      • ButterflyChaser permalink
        May 1, 2010 5:15 am

        Wow, Mickey –

        Another kindred spirit. Sometimes, there are so many intelligent posts on this site, I feel like I can’t really contribute anything beyond what has already been said. I’m glad something I attempted to articulate resonated with you.

        Thank you for your beautiful post. I’m right there with you.

        From one crazy bum to another. : ) XO

    • Mary Jo permalink
      May 1, 2010 10:59 pm

      OK, I have to add my WOW, you guys and gals! I find you all saying what I feel and think and even expressing realizations I have had, even verbatim~! I am in such admiration of you all! It is like we are having a REAL conversation here, and a very intimate one, at that. Now THAT is the power of a great blog, Jeff!

      Thank you all, this whole thread is a keeper and it will keep on going, I am sure!

      As Craig said, “Sanity and goodness on one hand. Force, vengeance and cruelty on the other. It is a challenging subject to say the least.”

      And I love doing the archaeological digging and the shedding of layers in the company and with the support of such brilliant and compassionate people…with every layer of untruth we shed, we expose a beautiful one of truth of our own.

      Love and hugs to each and every one of you!
      Mary Jo

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 2, 2010 2:19 am

        Boy, do I second that!

        I have no idea how I would ever find terminals of this caliber in my daily life, if not for the
        blog you put here, Jeff. Thank you so much!

      • John Doe permalink
        May 2, 2010 7:27 pm

        This is one of the best conversations I’ve had in a long time. I can’t think of any other bunch of people I could have this conversation with and feel as understood and as able to understand. Thank-you Jeff and everyone!

  29. April 30, 2010 6:21 pm

    Folks, you’ve got to stop me somehow… because I’m coming up with more and more of realizations.
    Here is another one: defined by LRH word “Reality” (it’s a part of “ARC trinagle”). “R” is YOUR “Reality”. It’s not what’s around you at all. It’s what you THINK is real.
    Now I’m kinda comparing what I feel and think with what the world around me does. And I don’t mean “the world in genegal”. I mean, my students, friends I speak with, girls I adore (and want to get in my bed).
    “MY reality” and “THEIR reality”… what are they? I thought they were “mental states”. And I mean – LRH described that “if two people see there a brown table” and another one sees there gray elephant, it means that he is just clinical case… (out of Reality).
    It’s good to have your own reality. Yet, there is some reality OUT THERE – beyond you and me. And THAT reality is just REALITY – we have to accept it and deal with it… without self importance attached to “being the cause” over that reality….

    Reality just is.
    We learned in scientology that “reality” is “what you agree with”…

    Well, I see now that such concept of reality is VERY poor. Reality extends beyond any concepts you can accept…
    So, it’s better to accept it as it is.
    How to deal with it – it’s the next question….

    P.S. I’m not sure it was exactly forwarding the topic. Jeff, forgive me for some added inapplicable data if you can…

    • Jeff permalink*
      April 30, 2010 7:09 pm

      VaD, I’ve noticed the same thing you mention – some odd definition of the word “reality.” I finally figured out that Scientologists sometimes use the word “reality” when they really mean “belief.” So when they say, “my reality,” they are really saying “my belief.” Try substituting the word and see if that makes more sense.

      • April 30, 2010 8:24 pm

        “My vision” is the better word for “R” in “ARC”

      • Mary Jo permalink
        May 2, 2010 4:38 am

        OMG Jeff, you have created a monster with this posting!! I have 4 comments in the queue and I continue to have realizations. This one is a combination of the thread about “reality” and the video that Monte posted about the right brain and the left brain. Joanna (my daughter) is writing away a river of realizations she had from watching that video – life changing realizations! So whoever has not seen that video, stop and do it, really! It is way below on this thread.
        So REALITY is what the majority agrees on, which makes a perfect “bank”. So if the MAA and the CS and the auditor, basically all the staff, who are all following “command Intention” say that you have to donate to have the Church own big and obscene buildings, well, that is the reality. So you do it as otherwise you are “crazy” – and they have a way of “fixing crazy” all the way to New OT VIIIs (and it is not cheap). Ask any OT VIII that has returned to the Ship lately. So you are really being implanted, like the toad in boiling water. And forget about “actuality” – that does not really exist- because if you originate you are in debt, as an example, and have actual problems, they are made nothing of. After all you are OT and you can handle these things. I had someone scream at me saying I was out-ethics because I did not trust my OT ability to pay off a credit card for a huge sum of money that wanted me to give them (I won’t use the word “donate” — that is so not what we really do!). So that is enforced “reality” and you had better think with the group or else.
        So nothing out of something and something out of nothing. Reality as brain-washing and manipulation and mind control.
        And it is “belief” to the degree that you go into that delusion. Actually, you must be delusional for the whole thing to work.
        So yes, when you take back you life, your viewpoint, your own observation and experience, you can then step out of that fixed “reality”. Life is what it is, it is fluid, it changes, it adapts, grows and morphs. It is life so it is alive. And boxing life into simple definitions is really a short-change. It is a rip-off.
        It is so good to finally be out of that confined, even if made of glass walls and ceilings, cage.

      • May 2, 2010 5:31 pm

        Mary Jo, I can’t help but be immensely intrigued by your daughter, Joanna’s “river of realizations, life changing realizations!” I’m incredibly curious as to what Joanna is seeing. Perhaps she would be will to share some of her realizations here on this thread, either directly or via you. Just a thought. Well, okay…I admit, I did add a bit of intention to the thought. 🙂

        Mary Jo, you wrote…

        “Reality as brain-washing and manipulation and mind control.
        And it is “belief” to the degree that you go into that delusion. Actually, you must be delusional for the whole thing to work.
        So yes, when you take back you life, your viewpoint, your own observation and experience, you can then step out of that fixed “reality”.”

        … that’s a great description of reality! The tragedy or beauty (relative terms) of delusion is that while one is deluded, one does not recognize the delusion as being a delusion. A while back I came across a description of delusion by LRH that really communicated to me. He simply stated that delusion is an imagination that is out of control. As I look through my track in Scn I can now see that my imagination was very subtly (I never once recognized it being done) usurped and my imagination came under the control of the church. Thus, I became delusional. I became “brainwashed.” I’m happy to report that my imagination is steadily coming back under my control but I also recognize that delusion runs deep and has many, many layers to it. That noted, there is probably more imagination to recover and bring back under my control than I could possibly begin to “imagine.” LOL!

      • Joanna permalink
        May 2, 2010 8:47 pm

        Hi Monte,
        I’m definitely excited about sharing my realizations on this awesome forum, but I’m traveling out of town tomorrow. Give me a day or two to figure how to edit down my notes (currently 5 pages!), and I’ll be sure to post as soon as I can. 🙂
        Thanks so much for posting that video!
        And thank you to Jeff, for providing this safe space where we can heal.

      • May 3, 2010 12:18 pm

        Well Hello Joanna!

        This is a wonderful surprise! So glad to hear that you are excited about sharing your realizations here on Jeff’s blog. I can’t wait! But, I will and I really look forward to reading your post!

        Thank you.


    • May 1, 2010 4:37 am


      First, I’d like to say that you’ve been kickin some butt here on Jeff’s blog! I’ve enjoyed and benefited from your posts immensely. You are open and you are flowing!

      It’s funny though, when you picked up “R” and began to pull it apart and look at it and question it some of my yet to be disabled, (as ButteflyChaser put it so well) self imposed thought police circuits rose up in protest. “No, no, no, no, no” they screamed. It is not okay to mess with the “R.” The “R” is sacred! “Stop, stop, stop, stop…” the thought police circuit was yelling as I pulverized it into oblivion. And then I said to myself…WTF was that doing in there?!

      VaD, you wrote…

      “We learned in scientology that “reality” is “what you agree with”

      …so true VaD. We learned that reality is what you agree with and what you agreed with was what LRH presented for you to agree with. On one hand he talked about the importance of looking, inspecting, examining, comparing, thinking for yourself, arriving at your own conclusions, having your own truth, being a free being and a lot of other good empowering, liberating ideas and that would be his “right brain” reality. But, on the other hand, his “left brain” reality, (ooh..the thought police sure don’t like any reference being made to the brain. Those “brain boys” are really south…POOF…there goes another TP circuit) he wrote policy and tech that prevented you from looking, prevented you from being open to any ideas other than his, prevented you from inspecting, examining, comparing and so on. And, if you did look, examine, compare and arrive at your own conclusions…if what you looked at, examined, compared to and finally concluded did not fall within the boundaries set by policy or didn’t happen to be in “R” with his policy or tech…well, then there was Qual or Ethics that could be used to bring you back in line with the fold.

      Interestingly enough, Scn is constructed, patterned after and presented in a manner that parallels the construction of the human brain with two seperate hemispheres. The right hemisphere frees you while the left locks you up.

      I was led to believe…Yes, I said believe. When I entered into a began to progress along the scn path of spiritual enlightment, I was led to believe (and I chose to believe) that LRH had, after eons of working on how to free a being, had finally found the way out. And, it was the ONLY way out. Scn was all embracive. It was senior to anything and everything. It was the way home. It was the way back to knowing and understanding. Like Jeff mentioned, I called this notion that I gradually grew to deeply believe in “my reality.” My “R”. But, it wasn’t my reality it was my belief and I couldn’t tell the difference. Even worse, though, than confusing my belief as my R…I also began to consider what was only my belief, to be a state of KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING. Consequently, I didn’t even bother to look, examine, compare and so on, at so many components of life that I should have been. Why look? I had all the truth there was in Scn. All I had to do to go “home” was to buy the next course or the next auditing action or the latest new edition of a book or new compilation of lectures or donate to Super Power, Preservation of the Tech Project, etc., etc.

      Damn! This thread and all of these profound comments have really shoved a lot of stuff around in my universe. I’m beginning to think that if I am ever going to keep any of the workable parts of scn to use in life that I am first going to have to throw it all out window then later go out and sort through it all and take what I want. Like the title of Jeff’s blogs states…I’m leaving Scientology. That said, it appears to be a gradual process.

      In regards to right brain, left brain…here is an incredible video of a brain scientist doing one hell of a job at articulating her stroke and what happens with her brain as it happens. If you haven’t yet see it I highly recommend doing so (it’s 20min 11sec). I’m adding the url but the video might show up (I haven’t yet figured out why some videos embed on a comment and others don’t when adding the url).

      • May 1, 2010 7:55 am

        Monte, you are so good at articulating my thoughts. Wow! 😉
        I love you, man!

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 1, 2010 11:17 pm

        Oh, Monte, I was not prepared for that.

        That. Made. Me. Weep.
        With joy.


      • Mary Jo permalink
        May 2, 2010 1:59 am

        Monte……your words expressed my feelings and thoughts so well and then you took it all to a whole new level with that video! Watching that was a profound spiritual experience!! I love this woman! She give me much to meditate on; so much that rings true and that I can learn from and apply !
        Thank you SO much for sharing that! Wow.

      • Heather G permalink
        May 2, 2010 12:24 pm

        But, it wasn’t my reality it was my belief and I couldn’t tell the difference. Even worse, though, than confusing my belief as my R…I also began to consider what was only my belief, to be a state of KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING.

        Bingo, Monte.

      • May 2, 2010 5:02 pm

        @ VaD – I love you too man! You are inspirational in your unbridled free rolling state. You’ve got marvelous infectious energy (good stuff) Btw, thanks much for opening up the portal to the big “R”. REALITY is proving to be quite a productive subthread in this big “dig” we’re all engaged in.

        @ lunamoth – I hear you girl. I wasn’t at all prepared for that either! I didn’t weep but I did have more than a few solidly fixed ideas get tossed spinning into midair as if they were pizza dough being pulled out by centrifugal force to fit an extra large size pan. 🙂

        @ Mary Jo – Thank you. And yes, I too consider that watching Jill Bolte-Taylor was indeed a spiritual experience! Her story, particularly how she told her story, so passionate and animated, unearthed and brought into my view this unacknowledged veritable disdain I had for the brain and vaquished it. That was wild! A good friend of mine had sent me this video several days ago and there it sat unwatched until late Fri night. Truth be told I was torn between watching the video or continuing to read blog comments on Jeff’s and Marty’s blogs. I’m glad I watched the video. Once I got through it and was in a “WOW moment” I instantly had the thought that probably many who come here to Leaving Scn would also like to see this. But…the question was, “How do I tie this into the thread without it being a glaring non sequitur?” Then I began to respond to VaD’s comment about reality and I suddenly (for the first time) saw LRH and Scn as clearly being wonderful demonstrations of the right brain and left brain functions. A perspective that I would’ve never arrived at had I not watched Jill’s incredible articulation of her stroke just moments prior.

        Mary Jo, if you wouldn’t mind, I would love to hear more from you about what happened as you watched this video.

        @ Jeff – I’ve already mentioned this a couple of times but I want to reiterate that this is one REMARKABLE thread!! The beings that come here and comment on your blog posts Jeff are truly explorers in the fullest sense of that concept. And it seems that every new comment added just opens more and more avenues to investigate. I see this thread and it’s many subthreads and subthreads to subthreads and so on, as having a lengthy life span. I know, as time permits, I intend to return and travel through as many of these portals as I can and share my perspective and thoughts on what I experience as I do.

        Thanks Jeff for creating such a freeing and safe space in which to travel through the “looking glass.” And to each and every one of you who add your perspective, thoughts and stories to this most incredible journey…I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the enormously and wonderfully enriching experience that you’re giving me!

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 2, 2010 8:50 pm

        Don’t know what you’re using on those circuits, Monte – mortar and pestle? Gamma rays?
        Super Soaker? – but I want one!

      • Mary Jo permalink
        May 4, 2010 8:47 pm

        Hi Monte– wow, it is getting hard to find where to answer all this back and forth comm–! This thread rocks!

        Here is the answer to why I felt it was a spiritual experience to see the video on the stroke– the woman managed to communicate so well something so intensely intimate to her. It was a communion that occurred, a profound connection.

        I also have immense admiration for her- her discipline, her education (education makes one intensely curious) and the fact that her love for her brother and wanting to help others in similar situations saved her life. It is very hard to put into words such experiences and whenever someone does, I am transported to their special space.
        Which leads to the point that this particular post and thread has created a special communion between all of us commenting and I am sure with those who are participating quietly. It is a thing of beauty!

        Oh, I wanted to share that I use the search function (Control F) and write the date to find the recent threads – it makes it fast! 🙂

      • May 11, 2010 1:53 am

        Hi Mary Jo!

        I apologize for my tardy ack. That said, thank you so much for taking the time to elaborate on how and why the video of Jill telling her stroke story communicated to you. I really appreciate your unique perspective as it provides me with “angles” I had not yet considered but now do thanks to you.

    • Heather G permalink
      May 1, 2010 3:12 pm

      VAD, it’s quite awesome observing you reaching so many important realisations. I think this one about reality is a vital one. There are things that just ARE, irrespective of what we think about them. A sane mind sees things as they are, knows that they don’t see everything, and sees too what they can do to bring about change.

    • May 2, 2010 5:34 pm

      Jeff, Monte, Mary Jo, lunamoth, Heather G, Minerva… those who read and didn’t post…

      It seems to me we are reaching great state of soul-to-soul contact/communication/talk…
      I have had thoughts building up in my mind, and they are coming from somewhere I can’t tell. But they are good thoughts on the subjects I posted. (And – No, I’m not on drugs. ONLY beer. 😉 ) I wouldn’t call it “spirit-to-spirit” or “thetan-to-thetan” or “mind-to-mind” since those would be marked clearly in my mind “You have an incoming message from…” 🙂
      I dare say it’s an unconscious contact (as opposed to conscious contact – with words, objects, symbols or sounds). I believe soul is our unconscious (which brings up the point that – if LRH was such an eager beaver to remove from us the entire unconscious wasn’t he trying to remove our soul along with that?)
      It’s not new for me to have an experience of unconscious contact prior to the contact conscious. Most remarkable I had was with Charlotte Geisler (receptionist at Gold, wife of Eric Geisler). She was high-tone person. We both could know and feel each other’s contact and subject for talk BEFORE one would call another. Now I have similar experiences with some high-tone students (they pick up my thoughts or I pick up theirs and state before).
      I think it’s both natural and very pleasant (to have one’s reality across without forcing it down someone’s throat and vice versa). Though I’ve never had such contact across such a big distance I can comprehend it and open to such.

      “Greatest good…” I was Qual Word Сlearer for some 2 years in Moscow (before leaving for LA). I did Word Clearing on staff (mainly) and public (for money). Also, I did FDSing (amazing tech, BTW – in or outside of scn). And ALSO I did (successfully) “Exchange by Dynamics”. About last one: I couldn’t and still haven’t figured out, was LRH talking about dynamics as “urges” or dynamics as “entities”. I read some in Expanded Dianetics and got even more confused (there he gives 5th dynamic as “body”). I still can’t understand how I can do Exchange by Dynamics to myself – should I consider 3D as a “my group” or “my urge toward groups”. They have been two different things… Good thing is that I didn’t enforce my questions onto my “PCs”, and so they had wins anyways.

      My belief is that we need to RE-educate ourselves about CORE concepts of life (from other sources) against those given to us by LRH (I mean reality, ethics, morals, love, life, freedom, will, responsibility, … much more in Tech Dictionary).
      Since we took up “reality”, I’d recommend to read in “your friend Wikipedia” article about reality:
      It was very educative for me (comparing what I believed in to what people say. And I mean not some clique but some good thinkers).
      Another one worth checking out would be “ethics” (I read about it in Encarta Encyclopedia while in SO in 1999, and couldn’t forget my feelings about “how the hell LRH could ever get over that one?… or that one?… or that one?…” Well, I was a believer so I justified he was Genius!
      I believe it’s hard to just “throw scientology out the window”. It takes some time and effort to overcome that self importance attached to “my reality” which kept each of us stuck to scientology’s numerous principles, lectures, books, bulletins, policies… (Hubbard’s reality) for so long.

      Sorry for such a long post. I will give some more thought to reality and post on my blog next door. Your comments will be welcome.
      I will take up the subject of interaction of “Realities” and how to get over it toward unreserved acceptance of it (if I can).
      I think I will have to get into Tao somewhat. But I’m not limited to Tao.
      (Yet, I’ve loved the idea – from before scientology – “Great man’s mind is similar to a mirror. It perceives and reflects anything but doesn’t keep it”. )

      Vadim Dolgov
      Moscow, Russia

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 4, 2010 4:16 pm

        VaD and other participants of this mind meld:

        In coming back to this site occasionally to see what has been added since my last visit, I somehow missed this post. It’s a good one!

        I want to comment on your #1, above. I am experiencing this, too, and because I am, I know that others are, as well -Haha !



      • May 4, 2010 6:08 pm

        Yuppee! 🙂
        We are tracking for real then.
        Many of us are on the same wavelength.
        And it’s a great feeling that to be in minority but not alone even if “You may be a minority of one, but the truth is still the truth”. – Mahatma Gandhi (stolen form Marty’s blog)


  30. May 1, 2010 12:22 am

    Wow! And more WOW! This thread just keeps on giving. Okay, I’m now gonna switch metaphors. “Deep end of the pool” is being pushed off the table and is being replaced with….”archeological dig”…you are all digging deep and unearthing much that warrants further investigation.

    Side note (and a bit off topic): I belong to the Socionomics Institute - – and I receive a monthly update from them. Their update came in today and the first item was this:

    “Where do dictators come from?

    Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot are now among the most infamous figures of the 20th century, but at the time they had hordes of supporters. Could the same impulse that brings dictators to power also be behind Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 court-packing bill or Britain’s ongoing domestic intelligence efforts?

    In the just-published April Socionomist, Alan Hall puts authoritarianism under the socionomic microscope in the first half of a two part study. He gives you a look at the history of authoritarian regimes since the birth of modern liberal democracy and clarifies shifts in what’s considered socially, politically and morally normal. He shows how a populace sets the stage for an authoritarian regime. You also get a startling look at the “New Wave” of authoritarianism with surprising surveillance proposals from the French National Assembly, Council of the European Union, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”

    I haven’t even checked it out myself yet but I thought it might be of some interest to some in the group assembled here. To find out more click the link provided.

    It’s supposed to rain tomorrow. If it does I plan to settle in on this blog and outflow a bit. So, if you see me here tomorrow you will know that it is raining in Fort Smith, AR.

  31. sherrymk permalink
    May 1, 2010 8:16 pm

    I’ve been reading all the insightful intelligent comments on this blog post for days trying to figure out a way to contribute since, as soon as I think of something, someone else writes it. Butterfly Chaser: astounding and beautiful post as well as the many others of you, Monte, Lunamoth, etc.

    Jeff, you’ve once again, brought to light excellent food for thought regarding “the greatest good…” , a KEY button for anyone who’s every tried to evaluate their own life’s dynamics against this “datum” esp. when it comes to anything regarding the C of S. Right/Wrong..if it’s got to do with any C of S agendas…there’s no way to come to a “right” answer that would contradict the “agenda of the day’s” “Greatest good for…”. One more control mechanism that started out as a seemingly fairly simple way of looking at ones actions and being able to evaluate if one is doing the right thing, that “right” being what the person himself determines.

    But I started to look at how this “greatest good for the greatest number….” really became distorted for me. It was when I got onto OTVll back in 1990. From then and moving forward all the way to 2008, the concept of “greatest good….” took on a whole new meaning. When you are indoctrinated into believing that, by auditing on OTVll, you are taking responsibility for literally MILLIONS or BILLIONS of other beings and are freeing millions or billions of other beings from the shackles restraining that freedom, then ANYTHING you do, any decision you come to, except for getting onto and moving through OTVll, becomes so minor and meaningless in comparison, that you just can’t think anymore. Your family? How minor compared to millions. Yourself? How selfish compared to millions. A gardening club? How ridiculous compared to an “event to get people onto the bridge”, etc etc. You get the idea.

    So what became the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” came to have only one “right” answer. And it was, in my opinion at the time, hard to justify any other “right” or “good”. Should I go on that vacation with my husband? NO, how dilletante. Should I go visit my daughters? How could I possibly miss an event, or the 6 other mini events after that. Pretty insidious stuff when I look at it now.

    Just some thoughts…

    • John Doe permalink
      May 1, 2010 10:48 pm

      Actually, Sherry, you’ve set off another round of thought in this matter for me:

      First, the idea that a person could decide correct behavior for themselves, based on their own lives, their own dynamics, without need for interpretation from others, is a powerful idea. Actually, a magical idea. It bestows upon the person the benefits and responsibilities of being King of Your Own Life.

      Alas, if it only worked out that way. Because of the interplay and connection of dynamics, there are a myriad of agendas that all the dynamics generate and throw toward each other. For example, with a husband and wife, “Let’s go to the movies” might be countered with “I’d rather go out to dinner”.

      One could go insane trying to use the concept of the greatest good wondering if it was better for mankind, plants and animals, the physical universe, etc. to determine if one should go out to eat or go see a film! But one can look at one’s spouse and see that they really kinda need to just go out to dinner rather than go see a movie, and decide it is okay with you to see a movie later.

      Thus, for me, when I stuck to the first 3 dynamics mostly when making important decisions, without being “glib”, those decisions came out best.

      I never had enough of a grasp on the 4th through 8th dynamics to enable me to really use them in decision making for myself. Thus, when I might be doing a doubt formula, I would just glib it over, with the expected “correct” responses expected by the church.

      To me, here is where it breaks down: IF you weight all the dynamics equally, the idea becomes unworkable, and opens the door for the set-up of a control mechanism. A clever person (and even not so clever) could convince one that the nebulous 4th through 8th dynamics were actually arrayed against your 1st through 3rd. (“Sorry, 5 to 3, you’re not going to the movies OR out to dinner, you’re gonna come and do call-in for the event…”)

      To put it crudely, the 4th dynamic doesn’t give a shit whether or not you go to the movies, so why should it have an equal vote in the matter as do your wife and kids?

      Shouldn’t it be obvious, for example that equally weighting the 8th dynamic with the 1st dynamic, when making an important decision is ludicrous! Isn’t it rather arrogant that you, as a human, decide what is best for the Supreme Being? And how could the dynamic of the spirit find it best that you made such a decision for yourself that left you, personally, spiritually crushed?

      To make this work, in your decision making, you have to stress more heavily the first three dynamics, ie, those areas of life you actually can control and directly influence in measurable way.

      I don’t think this is the way the church wants you to interpret it though…

      • Mary Jo permalink
        May 2, 2010 12:08 am

        Oh John Doe, the whole subject of insanity, of creating insanity… now THAT opens up a whole new huge door! I’ll come back with thoughts about that one!

  32. lunamoth permalink
    May 2, 2010 2:31 am

    John Doe

    I’ve been there, in that exact computation, a thousand times! The problem with someone at the org telling me that it’s the ‘greatest good” for me to come in and do call-in, to use your example, is that
    he has two false premises: First, that anything furthering the goals and purposes of the church is the
    greatest good, and second, that the dynamics HE’s looking at are the same dynamics I’M looking at.

    My first and second dynamics, and many of my third dynamics, are my own. He and I do not share them. Therefore, unless I’m willing to be bypassed (as in, I’m in a condition of Danger on those dynamics), I cannot allow him to make decisions for me on my dynamics. The other thing you
    touch on, of course, is that something that substantially impacts my first or second dynamic, such as
    missing my daughter’s birthday party, is much more significant and potentially damaging to that dynamic than it would be to my third if I didn’t come in and do call-in because I was going to be at home for that birthday celebration.

    But really, the whole question is moot. No argument made by any staff member, ethics officer, MAA, or Int executive can counter the fact that I no longer believe that scientology is necessary for the survival of the planet, nor that it is even capable of “saving the planet.” And the idea that the
    greatest good for mankind and every other sector of the universe lies in our tireless, self-sacrificing efforts in support of the church, is just ridiculous at this point.

    • sherrymk permalink
      May 2, 2010 8:10 am

      Amen Sista Luna de moth!

    • Mickey permalink
      May 2, 2010 2:46 pm

      Collectivism vs. Individualism — another perspective as regards “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

      When it was my time to boldly move away from the external demands and pressures and constant conflicts the church had become in my view, one of, if not the biggest “undoings” I needed to sort out was deleting the guilt I carried most of my time in Scn over wanting to put the 1st dynamic of self (the individual) before the 3rd dynamic of the group (the collective).

      No need to elaborate on this particular feeling as we all experienced it somewhere along our journey in Scn. It’s a given, part of the package and is the ONLY pounded-in idea that perpetuates the group and it’s battles both within and without itself. To paraphrase: “Such an idea and the ensuing battles mark the backward digression of our kind”.

      It was the reading of this Creed of Freedom and the underlying principles discussed on this website (note: though political in orientation, the concepts were for me applicable also to the church….just substitute “church” for “state” and “members” for “citizens” when reading the Creed and you’ll get the point) that finally gave me the correct perspective. The rediscovery of the validity and recognition of an individual’s rights over the group’s was a major turning point in my recovery of self (which became buried). I knew it… instincts were correct after all!

      Wouldn’t it be a wonderment if the new direction of those still wanting the Scn pathway embraced such a creed, in place of “the greatest good for the great number” screed…..

      Here’s the link:

      • May 2, 2010 7:19 pm

        You always come up with some serious things to consider. I like it a lot!
        This time you said:
        “…the guilt I carried most of my time in Scn over wanting to put the 1st dynamic of self (the individual) before the 3rd dynamic of the group (the collective).”
        – I had the same feeling, brother. Still working to get over it.

        And then you said:
        “The rediscovery of the validity and recognition of an individual’s rights over the group’s was a major turning point in my recovery of self (which became buried). I knew it… instincts were correct after all!”
        This one I cherish, too. I TOO had myself buried under other people’s implications and ideas of what is right. Perhaps, because I wanted to be not worse than them.
        And my instincts have become more “conscious” over the time…

      • Mickey permalink
        May 2, 2010 9:48 pm

        VaD….thanks. It was the below part of the Creed that majorly lead to the major turning point of which I spoke. I took some license and substituted a few words to make it relevant the subject being discussed here:

        I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the church; for if the church has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
        I believe that a just church derives its power solely from its members. Therefore, the church must never presume to do anything beyond what individual members also have the right to do. Otherwise, the church is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of it’s adherents.

    • May 2, 2010 7:33 pm

      Lunamoth, you are good thinking for yourself person! I love you!

      Your words: “I no longer believe that scientology is necessary for the survival of the planet, nor that it is even capable of “saving the planet.” And the idea that the
      greatest good for mankind and every other sector of the universe lies in our tireless, self-sacrificing efforts in support of the church, is just ridiculous at this point.”

      I would like to post the same link I had posted before. It’s George Carlin.

      • May 2, 2010 7:36 pm

        “The planet is fine! The people are f@%&ed!” 😉
        (That’s a part of George’s comment on our “reality”).

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 2, 2010 11:51 pm

        Thanks, VaD!

  33. May 2, 2010 5:46 pm

    lunamoth, you wrote…

    “I no longer believe that scientology is necessary for the survival of the planet, nor that it is even capable of “saving the planet.” And the idea that the greatest good for mankind and every other sector of the universe lies in our tireless, self-sacrificing efforts in support of the church, is just ridiculous at this point.”

    …and in doing so you spoke my thoughts. Now that’s a delusion to free oneself from. Thank you very much lunamoth.

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 2, 2010 9:03 pm

      Thanks, Monte. I’ve felt that sentiment for a very long time, but not until responding to something being discussed here did I verbalize it.

      Like so much of what I write here, it IS my communication and my words, but it’s born of the all the ideas expressed before it by the rest of you sweet geniuses on this blog.

      • May 3, 2010 12:39 pm

        lunamoth…”it IS my communication and my words, but it’s born of the all the ideas expressed before it by the rest of you sweet geniuses on this blog.”


        Using the archeological dig metaphor…

        When I come here to Jeff’s blog I become the “dig.” Jeff’s article is the gateway in and all the comments from the assembly of wonderful, bright, talented and profound beings here (the archeologists) are the pickaxes, sifters, brooms, shovels, etc., that go to work on me “the dig.” Consequently, much get’s pried out from where it was buried, brushed off and revealed. And I assure you that only a fraction of what is exhumed here ever manages to get to the page as my comment as I can’t even begin to confront converting such immense concepts that arise into words on a page or screen.

      • Mickey permalink
        May 3, 2010 4:32 pm

        So Monte……write a book! Could be the new next phase to your self-discovery journey!! (Unless Jeff keeps this blogspot alive time enough to complete the search!!) 😉

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 3, 2010 6:19 pm


        The analogy of an archaeological dig is apt. Because all the wisdom and greatness is all there, buried in each of us. We are excavating it, and doing it together is a thousand
        times more fun and rewarding than each of us scratching away at tons of rock, alone,
        with our little dental picks…

      • John Doe permalink
        May 3, 2010 11:44 pm

        Sometimes, while digging, ya find a coprolite or two. Best to keep digging…

  34. May 3, 2010 1:00 am

    Been off laboring through my honey-do list before my wife imposed her version of “the greatest good” on my humble backside. Took a few moments to scan this article’s responses and realized I would have to return for a better look.

    In my recent experience, I have concluded the “greatest good” is always served when you feel joy. Joy is my yardstick. The amount of joy I can provide is my reward for living. When you can fill yourself and the world around you with joy others are affected. And the world becomes better. And the joy spreads. Economics, accomplishments, obligations, duty all pale (ultimately) to how you feel. What good is any gain if you are made miserable in the gaining?

    Reality is awareness. Without awareness there is no reality. And the essence of reality is the meaning we assign to what we experience. Reality is that merger between you and experience, when your awareness embraces the experiences and gives it significance. And the significance you give the experience is what provides its value or lack of value.

    Now, back to transforming winter’s devastation into spring’s paradise.

    Much love,


  35. May 3, 2010 3:21 pm

    I disagree Jeff. I find the concept of greatest good on the greatest number of your dynamics a good concept, unless you let another evaluate for you.
    DM can even justify his criminal act of beating or harassing someone with saying that “the person pulled it in”. It doesn’t make the cocept that you get the things you pull in with your thought any less workable.
    So similarly “greatest good on the greatest number” of dynamics got misused. Right, it’s been a long time, even before little Davey sneaked in, but ditching this concept from Scientology would IMHO make more harm than good.

    • Jeff permalink*
      May 3, 2010 4:26 pm

      Do you believe that the ends justify the means?

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 3, 2010 6:08 pm


      What needs to be remembered in this evaluation, is that ethics is a PERSONAL thing.
      It is not up to the church as a whole, via policy whether official or unofficial, nor any
      individual, to tell me what is most ethical for my dynamics, nor for me to tell you.

      Are others entitled to discuss their viewpoints with me? Of course. It’s sometimes beneficial to
      have another viewpoint and to have the chance to verbalize, and thus more fully examine,
      one’s own.

      But when an institution or a culture starts codifying what is “ethical” for me, that’s a moral code.
      And that is what has happened within the church; the word “ethics” has come to mean the moral
      code of the church, an institution bent on its own material survival at the expense of the spiritual beings it professes to be helping.

      I am sick to death of the moral code within the church. It does NOT embody contemplation of optimum survival for MY dynamics. Look at the condition of those still inside and those recently out. Having been both in and out in the last 12 month period, I can tell you unequivocally that out is better, that is only since being out the I have experienced true spiritual freedom and what is actually a renaissance of self. Add to that only after getting out did I pay off my bloody debts and so am no longer one paycheck away from being homeless!

      By redefining that word “ethics” to mean the moral code of the culture of scientology, beings are being controlled, to their material, emotional and spiritual detriment. So when you use the concept of the “The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics,” just be sure you’re using it on yourself, and that you are truly contemplating the ethics of the solution, not an action/ommission of action based on a deeply flawed and twisted moral code.

      • ButterflyChaser permalink
        May 3, 2010 8:19 pm

        Lunamoth –

        Once again, you have communicated what’s inside my head – except your words sound much better than what’s rattling around up there. Thanks again, Luna, for your valuable insights.

      • Mary Jo permalink
        May 4, 2010 12:05 am

        AMEN sister!

      • Mickey permalink
        May 4, 2010 4:11 am

        You know moonmoth, your piece brought to light something interesting. When you consider the “greatest number of dynamics” part of this formula, the first dynamic loses EVERY TIME. Anything after 1 is a greater amount (number) by definition. When figuring the “math” (forget for now the “greatest good” part) and knowing when you apply this you better come up with a higher sum total than 1 (yourself), what happens is you suffer a loss personally as an individual, every damn time! It’s impossible to not dump on yourself in this “calculation”.

        (Hope you get what I’m saying here. Our ah-ha moments are really ultimately for ourselves, so if it ain’t resonating, well, so be it. 😉 )

        Some more:
        No wonder over my many years in Scn, I eventually felt I was loosing my-self. This mechanism of this formula is exactly WHY! It’s a built in slow-burn wrecking of self as one reckons with this concept. What a subtle control point. It sounds lovely and might work in an honest and self-less world….but in this one, no way…..the self gets dumped upon each time a life decision is filtered through this.

        Wowser! Thanks for the…… whatever it was you said. This blog is a lot more fun!

      • May 4, 2010 12:35 pm

        Mickey, your comment to lunamoth, while not being the same Ah-ha moment for me, has definitely pulled the concept of the Dynamics up for me to now take a fresh look at. No doubt I will be pondering upon this throughout the day. Much thanks.

        Btw, your point about eventually losing “my-self” certainly resonates with me. Self pretty much got assimilated into the Scn collective third dynamic as did all the other dynamics. Ummm….

        Yeah Mickey, you most definetly brushed some dust off something that I need to have another look at. 🙂

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 4, 2010 3:11 pm

        I DID get that MIckey, and you added something to it for me, too.

      • May 4, 2010 9:52 pm

        I completely agree with you. What is ironic is that this is STATED in the introduction to ethics by LRH and that he explained many times how ethics became morals and what ensued.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 5, 2010 1:45 am



  36. May 3, 2010 7:03 pm


    Because words have different definitions, confusions in usage ensue.

    To any rational person, the ends will always justify the means. Always.

    But, “justification” in this sense is not defined as making excuses for criminal behavior or abuse.

    To “justify” means to serve as grounds for. Wanting to be a painter (an end) would justify my buying paints, brushes, canvases, and all the materials needed to pursue my art. Wanting to be a painter would also justify my study of how to apply those materials and would justify my hours of practice in learning to apply those materials.

    Take any goal and that which you do to reach it is always justified by that goal. Your question really becomes one of honesty and truth. An honorable end will never justify dishonorable means. Never. You can’t make a marble statue out of horse shit no matter how much you polish it.

    Corrupted means corrupts the end. Only staying true to that envisioned end will bring realization, and only by incorporating uncorrupted means can you achieve an uncorrupted end.

    So, corrupting the means will corrupt the end. Thus, the end will never justify corrupted means. Never.

    The ignorant may not differentiate between corrupted means and honest means. But what rational argument is “ignorance?” That the ignorant corrupt reason and do stupid things in the name of reason gainsays reason? That the ignorant do ignorant things claiming rationality is suddenly grounds to disclaim the tools of reason as useful? I think not.

    The rational response to ignorance is to learn to differentiate between marble and horse shit. The correct way to build a house is to use sound materials assembled honestly with craftsmanship. And learn to throw out the junk.

    Would wanting to be a painter “justify” stealing materials? No. Wanting to be a criminal would justify theft. Would wanting to be a painter “justify” taking another’s paintings and claiming them for my own? No. Wanting to be a fraud or impostor would justify that deceit.

    Too often our language offers one word with huge disparity of meaning. But the disparity is based on a commonality. Both meanings of “justify” are rooted in the concept of a perceived rightness serving as a basis for action, behavior or position.

    Then they split off. One moves to truth and honor; the other to lies and dishonor.

    The end always justifies the means. It is up to each of us to discern the difference of our ends and the means required to reach these. Honesty or lies? Ignorance or intelligence? Honor or dishonor?

    Much love,


    • Jeff permalink*
      May 3, 2010 7:47 pm

      Michael, IMHO you’re mix-n-matching two systems here. You say that the end justifies the means as long as the means are “good,” but the end doesn’t justify the means if the means are “corrupt,” to use your term. And that good and bad are determined by the person’s own individual, rational sense of good and bad. Well, that’s a deontological system – the moral worth of an action is determined by the individual’s conception of right and wrong. In a utilitarian system, the moral worth of an action is defined by its outcome or consequence. Thus things like lying, mistreating staff, disconnection are judged by their outcome, the supposed protection or furtherance of the church.

      I think in a way we are saying the same thing, as you obviously do not agree that corrupt or abusive means are justified by the result. Which is exactly the point of my critique of utilitarian ethics as practiced by the Church.

      • May 3, 2010 9:16 pm


        My intent is to differentiate, to tease apart what is good and right from what is bad and wrong. And yes, we could debate what is “good” and what is “bad.” Philosophers have done such forever. And not a single logical argument has ever made a difference to a lover who looks into his soul-mate’s eyes and feels heaven emerge. Nor has the gibberish of words made a difference to a mother holding her new born and feeling a bond so ancient and profound as to be indescribable.

        Words are tools, and used with discretion they serve a purpose. They can be used to inspire, instigate, implore, condemn or whatever we choose. And the effect is dependent not only on the perspicacity of the reader but the perspicuity and skill of the author.

        And you are a skilled author.

        And I was moved by your article, and agree with its sentiment.

        Yet, as I wrote to you in another post about “war,” seeming contradictions can be equally or nearly equally true. I saw the horror of which you wrote and the base injustice you described. And I walked away incensed.

        But, as I worked in the garden, planting flowers and restructuring landscape elements, I considered a broader application. Lies are usually based on truth. Exposing a lie is only half the responsibility. One should also expose the truth beneath the lie to fill the void remaining. Life seeks balance. In homeostasis, the organism seeks to re-balance what has become unbalanced. And, without truth, we often fill the void with another lie or a corruption of a truth.

        Mixing and matching is not such a bad thing. I’m eclectic by disposition. I sometimes find myself, jaw dropped, when experiencing the genius that can take disparate elements and recombine them into something pleasing. Chefs, artists, writers–you name it. Life does not have to be predictable to be enjoyed. For me, the unpredictability adds to the pleasure.

        I’m not sure if that phrasing (mix and match) is apt here. I tried to un-mix two ideas that had been matched. I tried to differentiate the two distinct definitions of “justification” in an attempt to reveal the truth beneath the lies.

        You did a wonderful job of exposing the lies of justification, Jeff; I merely wanted to add a possibility for those who might wish to explore the idea further. And that possibility is that we all pursue our ends with a means, and the means can be as honorable as the end.

        I’ve seen some play on the subject of data analysis and the data series. But, give an assortment of data to a hundred individuals and you will get a hundred different outcomes. The individuals doing the analysis all differ in experience, temperament, intelligence, predilection, and a wide range of factors. Ultimately, it is the analyzer that is more important than the data. A keen intellect can extrapolate precise and predictable results from a few data whereas a fool will misunderstand and misinterpret and patch together a quilt of nonsense from all relevant data available.

        Having data is far different from using data wisely.

        And having a stable datum which we have come to cherish because it answers so many questions is never grounds for maintaining that datum in the face of reliable but contradictory data. We would all be wiser to hold our truths dearly but be willing to change those ideas as new information develops.

        I keep no sacred cows.

        But, if the milk is tasty, I’ll certainly use it on my cereal, mixing and matching the flavors to my benefit. And my children’s. And for all those who like milk on their cereal.

        For those who like neither milk nor cereal, I have no quarrel.

        So, I agree with you: “l’ecrasez l’infame.” But, in the meantime as it crumbles, I’ll cultivate my garden, sip my lemonade and enjoy the gold finch visiting the bird feeders and the koi drifting across the pond waters.

        With love and admiration,


      • Mickey permalink
        May 4, 2010 4:31 am

        Thanks Jeff and Michael. This blog has such instinctual intelligence of mindful thought and contemplation. I got the best of both of you two. And it was all done with a light touch and respectful acceptance of one another. So cool…..

        This is the model of sharing and community that all who read and post here on Jeff’s blog get to experience. Great stuff!

  37. Arlo permalink
    May 4, 2010 3:37 pm

    When I first encountered the information about the “dynamics — the urge to survive through …”, my immediate thought was that a person could only have success or strong survival on their dynamics if they built from the bottom up. That is, the first dynamic had to be the strongest and most secure which would make it possible to have a thriving second dynamic, from which one could reach out to the third, and so on. It always seemed logical to me that the 1st and 2nd had to be enduring and hearty if an individual wanted to participate in the 3rd dynamic (and beyond). The way it looked to me was that these first two dynamics established a foundation upon which everything else was built. It also provided a safe refuge if things got “difficult” out there in the rough world. I, like many of you, began to lose sight of self and personal goals and marriage partner and hearth and home when the hard-hitting reg cycles were in play. AND I KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING. I FELT MYSELF GETTING LESS AND LESS IMPORTANT. BUT I BELIEVED WHAT I WAS TOLD.

    How could you ever have a strong marriage (relationship, family) if you were feeble or complacent? How could you engage in a stable group if you yourself were weak or had a screwed up home life?

    See what I mean?

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 4, 2010 5:56 pm

      Absolutely, Arlo!

      I have felt this instinctively, too! And it was invalidated at every turn, sometimes by me. And it occurs to me now, thinking about what you said, that what one gets when the third dynamic is always more important than the first two is a HIVE MENTALITY, which produces followers who blindly follow their leader – which is exactly what you have in the c of m now!

      I have been asking myself, why don’t these people (still in the church) think for themselves, and the answer is THINKING FOR ONESELF IS A FIRST DYNAMIC ACTIVITY. And within that group (one of the elements that makes it a true cult), thinking for oneself is often “counter intention,” and almost always “other intention.” And if your thoughts put you out of agreement with command intention, it can get you forced out of the group.


      One can certainly agree with the third dynamic viewpoint as an individual, and I honestly believe this was the ideal scene that lrh was after in many of the policies he wrote. But the culture that has grown up within scientology, itself the product of many factors including some of the OTHER policies lrh, and others wrote, does not reward this, does not even tolerate this. What else is
      Command Intention, if not the One Intention, the Queen Bee Intention, to replace and overwhelm and countermand all others? You as a hive member need have no intention of your own, indeed it’s advised against.

      Bees. Ants. Members of the c of m.

      • Arlo permalink
        May 4, 2010 6:46 pm


        Perhaps the bottom line is that those who are very VERY strong in themselves (1st dynamic is thoroughly in gear, so to speak), do not look for answers from someone purporting to have “all the answers”. Perhaps that person knows that the answers are within himself at all times and his certainty is exactly what makes for a strong 1st dynamic. A person who did not have this confidence would be more apt to accept answers from outside himself and would then be ripe for programming in the “group think”. Perhaps.

        I expect that many strong individuals with their own certainty still fell for the scn bs — after all, the planet needed saving and often some of the bs sounded pretty rational. lol.

        My dealings with lrh convinced me early on that he was operating on the 1st dynamic only. He wanted what he wanted and that was it. He knew how to lure, coerce, make guilty, push buttons. He was extremely good at it. Of course he threw in stuff that sounded altruistic and humane. How else would good people jump to his side? For me, there is no possibility of sorting out what was “good” in his writings from what was “bad”. There are too many wonderful answers and solutions and methods for finding peace outside of scn — and without some “group” pounding on me to support anything and everything they do because they have the ONLY answer or the RIGHT answer. I don’t need that and I don’t believe it’s possible to sort the wheat from the chaff in this case.

      • May 4, 2010 6:56 pm

        Yes, it’s mentality. It’s “individual” mentality adjusted to mentality of a group.
        I would say this mentality comes straight out of LRH’s mouth, written words and actions. This mentality is HIS reality, HIS world, HIS visions – to put it simply.
        We were all absorbed by this one man’s vision. “How could one man possibly get so much done for mankind in one lifetime? Without any help? Without mistakes?”
        Now, consciously geting myself in his “valence” I can feel what a blast of fun he had in his life after dianetics had success.
        He had SO MUCH fun playing with people’s minds any way he wanted.
        He HAD his goal in life. Well, he reached it! Viva!
        Lots of his stuff makes sense. But some doesn’t. And I attribute acceptance of “everything LRH said” to people’s general willingness to stay unconscious and believe rather that be alert and critical and conscious to data given.
        I admit I didn’t have that before. Now I started on a straight path towards sanity without brands.
        We all are on this way – each one on his/her individual highway or a thorned path thru woods.
        We’ll come out of it. Each one of us. Sooner or later.
        Just by following the “white rabbit”… (out of “Matrix” meaning, into the real world)

  38. May 4, 2010 5:26 pm

    Dynamic Principle of Existence is “Survive!”
    This is in Axioms of Dianetics – the first book I read on the subject.

    Following definitions are copied from Wiktionary that I think might fit:

    Changeable; active; in motion usually as the result of an external force.
    The environment is dynamic, changing with the years and the seasons.
    He was a dynamic and engaging speaker.

    3. (physics) A rule or law of nature, or the basic idea on how the laws of nature are applied.
    Bernoulli’s principle
    The Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents two fermions from occupying the same state.
    The principle of the internal combustion engine
    4. (somewhat dated) A fundamental essence, particularly one producing a given quality.
    Many believe that life is the result of some vital principle.

    The state of being, existing, or occurring.
    Most people doubt the existence of the Loch Ness monster.

    Now, for about 1.5 months now I don’t agree with above axiom.
    Here is why. If one assumes that there is something ELSE that causes him to move in a certain direction and that direction is endless then he is endlessly at the effect, isn’t he?
    Who or What makes me survive? Or is it some “built-in” program that I can’t and mustn’t touch or try to crack? I haven’t found an acceptable answer or lead in scientology or anywhere else.
    Additionally, found for myself that one of the following axioms “Reward for pro-survival actions is pleasure” is not the case for me, too.
    For me it’d better be “Dynamic Principle of Existence AND Survival is PLEASURE!”
    Then there are some other doubtful to me axioms when I come to cross check them against my life and reality.
    Life is fun. Having fun is good “dynamic principle.” Not getting fun is non-survival… and why survive is not for fun?

    I think I will be told (or thought) that I have MUs but it really doesn’t matter much. My life is for me, not for someone’s truthfulness and proof he was right.

    Now, when we get into “dynamics” (1 thru 4 in dianetics) we see LRH pondering of values of one and another taken as the single dynamic. He couldn’t make up his mind and took all four of them as equal. People bought it.
    Then, in scientology added 4 more to them.

    Now, if we talk about worldly life (which each of us wanted to live since he/she was born), there are only SMALL per cent of “4th dynamic followers” (whom they became after willing or unwilling learning and indoctrination). Those are mostly esoteric religious zealots and do-gooders (altruists). But LRH took and put them into the same group just like any of the ordinary persons in the human kind. So each one of us is kind of “assigned” by LRH to make “4th dynamic” survive (as if without scientology which “ONLY one that knows ALL the answers” it’s “mission impossible” task to make it survive which would again put as at effect).

    What we all have experienced from the church is that “if you don’t want to take part in 4th dynamic, you are nothing but “blind selfish low-awareness degraded being” who doesn’t deserve to be treated like a human.

    Something like that came to my mind after and along participation in this thread.

    You are welcome not to agree with me.

  39. May 4, 2010 7:48 pm

    There is no attempt on my mind to do “character assassination” of LRH (Just in case someone thinks I’m doing just that).
    It might look to some that by undressing his actions and intentions I do so. I don’t.
    To me, he was one of humans who made some serious ripples throughout society and in people’s minds. His affirmations brought about the effect he wanted.
    I respect him for that and understand his motives. I might have attempted the same route.

    To compare, I don’t accept Christ, Buddha, or Mohammed as authorities either.
    And – NO! – I DON’T have better religion or belief better than them.

    After/Fom LRH I learned to think for myself and not believe into anything unbelievable… My way is only practice (after learning and disposing unusable). I don’t want ideas or ideals and keep them in my mind “for later date”. Some of LRH’s ideas went down the drain as useless and misleading.

  40. Gandiguy permalink
    May 9, 2010 10:08 pm

    Sorry if any of this is redundant. I haven’t read all of the comments.

    Jeff, although I have enjoyed your other posts and agree with much of what you say I have to point out that you’ve missed the mark on your invalidation of the basis of Ethics being the greatest good for the greats number of dynamics. What is occurring is obviously NOT the greatest good for the simple reason that these short term foot bullets have not had the result of creating greater expansion of an essentially prosurvival ideology and methodology. What has occurred is the antithesis of a clear analysis and execution of the greatest good in each of the examples you have mentioned and in examples you could have mentioned but didn’t.
    Let’s start with the cornerstone action that started the less that greatest good that perhaps could be the “WHY” for all the rest of the less that greatest good actions that have finally come to light and are examples of why the Church has Hari Karied itself: the destruction of Qual.
    As we now know at the top of the Church the Org Board was dissolved which also dissolved the highest level of Qual. The simple purpose of Qual is to correct the machine (organization) and correct the product of the machine (technical application resulting in spiritually “improved” persons). My understanding is LRH said what was missing in all past organizations and what eventually caused their downfall was the lack of a Qual. By adding this division to our organization we have insured the continuation of it into eternity.
    Many of the less that greatest good or (evil) things would have been handled if there were a Qual doing its job of correction. Simply observing and extrapolating out the effects one would be able to see the “goodness or evilness of an action”. If qual were functioning correctly at the highest levels DM would not have been able to consolidate his power. He would simply have a job of doing what every Ed has the job of doing over their Organization. He would be there on the same terms of everyone else.
    Correcting the machine means it would be working well oiled, humming along, doing it’s jobs. The staff would be happy, producing as much as they can, each feeling purpose and fulfillment in all areas of their lives, so that they don’t feel the need to do anything else and are good examples for others.
    The ends justify the means and the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics are not the same thing. If I want a blue car the first method would allow me to steal the first one I saw parked on the street. If I looked at the future consequences of that action I might not steal that blue car as I might be removed from the enjoyment of my family, I might lose my future chances of working, with a criminal record. I might get beaten up in prison. I might consider that it sets a bad example for others and someone might be influenced to steal my blue car which I wouldn’t enjoy Etc.
    “the greatest moral good is the continued survival of the Church of Scientology, and actions to protect the Church are therefore justified even if they are cruel.” This observation is simply a dramatization of an organizational Service Facsimile which is not anything necessarily do with the greatest good etc. It is faulty reasoning devoid of analysis and akin to my belief that I am right and others wrong and anything I therefore do is “the greatest good” NOT. That bit of thinking has not been evaluated.
    Thus, threatening and abusing one’s juniors is justified. They are “downstat”. No, a proper qual would find out what is going on in the junior’s life and get them on a gradient to improve their production.
    And one has to penalize downstats, right? So how do you do that? Well, throw them overboard or into a lake, have them run laps around a building, put them on “beans and rice,” have them work through the night. Assign them to the RPF. That’s the “greatest good,” right? Obviously not, as people are blowing when they get the chance and the bad PR from their whistle blowing in the long run is the lesser good. A good Qual data analysis would come up with these actions being not good for the organization.
    Etc, etc. A really good analysis of the greatest good for the greatest # of dynamics would come up with a solution in all cases that would be the best you can do with what you’ve got to work with.

  41. May 11, 2010 4:11 am

    For those of you who subscribe to the comments on this thread, the following is not a direct reply to any other comment therefore, in case you want to watch the Osho video, you find it at the bottom of the page.


    You know that LRH line, “If you know the tech it will protect you.” ? Well, when I first read that I had a completely different idea about what it meant than what it eventually came to mean to me. In the beginning I was thinking that by knowing the tech I would be protected from the various sundry of “evils” that existed outside the CoS. However, once I joined staff, the meaning of that line changed dramatically. It soon came to mean…if I know the tech (especially the policy) it will protect me from getting “eaten alive” within the CoS. I soon realized that in order to survive and be effective within the organization one had to become adept with using LRH’s written word as a sheild, weapon and tool of assistance. In other words, I had the cog that LRH wrote the ideal scene with ideal scenarios and ideal outcomes but the ideal was NOT what was. It was NOT the existing. That said, by knowing the ideal, one could then use it as protection and as a postulate. At least one could while I was still operating as a staff member at the level I did i.e., WISE staff.

    There is so, so, so much of the policy and ideals expressed by LRH that were never picked up and used by the organization. And what was picked up, because it wasn’t balanced with what wasn’t, rapidly became perverted and used destructively moving the church off the rails and into being a big control operation that it has been for many years now.

    Here is one of my LRH “sheilds” that I kept within arm’s reach and used it numerous times to survive the organization:

    This is from the book, Notes on the Lectures. It’s excerpted from the chapter The Dynamics – Remarks about Groups.

    “A group goes along fine so long as it is operating on the first, second and third dynamics. When one of these dynamics is knocked out, then the group starts its decay. Man has succeeded in direct proportion to the rationale and rationality of what the group was soing.

    “The individual says, ‘What am I going to get out of this group? What does this group mean to me as an individual?’ And the group should say, ‘What do we get out of you for the group?’ These things are interactive. The group must enhance the survival of the first and second dynamics. The forecast of its survival can be made in these terms. Every dynamic will survive as long as it enhances the survival of all the other dynamics.

    “In the past few decades the worth of the individual has come to be discounted. The first dynamic is blunted. In the collective state the idea is that all are created equal. This eliminates the individual. Underestimating the value of the individual in the group will cause many strange things. Stalin says there is only ONE individual in his system, and the rest are all the collective state. The collective state is carried on the backs of a few men. They depend heavily on their leaders, who are individuals.

    “The group exists as a collective group itself and is not just a collection of first dynamics or individuals. But also, there must be adequate balance between the worth of the individual in the system, the value of sex and family in the system and the value of the group as a whole.

    “There must be certain factors in the group. The group will fall apart if it cannot demand of the people within it contributions to its life, and the individuals in the group have the right to be able to contribute to that group.

    “A body of ideas will remain alive so long as it is contributed to. Dianetics, for example, is a plan of thinking and a way of looking at things, a way of arranging new answers which are just as good as they are workable. But it must be advancing along the line of a relatively solid idea – a growing idea. It is a science of thought, not a science of removing aberration.

    “A group is thought and its body is composed of perpetual ideas and ethics and understanding of its own goals. The heartbeats of the group are the small ideas, the interplay of thought within the group.”

    See what I mean about the ideal vs the existing? IMO, this piece of LRH is one of his expressions of his observation of the ideal. And, personally, I can think with it. But, in all my years as a Scio, as public or as staff, I never once saw this ideal manifest as a tangible reality in the CoS. But, I did covertly use this ideal to better survive.

    Now, since it has been mentioned a time or two on this thread, I have one more LRH quote (a short one) for you. This is in regards to whether the dynamic urges are equal to one another or are the same for everyone.

    This is from an R&D Volume (#7 – first run) and it comes at the end of a lecture given on the 13th of August 1953 in Whicita, Kansas. The lecture is titled, THE DYNAMICS OF EXISTENCE. At the end of the lecture a person in the audience asks LRH a question…here’s the question and the answer:

    Question: “In each individual, will the vector of each dynamic be roughly the same height?”

    LRH: “Not necessairly. And individual’s characteristics have to do with being stronger on one dynamic than another – just natively stronger. If you have two individuals of more or less the same background, one may be very strong on groups and the other very, very strong on mankind. The first fellow becomes a nationallist or something of the sort, and the other fellow becomes an internationalist. That is just the way it rolls.”

    Again, something I can get my wits around. But, a point of view re the dynamics that is probably little known and if known was hardly ever (if ever) factored into any recruit cycle or posting of a new staff member.

    Okay, that’s the end of me quoting LRH in this comment. But, with the above quotes in mind I encourage you to now go and read the Special Zone Plan (HCOB 23 June AD10) in a new unit of time. Yet, another ideal. We, I believe, in Hubbard’s writings had/have what we needed to be a strong, productive, ethical, sane and effective organization. We did have a deep purpose to help better conditions for ALL on this planet (at least the bulk of us did). The question, though, is why did we not avail ourselves of what we had? What is it that we have in common that prevented us from insisting, demanding that the “ideals” become manifest? For the time being I must say I’m baffled by this.

    Finally…I found an Osho video (btw, lots of parallels to Osho and LRH) where he talks about what is possibly the most important dynamic. The one so many scios ignore.

  42. Valkov permalink
    June 17, 2010 5:03 am

    Hi,I’m late to this party, but I tend to agree with Gandguy’s analysis.
    Unless one considers ALL the dynamics,one can go astray. And there are 8 Dynamics, including “infinity” or “God”, and including the 1st dynamic and the 2nd dynamic also.
    What the Co$ has done, is elevate their own 3rd dynamic above all the others. This is essentially what Communism did and why it fails. Each dynamic is the building block of the ones above it. If you suppress the1st and 2nd, you are destroying by extension your 3rd also, and so on up the line.

    The “Contemplation of Optimum Survival” means the Survival of ALL the 8 dynamics, not just some petty group. It means the survival of the planet and the living things on it, the survival of the Universe, the survival of Spirit and even the survival of God, however you understand that word.

    But the survival of any particular group does not necessarily constitute “the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics”.

    That’s why a person needs to apply the Doubt formula to decide whether in his judgement, the group deserves to survive.

    There are, after all, 8 Dynamics. A group is just a 3rd Dynamic, and actually maybe an insignificant part of a larger 3rd Dynamic, much less a part of Everything That Exists, including God.

    The fact that group members tend to inflate each other’s self-importance has nothing to do with an honest, objective evaluation of what the”greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics” might actually be.

    For example, if currently active OSA members and other DM sycophants like the professional rip-off artists of the IAS were to do such an objective Doubt formula, I don’t doubt they would as one commit what the Japanese call “hara-kiri” immediately. At least if they had any sense of honor left they would.

    Because they are clearly not contemplating “Optimum Survival” even of the first 4 dynamics. Quite the reverse.


  1. The Dirty Dozen « Leaving Scientology

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: