Skip to content

Quoting vs. Thinking

March 9, 2011

The Church of Scientology encourages people to quote L. Ron Hubbard at every possible opportunity. They would rather you quote LRH than give some thought or opinion of your own.

When I was in Scientology, I became really good at this. I was responsible for writing scripts, speeches, magazines and promotional copy. And of course these had to be peppered with “As LRH says…” and “According to LRH” and so on. I was an OEC/FEBC grad, had studied most Policy, and many HCOBs and lectures.  I got so I could find just the right quote in minutes.

Cramming Officers got good at this too – being able to pull just the right reference or quote out of a hat. Managers too, had to reference the right Policy for every action they recommended, so they got good at finding and supplying the exact right quote at the right time.

Impressive.

But don’t mistake it for thinking.

After I left the Church, I found myself in the interesting position of having to think about things. My new friends and co-workers didn’t care what L. Ron Hubbard thought. They wanted to know what I thought. So I had to think about things. And I started reading. I got curious about what other people thought – philosophers, thinkers, just ordinary people. I felt like my own rusty thinking mechanisms were starting to slowly turn. I couldn’t just quote. I had to think.

It’s a hard habit to break. Some people still have the quoting habit years after they’ve left the Church. In fact, you sometimes see conversations on some of the Independent Scientology blogs that go like this:

Bob: This whole situation is explained by HCOB ____, where LRH says…

Frank: Excellent quote, Bob. It reminds me of the lecture where LRH says…

Bob: Spot on Frank. And remember that in the Policy Letter of ____, he also said…

Frank: Great find, Bob. And he also said…

And this goes on and on. Really, this is what passes for conversation with some people.

Sure, it’s fine to quote people. It’s fine to pass articles and quotes you like to your friends. But how about giving it a break and quoting someone else? Like Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln or Kurt Vonnegut or John Stewart? Or how about not quoting anyone, just writing what you think and feel. How about just writing your opinion without having to reference anyone?

And for those who don’t think there is anything wrong with the above conversation, let me run it past you again in a slightly different version:

Bob: This whole situation is explained by Reverend Moon in his lecture where he says…

Frank: Excellent quote, Bob. It reminds me of the lecture where Father Moon says…

Bob: Spot on Frank. And remember that in his book, Father Moon also said…

Frank: Great find, Bob. And Reverend Moon also said…

Creepy, right? Cult-like even?

But it’s a habit you can break.

When someone asks for your opinion, give your opinion.

And when that perfect LRH quote pops into your mind, ask yourself ,“do I agree with this? What are my own opinions? How do my opinions differ from Hubbard’s? What do I have to say? What do I have to contribute to the discussion?”

It’s fine to quote others. But it’s not thinking.

Advertisements
147 Comments
  1. Tara permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:34 am

    Excellent points.
    I had to learn this ASAP when I left since NOBODY cared what LRH said…just what I said.

  2. Synthia permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:57 am

    This is a great article Jeff. I reminds me of when LRH says, “What’s true for you is what’s true for you.” Just kidding. 🙂

    So true! Thanks for all these great tips for untangling.

    • lunamoth permalink
      March 9, 2011 4:16 pm

      lol

  3. March 9, 2011 6:25 am

    “But don’t mistake it for thinking.” Exactly. And that’s the hardest part — actually LEARNING how to think again. For some, it will be a first, not an “again.” Yikes.

  4. March 9, 2011 6:32 am

    Jeff,

    The Reformation of the Church of Scientology is in full swing and more individuals are thinking for themselves every day.

    I find it amusing that some who have left the church are determinedly creating the apparency of being authority figures in the independent field and demand an unquestioning obedience to what they perceive as “standard”. It seems to violate their sense of what is “right” that professional auditors can determine by themselves what is best for those they counsel .

    In this we see the spectacle of people still wearing their Sea Org valences in the independent field and judging technical matters in the field from a SO viewpoint where KSW is considered holy writ. They seem to forget that this perpetuated years of blind obedience to a suppressive organizational culture.

    When I left the church, I decided to cast dogma aside and decided to study all that was available in the independent field. It opened my eyes to the fact that a lot of people are doing their best to help others and to bring the abuses of the COS to an end.

    I also found that LRH had a carefully hidden history and that credit had not been given to those who helped to develop the technology that I use every day. I also discovered that in spite of his many faults, that I was beholden to LRH for making it possible for me to turn my life around this lifetime.

    His brief time on the stage of modern history has left us with some powerful tools for transforming our lives and the lives of others. We can pick up those tools and create the future we want. We should politely refuse to listen to those who would tell us that there is only one way to use those tools and that they cannot be altered to make them more effective.

    As for those who still worship at the altar of KSW and fail to recognize it as the final nail in the COS coffin, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

    • Marta permalink
      March 9, 2011 2:29 pm

      “In this we see the spectacle of people still wearing their Sea Org valences in the independent field and judging technical matters in the field from a SO viewpoint where KSW is considered holy writ. They seem to forget that this perpetuated years of blind obedience to a suppressive organizational culture.”

      Beautifully said and so right smack on the mark. That Sea Org culture is so embedded and deeply ingrained, the behaviors have become knee-jerk reactions and fall back positions to dealing with the discomfort inherent in change, growth, learning, evolution.

    • lunamoth permalink
      March 9, 2011 9:21 pm

      David

      Agree. I had the realization about a year ago that KSW was a pivot point for the church; at that point, this outcome which we see today was a done deal.

      Despite what he claims in KSW, Hubbard did NOT come up with so much of the “tech” himself. So the irony is that because he DID rely on the research and creativity of so many others to come up with what he referred to as a workable technology, opening up research to others IS THEREFORE THE SUCCESSFUL ACTION. Failure to do that, indeed the mandate to never allow that to be done, sealed the fate of Hubbard’s tech.

      Everything changes/degrades over time and the tech will be no exception, despite whatever attempts are made to preserve it unchanged. Without the right or ability to tweak, fix, change or create newly, it’s only a matter of time before what was once workable becomes useless, or worse, just destructive in itself (as in miscavige’s cult).

      Jeff, I whole-heartedly agree with the observations you’ve made here. Over a year out and I find I still think in LRH quotes sometimes, though it’s getting better. It’s just a question of examining each thing newly, as it comes up, and deciding whether I really agree with it, whether or not it’s still a useful datum for me. Some of it still holds true, much more proves to be somebody elses evaluation or opinion. As such, it gets discarded and stops coming up in lieu of an original thought. What’s really embarrassing (and rarely happens anymore, thank god) is when it pops into mind and comes out of my mouth before I have a chance to stop it. Now THAT’S proof it’s a response that bypasses thinking!

    • March 13, 2011 7:30 pm

      I know personally what you mean… I got attacked and very covertly disconnected…
      by the italian independents .. RTC Ingazio Tidu e the ethic officers Lugli and Minelli family…
      Crazy but true..
      😀
      Lets continue to flourish and prosper…

  5. Jed Clampett permalink
    March 9, 2011 7:43 am

    Good post Jeff. I noticed the same sort of thing on Marty’s site, though I won’t mention any names….

    I think it goes back to the whole “if not’s written, it’s not true” thing which got Chinese-schooled into our heads when we were in the cult (btw, isn’t Chinese school memorizing things without thinking about them?). Somehow, coming up with an LRH quote will somehow give our own opinoin validity. It’s sort of like one can’t have their own opinion unless there’s an LRH quote to back it up, less we be “off source”, which is the one of the biggest crimes in $cientology. And of course there’s the peer pressure to have an LRH quote to cover our ass, no matter how vaguely related.

    One of the biggest realizations, oops I mean “congitions”, since leaving $cientology is that it is a faith. As I’m sure you know all too well, $cientology is presented as a science at the lower levels: just think of all the basic books with the word “Science” in their titles. Well, somewhere up the bridge that whole science angle begins to fade out, and the whole religion angle starts to creep in. Since it’s no longer a science, there are no longer any obligations, legal or ethical, to deliver real “OT powers” or super sane and ethical behavior. Just think about the sort of super human abilities which are alluded in places like “History of Man”, and THEN try to think of ONE person who has demonstrated them. Not SEVERAL, but just ONE. Oh yes, $cientology is faith which promises super powers, complete rationality, super ethical behavior, telekinetic abilities that would make Darth Vader’s jaw drop in envy, total freedom, total power on all 8 dynamics – and let’s not forget that “the psychs” have ruined every “whole track civilization” including this one. And why we do we believe Ron when he says something like this? Well, who has better whole track recall than LRH? How would I know, I’m just a wog.

    There are several kool aid drinkers on Marty’s site who state that such things OT 3 “works”, like it’s a simple matter of fact – as long as your “in-ethics” of course. Well, all I can say in response to that it that “works” is a point of view. FWIW, there are a lot of people outside of $cientology who would assert that psychiatry works for them, and if someone says they feel better after doing XYZ, then it works for them. What’s true for you is what’s true for you; it works both ways.

    • Chrissie permalink
      March 11, 2011 12:46 pm

      Well put Jed!

  6. March 9, 2011 8:21 am

    Jeff,

    Personally I never bothered quoting the Ol’man. If someone wanted to know what he said I’d direct them to the relevant policy or HCOB.

    In fact I personally objected to people who constantly quoted LRH since many times what he said was usually quoted out of context.

    However there is nothing wrong with studying the subject and *applying* it to another for their personal benefit.

    • Fidelio permalink
      March 9, 2011 10:19 pm

      “…….I’d direct them to the relevant policy or HCOB.”

      Oh my, that’s even worse…..even more massaging in the habit by Hubbardian thought stopping extended?

      Sorry, RJ, could not resist – that had to be said.

      Fidelio

      • March 10, 2011 3:49 am

        “had to be said”

        Isn’t that like obsessive compulsive behavior?

        Sorry Fidelio I didn’t have to say it but I did.

  7. Cool Observer permalink
    March 9, 2011 9:21 am

    Scientologists are indoctrinated to believe that everything outside Scientology is inferior/irrelevant/dangerous…so why would they quote somebody else? It’s like Chinese schooling, not just to stop you from thinking yourself, but to make you forget that you have the capacity to do so.

    This is a very insightful article, something I hadn’t considered before. Every time I think I know the entire depth of deception in this “church”, another layer is revealed. And they promise total freedom – which can be achieved by thinking for yourself. Yeah right.

  8. Debussy permalink
    March 9, 2011 10:15 am

    Jeff as usual a great post!
    Thought provoking and offering others to WAKE UP and THINK INDEPENDENTLY !
    I really enjoy your blog.

  9. Aeolus permalink
    March 9, 2011 1:57 pm

    Jeff, your blog has been an excellent practice ground while we go through this process of relearning to think things through and put them out there in our own words. It is not only safe to do that here but expected, and we have the benefit of yours and others’ thought processes and ideas, something sorely missing when our only contacts were with other sheep.

  10. Marta permalink
    March 9, 2011 2:15 pm

    Love it, love it, love it! I do enjoy quotes, from lots of varied and diverse sources. But, I’ve come completely away from using LRH quotes (a necessity professionally) even with Indie and Ex Scientologists. There is a culture around how the quotes are used, the conversation can quickly digress into using quotes to “pull rank”, thought-stop, invalidate, evaluate, and pull a verbal smack down on someone voicing a difference of perspective. Typically, it turns into a quote sparring and can get into a battle, where the one who quotes best, biggest and last wins.

    Kind of an immature “my quote can beat up your quote” game better suited for the grade school playground.

    Might be kind of fun next time someone tries to “prove” something with a quote, to say “Has that also been your experience?” or “And your point is?” or “Do you see that as absolute then?”

    • lunamoth permalink
      March 9, 2011 9:31 pm

      LOL Marta, I’ve seen this kind of one-ups-manship go on in the cult! The image your description conjures is pretty comical, a virtual smack-down -but it’s real! I’ve seen this between OT’s, too, talking about their trips to Flag and the ship. I guess it might be an indicator of who (for the most part) makes it to OT in the cult; the truly competitive. Good people can be very competitive, as can jerks. Competitive individuals can be truly spiritual or can be obsessed by mest. There’s really no generalizing. But it certainly seems to be the one common denominator I’ve seen. How about you?

      • Marta permalink
        March 9, 2011 11:15 pm

        Lunamoth- I do see the competitive common denominator, yes. In my experience (been in sales &marketing most of my working life) there can be healthy competition and unhealthy competion. There are so many example of unhealthy competition in Co$. That FSM monstrosity for instance.

      • lunamoth permalink
        March 10, 2011 1:39 am

        Marta : “There are so many example of unhealthy competition in Co$. That FSM monstrosity for instance.”

        Exactly. And that UNhealthy competitiveness is what is manipulated by the church to achieve it’s dirty ends. We’ve talked about FSM’s specifically on this blog – some real sharks in those waters, let me tell you.

  11. March 9, 2011 3:28 pm

    Jeff, I think of all the brilliant articles you’ve written, this is my favorite.

    Two quick points I’d like to add to the conversation:

    One, another problem is that most Scientologists start reading an LRH quote in agreement – they assume that what they are reading is right. I think that’s why LRH quotes mean so little in the outside world – us wogs don’t assume LRH is correct. And a lot of his quotes don’t make sense.

    And then there’s the selectivity. I can’t tell you how many comments I’ve had censored by Marty because I included an LRH quote that countered his opinion.

    The fact is you can find an LRH quote to justify *anything*. And in most LRH quotes, I find that LRH goes into insanely fine detail about trivial things, and misses the big picture.

    ML,
    Caliwog

    • Joanne Doe permalink
      March 9, 2011 7:11 pm

      Caliwog, you beat me to it! I fully agree with you that there’s an LRH quote for
      EVERYTHING! Problem with a man such as himself , is that he wrote so much
      he eventually started to counter himself…in the wog world it’s called, “not keeping your
      story straight..”

      • March 9, 2011 10:13 pm

        Joanne Doe,

        It would be nice if you could point out where Hubbard “contradicts” himself for us by citing the actual HCOBs or PLs that are supposedly “contradictory”.

        Of course allowing for revisions and cancellations.

        Forget about “relevant” *quotes* as these can be construed to being placed out of context to serve some other agenda much like most of Scientology is within the Organization these days.

        Besides as they say the devil can quote scripture to serve his purpose.

      • Marta permalink
        March 9, 2011 11:32 pm

        “not keeping your story straight.” ROFL!

      • March 10, 2011 2:49 am

        @RJ:

        >It would be nice if you could point out where Hubbard “contradicts” himself for us by citing the actual HCOBs or PLs that are supposedly “contradictory”.

        I happen to have one of these on my blog:

        http://caliwog.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/did-l-ron-hubbard-practice-reverse-scientology/

        In PAB 84, Hubbard said that total freedom led man to be “purposeless and miserable.” Then, in HCO PL 15 Feb 1966, he said that the best way to meet attacks was to “ADVOCATE TOTAL FREEDOM.”

        I know you said to allow for revisions and cancellations. That passage from PAB 84 was in _Fundamentals of Thought_ as late as the 2007 printing.

        This is just the first one that springs to mind; I found many more in the Admin Tech. If I have some time to spare, I’ll go through the tech and try to dig up some more.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 10, 2011 5:28 am

        Caliwog,

        “Attacks Against Scientology” happens to be *policy*.

        Games technology is technology.

        Neither of them are contradictory if one understands that aspiring toward Total Freedom is different from actually *achieving* it in an aberrated state.

        That is if one could actually *think* with the technology instead just merely quoting it.

      • March 10, 2011 8:27 am

        >That is if one could actually *think* with the technology instead just merely quoting it.

        RJ, I think this comes under what Jeff is talking about. “Think /with/ the technology” seems to mean finding a way to make it all make sense. It’s an assumption that the technology is right, and you just have to bend your head around it.

        I am not thinking /with/ the technology, I am thinking /about/ the technology, and that is where I draw my conclusions.

        Try viewing the quotes (or the entire policies, if you like) in a new unit of time, assuming the valence of one who does not automatically assume Hubbard is right. If you dare, assume the valence of one who thinks Hubbard is full of crap. You may see things differently… although, come to think of it, you probably won’t, RJ. 🙂

        ML, CW

      • March 10, 2011 10:31 pm

        Caliwog,

        I never assumed that Hubbard “is always right” without testing it for myself.

        I’ve also assumed at times that Hubbard was “full of crap” only to find in actual application that he wasn’t.

        The only thing I’m concerned about is whether the exact application of the technology produces a result.

        Anything else is just dross.

        This goes beyond merely quoting him like some kinda stuck record and finding apparent “contradictions”.

        For example according to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity nothing travels faster than the speed of light which he concluded was a “constant” at 186000 miles per second.

        Yet he wrote the following equation:

        E=MC2

        I ask you if nothing is supposed to go faster than light which is a “constant” than how can it be squared?

        A seemly “contradictory” equation that yet works when applied to the field of nuclear physics.

      • March 11, 2011 12:41 am

        @RJ

        >if nothing is supposed to go faster than light which is a “constant” than how can it be squared?

        Um… oy. Really?

        >The only thing I’m concerned about is whether the exact application of the technology produces a result.

        Myself, I’m still waiting to see a demonstration of “OT” powers. Or even a clear free of sickness and with perfect recall.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 11, 2011 4:22 am

        “Myself, I’m still waiting to see a demonstration of “OT” powers. Or even a clear free of sickness and with perfect recall.”

        Well obviously you missed reading the thousands of pages of dox since declassified by CIA known as ‘Star Gate’ where Jessica Utts said that the OT’s involved had produced a “statistically significant result” in displaying them.

        Also perfect recall is an ability that has to be practiced like having what they call a photographic memory.

        You’ll note if you read Chapter II of DMSMH that these were abilities that a clear should have or has the *potential* of having barring physical limitations.

        He never said that they automatically had them.

        He also never said that a clear never got sick either.

        These are *claims* that many so called “critics” *claim* he makes.

        Of course if you are the type who is waiting for a UFO to land on the White House lawn to *prove* their existence than you’ll be sorely disappointed by the current breed of so called “OTs” produced by the Church these days.

        Aside from the squirrel auditing being delivered is the fact that these OT abilities you would like to see demonstrated are no longer directly addressed.

        Asking one of these “OTs” to demonstrate these abilities is like asking some kid who has just learned how to play chop sticks to play Beethoven’s ‘Moonlight Sonata’.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 11, 2011 5:34 am

        RJ, you keep referring to “Stargate” to prove that Scientology creates OT abilities. But not all the subjects were Scientologists, right? And while Jessica Utts found significant results, other researchers disagreed and the CIA ultimately terminated the project, citing a lack of documented evidence that the program had any value. So how does any of this prove that Scientology processing creates OT abilities?

      • March 11, 2011 7:00 am

        Jeff,

        All the original subjects were Scientologist as this summary of the project by the Federation of American Scientists notes.

        http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

        The CIA says they terminated the program.

        However they failed to say that the program had actually been shifted to the “private” sector under PsiTech in 1989.

        Also that it may have even been transferred to another member of the IC as the following suggests:

        http://www.starpod.org/SLP_Knowing_the_Future_Articles/nsa_psi_spies.htm

        They also “said” they terminated Mk Ultra in 1963 yet continued the same line of research under Mk Search and failed to mention that a parallel interagency program known as Artichoke was continued until 1969 at least.

        Besides I’d take whatever the Agency says with not just a grain but a full shaker of salt.

        Regarding other “researchers”. It should be singular really as in researcher in particular Dr. Raymond Hyman a CISCOP alumni (which should give one an indication of his *bias*) who was one the contributors to the famous AIR report.

        As you can see at the following link:

        http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html

        Funny how Hyman removed his contribution to the report while Jessica Utts still post hers on her website as follows:

        http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

        That is the one I mentioned earlier that initiated your response and this rebuttal.

        However to summarize the original Remote Viewers were *all* Scientology OTs that is Hal Puthoff original OT VII, Ingo Swann original OT VII and Pat Price original OT IV.

        In fact it was Ingo Swann who developed a standard procedure for remote viewers for the DIA who assumed control over the program after it was transferred from CIA:

        http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:q_HQrNf4U68J:www.remoteviewed.com/files/CRV%2520manual%2520full.pdf+DIA+Remote+Viewer+Manual&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgmFqQ2QtD0cD6aTq9Kc0Rv97eS8POQZfe5KVnOAp_ZdglIAMgGH6teU6CVqK9buZMvqfhuNKphmJ7zy0Nj9QrdYJnovIQQyPUshd6lHSI0ZTOFX46qFAv2lk6p6ISi2p7V5aMU&sig=AHIEtbQzGp_HNgX8pjROGUQxRj8DS0Uy7g

        Also it was Ingo who according to Paul Smith who personally trained the first Military Remote Viewers.

        So yes Scientology technology in my opinion had a lot to do with the initial success of the remote viewing program.

      • March 11, 2011 7:22 am

        Oy, RJ, I’m starting to regret the slightly butt-kissy tone of my last message. 🙂

        >>Or even a clear free of sickness and with perfect recall.
        >You’ll note if you read Chapter II of DMSMH that these were abilities that a clear should have or has the *potential* of having barring physical limitations.

        “The analytical mind consists of the “I”…No data are missing from these
        standard banks… Cleared, “I” is able to reach all moments of his lifetime without exertion or discomfort and perceive all he has ever sensed, recalling them in full motion, color, sound, tone and other senses.” — LRH, DMSMH (2007 ed) page vii

        “In a Clear, full memory exists throughout the lifetime, with the additional bonus that he has photographic recall in color, motion, sound, etc., as well as optimum computational ability.” Ibid, p. vii

        I stand corrected on illness; LRH said that clearing would eliminate psychosomatic illness. Oh, and eyesight.

        “In a Clear, psychosomatic illness has become non-existent and will not return.” Ibid, p. vii

        “One of the incidental things which happens to a Clear is that his eyesight, if it had been bad as an aberree, generally improves markedly and, with some slight attention, will recover optimum perception in time, since its actual source is nullified permanently.” Ibid, p. 16

        >Asking one of these “OTs” to demonstrate these abilities is like asking some kid who has just learned how to play chop sticks to play Beethoven’s ‘Moonlight Sonata’.

        No, it’s not, RJ. It’s not even CLOSE to the same thing. LRH did not say “If you go OT, you will eventually have these abilities if you practice.” There are VERY SPECIFIC abilities that he said Clears and OTs are supposed to have. And they don’t have them.

        If a piano teacher charges you for two years of lessons and says that at the end of two years your kid can play the Moonlight Sonata, it is not unreasonable to expect that two years and $5,000 later, your son will, indeed, be playing the Moonlight Sonata.

        What LRH ACTUALLY did was to condition his followers to credit all their gains to Scientology and his tech, and to blame their failings on their own lack of ability to follow the tech properly.

        It’s BS, RJ. Nothing but BS.

        ML, CW

      • Joanne Doe permalink
        March 11, 2011 5:08 pm

        RJ,
        We ran out of reply buttons so I must reply to your question here.

        While I have stated before in the few times I have replied to this wonderful blog, I have said that I was never a Scientologist, but avid reader and lurker. To follow the recent events stemming from the Tom Cruise video to now has been exciting and hopefully this criminal organization will be brought to it’s knees and families will once again be reunited. With this said, when I agreed with Caliwog about Scientology’s contradictions, I wasn’t thinking about one exact HCOB or PL..to me it’s Scientology as a WHOLE is contradictory…
        1. Scientology is working to FREE Mankind…no it doesn’t, it traps the mind, Hubbard stated it’s the ONLY WAY..KSW
        2.Right to free speech..Really? sounds Out ethics to me.
        3. Think for yourself…irony at it’s best..

        But coming from the Christian angle, nothing could be more insidious than LRH saying you can be a christian and a scientologist.. not true. please read again his 1963 HCO bulletin on Heaven…Please read it and tell me that’s not contradictory…

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 11, 2011 7:30 pm

        RJ: I’m not familiar with the security of data policy and I find it really hard to fathom why there is a good reason for keeping anything secret.

        If you are familiar with the Jesuit “Spiritual Exercies” they are meant to be done in a specific order and under the supervision of a spiritual advisor but if you pick up a written copy and skip to the end your brain won’t explode.

        However, there is also the story of Rabbi Akiva and his journey of spiritual evolution. The story goes, “four entered into the Pardes [Kabbalistic path]. They were Ben Azai, Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Akiba. Ben Azai gazed and died. Ben Zoma gazed, and went insane. Aher became an apostate. Rabbi Akiba entered, and exited in peace.” This is an example of other traditions considering the path to enlightenment dangerous for the unwary.

        But most traditions don’t have this idea that you can “skip ahead” (except possibly through drugs 🙂 ) and put yourself in danger.The other rabbis wouldn’t have been in danger if they weren’t far enough along the path to put themselves in danger.

        As to your point about “closed-minded skeptics”, Hubbard invites a skeptical approach to a lot of the material by his constant claims of having a scientific basis for it. I’d personally be very interested to learn how he scientifically proved the existence of the spirit.

        If it’s a religon, fine, though it’s far from the only option in that regard for opening the doors of perception. But if you are seeing it that way it’s basically an admission that Hubbard was making up the claims of being scientific to help sell it, which doesn’t help his overall credibility.

        I’d like to see the independents pick a side in this. Either it’s scientific and you are willing to work with “skeptics” to validate it or it’s purely a religion.

        Being a religion doesn’t mean it’s of no benefit — Tai Chi is good exercise whether you believe in chi or not — but it changes the marketing.

      • March 11, 2011 8:04 pm

        @RJ

        Re: StarGate

        Why would a Scientologist use a secret CIA project as THE source for validating Scientology’s claims? Wouldn’t any implementation by the CIA be immediately classified as “total squirrel”?

        If Scientology can’t prove any “OT abilities” but squirrel implementation by the CIA can, what does that say about Scientology?

        Besides, that’s one hell of a via?

        Let’s cut out all the vias through questionable sources. Let’s just get all the OTs from Scientology to simply demonstrate their “OT powers”. What could be simpler?

        I’d love to see that!

    • Marta permalink
      March 9, 2011 11:30 pm

      “another problem is that most Scientologists start reading an LRH quote in agreement – they assume that what they are reading is right. ”

      Yes, caliwog! I mean, I used to do this, too, but oh how it jumps out at me now. Even without using a quote, someone just making a statement of a Scientology principle as if it’s known by all as fact – a pronouncement of, this is the way it works. It’s starting to sound like “the earth is flat” or “pigs fly”. Cracks me up how liberating this is.

      • Grateful permalink
        March 10, 2011 1:50 pm

        You made me laugh – it is just so true.

  12. lurker permalink
    March 9, 2011 3:41 pm

    I imagine that for a ex, having to say what THEY think must be a bit like standing outside naked for the first time. It seems that people use LRH as a crutch to give more weight to their words, not realizing the for the vast majority of wogland, we either have no clue who he was, or think he was a kooky science fiction writer who decided to make money by creating a religion.

    I see this in the evangelical Christian movement also. If you ask a question, they immediately quote scripture, it comes off to me as a distancing mechanism. They can take a scripture and twist it to mean the most hateful stuff, yet at the same time disavow all responsibility because “its in the Bible”…

    I often worry that to be a part of any religion you are required to turn off your own set of values, humanity and brain in order to conform, and I am not so good at that..

    • March 9, 2011 8:29 pm

      > It seems that people use LRH as a crutch to give more weight to their words

      It goes beyond that, Lurker. Scientologists see LRH as ALWAYS being right. One pro-Church (and anti-Marty) site summed it up best: Being a Scientologist means doing exactly what LRH said to do in any situation.

      Think? There’s no need. LRH did all the thinking you will ever need done, all for you.

      I’ve had a Scientologist tell me that Dianetics was hard to read “because it’s written at such a high level.” No, Dianetics is hard to read because it’s pseudo-scientific baloney. But they’re like little kids who still believe that adults (in their case, LRH) are always right.

      ML,
      Caliwog

      • lurker permalink
        March 9, 2011 11:02 pm

        “Being a Scientologist means doing exactly what LRH said to do in any situation.”

        That must be really tough considering that LRH has been gone since the 80s. Technology, communication,society in general has changed so much in the last 10 years, let alone the last 30…

      • Marta permalink
        March 9, 2011 11:52 pm

        I was with some friends recently, and a young lady was talking about all of the wonderful inspiring things she found in LRH’s writings, that they are good things (e.g. A world without insanity, war, crime, etc) and her desire to see those things carried out – as if to say we must abandon them.

        It struck me, and I shared with her, that she was likely recognizing her own values in those writings.

        As you pointed out, if a person is looking for a dominating parent-child relationship with deity figures, the Scientology culture surely fits the bill.

      • lunamoth permalink
        March 10, 2011 1:42 am

        Caliwog, you are exactly right.

      • March 10, 2011 2:34 am

        >That must be really tough considering that LRH has been gone since the 80s. Technology, communication,society in general has changed so much in the last 10 years, let alone the last 30…

        You’d be surprised. Just as people can apply statements from the Bible to modern life, so can Scientologists do that with the tech. Actually, LRH did write about computers, and his concept of them made sense.

        Funniest thing to me was the three-basket system. LRH insisted everyone have three baskets (in, out, pending), and the admin tech company I worked for applied that to e-mail. Per LRH policy, our “Inbox” had to always be empty, but we could have as much as we wanted in our “Pending” folder. They actually used to check for that.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 10, 2011 4:54 am

        >Caliwog, you are exactly right.

        Sorry, I will try not to let that happen again.

        ML, CW

      • lunamoth permalink
        March 10, 2011 5:32 am

        >Caliwog, you are exactly right.

        Sorry, I will try not to let that happen again.

        ML, CW

        ….yeah, watch it, will ya.

  13. gOD permalink
    March 9, 2011 3:48 pm

    Excellent point, Jeff. I’ve always wondered when in comments people quote LRH. It seems they go out of valence (in terms of Scientology) 🙂 And they are encouraged to do that by none other than LRH:)

  14. March 9, 2011 3:56 pm

    If people quote Alanzo then they are being deeply insightful.

    • March 9, 2011 7:00 pm

      “If people quote Alanzo then they are being deeply insightful.”

      So true! So theta!

      ML,
      Caliwog

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 9, 2011 10:20 pm

        LOL – marvelous!

        Fidelio

    • Marta permalink
      March 9, 2011 11:55 pm

      LOL. May I quote you on that?

  15. Rita Wagner permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:41 pm

    Jeff this is so true! I just finished laughing for at least 5 minutes, I have tears in my eyes – it is just great! It is so easy to speek (and think for my own) without quotes, yes – but I had to learn it by hard too! If I find myselfe in front of my child, trying to quote – it was so funny to find out!! it is not possible!!! Thank you for this article!!

  16. Brenda permalink
    March 9, 2011 6:01 pm

    I see this LRH quoting quite a bit on Marty’s blog. I love what he’s doing to expose COS abuse, but never have been in Scientology my eyes glaze over when I see LRH quoted. I’ve learned what I can about LRH’s life and agree that he was at times profound, even brilliant. But mostly he was deeply troubled with mental illness, paranoid and an egomaniac. Just about any reasonably intelligent person could have come up with the policies and procedures LRH put in place. To quote his words as if he had some special insight into reality is to elevate a fraud and a criminal to an undeserved status.

    • March 9, 2011 10:45 pm

      Brenda,

      Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

      Also can you cite some examples of where anyone else has established similar policies and procedures.

      For example do you know of any prior art to the Scientology Organizing Board or for instance how to audit Dianetic procedure?

      Not something similar but the same.

      Also as far as I’m concerned “mental illness” is a myth. One perpetrated by Institutional Psychiatry to label those whose ideas or actions that don’t align with the status quo or what is considered “normal”.

      A label that was used successfully for a time in the Soviet Union to discredit anyone who was a dissident.

      Another thing if many of the contributors on Marty’s want to quote what is considered Scientology “scripture” should feel free to do so whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not.

      That’s what freedom of religion is all about as protected by the First.

      Would you say the same about people who quote passages from the Bible on a Christian blog?

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 9, 2011 11:54 pm

        RJ, anyone is free to quote LRH – or the Bible for that matter – whenever and wherever they want and as much as they want. My only point is that one should not confuse this with thinking.

      • March 10, 2011 2:39 am

        >For example do you know of any prior art to the Scientology Organizing Board or for instance how to audit Dianetic procedure?

        RJ, do you think L. Ron Hubbard invented the concept of the organizational chart?

        >if many of the contributors on Marty’s want to quote what is considered Scientology “scripture” should feel free to do so whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not.

        Would if that were the case, but as it happens, you are only allowed to quote Scientology scripture if Marty (or Mike, or whoever is moderating that day) agrees with the scripture you wish to post. If they disagree with the scripture you quote, the comment does not see the light of day.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 10, 2011 3:10 am

        Jeff,

        I agree with you that constantly quoting LRH or anyone else for that matter as a substitute to actually thinking for oneself proves to an extent that the person doing such never had an original thought and is also annoying as hell.

        Even when I was in I avoided being a walking epigram myself and I used to eschew people who would continually quote policy or tech chapter and verse like the plague.

        As far as I was concerned they were and continue to be walking verbal tech factories like for example David Miscavige.

        For instance there is some “OL” from Flag who is always misquoting Ron as saying that “communication is the universal solvent” when in fact in Dn 55 Ron says that the factor is *understanding*.

        My key objection was that you seemed to be giving the impression that in all of Scientology this was a laudable thing.

        Well maybe in some quarters but in the crowd I hung with this would have won the quoter an all expense paid trip to Cramming.

        Jeff.

        You write some very insightful prose but please do not generalize.

        Not *all* Scientologists are the same.

        Just as not all Christians, Buddists, Government employees, (fill in the blank) etc are not.

        The majority in all the above cases cited even Government employees are good people and have their own point of view.

        Also many view people who continually quote scripture or Government regs as glib and pedantic.

        Also the fact that many look at life through the prism of their education and experience does not mean they can’t think for themselves.

        It just means that because of those factors their perspective is *different*.

        I mean if you are going to attack a “cultic” POV why not mention the “orthodox scientist” who views things from the perspective of complete materiality?

        As far as I see it the Church of Scientology is an easy target right now because what is left of its ranks is nothing but a bunch of Davebots who pride themselves on being able to quote scripture to justify their less than laudable agenda.

        Like many Christians in the past who accepted the phrase “God is on our side” to justify mass genocide.

        Scientology isn’t even in that league right now as far as religions go.

        Not that this rationalizes their criminality.

        But let’s put it in perspective here.

      • March 10, 2011 4:50 am

        @RJ:

        > misquoting Ron as saying that “communication is the universal solvent”

        “Although communication, as completely outlined in Dianetics, 1955! is a universal solvent…” — LRH, PAB 54, REALITY LEVEL OF PRECLEAR

        (I’m quoting this to show the definition; I can’t find an actual reference in Dn55!.)

        Of course, there’s also:

        “Admiration is a special particle. It is a universal solvent.” — LRH, Journal of Scientology, Issue 16-G

        And in the tech dictionary:

        “3. understanding is a sort of a total solvent, it’s the universal solvent, it washes away everything. (SH Spec 79, 6609C01)” — Technical Dictionary, “Understanding”

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 10, 2011 4:56 am

        “‘For example do you know of any prior art to the Scientology Organizing Board or for instance how to audit Dianetic procedure?’

        RJ, do you think L. Ron Hubbard invented the concept of the organizational chart?”

        Dear Caliwog if you actually read what I posted prior to your seemingly rhetorical question you’d know for a fact that I didn’t think that at all.

        Though if you find another organization board that has seven to nine specific divisions for various activities that gives an awareness characteristic for each one and I’ll eat my words.

        The ball’s in your court now.

        “>if many of the contributors on Marty’s want to quote what is considered Scientology “scripture” should feel free to do so whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not.

        Would if that were the case, but as it happens, you are only allowed to quote Scientology scripture if Marty (or Mike, or whoever is moderating that day) agrees with the scripture you wish to post. If they disagree with the scripture you quote, the comment does not see the light of day.”

        I wouldn’t even hazard to guess what “scripture” you are specifically referring to and whether it’s even LRH being quoted.

        As you know there is a lot of LRH apocrypha that many so called “critics” claim was spoken or written by Hubbard which have as much validity as say MJ 12.

        Also there are the so called “secret scriptures” or Advanced Course Materials that most Scientologists believe should not be made broad public issue.

        Anyone expecting Marty or Mike to post these things is either ignorant of the purpose of Marty’s site or seeking provocation of some kind which really has nothing to do with the First Amendment and is covered under what is known as “Fighting Words”.

      • March 10, 2011 8:17 am

        @RJ,

        >if you find another organization board that has seven to nine specific divisions for various activities

        I haven’t seen another org chart like that. But I’ve also only seen one painting that has a ghostly abstract figure with its hands to its face and its mouth wide open. But I wouldn’t credit Munch with inventing the idea of painting people who are screaming.

        >I wouldn’t even hazard to guess what “scripture” you are specifically referring to and whether it’s even LRH being quoted.

        I do know that there are materials that Scientologists prefer not to see public, but this was nothing like that. These were references to LRH PLs which showed that Marty’s allegations about DM’s originations, which in fact were based on LRH policy.

        Most of this happened before I started my Censored by Marty section, but here’s an example:

        http://caliwog.wordpress.com/censored-by-marty/#comment-941

        BTW, whenever possible, I use versions of policies published before LRH’s death.

        I tried to point out on Marty’s blog that “What your donations buy” was originally called “What your fees buy.” All instances of “fees” were changed to “donations” in 1991. My comment pointing this out got censored. Apparently, that is one alteration of the tech that Marty is okay with.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 10, 2011 8:20 am

        Wow Jeff I thought you didn’t post my earlier comment to Caliwog because it was a bit…er…accusative.

        Well thanks big guy 🙂

        Hey in general I think you’re doing a great job posting what you think and I respect your openess in communication even though I may not agree at times.

        This songs for you and everybody else here:

        To quote Edward R Murrow:

        “Good night and good luck” 🙂

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 10, 2011 2:57 pm

        RJ: The fact that the CoS tends to use copyright to take down the “apocrypha” does lend some credence to the claim that is is bona fide, particularly when combined with the fact that there is so much secret material.

        What I’d really like to see the independent Scientologists do is publish what they consider to be “the tech”, though this obviously has copyright issues.

        However, it would be interesting to see a guide to the tech that stays within “Fair Use” but would help people to make sense of any material that they happen to come across.

        If nothing else, it would enrage the current CoS leadership.

      • March 10, 2011 9:20 pm

        “>if you find another organization board that has seven to nine specific divisions for various activities

        I haven’t seen another org chart like that. But I’ve also only seen one painting that has a ghostly abstract figure with its hands to its face and its mouth wide open. But I wouldn’t credit Munch with inventing the idea of painting people who are screaming.”

        Now you’re splitting hairs with that analogy Caliwog.

        Even so.

        Munch’s ‘Scream’ is considered an *original* work of art.

        >I wouldn’t even hazard to guess what “scripture” you are specifically referring to and whether it’s even LRH being quoted.

        I do know that there are materials that Scientologists prefer not to see public, but this was nothing like that. These were references to LRH PLs which showed that Marty’s allegations about DM’s originations, which in fact were based on LRH policy.

        Most of this happened before I started my Censored by Marty section, but here’s an example:

        http://caliwog.wordpress.com/censored-by-marty/#comment-941

        BTW, whenever possible, I use versions of policies published before LRH’s death.

        I tried to point out on Marty’s blog that “What your donations buy” was originally called “What your fees buy.” All instances of “fees” were changed to “donations” in 1991. My comment pointing this out got censored. Apparently, that is one alteration of the tech that Marty is okay with.<

        Personally I prefer "fees" which is a word that better aligns with the concept of a tangible *service* and a valid *exchange* as opposed to nebulous concept of "donations" which indicates something intangible and my opinion has altered the concept of Scientology from being *results* based to becoming a totally *faith* based religion.

        I was also opposed to replacing "franchise" with "missions" from the distribution of all HCOBs and PLs.

        In fact I wrote to CST DBA L Ron Hubbard Library regarding my objections to these alterations in the newly "corrected" Tech Volumes and OECs back in the early '90's and for that and other reasons I was labeled "disaffected".

        Having written that.

        I must say I agree with you Caliwog that the subject of Scientology should be presented to the world as honestly as possible excluding material that is considered confidential of course and that anyone studying the subject should have access to the *original* materials even those that have been revised or cancelled so that anyone studying it can see why a certain PL or HCOB was revised or canceled or more importantly whether the revision or cancelation is even valid just like it says in the HCOB/PL "How to Defeat Verbal Tech".

      • March 10, 2011 9:24 pm

        I agree with you 100% Special Frog especially on the final point:

        “If nothing else, it would enrage the current CoS leadership.” 😉

      • Dr. Faust permalink
        March 10, 2011 10:04 pm

        Caliwog, you are right and I agree with most of what you write. You must realize that Marty and the other independents however are not *willing* to confront or discuss anything you try to bring to their attention. From your point of view you’re trying to knock some sense into these guys. From their point of view your sole purepose of posting there is to invalidate LRH and destroy the tech. That makes you a persona non grata. And the more you try to push your PoV the more bridges you’ll burn. There has to be a point when someone knows to stop. This whole “Marty censored my posts” blog also serves no real purpose – Marty lovers won’t bother reading it and non-believers will reinforce themselves in their view that Marty is still a cultist.

        That does not mean I don’t enjoy your discussions with RJ on this blog, though, so keep going in this respect 🙂

      • March 10, 2011 10:22 pm

        >I must say I agree with you Caliwog that the subject of Scientology should be presented to the world as honestly as possible

        I think we have almost reached a common reality. 🙂

        I would feel differently about Scientology if _everything_ was available to potential Scientologists. Let’s be honest, talking bushes and loaves into fishes aren’t, on the surface, that much easier to believe than Incident II. The secrecy is one indicator of what I see as Hubbard’s less-than-altruistic methods.

        It helps a *lot* coming to the tech from the admin side rather than the secular side. It’s a very big puzzle, and when you put together elements like the confidential scriptures, the gradient scale, come-on dissemination, and anti-psychiatry stance, it forms the framework of what I see as the scam of Scientology.

        All elements to keep you looking inward, not outward, and thinking with, not thinking about, what LRH is saying.

        ML, CW

      • March 11, 2011 1:53 am

        Jeez this thread is gettin’ unwieldy!

        (note to Dungeon Master Jeff:

        Could ya give us a few more reply buttons?

        Please pretty please 🙂 )

        “I think we have almost reached a common reality. :)”

        That’s nice Caliwog.

        But really that has been my reality about the subject for a long time.

        “I would feel differently about Scientology if _everything_ was available to potential Scientologists. Let’s be honest, talking bushes and loaves into fishes aren’t, on the surface, that much easier to believe than Incident II. The secrecy is one indicator of what I see as Hubbard’s less-than-altruistic methods.”

        Secrecy isn’t always a bad thing.

        Especially when there is good reason for this secrecy as covered in the PL ‘Security of Data’.

        Also your “fishes and loaves” analogy fails on the fact that there are much more wilder data available than Incident II in History of Man and the Technique 88 lecture series broadly available to the public.

        Just to name two examples though I could probably come up with more.

        Actually restricted access would be a better word to use than outright secrecy. That is restricted to those who have achieved the results of the previous levels before that which mainly applies more to the procedures used than the actual material covered.

        The material covered can be found in the earliest books and lectures on the subject like the PDC, Phoenix Lectures, Creation of Human Ability etc, etc.

        Actually I find the data covered on the 52 lecture entitled ‘The Role of Earth’ wilder than anything covered on section III.

        Anyway Jeff probably knows this PL better than I and that is you communicate the subject of Scientology at the level of the reality of the person receiving it.

        Seems to some people perceiving things from an exterior point of view at great distances as they do in Remote Viewing, being able to communicate telepathically, the possibility that this planet is a galactic truck stop and even past lives are not all that *real*.

        Poor dears to have such minds as open as a virgin on her wedding night.

        But what can you say?

        Me except for the restricted Advanced Levels I’d give them every thing and let God sort it out.

        This is what we did back in the ’70’s and as Jeff will tell you we had to beat ’em off with a club. I mean even the CIA was on mailing list.

        Now they go on with these whinny mealy mouthed ads that try to be soooo boringly *yawn* “mainstream”.

        Personally I don’t really care to much for the closed minded skeptics or the people who drone on endlessly about some “materialist” reality.

        Who gives a flying F_ck if the Amazing Randi thinks Scientology is a “fraud”.

        Scientology ain’t for him.

        Scientology is for people who want it.

        Those who want to experience more than the common reality and want to open the Doors to Perception without droppin’ mesc or acid.

        Nuff said.

        “It helps a *lot* coming to the tech from the admin side rather than the secular side. It’s a very big puzzle, and when you put together elements like the confidential scriptures, the gradient scale, come-on dissemination, and anti-psychiatry stance, it forms the framework of what I see as the scam of Scientology.”

        It’s easy to view anything subjective as a “scam” because it can to a great extent can only be viewed subjectively.

        Many people not just Scientologists view Psychiatry as a scam for that very reason.

        Me I’ve got nothing against psychiatrists or anyone in the healing professions. So you can exclude me from the above generality.

        I’ve seen Psychiatrists actually help people.

        Same with most good doctors.

        By the way Scientology isn’t for those people who need a doctor or psychiatrist.

        I’ve always said that Lisa McPherson would probably be alive today if she had been placed in the hands of a good Psychiatrist or Doctor who knew Scientology or even if they didn’t as long as they didn’t administer abusive “treatments”.

        The only members of those professions I have a problem with are those who *over* prescribe drugs as a panacea to everything and who use such abusive and invasive “treatments” such as electroshock, lobotomies, narcosynthesis etc.

        Especially those who keep people locked up in Mental Institutions so they can receive such “treatments” against their will.

        As far as I’m concerned that is false imprisonment and torture.

        I don’t care what nicey nicey label you slap on it.

        Fact is I have friends who are Psychiatrists and Medical Doctors who agree with me.

        “All elements to keep you looking inward, not outward, and thinking with, not thinking about, what LRH is saying.”

        Again this is too much of an all too inclusive generalized statement especially when you consider the fact that many Scientology processes are objective.

        Also I know for a fact that Ron recommends that a student of Scientology study other subjects than Scientology like history, art, navigation, photography, even psychoanalysis just to name a few.

        So really I don’t buy that line.

      • March 11, 2011 5:47 am

        RJ, you’re eloquent, articulate and patient, and I’m tempted not to reply purely out of respect. I disagree with a lot of what you’re saying, but it’s refreshing to have someone willing to discuss instead of saying “You must be OSA!”

        There’s a lot I want to say, but I don’t know a way to say it and sound as respectful as I want to be.

        I’ll say it this way: I think you’re concentrating on the minutiae and missing the big picture – which, near as I can tell, is exactly what Hubbard wanted you to do. What Hubbard *planned* for you to do.

        Hubbard promised certain things that came with being clear. He promised abilities that came with OT. Those things don’t happen.

        But what did happen is that Scientology and Hubbard got a LOT of money from people who wanted those things to happen.

        I don’t know if you’re ready to hear what I have to say, RJ. But when you are, I’ll be here!

        ML, CW

      • Valkov permalink
        March 11, 2011 10:38 am

        Special Frog,

        I’ve been told you can download the entire pre-DM LRH library for free from this site:

        http://www.stss.nl

      • March 11, 2011 11:33 am

        Thanks Caliwog for all those refs.

        Anyway as we can see Ron didn’t say that communication exclusively was the universal solvent.

        I mean some people you can continually communicate to and if you don’t include affinity and reality which as we know per Scientology = understanding it don’t solvent nuttin’

  17. Fidelio permalink
    March 9, 2011 10:07 pm

    Yes, it’s a habit you can break!

    And if I do so consequently, all the thought stoppers which were put there with the sole purpose to ingrain that encapsulating habit package blow into full view themselves – more sooner than later. Now they can be extracted as the trojans they are – worming through the own thinking which might have been still in place.

    And thus the Hubbardian card house is dismantled and tumbles down very nicely. It’s amazing how limited it was while pretending the opposite. It’s retardedness is mindboggling in itself…..

    Thanks again, Jeff! Wonderfully poignant article.

    Fidelio

    • Fidelio permalink
      March 9, 2011 10:11 pm

      …and btw, isn’t thinking VERY low on the scale, VERY LOW, Jeff?????

      You’re a rascal and a dare-devil….! 🙂

      Fidelio

    • March 10, 2011 4:02 am

      Thanks for your witty words of wisdom Fidelio.

      I will give them the same care and attention as many of the witticisms that are ejaculated by the Pope of Scientology.

      Sorry couldn’t help myself.

      I just *had* to say it 🙂

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 10, 2011 7:35 am

        hahahahahahahaha…. at least you were not “directing me to the relevant policy or HCOB.”…….but speaking YOUR mind. hahahahaha
        Fidelio

      • March 10, 2011 8:05 am

        I always speak my mind Fidelio.

        Just ask Jeff.

        Scientology hasn’t hampered this…er…ability in any way.

        Maybe I should have been more specific.

        For instance if someone came to me and asked me how to do the Int RD.

        I’d have them read the related HCOBs.

        Just as I’d refer someone who asked me how to adjust the push rods on their Harley to their owner’s manual

        Unless they were totally f_ckin’ illiterate than I’d show him how to do it.

        I’m lazy like that 🙂

      • March 10, 2011 8:32 am

        >I always speak my mind Fidelio… Scientology hasn’t hampered this…er…ability in any way.

        And can I say, RJ, honestly and truly, that I am very glad for that.

        ML,
        Caliwog

  18. stella permalink
    March 10, 2011 12:29 am

    “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
    ~R.W. Emerson

    ;-|

    • lunamoth permalink
      March 10, 2011 1:44 am

      I love that you used a quote to make that point!

  19. Joe Pendleton permalink
    March 10, 2011 2:27 am

    Of course there IS a tremendous amount of wisdom in LRH’s writings/lectures, but to rely ONLY on HIS viewpoints is not very healthy for a being’s own self-determinism and own ability to think and postulate.

    You might find a recent comm cycle I had interesting in this regard. I was having a spirited discussion with a friend (who is a Cl. VIII auditor and still on staff) a couple of days ago and his son about modern technology’s effect on current life. My friend’s son started off the conversation with something I disagreed with and then my friend quoted LRH to some extent on the phenonomenon we were talking about. I continued to site examples as to why I disagreed, never once mentioning what Ron thought (I was a highly experienced tech person in Scientology myself for 35 years) and finally my friend in a sort of friendly exasperation said re: his point after I once again disagreed with it, “Well, that’s what LRH thinks!” (as sort off the ultimate debate point I guess) My retort? “Well,as a being I have my OWN viewpoints and opinions on this subject – you know, like in Scientology Axiom #2!” That sort of ended that discussion and we started onto something else.

    By the way, Jeff, just finished your book last week. Quite a story – thank you for it. To me, the most chilling moment of the entire book was when your second wife answered the survey question the wrong way, and that was the end for her……geez….can you spell the words “big brother”?

    Anyway, your point here on this post is extremely important. If Ron got it right 80% of the time, that would still be a high percentage, but in the church, one really tends to read every single thing as “truth revealed” and then figure out how it is so (if it does not immediately seem understandably true) – and once one gets into the habit, it kinda becomes very easy to do (even though “early LRH” says not to do this, but to have your own personal integrity in on this – here I go quoting him again – ha – see lecture on “Education” re: the vital point of a person having power of choice over any datufrm given him – though by KSW, LRH had another viewpoint on that, and by the early 70s, ANY other viewpoint on what he said was ALWAYS because of misunderstood words or false data from another source – he was THE source).

    I could go on, as this is such a vital subject . I now disagree with a number of things LRH said on a number of subjects (while having the personal integrity TO agree with what he said that I feel is true).

    Keep up the great work Jeff.

    • March 10, 2011 3:24 pm

      Great comment, Joe.

      I’ve been out for 10 years now, and I find your 2nd to last paragraph an excellent description of a very common, ongoing, process that many people undergo who were once heavily involved in Scientology.

      My latest propellant in this process: Plato.

      When you compare the work of Plato to the work of L Ron Hubbard, you will never find yourself quoting L Ron Hubbard again. Unless the LRH quote is from the “How to Pick Your Nose” Life Improvement Course and there’s a particularly nasty one that you need to make short work of.

      We are talking about the process of self-creation. Before Scientology, you did it on your own. In Scientology, you let LRH do it for you. After Scientology, you are doing it on your own again.

      The important thing is to keep moving and don’t look back!

      • Valkov permalink
        March 11, 2011 10:54 am

        I’m not a great fan of Plato’s.

        His political philosophy was entirely totalitarian. He envisioned his “Republic” as a regime with a caste system in which there was no mobility whatsoever, similar to what was extant in India for many centuries.
        It was to be ruled by a caste of “philosopher-kings” who had absolute power. Children were to be taken from their parents and raised by the State, which would determine their lot in life.

        Much as in India, the second caste was the Military/Warrior caste. Everyone else was relegated to the “worker/producer/merchant” caste and were not allowed to receive education beyond learning what they needed to know to do their jobs. Only the top two castes were allowed to be educated.

        Other than that, Plato was a smart guy…. but I don’t see how you can admire his thinking given his totalitarian views….

    • Tony DePhillips permalink
      March 12, 2011 6:27 am

      Nice post Joe.

  20. Revenimus permalink
    March 10, 2011 3:07 am

    Brilliant Jeff, your blog is the most insightful of all. I mean that.

    • March 10, 2011 3:25 pm

      I know it.

      It makes me very very jealous.

  21. March 10, 2011 4:06 am

    When I first left Scientology, I was so lost. No one was there to tell me what was right or wrong. No one was there to tell me what was true or false — and I’d forgotten how to figure that out myself.

    What shocked me was the realization that this had happened. How could I have forgotten how to think? How could I have become unable to figure out what was true and false?

    Bill

  22. exilo permalink
    March 10, 2011 4:37 am

    Great article and so true. I really like your blog and your articles are always so spot on exposing the cult. This is very helpful information to get over the Sea Org experience.

    Your blog really helps to get the various layers of the SO/Cult brainwash thinking processes pealed off. With each new layer discarded, it makes me feel so much better.

  23. Oldfox permalink
    March 10, 2011 5:25 am

    Jeff, My wife and I have broken free the cult of Scientology’s lethal grip a few years back on a gradual process of looking for ourselves .
    I had done up to what is called OT8 and had been also designated by the cult as an auditor.
    After much research and looking we found Hubbard to be nothing more than a fraud and a conman.
    Your article is so spot on as the fiction and terms one is induced to use daily in the Scientology cult is a tool of the hypnotic trance being cast upon its captives in my view.
    When one stops using their terminology and supplants it with real language I found that mental faculties that were obstructed came forth with a vengence!

  24. Bryan U. (formerly Idle Org) permalink
    March 10, 2011 6:28 am

    Now Jeff,

    As you know, Command Intention dictates that……..

    Okay, I’ll stop. 🙂

    Man, when you got to the Reverand Moon part, I really understood more fully the freak show that is organized Scientology.

    Great article as usual. Although…….a little bit creepy.

    • March 10, 2011 8:19 am

      >I really understood more fully the freak show that is _organized_ Scientology.

      *Forehead smack*

      ML,
      Caliwog

  25. Cowboy Poet permalink
    March 10, 2011 12:15 pm

    By all these comments I’d say leaving the Cof$ caused a lot of people to start thinking more clearly.
    That’s a hoot when ya think about it.

    “Knowing how to know”
    “The study of knowledge”
    …ad naseum

    If you folks hadn’t been drinking so much KoolAid, both staff and public, there might have been a bit more salvaged out what was good about the subject matter.
    And perhaps that can still happen.

    Jeff,
    You convey your thoughts very articulately. I enjoy your posts.

    • Cowboy Poet permalink
      March 10, 2011 12:30 pm

      I’m on a rant…
      Look at Islam. You know when there’s over a billion adherents that there’s got to be some sort of stickiness to it, right? There’s some kind of truth there that gives it those legs.
      Yet would you think that by an observation of the Islamic KoolAid drinkers?
      Nope.
      It’s really a terrible disservice to what good could be extracted and used out of these philosophies/religions to get dogmatic about them. Afterall, isn’t the point of them to be the opposite of that?
      People need to get their heads screwed on.

      • lunamoth permalink
        March 10, 2011 11:29 pm

        People need to get their heads screwed on. (Cowboy Poet)

        Boy, that’s for sure … maybe that’s what they’re looking to the authority of a religion to do for them. I can’t really say. I just know that in my book the terms “organized religion” and “personal spiritual growth” no longer go together.

      • Scott Campbell permalink
        March 12, 2011 7:29 am

        I’d like my Cherry KoolAid with a twist of Lime if you please…

        Thanks Cowboy. That was a good post.

        Scott

  26. Debussy permalink
    March 10, 2011 2:01 pm

    This is a refreshing blog – sane sane sane

  27. March 10, 2011 5:17 pm

    As far as I can recall LRH never demanded to quote him. Therefore I assume, there are two major reasons for quoting:
    1) The effort to get get something done
    2) Demonstrating that oneself is a smartass .
    I do not exclude me from 1+2 🙂

    • March 10, 2011 10:25 pm

      >As far as I can recall LRH never demanded to quote him.

      Well, there was the ban on verbal tech. I was taught never to tell someone what LRH said, only to show them what LRH said.

      That isn’t LRH saying to quote him, per se, but it is in effect saying that people must refer to the original tech, because LRH’s actual words, shown on the page, are valid. They can’t even spring from someone else’s lips.

      Not a demand to be quoted, but about as close as one can get…

      ML,
      CW

      • March 11, 2011 7:09 am

        I know but keep in mind: The term LRH Tech + LRH Data are defined very precise. Within the years the “ban” has developed to “every sentence LRH wrote”. This is BS. There are data in policy &Bulletin but the frame around it is often his own observation, opinion, evaluation, even critical stuff. So when he writes about Japanese Kamikaze, US Gov, or Blackfoot Indians it is NOT LRH data. He himself stated very clearly: The data is the data and they stay (my) data unchangeable. (For example axioms)
        But its up to you if you agree with my opinion/ eval.
        You find this in the lectures of “perception of truth”.
        An if I quote LRH, what is his opinion about US -Gov, i cannot be shot. Very simple.

  28. Dr. Faust permalink
    March 10, 2011 10:16 pm

    Jeff, your analogy to “Reverend Moon” is so fitting. What die-hard Scientologists don’t grasp is that with their quoting of LRH they give this very same, creepy impression to anyone who is not a “true believer”. You really do have a way of bringing your points across in a manner that even Scientologists will have a hard time attacking with good arguments. May they be independents or churchies in good standing.

    • Valkov permalink
      March 11, 2011 11:30 am

      I’ll post a contrarian view. Going back thousands of years to India and perhaps beyond, and all over the world, “oral traditions” were the main method of transmission of a culture’s knowledge from generation to generation in the absence of writing.

      For example, India’s great philosophical epic the Bhagavad Gita was passed down through oral traditions for over two thousand years. And right up to present time, there have been people in India who were able to recite the entire book from memory without alteration from recitation to recitation, word for word. People who were able to do this were immensely respected.

      The liability over the centuries was that alterations and additions could occur, and this today is an issue in India, just as it is in the study of old Christian, Islamic, and Judaic manuscripts and oral traditions, of which there are a-plenty in those religions/cultures.

      With the advent of widespread writing and especially wholesale printing, it is possible to potentially transmit knowledge and materials more accurately over longer periods of time without altering them from the originals.

      Although I have on occasion quoted Hubbard myself, I basically agree with RJ that this is generally not a good practice, depending on how and why it is done, the context of it. It’s all too easy for a person to “spin” the quote by cherry-picking what is quoted, to their own ends.

      It is better to provide the entire reference and let the person get their own understanding of it, then discuss that if wished. This preserves the fidelity of the originals.

      So I agree the “quotefests” of Hubbard are often “gamey” and a substitute for thinking; but the memorization of materials has been a valid function in most cultures throughout the ages, and is still widely used in religious traditions by priests, rabbis, ministers etc. even now when the written word is widely available.

  29. sherrymk permalink
    March 10, 2011 10:23 pm

    Jeff, this article brings to light the hardest obstacle I had overcome when I left the C of S a couple of years ago: “is this what I really think or is this the way I was conditioned to think”. It was like constantly separating out my “cult identity” and my real identity. It took a LOT of effort, a LOT of communication to my family and friends, a LOT of sorting out. I would sometimes ask my daughters if I was speaking English, if what I was saying “made sense”, if a concept I had just presented was logical or understandable. The more I worked on eliminating the language of Scientology from my vocabulary, the easier it became to sort out my own thoughts on a topic, subject, feeling, etc. without being thrown back into the “scientology think”, the constant, “what was it Ron said about this?” or “that’s not what Ron would say, think, do so I shouldn’t either”

    I bring this up because it’s an important step to anyone trying to actually think for themselves outside the scientology box of LRH writings and lectures, scientology nomenclature and general cult-babble. It was an eerie experience for me. Like having two selves side by side in every conversation, during every decision making process; comparing and figuring out which one was ME thinking and which one was me thinking through a filter of Scientologese. Tough way to carry on a conversation let alone live a life. And it took quite some time to sort through it.

    For instance, I’m still trying to get rid of what I start mentally doing if, let’s say, someone stubs their toe or knocks into something, or breaks a glass, is in an accident and I automatically the thought ‘pops into my mind before I can stop it: “they must be PTS, must be connected to an SP” or “Ah! Mistakes, Anatomy of” or or or…all that crap. Very disruptive to logical thought and quite unnerving. Having the awareness that this is happening though, is a step forward. I have to say that sometimes I wonder if all that indoctrination will ever go away. I think not. Not totally.

    Thanks again for presenting such logical viewpoints to us who read this blog, and allowing us the opportunity to indeed “think for ourselves.”

    • windhorse permalink
      March 11, 2011 2:09 am

      Sherry — I always enjoy your posts and how obviously hard you’ve worked to separate yourself from your “other self” 🙂

      And it’s a trial indeed.

      What has seemed to work for me and trust me when I say I have those same knee-jerk responses internally when someone gets sick, has an accident etc …

      Is just this question —

      Is my response one that shows compassion for the human condition or is my response arrogant, unfeeling and unkind.

      It need not be all of the 3 negative ones, but for me, guaranteed it will be one of them.

      And before those who make comments about being TOUGH and unwilling to turn the other cheek, I answer —

      No problemo — be tough. Don’t turn the other cheek.

      Neither of those preclude being kind or decent.

      Windhorse

      • sherrymk permalink
        March 11, 2011 5:28 pm

        Windhorse,

        I, as well, always enjoy reading your posts.

        You’ve described something that I myself came to the same conclusion about. Is what I’m saying, thinking, and/or doing coming from the viewpoint of that all-prevalent Scientology arrogance, that cold and unfeeling “explanation” of people and situations where everyone is categorized into some “tone level”, where every action is boxed into some Scientological category of “dramatization, reactive, bank response, low- toned, theta, entheta, enturbulative, psych-oriented, dilettante, theety-wheety, blah blah blah”; that way Scientologists have of knowing they are the only ones that “really know” so they can never really SEE the person in front of them, can never really EXPERIENCE the loveliness that most individuals have within themselves, never really SHARE in the uniqueness of individual viewpoints.

        Makes me a bit ill to think of it and how I evolved over the years into this “thing” without even realizing what I’d become. Homo Novis? I’ll pass on that, thank you very much!

        Sher

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 11, 2011 8:54 pm

        Another BIG Yes, Sherry!

        Judgmental to the core while pretending being non-evaluative and non-invalidative at every turn.
        A pile of lies, piled onto lies, trusting in the deceptive effectiveness of THE BIG LIE because of its incredibilty……

        Fidelio

      • Marildi permalink
        March 12, 2011 6:04 am

        @Sherry

        You said, “Scientologists…can never really SEE the person in front of them.”

        God, so true. We looked only ON A VIA. And it was SO lonely – because you make no contact, you don’t “touch” – you’re disconnected. We even did it to some large degree with each other, regimented and blocked as we were in our ability to have a viewpoint of our own. Nowadays, when I get phone calls from org staff (being still “under the radar”), no matter how much *apparent* ARC they flow (and some are pretty good in their attempts, bless their hearts) I can never really feel that they are in comm with ME. Because I know they have their “matrix” agenda – I know because I’ve been there, with the group think that “the only thing that matters is stats or so-called Command Intention – or “Scientology”. Oh, boy. 😦

        And you added, “can never really EXPERIENCE the loveliness that most individuals have within themselves, never really SHARE the uniqueness of individual viewpoints.” I know now that I was probably always looking for just these things – what could possibly be more valuable? And, ironically, with “Scientology” that deep-down knowingness only got curbed, at best.

        But I do know (and not just because LRH said it!) that life is in me today. :-)Thanks for striking some chords here, Sherry.

    • Fidelio permalink
      March 11, 2011 9:29 am

      Sherry,

      wonderful post!!

      Just wonderfully put what it really takes so that deep (purposeful!) conditioning is broken and dissolved for it to lose its grip on one’s thinking.

      I enjoy your writing VERY much!

      Fidelio

    • Valkov permalink
      March 11, 2011 11:36 am

      Sherry, the thought that pops into my mind is “I should help them do a contact assist if possible.”

      That is what the CoS ought to have been teaching people, instead of that evaluative stuff you mention in your post….

      • sherrymk permalink
        March 11, 2011 9:33 pm

        Indeed…if only ’twas so.

    • Chrissie permalink
      March 11, 2011 1:11 pm

      Sherry I agree. The old habits are hard to break. My husband and I worked for months to break ourselves of using Scn nomenclature, touch backs, etc. Now it is normal not to use it and it seems strange if we do.

      Breaking yourself of the nomenclature definitely goes along with Quoting vs. Thinking. The nomenclature has specific definitions that are only valid within Scn so using them in the outside world doesn’t work. Plus some of the words have different meanings in the real world and it can confuse people!

      Chrissie

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 11, 2011 8:44 pm

        Yes, Chrissie, a prominent example being the word “reasonable”.
        Hubbard really meant distortion.
        Fidelio

    • Sid permalink
      March 11, 2011 4:25 pm

      Sherry, I find your comments absolutely fascinating, but also very disturbing.

      Amidst the mass of horror stories of disconnection, RFP, persecution of critics, slave labor, child abandonment, coerced abortion we tend to forget the damage done to minds, and how difficult it is to unpick Scientology thought processes and learn to think for yourself again.

      This embedding of LRH-thought is, to my mind, the single most damaging aspect of anyone’s involvement in Scientology.

      I want to point out that this conditioning was a fundamental part of Scientology way before a certain CoB ever saw the light of day.

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 11, 2011 8:41 pm

        Yes. Hundreds of thousands of minds over the decades. Thus contaminated. And struggling to clean themselves out again. What a joint effort. Thank goodness on a global stage. What an interesting and HUGE lesson!!!!! Amazing…..
        Fidelio

  30. Pete Sagi permalink
    March 11, 2011 4:56 pm

    To this day I still “quote”. On the other hand, my favorite source are the R. Lee Ermey as Gunnery Seargant Hartman lines from “Full Metal Jacket”. And you don’t have to quote them exactly, they work best when paraphrased. Once paraphrased, they are almost uniformly applicable. For instance … when stuck behind someone in traffic … “Well any f——g time, sweetheart!!!” or “You drive the way old people f—!” And then there is my favorite “I will motivate you, (name), if it short d–ks every cannibal on the Congo!!!” The possibilities are almost endless.

    Pete

  31. freespirit permalink
    March 11, 2011 5:28 pm

    Man Jeff, this is one of your better ones -and your posts are so great. Love, love it. I think the first steps of “thinking for yourself” are evident in those that start leading us on the path of getting out from the church. You know you are making progress when you find yourself the brunt of endless disagreement checks, sec-checks, conditions, etc,etc.

    But then, for me, once I got, out, I still had to “re-think” so many things. On every dynamic. And I’m still doing it. Every single day. It doesn’t stop. It’s an on-going process. It’s developing the skill of “critical thinking. ” And as challenging as it is, it is wonderful to do. Thanks for exposing these “invisible” hooks that keep us mentally strapped.

  32. March 11, 2011 8:16 pm

    Caliwog,

    Yes the lovefest is over.

    Your practice of Quotology has proven my point entirely and has maybe incidentally supported Jeff’s article on the subject.

    Because all your quotes are based on what is considered the optimum or optimal condition of a clear.

    An absolute.

    They are also modified by later passages in the book itself and later research on the subject.

    Regarding OT abilities.

    These *are* practiced abilities and the actual drills for achieving them are contained in the Creation of Human Ability in the section known as “Route 1”.

    And really I don’t care if you do not think these abilities can be attained or not because as I wrote earlier Scientology isn’t for everybody.

    Bye now 🙂

    • Jeff permalink*
      March 11, 2011 8:24 pm

      RJ, I don’t get “optimal condition of a clear.” Are you saying there are degrees of Clear? In other words, one can go Clear but not be in an “optimal condition” for a Clear? Is Clear a gradient? Can you have degrees of Clear? Is Clear conditional? I always thought that in Scientology terms, a Clear is a Clear, period.

      • sherrymk permalink
        March 11, 2011 8:44 pm

        …and, as I previously suggested, how about revisiting that now-famous “Bridge to Nowhere” thread, Jeff? Seems we’re close to being in the thick of it, eh? (Although, there is a lot more that could be said in this “Thinking vs. Quoting” thread. Lots. The layers upon layers of the dichotomies and contradictions in Hubbard’s writings of Scientology could fill, in themselves , the Tech and Policy Vols…. Oh…wait..they DO fill them!)

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 11, 2011 9:04 pm

        Sherry, you get me on a roll…LOL…oh, wait…. You are wonderful!! Fidelio

    • March 11, 2011 9:26 pm

      @RJ: First, thanks for moving to this to the end, where the columns are nice and wide. 🙂

      >They are also modified by later passages in the book itself and later research on the subject.

      Then why, in the 35 or so years between the book’s pubication and Hubbard’s death, wasn’t the book changed?

      Why do those promises appear in print in the current edition, which is used as the first step into Scientology?

      Why, when the FDA came after Scientology for promoting cures it couldn’t provide, and much of what was written had to be modified or have disclaimers added, didn’t Hubbard change it then?

      RJ, I know you are trying to defend the tech, but you just can’t defend the indefensible. Hubbard stated very clearly (heh heh) what a Clear could do. He reportedly attempted to demonstrate these abilities in front of a live audience in 1950 and could not.

      Hubbard said what he said, RJ. To try to defend that is verbal tech.

      ML (And I really do mean that),
      Caliwog

    • March 12, 2011 1:21 am

      RJ: “Regarding OT abilities. These *are* practiced abilities and the actual drills for achieving them are contained in the Creation of Human Ability in the section known as ‘Route 1’.”

      I really like how you say this with such absolute certainty. And that certainty is based on what? Did you actually achieve real OT powers using them?

      • VaD permalink
        March 13, 2011 7:19 pm

        He has a vision. – LOL!

  33. Tony DePhillips permalink
    March 12, 2011 6:38 am

    Another great post Jeff.

    To make your above example even more absurd it could be:

    Dave: ” I think that auditing is bad ” Alonzo says…”
    Steve: Yes and I heard a lecture by Alonzo and he said, blah blah blah..”

    You would think these guys were nuts. Quoting anyone, any man or woman infers that you consider that person to be a God or divine being. As Joe said above, I do feel that LRH got a lot of stuff right. I don’t agree with everything he said that is forsure.
    LRH is not a God. He was a man and he did an excellent job of writing up some workable tech on helping people. I have seen this from personal experience. For those who got messed up from others and no longer like the subject at all, fine. End cycle on it.

  34. Joe Pendleton permalink
    March 12, 2011 8:50 pm

    This may be a wee bit off the original subject, but because I have now found some areas where I no longer agree with what LRH said (primarily in how organizations should be run, and especially in the emphasis put on its authoritarian nature, as well as its ethics/justice system/model), I’d like to emphasize again that free thinking in the area also allows one TO AGREE as well. Yes, I DO think LRH made too many absolute statements and can be “over the top”, such as in his original descriptions of a clear and OT (in Philadelphia lecture, for example), but he also hit on so many things that ARE true. First of all, auditing technique, when done properly by the rules, is marvelously workable and produces great cognitions and wins. Freud hit on the subconscious and “earlier similar” first, but auditing as it is laid out is Ron’s baby, and has many, many positive uses to improve people’s lives. And people DO in fact become the effect of true suppressives and that’s great and useable data. The ARC Triangle is as real as gravity as far as I’m concerned in it’s truth and useability. And if you want to know pretty much the model for behavior throughout Earth history, just look at the service fac brackets on process R3SCA (right/wrong; survive,succumb, etc). And I could go on and on.

    I think part of the problem on our planet is the model for religion. Most of the major religions (certainly the monotheistic ones – Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have ALL the answers and a parishioner is expected to accept ALL of them as truth divinely revealed. I attend a Pentacostal Christian church where this is certainly the rule. When one FULLY becomes involved in a religion/church, one is expected to ACCEPT what is given as truth, and work at understanding and accepting that truth. In Christianity there is Bible Study, and books of commentaries to help one understand. And there is never, NEVER another truth – it is ALWAYS “another practice” or “other intentioness” or being led astray by the devil’s design (the Apostle Paul repeatedly warns about accepting this “false data”).

    I’m sorry that Ron felt he had to create a complete, uncompromising and authority driven church as the only way to achieve his dream. Of course, he had great success in doing this as Scientology is in my opinion the first major religion on the planet since Islam in the 7th century. But there are also many, many problems created on this path and we see that right now.

    Hey, maybe I’m starting to babble a bit now, but in closing, I’ll just say that I do not invalidate even ONE cognition or win or new ability I got in Scientology (and I got in when I was 19 over 40 years ago and quickly became a Cl. IV auditor). I can accept all of the truth in what LRH had to say and credit him for that, while rejecting any of his datums that are not real or true for ME. I just wish that individual free thinking and opinions (Scientology Axiom #2) and high affinity and more compassion were practiced more fully in the C of S – I think its future would be bright it they had been. Well, more than one subject here, but this all was on my mind.

    • Marildi permalink
      March 12, 2011 9:25 pm

      Highly agree. 🙂 And very well said.

      • Marildi permalink
        March 12, 2011 9:33 pm

        The only thing I would add off the top of my head is that there is no way I can conceive that LRH’s intentions were *entirely* (probably in part, yes) material-oriented or otherwise non-spiritual. He couldn’t have had the insights and perserverence to come up with what he did. Maybe someone else here can articulate why that makes sense. For me it is probably just, what I like to think of as, a knowingness.

      • March 13, 2011 2:21 am

        >He couldn’t have had the insights and perserverence to come up with what he did. Maybe someone else here can articulate why that makes sense.

        Have you read much science fiction other than Hubbard? If you do, I think you’ll find your answer. Sci Fi is all about finding plausible explanations, and those explanations do not need to be rooted in reality. Hubbard was no Asimov or Heinlein, but he was pretty damn good.

        But unlike Asimov and Heinlein, he found a much more profitable way to sell his stories.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • Marildi permalink
        March 13, 2011 4:33 pm

        Caliwog, thanks for your response.

        I was referring to LRH’s intentions to come up with a workable, walkable path – not just theories, philosophical or otherwise.

        But the proof is in the pudding. I’m curious, have you personally had a fairly thorough serving?

      • March 13, 2011 7:01 pm

        Miraldi, I’ve had heaps and heaps of pudding, all served on the administration side. Which, by the way, is something every Scientologist should read, because it lays bare a lot of why Hubbard came up with the workable, walkable path – the more someone walks, the more money comes in.

        Working on the admin tech side, and having a background in the “wog” business world, also means I also saw concepts that Hubbard either claimed as his own which weren’t, or grossly misinterpreted which he claimed as original research. (HCO PL 30 January 1979, POSITIONING, PHILOSOPHIC THEORY, is one of my favorite examples. Hubbard mixes up a couple of different marketing techniques, and the whole “positioning object” or “positioning image” thing used to wreak havoc in the marketing department.)

        Anyway, I digress. Did I answer your question about how much pudding I’ve had? 🙂

        ML,
        CW

      • Marildi permalink
        March 13, 2011 9:21 pm

        Caliwog, I appreciate your willingness to answer my question. (And I get the idea that you try to be intellectually honest, too.)

        But when I was referring to “what LRH came up with” I meant the Scientology philosophy and the applied tech of that philosophy (the Bridge). I just don’t see that a being who was only interested in material and non-spiritual goals would have been able to grasp the truths he did AND develop an amazingly workable way for others to achieve spiritual goals – without himself leaning in that direction, either to start with or ultimately.

        Just an “intuitive” sense on my part, I’ll admit – I wish I were able to articulate why that would have to be true. However, I’ve had a pretty good taste of the tech pudding, and I think others who would agree with my “intuition” (if that’s all it is) have also had a pretty good serving of the pudding.

        The admin tech is a whole other kettle of fish, and I have no particular impulse to defend it. You may be largely right in what you say, from what I know of that tech, which is just a fair to middlin’ amount.

        I wish you would have been served less of the fish and more of the pudding.:-)

      • March 13, 2011 10:12 pm

        >But when I was referring to “what LRH came up with” I meant the Scientology philosophy and the applied tech of that philosophy (the Bridge).

        I think that’s our area of disagreement, Marildi. From what I’ve learned, LRH did *not* come up with a lot of Scientology philosophy (and I’m talking the pudding side), particularly some of the bits that have proven gains. But LRH made creative use of words like “discover” and “found” to imply that this was all his original creation. (Look up “discover” in a dictionary to see what I mean.) He did that on the admin side, too.

        In fact, a lot of it is cribbed – and a lot of it from psychotherapy. (Ever wonder why people who have had psychiatric treatment are barred from auditing? The real reason is that they may recognize the techniques as not being original to LRH.)

        >I wish you would have been served less of the fish and more of the pudding.:-)

        Hah! This made me smile. I have actually had some small servings of pudding from my day-to-day interactions with Scientologists. I remember one bit, involving tracking a perception I had about myself down to the original incident and the person who planted that perception, which was particularly yummy. But having been in therapy before, the taste was very familiar. 🙂

        >I get the idea that you try to be intellectually honest, too.

        Thanks for that, by the way.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • Marildi permalink
        March 15, 2011 6:32 am

        Caliwog, I do think you are sincere and well-intentioned and I appreciate that. But, and this is not at all meant as offense to you (on the contrary), what I would love to see you do would be to get Method 5 or even Method 6 (key words of a subject) on “Scientology.” You would probably still have some well-founded disagreements, but you would be much better at stating those disagreements. ARC to you, Marildi

      • March 15, 2011 7:43 am

        Marildi, do you mean WCing on the word “Scientology” itself or any one particular passage? I’m game (unless you mean *everything* Hubbard wrote on Scientology… I don’t believe in future lives, so that might not be possible! *G*)

        ML,
        CW

      • Marildi permalink
        March 15, 2011 5:21 pm

        Caliwog, no, not all the materials! On Method 5, the word clearer would pick out some words (and would choose from what you’ve studied). On Method 6 it would be the key words of Scientology. Actually, Method 3 might be used too, where the word clearer would go back to the area just before your disagreements started. (See Tech Dict under “word clearing methods.”

        But don’t get me wrong! I’m not saying that you would necessarily change all your disagreements. I’m sayaing that all you need is a “good” word clearer, especially one who doesn’t evaluate or invalidate (*Standard* word clearing is done under the Auditor’s Code). And it probably should be one who is an “Independent,” by the way 🙂

      • March 15, 2011 8:44 pm

        Ah yes, I am a veteran of word clearing – even on the meter. I’m open to anything, but honestly I don’t see how word clearing will change my view of the fact that much of lower-bridge Scientology is based on proven psychotherapudic methods.

        ML,
        CW

      • Marildi permalink
        March 15, 2011 8:59 pm

        That’s fine, Caliwog. Might change some of them, though – or even sharpen them to where you could get them across better than ever. 😉

    • Tony Dephillips permalink
      March 12, 2011 10:31 pm

      Joe P.
      I like the way you think.

    • March 13, 2011 2:14 am

      >The ARC Triangle is as real as gravity as far as I’m concerned in it’s truth and useability.

      Joe, think about this one a little deeper. I have friends who I have disagreements with. I can think of one who has what I consider to be some racist views. We do not share reality. But we still have strong affinity and communication.

      I have another friend who I have not communicated with in many years, because we simply fell out of touch. But that has not lowered my affinity for her, nor the fact that we have a common reality.

      All through the Cold War, the US and Russia maintained communication, even though the two countries had very, very different realities and often little affinity. If anything, now that “R” and “A” have increased, the “C” between them has probably dropped compared to the 1970s and early 80s.

      ARC sounds good, but the interrelation is not strictly true. It’s yet another Hubbardian oversimplification.

      >Most of the major religions … have ALL the answers and a parishioner is expected to accept ALL of them as truth divinely revealed.

      I’m going to take issue with this one, too. Great example: The Old Testament makes it crystal clear that men who engage in homosexual lovemaking are to be killed. And yet countless churches reject this view and accept homosexuality, and one church (Westboro Baptist) that made public statements upholding this view has been condemned by many other churches and synagogues that reject that bit of dogma.

      ML,
      Caliwog

  35. March 12, 2011 10:10 pm

    I think LRH has given us an appropriate tool for thinking: The Data Series. Its neutral, and based on observation. IT has the big advantage that we are not using our own experiences (facsimiles) . The A=A stuff. It also does not require “quotes” to get a result. The real out point is that Data Series Evaluators course was probably done by 5 of 100 SCNists. (omitted training) And I know for sure that its the fewest promoted course in SCN because within the last 25 years it was NEVER offered to me by org registars. (I studied it without checksheet).
    I am sure some of you did it. From the overview of all the blogs i have been reading within the last 6 months – all the veterans speaking out- I can clearly see the precision in their way they evaluate the illogic in DM´s activities. SCNists which did not do the course will be trapped in DM´s PR machine, they will not be able to stay exterior to it and look. I think thats the “Why” , why SCNists still clapping.

    • March 13, 2011 2:18 am

      Oh nononono, not the Data Series! I had trouble getting past Data Series 1, which basically says that wogs are idiots. If anything Hubbard postulated about how people think were true, society could never have progressed out of the caves.

      You do not need to be a trained Scientologist to see that David Miscavige is an evil little troll. But you also don’t need to be a rocket scientist to find the LRH policies behind nearly everything DM is doing. Maybe he’s doing it with less finesse, but DM, like every Scientologist, is following the path LRH laid out.

      ML,
      Caliwog

  36. VaD permalink
    March 13, 2011 7:08 pm

    Why would one keep on quoting instead of making his own judgments regarding subjects covered by Scientology (which are just about anything under the Sun, Moon and stars)?

    Some guesses from where I stand.
    Some were covered earlier… oh well.

    – THE SOURCE. Own observations and judgments based on them seem too limited and too shallow. Source’s observations and judgments cover it all broadly and quite nicely. Unless it’s from “the Source” (or lines up with what “the source” says) no one pays attention. “The source” is all, the *I* is nothing. Al laws of Nature, humans and life “are explored and abundantly described by source. I just relay this valuable data”

    – WEIGHT. One’s words, observations and judgments have no weight unless they are backed up by “the source”. One’s own thoughts, words, common sense, observations, conclusions, judgments never mattered while being in Scientologist’s community. They had no weight, no power, and no influence. Own words and judgments don’t seem sound unless there is a thought from LRH that supports it.

    – BULLETPROOF. Whatever Hubbard ever said has been “bulletproof” (amongst Scientologists). It’s been successful model to keep on using in dialogs.

    – ABOVE ANY AND ALL CRITICISMS. What Hubbard said has never been criticized (when one was in). It’s been like that (for those who had been in Scientology for a long time). The impression that there is nothing to criticize about Hubbard’s words stays valid for one.

    – STEREOTYPES. It’s hard to think of everything for oneself. It’s hard to make one’s own decisions about everything. It’s easier to do as one has been told. Any kind of faith is better than no faith. Stereotypes help. They form group agreement. They gain agreement. They make another one (who thinks with Hubbard as well) to agree, approve and endorse any statements that were uttered by Hubbard.

    – RESPONSIBILITY. When one quotes, he feels that he’s telling “the Truth”. He can’t be responsible for the truth that has been uttered by someone else. He’s just a relay point after all. Why would you ask from HIM about the validity of that “truth”? – All questions are to “the source”… and all answers are there, too. – Truth is just what is. No more, no less. Thus, he doesn’t feel that he has real connection with that… He feels he just relays words that he believes. No own responsibility. “Well, prove it wrong, and we’ll see…”. Much better that put one’s own thoughts, ideas and conclusions under an attack of critics, isn’t it?

    – STABLE DATA. Hubbard’s words are like “stable data” to live by and judge with. According to Hubbard, stable data is not necessary true but it keeps thoughts organized. I think he’s right about that one. Once you pull the plug about ONE of his datum, you get people into confusion. Thus, it’s easier to keep feeding them “stable data” than tell some “apostate” things (when you don’t think that what Hubbard said was true or good).

    – COMMON SENSE. It’s not so common. Own observations and conclusions seem blurry and “hardly true”. One doesn’t feel comfortable saying things that are not common sense to ex(scientologists) but are common sense to everybody else. It’s easier to find a fitting quote by LRH than find some other quote that fits the bill better.

    Just some of my thoughts about what can be the need for someone to keep on quoting LRH instead of telling how he sees it himself.

  37. Joe Pendleton permalink
    March 13, 2011 8:31 pm

    Caliwog – you make some great points. I have had similar experiences to the ones you mention. In fact, I’ve had great communication and high affinity for some people I disagree with on a large number of major subjects. But what I CAN agree with is that each one of these people have the right to have their differing viewpoints and that I can listen to them and communicate with them about those opinions and that in itself is a HIGH DEGREE OF REALITY (and I can tell you, as someone who has lived in many countries of the world – it is a rare quality to be able to not just tolerate, but enjoy people having different or even opposite viewpoints from one’s own) and a high degree of affinity for people and willingness to communicate with them makes this very possible – we’d have a lot more understanding in the world – and a happier one – and a lot less conlicts for sure if people treated each other with this recognition of the right to have one’s own point of view. To ME, that’s ARC.

    Also, I should say that I also have a great deal of affinity for some folks I haven’t been able to communicate to in many years…….and this would include of course, folks that have passed away. ARC doesn’t die when people’s bodies die. It just means that one creates the ARC from memories of what one experienced with someone in the past. Haven’t you ever felt great affinity or reality with an author that has been dead for decades or hundreds of years even? That’s how strong some communication is. The subject of ARC is an extremely broad one and covers countless types of interactions between people through space and time. But it doesn’t even have to be viewed as an absolute for its use to improve relations between people and improve situations – and it’s a hell of a lot of fun to use when one is traveling and meeting people – or just trying to have a better life.

    My point re: religions is that most of them CLAIM to have ALL the answers and the absolute and ultimate truth to everything, including of course, one’s eternal salvation. No doubt that within any religion there are those who disagree or have different views than “the mother church.” This is how we get so many sects of Christianity and Conservative and Reform Judaism, etc. Speaking of capital punishment and the Bible, did you know that there is also the death penalty for cursing one’s parents? Right there in Leviticus. Jesus even alludes to it in one of the Gospels. Of course, this is not agreed with or practiced in Juadism today.

    Always appreciate your comments.

    • March 13, 2011 9:36 pm

      @Joe:

      >But what I CAN agree with is that each one of these people have the right to have their differing viewpoints

      Joe, my friend, you are falling into a trap that ensnares many Scientologists: Redefining the tech in order to make it work.

      To save space, I’ll refer you to the technical dictionary for LRH’s definition of “agreement”. It implies a mutual consideration. What you stated is not, per LRH, agreement. It is justification.

      >I should say that I also have a great deal of affinity for some folks I haven’t been able to communicate to in many years

      This time, I will quote from the Technical Dictionary (under ARC Triangle):

      “Without communication, there can be no affinity or reality.” – LRH

      LRH is very clear on these matters. So there are two possibilities:

      1) You do not actually have ARC with the people you are talking about, even though you think you do.

      2) The ARC Triangle, as defined by LRH, is not an accurate model.

      Frankly, I agree with everything you say – about accepting people who have viewpoints you find distasteful, about the understanding necessary to be a good citizen of the world, about feeling genuine affection for people you have never met.

      LRH’s tech disagrees.

      So who is right, Joe? You or LRH?

      I say it’s you.

      ML,
      Caliwog

    • March 13, 2011 9:37 pm

      Forgot to add:

      >Speaking of capital punishment and the Bible, did you know that there is also the death penalty for cursing one’s parents?

      Yup. For the record, I don’t believe in that “tech,” either.

      ML,
      Caliwog

  38. Joe Pendleton permalink
    March 14, 2011 12:26 am

    Caliwog – I enjoy the debate and give and take, so I’m saying the following with all due respect. You are quoting some passages from the (VERY) out of context tech dictionary, while I am talking about subjects within Scientology that I have not only read widely on, but have thought about and applied (not always successfully, I will certainly admit – but one learns from one’s mistakes – hopefully) for four decades. Yeah, it is probably ungracious of me to play the “more experienced” card here, but I’m trying not to do it disrespectfully. I’m not “redefining the tech” – I’m making it my own. That is to say, I’ve created my OWN certainty on it, independant of the fact that I first heard about it in the works of L. Ron Hubbard (almost embarassing to quote him at all here, considering the topic of this thread – ha- but actually that was Ron’s intention “way back” when he presented data to folks – not for them to robotically quote him, but to try it out and if real to them, to make it “their data” – own it themselves – he goes over this most specifically in the last part of the study lecture – “Training:Duplication”)

    Actually, I do have ARC with the people I say I do. I have affinity – liking; I have reality – that is to say, agreement – not FULLY of course and I am in communication. I also know very well when I do NOT have ARC with someone, or when the ARC (which is to say “understanding”) is low. Communication doesn’t have to be “two way” by the way to be communication. Beethoven’s music has been communicating to people the whole world over since the 19th century (as has Shakespeare’s plays from the 16th century, though not to me – ha) – not to mention Lincoln’s speeches, Billie Holiday’s singing, etc. This is what the great artist or communicator aims for – that his or her communication will be received, duplicated and understood (and maybe even agreed with or that it will inspire the reader or listener or just provide transcendant enjoyment). This is all communication, my friend and time and space are not (necessarily) barriers.

    I don’t think you were a Scientologist, Caliwog, but the trap you mention is unfortunately the one many Scientologists have fallen into – that is, to just accept “what Ron says” and NOT make it real by their own personal observation and application. Believe me, after 40 years of being an experienced Scientology tech person, I am NOT a robot or someone who just memorizes what LRH said and spit it back. I make what he says my own…that is, IF I discover that I am in agreement with what he says. And if I’m not, I reject the datum. Now, if what you’re saying is that is not being a “good Scientologist” by some standard of not accepting everything verbatim that LRH says, well, then I’d say you hit a nerve on what is wrong not only with Scientology, but with enforcement of religious “scriptures” of any sort. Really this is what I was trying to get at by my comments on religion. Scientology and LRH himself have fallen into the trap of enforced acceptance, which means no individual thinking or viewpoints. I think we kinda agree on that, right?

    Just as a point, not everything LRH says is what Scientologists would commonly refer to as “the tech.” Throughout my 35 year career (as I am no longer an active member in the C of S), “the tech” meant the standard procedures of auditing and how it worked. And I state again, that with all of my disagreements over LRH’s ideas on organization, ethics, religion, even some of the things he said about study, I have a very firm reality on the workability of the procedures of auditing, which is usually referred to as “standard tech.”

    Over and out.

    • March 14, 2011 5:10 am

      >I’m saying the following with all due respect

      And I am hearing (reading) it with nothing but!

      >You are quoting some passages from the (VERY) out of context tech dictionary, while I am talking about subjects within Scientology…

      I would agree. And here is where we run into a problem. According to Hubbard, definitions are paramount. One must not go past a word one does not understand. One must re-study policies if one went past an MU. Is that not correct?

      So the definitions are valid.

      But I also have no doubt that you have read material that leads to your expanded definition of ARC.

      Hubbard constantly defined and redefined. He said that Scientology and Dianetics are an exact science, but an in-depth conversation, like the one we are having, shows it to be anything but.

      >I’m not “redefining the tech” – I’m making it my own.

      But isn’t this the definition of “squirreling?” At least, that’s the Scientology term, and Hubbard said it was a crime. Out here, we call it “free thinking,” and it’s anything but a crime!

      >Actually, I do have ARC with the people I say I do.

      As I understand the ARC triangle, dropping one corner would affect the other corners. So a limit on reality or communication inherently limits affinity, does it not?

      I should say now that I have no doubt you have genuine affection for all of the people in your examples. You are showing genuine affection and patience in your communications with me. Yet none of this is quite in keeping with the ARC model as defined – /it must be redefined to work/.

      You know why? Because genuine affection is genuine affection. You can try to break it down and define it, but some things defy definition. One aspect of Scientology is to try to replace feelings with logic. And that sucks. Sometimes you just feel what you feel, and it doesn’t need to be defined!

      The truth is that the ARC relationship as Hubbard described it isn’t workable. And yet many Scientologists must find a way to make it work – find a way to define the world in Hubbardian terms.

      It’s like that with a lot of the tech.

      Auditing is another great example. Dianetic auditing, so far as I can tell, can produce good results.

      But to credit Hubbard with it is wrong.

      If you go to one of those evil psychotherapists, you will very likely undergo similar procedures. You won’t get shocked, you won’t get drugged, you’ll simply get something very like auditing.

      Anyway — clearly, Joe, you are thinking for yourself. That is a fantastic thing. The next step is to do more research. I think you’ll find that a lot of what Hubbard has taken credit for is not his origination.

      You make a good observation about not being a good Scientologist. And you are correct about that; you are not. (To me, that’s a compliment. *G*) But you also have to understand that the rigid adherence to the tech, to everything LRH said, is NOT the origination of DM or the current Church! It’s LRH’s desire. That point is emphasized in the admin tech, and I invite you to find it for yourself. If you’re a Scientologist, it applies to you. LRH said that to get the gains of Scientology, you must apply his technology exactly as written.

      Except, as I think our ARC conversation shows, you can’t adhere rigidly to the tech, because it’s not stable data.

      See my point?

      40 years gives you a lot of experience in Scientology, but it also keeps you from experience of the wog world. That’s the Scientology mindset. I’ve been surrounded by it – Scientologists who walk and breathe and eat in the Wog world, but don’t live in it. They live in their Scientology world. And the barrier between the two is all in one’s head.

      But the more time you spend out here, the more you open your mind, the more you find that life, the universe and everything don’t necessarily work the way Hubbard says.

      ML,
      Caliwog

  39. Joe Pendleton permalink
    March 15, 2011 9:00 pm

    Thanks for your response Caliwog. Rigid adherence to everything LRH said is not adherence to “the tech.” – which is the standard procedure of auditing. Certainly Iwould agree that a rigid adherence to everything ANYONE said is tantamount to shutting down one’s own observation and one’s own mind and handing it over wholesale to that other person. Obviously I’m not for that (and I have to admit that it is difficult if not impossible to be in Scientology and to disagree even occasionally with Ron. That’s very unfortunate in my opinion, and one reason I am no longer “in”). My point was just that after 35 years of working with auditing tech, I have a personal certainty that it works when applied per its rules. I have never been to a psychiatrist or therapist (as I became a Scientologist at 19). But from depections of its “talk therapy”, it really is not much like auditing, I can tell you that. Auditing and how it is applied is really a very fascinating subject, with thousands of processes and much, much data, but built on a relatively few fundamentals. It’s very interesting. And changing what the standard auditing procedures are, is what is referred to as “squirreling.” Squirelling is not making Scientology information my own per my own observation and my own certainty. That rigid idea of read and accept without questioning or testing to see if it is true is NOT from the original materials of Scientology. That’s a lot of the whole point you read from the veteran Scientologists who have left the church. That authoritarian idea is what they disagree with. Does LRH himself bear some responsibility for that? I think so, as evidenced by some of his post 1964 writings (and this viewpoint is not popular with the “blame Miscavige for everything” crowd). I think you would love some of LRH’s stuff from the 1950s (and later as well).

    You are correct about the corners of the ARC Triangle working together. So, what would you do if you wanted to improve understanding with someone where affinity WAS lowered? (you had a fight or a breakup or one person just rejected an advance of affection by the other person). Yes, now R & C have been lowered too as a result of the lowered A. So……if you want to improve understanding, how about INCREASING the communication or increasing the reality (that is, find SOME more points where you can agree). Really, it is almost like magic. Try walking to the top of a mosque in another country and identifing yourself as an American (or on the way walking by a large sheet with the words “Death to America” on it) or any countless types of the unusual situations one can run into in this very diverse world. I have not only traveled to many parts of the world, but lived and worked in other countries. When I was on staff, it was in one of the most famous cities in the world, so even then my connection with the wog world was a daily constant – and I wouldn’t have had it any other way.

    Really, the tech and admin dictionaries, are not strictly speaking “dictionaries” in the common sense of that word (as they were not compiled by putting together definitions for terms – as Samuel Johnson did for the first English dictionary and has been done ever since). These dictionaries (which were very MUCH needed by Scientologists at the time and still are in fact) were quite a job of taking LRH’s comments about these subjects from various writings and lectures over the years. The liability is that they ARE taken out of context and in many instances, one does not get the correct concept of what is being said, unless one reads the whole bulletin or policy letter or listens to a large portion of the lecture. This is just a reality of the situation (and maybe one reason why these books are no longer being published). Better than nothing, but not really dictionaries in the common sense. LRH does on a number of occassions change how a term is defined and that can be a royal pain in the ass. But you do have to remember that he was developing his religion as he wrote and spoke about these things and WAS in fact changing how he looked at some of these things. There’s nothing wrong with getting an introduction to a subject, but I do have to state that to understand any large religion or philosophy or subject does take a certain amount of intense and sometimes long study. I’ve had my own ideas about Christianity over the years, and have every right to have them of course, but it was just recently that I did a complete read through of the New Testament.

    • March 15, 2011 10:09 pm

      >Rigid adherence to everything LRH said is not adherence to “the tech.” – which is the standard procedure of auditing.

      First off, “The Tech” goes beyond auditing, Joe. LRH referred to a lot of his work as “technology.” Second, the concept of rigid adherence is an interesting one. LRH made comments about thinking for oneself, but look at KSW#1. Look at the policies on verbal tech. Look at FDS. Look at the insane picture of the Wog world painted by Data Series 1. Look at the introduction to OT3 (“I am the first to successfully do this”).

      Scientology is ALL ABOUT rigid adherence to the Tech.

      >hen I was on staff… my connection with the wog world was a daily constant

      This is something I’ve observed. Scientologists may walk in the wog world, but they aren’t connected to it. They see it as something different. Don’t you see non-Scientologists as beings that are somehow worse off? That need your help, that need LRH’s help, to get out of the sci-fi trap that they’re in?

      Look at the reaction I got on OT Abilities (or was it here?) when I said that I don’t believe in life after death. I knew that someone would use the word “bleak,” and someone did. (OT Abilities? Nope.) Here I talked about how beautiful life is, how enjoyable it is, how magical our brains our, and the reaction is “But you don’t think there’s anything beyond that? How bleak.”

      >Really, the tech and admin dictionaries, are not strictly speaking “dictionaries” in the common sense of that word… in many instances, one does not get the correct concept of what is being said, unless one reads the whole bulletin or policy letter

      Which, you are correct, does not make them dictionaries. And yet Scientology study involves relying on them to define words, because definitions are a key element.

      It’s hilarious that LRH made so much of definitions, and then gleefully redefined words at will. I think “Reasonable” is my favorite.

      >I do have to state that to understand any large religion or philosophy or subject does take a certain amount of intense and sometimes long study.

      I disagree. Most religions (the legitimate ones) can be summed up in a very short sentence. One does not need undertake a deep study of Christianity to learn its basic beliefs. Furthermore, if you cite the quote “…he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea,” to a devout Christian and say “There is no way an average-sized man could walk on water,” he will not say “Well, God didn’t say he walked on water, that’s out of context, in other places he said he walked on land, you have to read the whole Bible to understand, you have to understand the definitions of ‘walking,’ ‘sea,’ ‘upon’ and ‘thee’, and there’s so much good in the subject otherwise.”

      He just says “It’s a miracle!”

      ML, Caliwog

  40. March 26, 2011 7:09 pm

    Enjoying all your articles, Jeff! But just a comment, on the quoting LRH one…. just remembered something else about it. One primary reason for quoting all the time was because no one else could be “SOURCE.” One didn’t dare “interpret” anything because it would be “squirreling.” LOL!

    I’m still reading your recent writings, but am very impressed and I imagine you got a great deal of “therapy” out of writing these. You’re also doing a wonderful service to our friends in helping free them from the trap they do not realize they have been in all the while thinking they are becoming more “free.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: