Skip to content

OT Abilities, continued…

March 20, 2011
Exterior

Wow, that’s a hot topic! Over 500 comments.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed their opinions and viewpoints. And I mean that sincerely. And thanks even to those of you who have contributed your viewpoint over and over and over again! (LOL) Please, keep posting, either on the earlier thread or on this one.

People sometimes give me grief for allowing anyone to post any opinion here, including (gasp!) “entheta.” But as I believe and have said many times, you only learn from people who disagree with you. And I’ve personally learned a lot from this thread.

There are also those who believe that Scientologists, particularly those newly out of the Church, should be shielded from certain opinions, that they should have “safe” places to go where they won’t be subjected to the rough-and-tumble of open discourse. I guess I have more faith in people’s ability to reason and in their ability to tolerate those with different opinions, communicate with them, and hold their own.

The discussion has been amazingly civil. I may have let a few ad hominem posts through – with the volume of replies, I haven’t been able to check everything. So if you got your feathers ruffled, my apologies.

A couple of points:

1. Religion vs. Business: One of the most interesting comments was made not on the blog but in a private phone conversation with a friend. He pointed out that Scientology has to decide which model it is going to operate on, as a gnostic religion or as a business.

The word gnostic refers to inner spiritual knowledge. It’s a different kind of knowledge than, for instance, “I know there’s a Pizza Hut down on 82nd Street.” A Scientologist who exteriorizes, or, for that matter, a native American shaman who “sends his spirit over the plains,” or an Indian guru who “leaves his body and visits the spirit world” are all forms of inner spiritual knowledge, or gnosis. You can’t prove it happened, you can’t prove it didn’t happen. You can believe them, you can disbelieve them, you can say they are crazy, deluded, inspired or whatever.

I mentioned in my first post some of my own somewhat supernatural experiences. I couldn’t prove those things happened. But then I am not really trying to convince anyone of anything, so it really does not matter to me if people believe it or not – it is of no consequence to me. It’s simply something I experienced.

Now if you move into the world of business, that’s different. If the shaman says “pay me for this special training course or session and I will teach you how you can send your spirit soaring over the plains.” That’s a different thing entirely. In that case, caveat emptor applies. The prospective customer, before they plunk down their hard-earned cash, would be well within their rights to say “prove it.” “Fly over the prairie and tell me what’s there and I’ll go verify it, and if it’s accurate, or even close, I’ll take your course.”

So when I hear the individual gnostic spiritual experiences of individual Scientologists (or anyone else for that matter), I say “good for you.” (Or “far out, man” as we used to say in the ‘60s.)

When I read these things in Church literature or magazines or books or lectures, I say, “Where’s the beef.” Because they are selling something. They are selling a series of levels, with an “ability gained” at each level. Well then, whether or not they can actually observably produce these abilities becomes very, very pertinent.

2. Redefining OT Abilities: A few posters tried to redefine “OT Ability” as any ability. Composing a symphony is an “OT Ability.” Painting a work of art is an “OT Ability.” Someone even suggested that picking up a cup of coffee with your hand is an “OT Ability” – I guess because the thetan controls the brain which sends the signals to the hand and so on.

Sure, we can celebrate ability. We can marvel at what great artists or writers can produce. We can marvel at the miracle of everyday things – someone cooking a great dinner or telling a good story.

But as I said in my original post, when you start calling anything and everything an “OT Ability,” then any discussion of whether or not “OT Abilities” exist becomes muddied. If OT Ability is defined as “any human ability,” then it’s easy to prove that “OT Abilities” exist. Duh.

No, the question is specifically “do Scientology’s OT Levels produce superior spiritual abilities in those who do them?”

3. Flying Teapots and Parlor Tricks: A few other posters tried to pooh-pooh the idea that “OT Ability” implies any sort of promise of paranormal ability. “Flying teapots and parlor tricks? Ha, ha! That’s just silly!” “That’s just people’s strange hidden standards!” “I personally never thought that such crazy stuff was real!  Ha, ha, ha.” No, this person insists, OT isn’t about parlor tricks, it’s about living life, building a business, raising a family, doing better in life, playing better baseball, helping the community…

Really? I thought that’s what people took Life Improvement Courses for. Or a Comm Course. I didn’t know that was what people paid up to $500,000 for, and spent decades of their time going up through the OT Levels. Frankly, I don’t think anyone ever heard the phrase “Cause over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought, subjective and objective,” and thought it meant “running my business better.”

Added Note: This isn’t a reaction, by the way, to Thoughtful’s long article of the same name at Scientology-cult.com, which I haven’t had a chance to read fully and appears to be a much more nuanced and “thoughtful” argument. But somehow this “flying teapot and parlor tricks” meme has become a shorthand way to trivialize the discussion of paranormal abilities.

4. “Poor Jeff…”: Some people had the gall to make statements like, “Poor Jeff, he spent all that time in Scientology and never made it. He never made it to OT like the rest of us did. How sad. Too bad he had such strange hidden standards. Too bad he only wanted to levitate teapots. Poor guy.”

You don’t often see me lose my temper. I’m usually pretty easy going, so this is a rarity. My reply to this is as follows: “You can take all your condescending, sanctimonious ‘pity’ and shove it.”

OK, I’m over it.

But really. Number one, I didn’t have any “hidden standards.” What I expected from Scientology was exactly what Scientology said, in its books, in its lectures, in its magazines. Like most people coming in to Scientology, I read, I listened, I studied, and I got an idea from Scientology what they were offering. There was nothing “hidden” about it. Like most Scientologists, I expected what I was told to expect, nothing more, and nothing less. I expected what they promoted.

Did I get what was promised? Some of it. As Marty mentioned, I was promised a full glass and got half a glass. I would say my experience in Scientology was pretty typical, even above average. My experience was very much like the experience of many Scientologists. Some gains I got, some I didn’t.  I’m not going to PR or hype my own experience, I have no reason to. I’ll level with you: I got half a glass. So did a lot of people. Some people only got a quarter of a glass. Some just got a bit of condensation.

Well, some people say, “you should be happy with the water you got.” Maybe so. But if you’re running a business (see point #1), and promising people a full glass of water, and you deliver half a glass, you’re going to have horrible PR, dissatisfied customers, high turnover, bad word of mouth, few new customers and legal troubles. Sound familiar?

5. You have to believe before you can see OT Abilities. Some have made the statement that you can only perceive OT Abilities if you believe in them. Those who are too spiritually unaware or low toned or dead-in-the-head just can’t see them. Therefore, if you can’t perceive them, you must be low toned or unaware or dead-in-the-head.

The only comment I’ll make about that is it sounds like a certain Emperor’s new wardrobe.

Advertisements
253 Comments
  1. VaD permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:23 am

    Jeff, brilliant!

    People have to be able to differentiate between what they personally believe in (within themselves, without outside pressure) and what they have been made to believe (by propaganda, PR, marketing, …).

    imho, all those “upper levels” (OT levels) should be properly labeled. It’s SCIENCE FICTION. No more no less.

    • VaD permalink
      March 20, 2011 8:31 am

      Now, anyone has a right to believe that science fiction is real.

      But they won’t have a right to sell it as “the true reality” to others.
      – That should handle it, I think.

      Relevant:
      Nobody sells to children the idea that Santa is real. Children believe in it themselves…. until they become MATURE.

      • VaD permalink
        March 20, 2011 8:51 am

        Kurt Vonnegut said well about MATURITY in his novel “Cat’s Cradle”:
        “Maturity is a bitter disappointment for which no remedy exists, unless laughter can be said to remedy anything”.

        Back translated from Russian (I read this book in Russian) it sounds like this: “Maturity is the ability to recognize one’s own limitations”

        BTW, his other quote to “OT abilities” believers:
        “Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand”.

        His other quotes (very witty and some are very much to the point) are here: http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Kurt_Vonnegut

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 20, 2011 6:50 pm

        I love Kurt Vonnegut. When his children asked him what the meaning of life was, he said, “Don’t ask me! I just got here myself!”

      • Valkov permalink
        March 21, 2011 5:41 am

        I must disagree with this. Children believe in Santa because they are sold the idea by their parents and other adults. Often by the use of elaborate props like presents under a tree, people dressed up like Santa in stores, fake “letters from Santa” parents can buy to have sent to their children with a NorthPole return address, etc.

        It’s an elaborate scam pulled on children by adults, all the way.

    • elizabethhamre permalink
      March 20, 2011 8:04 pm

      VaD The Mest Universe is the implants galore therefore the science fiction. yet it expresses, shows great amount of OT ability. All postulates are OT ability. They have become solid compressed enegy by agreed upon considerations. By the way Fairy tales contains OT abilities also.

      • Maria Abian permalink
        March 21, 2011 1:59 pm

        Do you realize how this sounds to people who have not been indoctrinated into scientology? It reads like gobblety-gook

  2. Fidelio permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:34 am

    “Poor” Jeff says: “You can take all your condescending, sanctimonious ‘pity’ and shove it.”

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    and another line: “Did I get what was promised? Some of it. As Marty mentioned, I was promised a full glass and got half a glass”

    ….which to me would have translated into “exchange Nr. 2” while thinking in Hubbard’s terms and now that I have transformed into a bloody wog that translates into
    FRAUD BIG TIME.

    Thank you for your trust in our abilities to stand all that “entheta” – it just gave me a standing hilarious roaring laughter on that wonderful sunday morning.

    Fidelio

    • Fidelio permalink
      March 20, 2011 9:03 am

      …. and I expect more house rocking posts from what you’ve learned, Jeff !!
      Can’t wait….:)
      Fidelio

    • March 20, 2011 7:03 pm

      Re: “Shove it”: Yes, this.

      Are you going to Independent’s Day in July, Jeff? This might make things a tad uncomfortable.

      ML, CW

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 20, 2011 7:12 pm

        To be clear, I have many, many friends in the Independent movement and the vast majority treat me with respect, as I do them. The fact that we disagree on certain things, and even have sharp words occasionally, doesn’t diminish our friendship.

      • March 20, 2011 7:16 pm

        Good to know, Jeff.

        I, on the other hand, would probably get stoned to death at Independent’s Day. And my dying words would be “If OT abilities really existed, you wouldn’t need rocks, you could postulate me to death!”

        🙂

        ML, CaliwOW!! WHO THREW THAT ROCK?

  3. VaD permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:00 am

    There’s an idea.

    What if OTs compare for themselves Abilities Gained: their pre Clear states and their OT levels states. What got better?

    I see that the main ability of any scientologist is the ability to communicate. – I think it’s a great ability.
    But – what else?

    I personally see nothing special about OT levels. Just further developing of “ability to communicate”.

    What else?

    • elizabethhamre permalink
      March 20, 2011 8:11 pm

      VaD. Communication ” IN NOW ” is not on OT ability it was invented therefore. it is MEST oriented ability. Only the very first communication was on OT ability the rest since than is only duplication of the first communication. Very simple.

  4. Former Advance! Editor permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:48 am

    Bravo, Jeff.

    As a former Advance! Editor myself, I was struck by your comments on religion vs. business, but for slightly different reasons.

    When I was editing the Advance! magazine, the hardest part of that process was always locating OT Phenomena stories that were “OT” enough. It got harder and harder as the years went on; I’d have to go through at least 20 to 30 stories to get one that was “passable” as “OT Phenomena” and not just an ability that anyone could manifest one time or another.

    The most sought-after stories, and the ones that always got the big “thumbs-up” from Dear Leader, were those where the person had a huge financial success as a result of moving up the OT levels. Of course, I had to edit those stories to emphasize the spiritual gain as opposed to just blatantly promoting the financial gain, but the subtext was always very clear.

    It got to the point where I would be “strongly suggested” to solicit this kind of story from the AOs. Why? Because regges could use these types of stories to sell more services with the unspoken (or more likely, spoken) promise of a financial return on investment.

    Cha-ching!

    • elizabethhamre permalink
      March 20, 2011 7:34 pm

      Former Advence! The OT abilities are there. Go read ” To walk the walk of solo auditor” In Silvia Kusada’s blog. After reading it if you care to take the time out than let me know if such a things do not exists. Jim Logan raved about it reading that article. He said it proves the TECH WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!! I know it works !!!!!1

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 20, 2011 7:54 pm

        Elizabeth, see my definition of “gnosis” in the post above. It’s great that an individual has such an experience. But a personal spiritual experience is just that. It does not prove or disprove anything. I can show you such rave “success stories” from “The Secret” or Rolfing or acupuncture or dozens of other methods. That does not “prove” that these things work for everyone or even for a majority.

      • Maria Abian permalink
        March 21, 2011 2:03 pm

        As far as anything proving the tech works, the proof is in the pudding.
        Let the tech be tested. REALLY tested.
        Anecdotes are not scientific.

    • March 21, 2011 3:22 am

      Thanks Former Advance,

      Basically it’s one of those things proving my point that the Church has committed a significant Tech Degrade by omitting the original OT Levels from the line up and that this has become evident over time by the degrading quality of “OT Phenomena” .

      It also proves the Church is no longer in the “business” of making OTs these days.

      Just pretending that they do.

      I personally remember when we were in the “business” of making actual OTs but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far away 😉

    • Aeolus permalink
      March 21, 2011 2:05 pm

      One thing that is pretty much a given for someone who’s reached the upper OT levels is that they have the proven ability to make large amounts of money. So the question is, do the levels give them that ability, or does the steep financial curve of the Bridge pre-screen for people with that tendency already in place?

      Many of the OT VIIs and OT VIIIs I know are very competitive, motivated by status and money, and were that way to start with. And Scientology may or may not have increased their ability to make money, but it sure increased their motivation.

  5. MostlyLurker permalink
    March 20, 2011 12:40 pm

    I want to re-post what Karen #1 wrote on Marty’s blog, that seems to be quite honest:

    —- start quote

    Karen#1 | March 18, 2011 at 7:38 pm | Reply AnonOrange ~~

    There are 2 things going on here:::::::

    1) The “Church” has made outrageous and dishonest claims of OT results. Wild magical results that do not occur cause a blowback and intense disappointment.

    The “Church” not tone it down. Results from the Ls as published in their glossy magazines were plain LIES and HYPE. Results of OT VIII were further lies and hype.

    2) On the other side of the coin, what the pc considers MIRACLES can and does occur with correctly applied Red on White.

    Some examples ~~ I have personally CSed pcs who, with not a whole lot of auditing

    a) Blew (vanished) their migraine headache of 30 years.
    b) Handled a “can’t sleep” condition that had haunted them for a lifetime
    c) Erased as deeply embedded hatred to Gays which restored a major relationship with offspring.

    on and on and on. You get the idea.

    Results like this are very personal. The pc treasures a win like the above FAR FAR more than “OT Ability” remote viewing or dancing through the air viewing earth from above.

    ——- end quote

    I think this pretty much sums it up:
    1) Occasional personal miracles: *Yes*
    2) OT powers as described by LRH and Co$: *No*

    This is important to know. I have nothing against people practicing Scientology (or anything else) as long as they make an informed decision, and not just fall for “outrageous and dishonest claims of OT results”.

    I may point out that “outrageous and dishonest claims of OT results” were made by LRH, not Co$. Marty appears to contradicts Karen’s point 1) as he wrote “Miscavige’s church, unlike LRH’s, has effectively censored the subject of discussion of OT abilities. Compare current church publications to the ones Jeff recounts editing under LRH’s watch in church publications of the 70’s.”

    I may also point out that *miraculous* results are obtained also by most WOG disciplines, from medical miracles to scientific miracles, including astonishing pieces of art and music compositions, all done by WOGs. Where are Scientology OT’s contributions to these cultural miracles?

    I don’t see OTs being better or more able than WOGs . Co$ with its high number of Scientology OTs, with his human abuses and deceitful practices would be a negative example – how to turn people into slaves, the opposite of making people free.

    Scientology, practiced out of Co$, may be an enlightening philosophy with even miraculous results, but don’t hold your breath (and don’t waste your time/money) if what you are after are OT abilities.

    • Karen#1 permalink
      March 21, 2011 11:48 pm

      Mostly Lurker :

      Today Marty Rathbun posted the passing of Richard Reiss, the Senior CS of the Flag Land Base for some 25 years. A quarter of a century of holding the highest technical post in all the Clearwater facilities but unable to handle body condition ~~ in spite of every piece of technology and auditors at his fingertips.

      Flag Land Base is reputed to be the Safest Place on Earth.
      Hard to blame “PTSNESS” (although he was directly under Miscavige the Monster.)

      Dead of cancer at 66.
      Another cancer casualty in spite of all the “OT levels” .
      This is what I mean by false hype and ludicrous statements of what the OT levels do.

      CAUSE over LIFE indeed.

      Even Mary Sue Hubbard, ( wife of L Ron Hubbard~~ breast cancer) Dr Gene Denk (throat cancer) and other notable long term Sea Org members with all the tech in the world in proximity could not escape Cancer.

      Yet it was widely touted that a CLEAR would not even catch a common cold

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      OT levels do not put one at cause over any common disease including obesity ~~~ witness Kirstie Alley and others more hidden from view.

      The compulsion to gorge and eat apparently cannot be put under control.

      The hype and ridiculous claims of what the TECH can do can be called to account by the Internet.

      A 350 lb elephant after OT VII and in the Church doing services for 30 years reveals a lot.

      • March 22, 2011 7:10 am

        Karen#1, this seems very different in tone from what you’ve written on Marty’s site (er, assuming this is the same Karen #1 🙂 ). Are you saying that Clear and OT do not work as LRH promised?

        ML, CW

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 22, 2011 8:47 am

        Karen,

        kisses and hugs to you!!

        To me, you are the most gracious Queen of our common journey.

        Fidelio

      • MostlyLurker permalink
        March 22, 2011 12:20 pm

        Thanks for that Karen.
        I don’t think Scientology/NOTs cures nor causes Cancer. I believe the high death Cancer rate in Scientology stems from lack of medical care/early diagnosis.

        Certainly Scientologists are not Cause over Life more than anybody else in general. Our knowledge of bodies is so limited. We have one, we ride it around but we can’t control it more than it lets us to. We can’t change our hair color, our cells replication, we can’t grow a finger lost in an accident. We can take care of it and hopefully it will serve us well for a long time.

        Regarding Richard Reiss, I believe him to be a good person, at the service of a bad organization.
        “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” –Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

        I prefer to say “…but for good people to do bad things, it takes Lies.”

      • Karen#1 permalink
        March 22, 2011 7:31 pm

        Caliwog

        I did not say Clear and OT do not work.

        We are talking about HYPE and FALSE Promotion for $$$$$$$.
        Selling RESULTS that do not occur.

        GREATLY Over-the-top promises that are downright LIES.

        Of course auditing gets significant wins when done correctly.
        I audited and CSed for 20 years and saw what the technology CAN do.
        We are talking about DECEPTION as to the FLUFF and FROTH of SUPER Human Beings.

        That is a complete falsehood.

        OT 8s have illnesses and bad behavior as much as anyone else.
        OT 8s go bankrupt and crash their businesses as much as anyone else.
        OT8s get cancer and other illnesses and die as much as anyone else.
        OT8s have mental breakdowns (Type 3) as much as anyone else
        OT8s have horrible problems in their marriages and divorce as much as anyone else.

        This is the highest level which cost $300,000 to $500,000 and the promotion on results of the Bridge is outright false.

        This does not take away from results gotten on lower Bridge which are personal and significant to those who achieve them.

        Not only is there HYPE and DECEPTION of the actual results, but the “CHURCH” makes the parishioner do acts that are downright wrong if not criminal.

        Take Richard Acunto of “Survival Insurance”

        $10 million dollar check to IAS

        while NO PAY for his staff who did their 40 hour weeks.
        Siphon the money off to the “Church” and starve the employees….

        OT conduct indeed.

      • March 23, 2011 5:07 am

        Karen, appreciate the reply. So are you saying this is the way things are now under DM or was it this way under LRH too? Was there a time when an OT would be able to beat cancer?

        ML,
        Caliwog

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 5:37 am

      MostlyLurker wrote:
      “I think this pretty much sums it up:
      1) Occasional personal miracles: *Yes*
      2) OT powers as described by LRH and Co$: *No*”

      I think if you’d ask Karen to sum it up, you’d get this:
      1) Personal miracles often: *Yes*
      2) Occasional “OT abilities”: *Yes*
      3) “OT abilities” definite for a given level: *No*

      As far as “OT abilities” being possible for every person, it’s built into the very model and core of Scientology: everyone is innately an OT.

      Whether you can accept it or not, people responding on this blog are saying that they have achieved “OT abilities” as a result of Scientology. And there is scientific evidence that suggests that they may be right.

      • MostlyLurker permalink
        March 22, 2011 11:51 am

        Margaret,
        Karen aswered above, and not as you wrote.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 10:48 pm

        Thanks MostlyLurker, but I’ll let Karen respond to my summary, if she’d like to and/or if she finds it inaccurate.

      • newer permalink
        March 24, 2011 4:15 pm

        What scientific evidence?

  6. Just Me permalink
    March 20, 2011 1:28 pm

    Jeff said, “Frankly, I don’t think anyone ever heard the phrase ‘Cause over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought, subjective and objective,’ and thought it meant ‘running my business better.'”

    Sorry, Jeff, but from my first day in Scientology that’s exactly what I did think it meant – although more broadly (not just about business) and along the lines of living an effective, interesting, exciting, satisfying life and making my dreams come true. Then, when some woo-woo stuff did start happening, I found it extremely fascinating. But the woo-woo’est stuff has been a rarity for me, certainly not a daily or even annual occurrence.

    When the woo-woo stuff does happen, I find my grasp on and fascination for the physical world lessens. And because I continue to choose to live in this physical realm (hey, I’m a human being who’s not dead yet, eh?), the unusual abilities do fade when I again turn my attention to my pretty intense real-life obligations.

    In fact, this situation reminds me of something another climber once said: “Climbing Mount Everest changes your life forever. Unfortunately, it only lasts about thirty days.”

    And for the record, I did not spend anything like $500K for my Scientology services — probably more like $30,000 through OTIV, Class IV interned, PDC, etc. I never went into debt for any Scientology services. I also did not stay until the bitter end (I faded quietly in 1988). Up until about 1985 I was satisfied with the return on my investment of money, time, energy, and other choices forgone. But when my ROI dipped (because of an unsatisfying OTIV level, the new IAS status scene, and noticeably greater money grubbing), I trusted my instincts and left the organization.

    I often think the degree to which people are pissed off at and about Scientology is closely related to how much they paid for their Scientology experience. The net of my cost for and my return from Scientology was positive. I didn’t lose anything. I gained. However, I know lots of other people who paid so much more for their Scientology experience than I did and got so much less. They paid for it with their spouses, their children, their parents, their health, their careers, horribly traumatic experiences, and with decades of their life. Why in the world would I say they should feel any different than they do? I wouldn’t.

    Having finally taken the time to chime in here, I admit I find this particular discussion / argument / debate a bit pointless. It seems to be mostly people saying, “No, U!”

    • Maria Abian permalink
      March 21, 2011 2:19 pm

      “I often think the degree to which people are pissed off at and about Scientology is closely related to how much they paid for their Scientology experience. ”
      ———
      This is actually pretty true and has been studied.

      To quote Carol Tavris from “Mistakes were made (but not by me)”, a great book that explains the cognitive dissonance we all are victims of:
      ———-
      “The more costly a decision, in terms of time, money, effort, or inconvenience, and the more irrevocable its consequences, the greater the dissonance and the greater the need to reduce it by overemphasizing the good things about the choice made.”
      ———-

      By reading Marty’s blog comments, it appears another way people are trying to reduce their cognitive dissonance is to re-define OT abilities, as has been stated here already.
      And they are pretending they are happy to have spent so much money and time to get these re-defined “abilities”. I doubt you would be able to convince them otherwise.

  7. March 20, 2011 1:38 pm

    If the use of Scientology technology is to continue in this 21st Century, there must be truth in advertising or we independent practitioners will be lumped with the snake oil salesmen of the COS.

    We have seen what’s behind the curtain in the COS and it is the stuff of nightmares. Like a cheap carnival, the barkers out front are promising achievement of mankind’s oldest dreams and inside the tent is a bunch of zealots promising cheap thrills while laying hands on your wallet.

    The actual technology that saves lives and increases abilities is hidden from view where the rubes never see it. Fortunately, many of us learned it when we had the chance and now we use it every day.

    I see our job as preservers of lost technologies.

    • March 20, 2011 6:50 pm

      David, with all due respect, I think you’ve missed Jeff’s point. Big time.

      ML, CW

      • Doc "Smith" permalink
        March 22, 2011 3:45 am

        CW, I don’t think you really read David’s post. Take another look. He’s not disagreeing with anyone, just pointing out how the Hype and promises in the church get in the way of an honest practioner trying to help people get over their real life problems and increase their abilities in the real world IMO.

      • March 22, 2011 6:59 am

        I did really read it, Doc, and I stand my by my original assessment.

        ML, CW

      • Valkov permalink
        March 23, 2011 9:45 pm

        CW,

        I think David was simply making his own point. That doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t get Jeff’s point.

  8. Aldebaran permalink
    March 20, 2011 2:34 pm

    Fascinating couple of posts and comments Jeff, thank you.

    The response you have described in point five, is one of the creepiest things I have read in a while.

    Who is more delusional: the person who is proudly looking at a wheelbarrow and telling all that it is a top of the range, personally customized Porsche, or the person looking at the wheelbarrow, seeing the wheelbarrow and then changing their reality to see the top of the range Porsche.

    One day, in a fit of playfulness, the “Porsche” owner will point at a wheelbarrow and know it is a wheelbarrow, but enjoy the power in manipulating others to believe it is anything he pleases. How soon before they do anything he pleases?

    What is self-determination worth?

  9. lookingin permalink
    March 20, 2011 3:45 pm

    Kudos Jeff on this and your earlier blog. I had the same observation re business vs. religion after posting on Marty’s blog. And I would further contend trying to run a religion or spiritual activity as a business is a liability in itself, with reference to getting “products” out the door in ever increasing volume. There is the oft-used quote in Scn re “doing what you’re doing while you’re doing it”; no disagreement with that if accompanied by enjoying what what you are doing while you are doing it. I believe there may be a condition that could be described as obsessive-compulsive statistical importance disorder, or some such ( joke, but just saying…). Thanks again

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 5:43 am

      “obsessive-compulsive statistical importance disorder”

      LOL. That was a good one.

  10. Fidelio permalink
    March 20, 2011 3:53 pm

    You’ve done it again, Jeff!

    You made the volcano explode – and the core piece of SCN went up in smoke.

    It could not have been better demonstrated than by the exposure of the confused, incoherent and pathetic group understanding of “OT” Abilities.

    Maestro, Chapeau!

    Fidelio

  11. March 20, 2011 3:54 pm

    Spot-on, Jeff! Concise and right to the point.

    Paul

  12. March 20, 2011 4:11 pm

    Good article … here we go again!

    We can all agree that LRH defined an OT as “a being who is at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought, subjective and objective” because, well, that’s what he said.

    In reading that definition, one can notice several things. One, it isn’t qualified with “may be”, “potential” or any other weasel words. It is an absolute statement of what an OT, by definition, is. The second is the word “objective”. That means it can be seen by others.

    We also can agree that, while LRH described OT I through OT VII as “pre-OT levels”, he described OT VIII as “true OT”.

    If the OT Levels produce OTs, as promised by LRH, then all people who completed those levels would be “at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought, subjective and objective” and everyone could, objectively, see that.

    Not only do we not see that, but a vast majority of OT VIIIs admit that they have no such powers. The others, who claim some kind of “powers” cannot demonstrate them objectively.

    There is a lie here that can only be “explained” with more lies.

    • elizabethhamre permalink
      March 20, 2011 7:23 pm

      William, the TECH Works, To attain such a state ones needs thousands of sessions. There is no Magic Wand. But the sessions will get you there what ever your there is for you. Get auditing. Elizabeth . Solo Auditor

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 20, 2011 7:57 pm

        Elizabeth, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but realize you are presenting your opinion as a statement of fact. Others do not share your opinion and have possibly had a different experience from yours.

      • March 20, 2011 9:33 pm

        Dear Elizabeth,

        I got auditing. For over thirty years I got auditing.

        It didn’t “get me there” where “there” is specifically what was promised.

        I’m glad you are having fun but, no, the “tech” does not work for most people and your saying it, with capital letters, does not make it so.

      • March 20, 2011 10:38 pm

        Elizabeth,

        I audited tens of thousands of hours in my career as a Scientologist and none of the beings I audited have these OT abilities that Ron talked about. Not to say that people didn’t have some nice wins and even miracles but not one of them ever became the OT that L Ron Hubbard talked so much about.

        I made it beyond OT 5 and I did have a lot of wins and some pretty significant cognitions but OT no. My life became much richer when I realized who I really was. A human being like the rest of the world. I am not a God nor an OT and no other human is either. I was a gullible young person at one time who believed all that L Ron Hubbard had written about but I am now a matured and experienced man. I know that I am a spiritual being just like you and everyone else is. I know that being a human being I have capabilities far above the order of animals but I do know the difference between the Supreme Being or God and a mere mortal such as myself. You should IMO find out who you really are and not try to be God or usurp His abilities.

        My little boy loves to think about super heroes and what they can do with their abilities. He has a very active and expansive imagination. He does know however the difference between imagination and reality.

      • Maria Abian permalink
        March 21, 2011 2:22 pm

        Please provide proof.
        Thank you in advance.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 9:32 am

        William wrote: “the ‘tech’ does not work for most people”

        And that is as anecdotal as someone saying it DOES work for most people. If it didn’t work for you, you should have demanded your money back. It’s apparently working just fine for many.

    • Marildi permalink
      March 20, 2011 9:38 pm

      First OT *level* doesn not mean full OT, to my understanding. That’s why the continuing OT levels are there.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 20, 2011 9:52 pm

        Are they?

      • March 20, 2011 10:01 pm

        @Marildi:

        >First OT *level* doesn not mean full OT… That’s why the continuing OT levels are there.

        Marildi, suggest you read HCO PL 25 June 1978 COME-ON DISSEMINATION in a new unit of time. Accurate copy here:

        http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1708&Itemid=199

        I think you’ll find it explains why the upper OT levels (OT2+) are there.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 20, 2011 10:15 pm

        The problem with that argument is that, at that level, one would expect some OT abilities to have manifested and none have — objectively.

        If you are positing a gradient scale here, there would have to be a ton of OT levels above OT VIII and, according to those who know, there is nothing. See Marty’s article — “There is no OT IX and X.” He should know.

      • March 20, 2011 10:49 pm

        Well Marildi,

        I see that you are in a state of mind that I was in many years ago. If I am still around after you have finished all of the levels of OT I hope you will contact me and let me know how it all worked out for you.

        Personally I think you are setting yourself up for a loss. There is no doubt that you will have some wins and cognitions but you would have wins and cognitions in whatever subject you took up. You will however in my most humble opinion never reach the state of OT as described in the works of L Ron Hubbard. You can pay the premium price that the Church of Scientology run by David Miscavige offers or you can buy your bridge in the “Free Zone” or from the Independents at a much discounted rate but I think you will find that reaching the state of OT will never be attained and you will just have to settle with who you are at the end of it all.

        I myself am simply a human being just like you and every body else.

      • Marildi permalink
        March 21, 2011 1:42 am

        Jeff, Caliwog, William and Dean – I should have been more explicit. I was referring to the OT levels that were (supposedly) going to be released. Didn’t LRH indicate somewhere that levels up to OT XV (?) were in the works? IF we give him the benefit of the doubt, for a moment, that might answer some questions. Not that it’s proof, just a possibility! There are other people more familiar with the history of all this, especially those who know about it “from the inside” and maybe they’ll speak up.

        But just think of all the other ways that LRH admitted to changing his mind after further research, and having to cut back the gradient. And, again, don’t get me wrong, I’m just leaving it open in my mind, as a possibility.

      • Marildi permalink
        March 21, 2011 1:53 am

        P.S. to Jeff and all. I also think we have to keep separate in our minds, what LRH did and intended to do with the OT levels and what the “Church” has done with them, and not make it an A=A.

      • March 21, 2011 3:41 am

        Well whatever the naysayers say the fact is that there a huge black hole in the Church of Scientology’s current grade chart that somehow swallowed up the original OT Levels.

        It’s sorta like omitting the Lower Grades and expecting the PC to run R6EW.

        It ain’t going to happen.

        However it keeps the naysayers in business and at least keeps ’em off the streets where they’d only add to the overall crime rate 😉

      • Marildi permalink
        March 21, 2011 6:58 am

        RJ, I couldn’t have asked for a better cavalry to arrive! I know from reading some of your posts that you have had a lot of experience with the tech itself and a front row view of the history of what all happened with OT levels and their EPs.

        A blunt question: From what you know, did LRH ever “oversell” what was being delivered at the time? And if he did, did he later basically admit as much? That’s what I would expect – something similar to how KTL was developed because of the realization that he had over-estimated and “skipped a gradient” with all of us.

        (And, btw everybody, we should all be ignoring the Miscavige alterations and fraud and crimes – no argument there! The only ones who might argue about that aren’t “allowed” to be here to do so.;-) )

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 21, 2011 5:34 pm

        Marildi, anyone is allowed to post here as long as they don’t get abusive. Any opinion is welcome. I know that Independents like to blame all the Church’s problems on Miscavige. It’s a view I don’t share. See my post on “The Dirty Dozen.”

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 21, 2011 11:19 am

        Marildi: I am far from convinced that we need to differentiate between the two as much as a lot of independents would like to believe.

        RJ: I can assure you, I am strictly an amateur naysayer. 🙂

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 21, 2011 12:59 pm

        RJ: Actually, thinking about your comment more I thought of something. Out of curiosity, do you believe this:

        “Now get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law.”
        – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 November 1967

        Is that why you are, even jokingly, associating naysayers with crime?

        Incidentally, I freely confess that I have twice received a parking ticket for being parked in a spatial / temporal location in which I was not permitted to do so.

      • Marildi permalink
        March 21, 2011 6:16 pm

        Jeff, what I was alluding to was the “churchies” not being allowed (by the Church!) to post here as they are not supposed to be on the internet at this type of so-called “entheta” site. I have absolutely no bone to pick with YOU in this regard.

        I was just trying to say that virtually no one here would disagree that Miscavige is corrupt and has corrupted, so let’s save our breath on that.

        But I would like to have an understanding of whatever corruption LRH may have been involved with AND all the various circumstances surrounding that. And even that would be secondary to separating LRH’s philosphy and technology from his “mistakes” (or whatever label it should be) in organization and dissemination.

      • March 21, 2011 8:00 pm

        @Miraldi:

        >“churchies” not being allowed (by the Church!) to post here

        Oh, they can post here, Miraldi. But they choose not to. Remember, Scientologists are basically *programmed* to avoid and reject entheta. That’s part of LRH’s tech.

        >virtually no one here would disagree that Miscavige is corrupt and has corrupted

        Oh? I happen to think that Miscavige has not corrupted Scientology – he is doing exactly what LRH intended, and most of his actions can be traced back to Hubbard policy.

        I don’t really care if he redefined a floating needle. That’s a red herring that keeps Scientologists from looking at the big picture. In terms of the real crimes of Scientology – the RPF, the screaming and abuse, the endless push for money, the ridiculous war on psychiatry, the promises of abilities that can’t be delivered – DM is doing exactly what he thinks LRH intended.

        Is DM corrupt? Only to the extent that all of Scientology is corrupt.

        >I would like to have an understanding of whatever corruption LRH may have been involved with AND all the various circumstances surrounding that.

        Start with the fact that he lied about having healed his own injuries after World War II. According to Navy records, he wasn’t badly injured. So he was selling abilities he said he discovered, when in fact he hadn’t.

        >that would be secondary to separating LRH’s philosphy and technology from his “mistakes”

        First, try separating his own philosophy and technology from that which he re-wrote and called his own. Compare that to the areas where people say they saw real gains in Scientology, and where they started to lose it. You’ll see a correlation.

        Note that Indies don’t seem to complain that no one is getting low-level Dianetic gains in DM’s Co$- only OT gains. Know why? Entry Dianetics is based on proven psychotherapy, and it works. Clear, OT, etc, is LRH sci-fi. Makes a great story but doesn’t actually work in the real world.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 22, 2011 5:20 am

        Marildi,

        “A blunt question: From what you know, did LRH ever “oversell” what was being delivered at the time?”

        Personally I think he over reached at times especially back in the early ’50’s when the processes were way too out gradient for the average individual.

        As you know there quite a number processes directed towards exteriorization back then.

        Many dealing with mock ups known as “creative processing”.

        Others dealing with whole track incidents etc.

        They were also shooting for a one shot clear as well.

        It took him quite a few years to undercut and unburden the majority of cases enough to actually run these processes.

        ” And if he did, did he later basically admit as much?”

        Yes actually he does cover this fact in quite a number of HCOBs since about paralleling the case and auditing them on the proper gradient etc.

        He does also mention that he was partly responsible for the fad known as “Quickie Grades” which was actually more like under selling auditing by underestimating the numbers of hours required to bring about a full grades release to in some cases 3 minutes.

        Actually back then the price of auditing which averaged about $35 per hour if you included discounts and sliding scale which was pretty reasonable compared to other forms of psychotherapy which sold for $50 per hour or more.

        Also you could coaudit instead which was why believe it or not it was known as the “Poor Man’s Psychotherapy”.

        My how things have changed.

        Now I think it costs a good portion of the National Deficit just to get up to OT VII.

        Only to be told to do it again because you supposedly didn’t do it right the first time.

        Unlike all those people who spent in some cases millions of dollars for auditing I bought the courses instead which were pretty cheap at the time and coaudited my way through Clear and OT preps and did the Advanced Courses.

        I think I spent more on cigarettes than I did for *all* my auditing.

        So from a personal experience I wouldn’t say Ron oversold me.

      • March 22, 2011 5:40 am

        Jeff,

        Now, now.

        Not *all* independents believe it’s *all* Miscavige in fact I was the one who coined the phrase “lone Miscavige theory”

      • March 22, 2011 5:50 am

        SF,

        Lighten’ up.

        I was kidding about naysayers being criminals.

        Sheeesh

        😉

        Yes I’m familiar with the HCOB ‘Critics of Scientology’.

        Do I believe it?

        No.

        Scientology to me is not a faith based religion like say Christianity.

        Of course I never miss an opportunity to push buttons here and there 🙂

      • March 22, 2011 8:08 am

        >I think I spent more on cigarettes than I did for *all* my auditing.

        If you got the gains LRH promised you in Dianetics, you would *know* whether you spent more on cigarettes than auditing.

        So maybe LRH did “oversell” you just a little bit.

        ML, CW

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 22, 2011 12:22 pm

        RJ: I suspected you didn’t actually believe it but I found your language curious. 🙂 It’s not uncommon for Scientologists to shout, “What are your crimes?” at critics.

        I’m interested in your statement about Scientology not being faith-based as well.

        That’s one thing I’m struggling to understand with the independents — which parts of Hubbard’s writings do people consider valid?

        Some seem like Christian Fundamentalists in that they think that every word LRH wrote (apart from the stuff sold as fiction 🙂 ) is true, while others — like yourself — seem less rigid.

      • March 22, 2011 6:10 pm

        “That’s one thing I’m struggling to understand with the independents — which parts of Hubbard’s writings do people consider valid?”

        SF,

        Difficult question to answer because some people consider different things valid and many critics think the subject is totally invalid.

        So it’s hard to say.

        For me personally it’s what works.

        Also these idiots demanding crimes of critics are actually doing what is called *Illegal* auditing.

        They are using auditing techniques suppressively.

        No surprise there.

        Given the current management.

      • March 22, 2011 6:25 pm

        If you got the gains LRH promised you in Dianetics, you would *know* whether you spent more on cigarettes than auditing.

        So maybe LRH did “oversell” you just a little bit.

        ML, CW

        CW,

        How is the fact that I don’t know exactly how much money I spent on auditing relevant to whether I got the expected gains or not?

        Your assertion doesn’t make any sense to me.

        Can you clarify please?

        Ml

        RJ

      • March 22, 2011 7:24 pm

        @RJ

        >Also these idiots demanding crimes of critics are actually doing what is called *Illegal* auditing.

        RJ, LRH wrote time and again that critics of Scientology have crimes they are hiding (I can cite specific examples if you like). Does that make him an idiot?

        >How is the fact that I don’t know exactly how much money I spent on auditing relevant to whether I got the expected gains or not?

        Per DMSMH, as a Clear you should have “perfect recall” and “optimum computational ability.”

        I thought that was a pretty witty response… Bummed that you didn’t get the laugh I was going for!

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • March 23, 2011 5:18 am

        CW

        You cite one HCOB entitled ‘Critics of Scientology’ and say “LRH wrote time and again”

        Also I wrote that people who accuse others *directly*of having overts and withholds are violating the HCOB ‘Illegal Auditing’ and are therefore idiots.

        Seems you’ve over extrapolated.

        Who knows there may some day be a cure for this affliction.

        And yes CW I did not get your joke.

        However instead of blaming the audience I suggest not quitting your day job 😉

        Oh BTW I’m sure if I really wanted to I could recall every time I purchased a pack of cigarettes.

        Not only that but the exact brand as well 🙂

        How’s that for perfect recall?

        However being forced to buy auditing.

        Especially the “I’m not auditing you” “auditing” I was forced to buy was more like an engram.

      • March 23, 2011 3:51 pm

        >You cite one HCOB entitled ‘Critics of Scientology’ and say “LRH wrote time and again”

        One HCOB? Come on now, RJ:

        “…when these attacks assume a public crescendo, it has been discovered in the past that the attacker was a criminal by record…” — LRH, Assoc. Newsletter #7, STRATEGY AND TACTICS

        “Groups that attack us are to say the least not sane. According to our technology this means they have hidden areas and disreputable facts about them.[…] These people who attack have secrets. And hidden crimes.” — HCO PL 18 Feb 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY (CONTINUED)

        “The attacker… uses word of mouth, press media, any communication channel to spit his venom. […] This is black propaganda. […] It is a long-to-find and hard-learned fact that people who engage in black propaganda have big bursting crimes to hide. […] Not stealing apples or pinching pennies as a child. Real crimes like extortion, blackmail, embezzlement and mass murder are sitting in their closets.” HCO PL 21 November 1972 HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPAGANDA RUMORS AND WHISPERING CAMPAIGNS

        “As far as public attacks upon individual auditors, the HASI or LRH are concerned, it has been discovered that all those who have attacked… are criminally liable for other things… Behind every one of these attacks… has rested a criminal record of one kind or another.” — LRH, THE SCIENTOLOGIST, Ability Magazine issue 1

        “Supressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology [and] public statements against Scientology… The real motives of Suppressive Persons have been traced to quite sordid hidden desires.” — LRH, HCO PL 23 December 1965, ETHICS SUPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW

        And, of course, the HCOB you mentioned:

        “And we have this technical fact—those who oppose us have crimes to hide. It’s perhaps merely lucky that this is true. But it is true. […] Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do.” — HCOB 5 November 1967 CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY

        “Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found *crimes* for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do *not* find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts.” — HCOB 5 November 1967, CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY

        Again, that’s a quick search with a few keywords and incomplete tech/policy vols. And I left out the HCO Manual of Justice.

        >How’s that for perfect recall?

        Let’s start with something easy. Exactly how much have you spent on auditing and cigarettes in this lifetime?

        ML,
        CW

      • Marildi permalink
        March 23, 2011 10:56 pm

        RJ, I may have lost you from this part of the thread after so long, but I hope you see this post. I wanted to say thanks much for the data about how LRH “overreached” and how he tried to get things back on course to fit what he later found was actually needed by pcs. Each of your points was what I basically had in mind, but couldn’t have expressed as specifically.

        Just one specific, however, that I was surprised about and am finally getting around to asking you – you said LRH admitted contributing to the quickie grades. How does that align with the famous line in KSW 1 to the effect that quickie grades came about as a result of his being “off the lines.” This is a relatively minor point in this whole discussion, I know, but I’m really curious.

    • sherrymk permalink
      March 20, 2011 10:47 pm

      William,

      Where did LRH describe OT1-OTVll as “pre-OT” levels? I only just started hearing that at some point a few years into starting on OTVll in 1989. Those words never came from LRH, to my knowledge. He was dead years before this “new” definition of the OT levels “somehow” got into circulation.

      • March 20, 2011 11:17 pm

        Sorry Sherry, I do not have any LRH references any more so I can’t tell you where I read that. I am certain he did say that, and rather early on, but I can’t point you to any “source” on that.

      • WindWalker permalink
        March 21, 2011 1:47 am

        sherrymk

        Back in the 70s a point was made to us, in our mission, that the OT levels were actually named, Section One OT, for OT I, etc. They were said to be portions of an OT course, (as in … Section One OT Course, etc) I do not know if that was, or is their current designation. I was quite new and we never thought to ask for DOCS. We were also told they were “pre OT” levels up until OT VIII. Beyond OT VIII one would be OT. Similar to being called a Preclear prior to becoming Clear. Again, no DOCS.

        WW

      • WindWalker permalink
        March 21, 2011 3:16 am

        sherrymk

        I did a search of my files and came up with some DOCS for the information I gave.

        I have a Grade Chart from 1970 that lists all the OT levels, with their “ability Gained” and “Inability lost” statements.

        I cannot duplicate the chart here but I will give the pertinent areas.

        ie: For OT I it states:

        Preclear Grades or State of Being: OT I
        Name of state: Section One OT
        Processes audited: OT I
        Subject Audited: Section One OT
        Training required: OT I Course.
        Class of auditor required Solo Auditor, preferably HDC and Classed

        ( HDC is a Hubbard Dianetic Counselor.)

        I have left out some of the other headings and the data contained therein for the sake of brevity.

        Regarding “pre OT”…. still looking.

        Hope this helps.

        WW

    • WindWalker permalink
      March 21, 2011 1:59 am

      William

      You said :
      “We can all agree that LRH defined an OT as “a being who is at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought, subjective and objective” because, well, that’s what he said.”

      Well, actually we all cannot. If we are to discuss this I feel that a definition is in order.

      I apologize for the length of this, but here is the definition per the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary.

      Operating Thetan, 1. a thetan exterior who can have but doesn’t have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space, and time. (SH Spec 82,6611C29) 2. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space, and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 3. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn’t have one. He’s now himself, he’s not dependent on the universe around him. ( SP Spec 66, 6509C09) 4. A clear who has been refamiliarized with his capabilities. (HCOB 12 Jul 65) 5. A being at cause over mater, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependence on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta. (the symbol was included here but I cannot produce it on my keyboard), which the Greeks used to represent “though” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (BCR, p. 10) 6. By operating thetan we mean theta clear plus ability to operate functionally against or with mest and other life forms. (SCP, p. 3) 7. This state of being is attained by drills and familiarity after the state of clear has been obtained. A real OT has no reactive bank, is cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought and is completely free. (HCOB 12 Jul 65)

      The quote you gave is a relatively accurate duplication of the “ability Gained” for OT VIII on an earlier Grade Chart.

      Please note that each OT Level has it’s own unique “ability gained”. They are quite different one from another.

      WW

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 7:39 am

      William wrote: “The others, who claim some kind of ‘powers’ cannot demonstrate them objectively.”

      Except for those that can and did.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 22, 2011 8:10 am

        I guess you mean Ingo Swann, Pat Price, etc. ? Or was there someone else?

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 3:50 pm

        Yes, which means science is so far in favor of the OTs.

        Now, when a study is done on OTs to test for “OT abilities” and the result is “No OT abilities” … then the debate will be even. But so far, the OTs are ahead — at least if you want to be objective and scientific about it.

        Saying “I have all these anecdotes that it does NOT work” is no different than saying “I have all these anecdotes that it DOES work”.

        So, you anti-OT’ites … where is YOUR science that it doesn’t work?

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 22, 2011 4:52 pm

        The burden of proof is on the Church. They are the ones selling it. It’s like a weight loss program saying “where is your scientific proof that my program doesn’t work?”

        And I love that “anti-OT’ites.” When you run out of ideas, you can always invent a derogatory label.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 23, 2011 2:27 am

        Jeff wrote: “The burden of proof is on the Church.”

        Fair enough. It does seem that the CoS of the 70s was more open to cooperating with those interested in testing things and integrating with society, than the regime of the 80s. Another example is psychologist Ken Gerbino and his development of TIR, trying to integrate modern dianetics into the field of psychology.

        “And I love that ‘anti-OT’ites.’ …”

        Mea culpa. Someone here said “kool aid drinkers on marty’s blog” and I got … sudden. 🙂

  13. Dean Blair permalink
    March 20, 2011 4:12 pm

    Jeff,

    Your blog to me is the most interesting and accurate of all of the blogs I have read. I tend to agree with your viewpoint of Scientology more than the viewpoints of the “independents” or the others that I consider are still drinking the cool aid. I have been to Marty’s site as well as others and a many of the independents are doing a lot of “back peddling”. I was in Scientology from the late sixties and back then it was all about “OT Abilities”. Cause over matter, energy, space and time meant just that. Super abilities. Magic. Abilities the OTs had were supposed to be far above mere mortals and so forth. The OT wins were published in the Advance Magazine series of which I still have the whole collection of all the original issues.

    My mother introduced me to Scientology originally and we used to talk about all of the abilities LRH said were possible once one reached the state of OT. I and many of my friends at the time used to discuss all of the wins the OTs were writing about and all of the abilities LRH was promising about doing the OT levels. We all wanted those abilities and that was why we continued in Scientology. I spent a lifetime working at achieving those goals until I finally left and can now see the light.

    Any group of believers can experience para normal phenomenon at some time or another whether they are witches, Scientologists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever. None of them however can call these phenomenon abilities because they can’t do them at will or whenever they want.

    I think that one of the biggest mistakes Scientology has made is that they are trying to be God when they are simply human beings. Scientologists claim to be Homo Novis but they are claiming something IMHO that is not true.

    While it is said that God created man in his image there is a very large difference between man and God and anyone trying to take on the role of God is going to be in for great big loss because you are not Him.

    In reading all of the comments on your blog and on Marty’s blog I sure saw a lot of rationalizations, justifications, back peddling, and explanations as to what OT really is but these are all things that have changed since the original LRH promises back in the day.

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 3:56 pm

      “your blog and on Marty’s blog I sure saw a lot of rationalizations, justifications, back peddling”

      And plenty of anecdotes on either side that people HAVE gotten “OT abilities” as a result of Scientology and plenty of anecdotes that they haven’t.

      And because we actually have objective scientific studies on at least two Scientology OTs (with Ingo at least believing that Scientology auditing brought it out in him), an objective, unbiased observer would recognize that the existing science skews the anecdotes in favor of some “OT abilities” being real and achievable in at least some cases.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 22, 2011 4:48 pm

        Margaret, no matter how many times you say this, and you have said it over and over and over again on this blog, science has never proven that Scientology’s OT levels produce paranormal abilities. You can’t make it true by repeating it over and over. You have a 30-year old study that was never designed to prove anything about Scientology’s OT Levels. If it had been, they would have tested subjects before and after the OT Levels, and they would have had a control group.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 23, 2011 2:29 am

        “science has never proven that Scientology’s OT levels produce paranormal abilities.”

        That’s a strawman Jeff. I never made that statement, or anything close to it. Most I have said is that the evidence is suggestive or perhaps promising.

  14. March 20, 2011 4:23 pm

    >There are also those who believe that Scientologists, particularly those newly out of the Church, should be shielded from certain opinions, that they should have “safe” places to go where they won’t be subjected to the rough-and-tumble of open discourse. I guess I have more faith in people’s ability to reason and in their ability to tolerate those with different opinions, communicate with them, and hold their own.

    That bears repeating. It’s one of the big problems I have with censorship, both by the organized Church and by independent Scientology sites. Moderating blatantly offensive comments is one thing; censoring to “shield” is another. Why don’t the people who run these sites trust their followers to think for themselves? (I have my theories but I’ll leave that as a rhetorical question.)

    Jeff, thanks for allowing a broad variety of viewpoints (including my own). I’m trying to post less, but it’s a hard habit to break.

    Love this latest post, too.

    ML,
    Caliwog

  15. John Doe permalink
    March 20, 2011 4:33 pm

    LRH had a tendency to exaggerate. I heard him say, in his own voice, “Standard Tech will take you into states of beingness where nothing can strike you down.”

    That is a hell of a clear statement. No wiggle room there. And when I heard that for the first time, it was thrilling to me to be part of that, to be the recipient of such a promise.

    Alas, no Scientologist that I’ve ever met or heard about has achieved such a state of beingness.

    It is unfortunate that such exaggerated promises were made, because even if a person straightened out their life, got off drugs, became a productive and helpful member of society, etc., due to their association with and learning from Scientology, still that glass is filled with only half of what Scientology has suggested it can offer.

    Ironically, by many other “wog” yardsticks, if Scientology got their kid off drugs, etc., that glass would be brimming over.

    A wise friend of mine said happiness was achieved through the management of your own and others’ expectations: If an expectation was not met, the person was unhappy. If an expectation was met, the person was satisfied. If an expectation was surpassed, that person was happy, even elated. LRH expressed this concept, more narrowly, in his policy on “The Four Conditions of Exchange”. The business world understands this concept as well, even if not fully articulated by them.

    Unfortunately, due to LRH’s and the C of S’s exaggerations and elevations of expectation, a built-in tendencyto create dissatisfied people exists, even when there are many people who are completely satisfied with what they got from Scientology.

    Or people who would have been satisfied, had a more realistic yardstick been used.

    • Marildi permalink
      March 20, 2011 9:40 pm

      But wasn’t that statement by LRH in the context that there would be many more OT levels to come?

      • March 20, 2011 10:22 pm

        No. At that time, LRH specified OT VIII as the highest level, the level of full OT. (The “8” was meant to symbolize “infinity”) It was only later that he talked about a few additional levels above that — I believe that was the same time he threw away OT IV through OT VII and created new versions for the extended OT III handling.

        I have no firm data, but I always assumed the “new” levels above OT VIII were going to be the old IV, V, VI and VII levels, re-released. Obviously, that never happened.

      • John Doe permalink
        March 21, 2011 12:01 am

        Miraldi,
        That statement is from Ron’s Journal 36, the one that has the theme, “know the Tech and it will protect you.”

    • gandiguy permalink
      March 20, 2011 9:56 pm

      The one thing being missed by many bloggers that complain that they didn’t get all that was promised is that little caveat that LRH mentioned somewhere that you need to reach for the starts in order to get your head above the table top! The star high goals and promises may have been necessary just to get folks to reach at all. From what I read just about everyone that gave it a shot got somewhere from a quarter of a glass to a half of a glass of water when a full glass was promised. Would you have expended the effort if a quarter of a glass was offered with the hope that maybe some of you would get at least a half a glass!

      After a lifetime of experience I can say for me yes I reached for the high star and only got to the tree top but in looking back and seeing the rapid growth to the treetop I have no belief whatsoever that I could have gotten to the tree top on my own without the help I got and furthermore have not one iota of regret of the investment I made in the help I got and if I had to do it over knowing I would only get the quarter glass of water when the full glass was promised would so rapidly do it all over again as the quarter glass was priceless to me!

      On the other hand I am independent from the Cof$ and perhaps would have preferred seeing the light earlier only to get greater bang for any buck I might have spent. The Tech has worked for me. I have gotten gains beyond my wildest imaginings and no I can’t levitate but I don’t really care. What I can do and have experienced has been a treasure and doesn’t have a price.

      • John Doe permalink
        March 21, 2011 2:43 am

        Gandiguy,

        I am happy to hear that you are one of those people who are completely satisfied with what you got from Scientology. Indeed, it seems from your words that your expectations were surpassed. Good for you.

        But from your description of the stars/treetops, it is apparent that you are not in a state of beingness where nothing can strike you down. And that you are okay with not getting that; you are happy with what you did get.

        But my point is that LRH exaggerated. And because he did, there are a lot of unhappy people whose expectations were not met. I know few people who think it an acceptable business practice to promise a full glass of water and then only deliver a half or quarter glass, no matter how amazing that water might be. Even LRH called that the condition of “partial exchange.”

      • Marildi permalink
        March 23, 2011 2:48 am

        Gandiguy, this is a wonderful post – more the crux of the matter by far, to my way of thinking, than the majority of posts I’ve read.

        There are some compelling points that people make who question LRH’s actions and motives, and the tech itself. And these points may well be valid, or possibly are just “levels of truth,” but often are simply out of CONTEXT and show a limited knowledge of Scientology history/tech/philosophy.

        And just as compelling, to me, are the opposing views to those critics, the views defending Scientology. LRH’s deepest intentions – vs. “means to an end” (right or wrong) – haven’t been *proven* one way or the other by this “debate.”

        As for the tech itself, in addition to personal experience, there’s enough anectdotal evidence of the value of standard tech (in spite of any misguided or downright corrupt promotion) to satisfy many of us who think anecdotal evidence is valid. Others seem to need to “know before they go” by means of scientific or objective proof. What constitutes valid proof is even debatable.

        But looking at the basic philosophy of Scn which underlies the tech itself – quite simply put, it rings true to me. Truth is perceivable. And I just can’t see that a man who was capable of perceiving such truth, or even perceiving truth as originated by others and then adopting it, could have had nothing but materialistic or evil intentions – which are so diametrically opposed to spiritual truths. That just doesn’t “compute.” Call it “mere” knowingness.

        (The Church of Miscavige would be another subject, apart from the above.)

    • March 21, 2011 2:46 am

      It’s called fraud.

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 4:06 pm

      John Doe wrote: “I heard [LRH] say, in his own voice, ‘Standard Tech will take you into states of beingness where nothing can strike you down.'”

      Certainly you realize that he’s talking about a spiritual state of beingness, right? Because you seem to be expecting a comicbook superhero. I mean, theoretically, a person’s body could be shot dead and still be in a “state of beingness” where nothing can strike them down.

      • John Doe permalink
        March 23, 2011 6:19 pm

        Margaret,

        I understand that LRH was talking spiritually, and no, I never expected Super Powers.

        I think you missed my point. First sentence, first comment, that’s the point.

  16. March 20, 2011 4:46 pm

    Before someone brings up the CIA/SRI/Stargate thing again, I want to point out that there were ten “remote viewers” and only two of them were Scientologists. Later, there were even more non-Scientologists. In addition, the “statistically significant” results were that these ten people were between 5% and 15% more correct than the “non-gifted” people, and often added a whole lot of inaccurate information as well. The study did not investigate or validate Scientology or OT Levels. That wasn’t its purview. The non-Scientologists were just as “successful” as the Scientologists.

    This has nothing to do with “OT”, nothing to do with Scientology, and 5% to 15% may be “statistically significant” but isn’t very significant.

    Dear True Believers,
    Do not cite the “Stargate” study as if it had anything to do with this discussion. Thanks.

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 6:23 am

      Hi William,

      There does seem to be some evidence by those that were there that many Scientologists were involved in the early SRI experiments. The following quote is from Alex Constantine, of “The Constantine Report”:

      “When Swann joined SRI, he stated openly that fourteen ‘Clears’ participated in the experiments.”
      http://sc-i-r-s-ology.com/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm

      Nevertheless, numerous reports have Pat Price and Ingo Swann being considered to be the best, and of course we have Swann on record as stating at the time that he believed that it was solely Scientology auditing that brought out these abilities in him. Further, according to Hal Puthoff, the very best results in the CIA research (by SRI and SAIC) have yet to be declassified. So, if true, the numbers one reads about in the AIR reports would be skewed downward.

      But I do agree, the tests were never done to test Scientology and to really begin to make a useful scientific assessment of the OT levels’ ability to bring out “OT abilities”, one would need to do before and after tests. Until then, we can look at the existing anecdotal and scientific evidence and draw conclusions as we choose.

  17. Joy permalink
    March 20, 2011 5:08 pm

    Jeff

    When on my lower bridge I couldn’t go past life. so the next c/s was past life repair.

    I pay for 2 intensives (at Flag), after paying just before going in session the Bord i/c send to the Reg and he asked me :” what do you expect from this auditing action? I told him ” the EP” daaaahaaa

    I went to session and the Auditor ask me: ” are you trying to prove the tec is not working”?

    I told him ” no it just prov en to me that I can`t go past life!!! daaaahaaa

    The Church sale you OT ability and then balm you for having hidden standard if you don`t get what was promised.

  18. lurker(not the mostly) permalink
    March 20, 2011 6:07 pm

    Wow Jeff, this was exactly what I was complaining about (as a lowly wog attempting to understand)… Its the constant shifting of the goal posts of OT, that makes outsiders (and if Scientology wants to grow, it has to appeal to outsiders) look at Scientologists and shake their heads.

    I wonder how Scientology (in this world, with internet, etc) would fare as strictly a religion(since it doesnt really work as a business, if you can’t deliver what you promise)… Sects that practice the heavy shunning, narrow ethical and living options, just don’t tend to grow, and even if they do, they have to account to someone (at the very least their members) when they screw up … For example, the catholic church with the priests… The Catholics have driven that bus to make the Church own up to their responsibilities…

    I will have more respect for the church of Scientology, when it owns up to the Lisa McPhersons or the critics they hounded, and allow families to stay connected. Right now, its more like a horrible political regime..

  19. elizabethhamre permalink
    March 20, 2011 6:11 pm

    To me OT abilities are which after erasing, as -is ing the garbage the MEST which includes every consideration, every thoughts every agreement.[ which are all the same, just different wording.] one will return to ones native state as one was before the only difference one takes with one the accumulated knowledge which is this time in the Intangible form!!!! Which have come from the as-is ing the experience which have become ones track, which was not duplicated and have become permanent, solid energy. In fact one do not erase the words but the original, the postulates which is on energy. Than a label was hang on it which become the agreed upon considerations that make it existing. One will only know ones ability in full after ones Bank is totally erased. !!!!!!!!!!!!! If all of you wonder what is the reason no one can duplicate you. Very simple reason. Even for your self you cant duplicate your own thought your own Universe and you wonder how come there is so much disagreement!!! ” Duplicating is a Learned Ability “” which was given to us by RON. If you don’t continue with SOLO you will never know your true OT abilities You will never know what is the Universe all about. Sitting on ones certificate will not erase the MEST But Soloing will. The OT abilities you have well… I have news for you they are not the same as you think winning in the MEST, doing the MEST actions, have nothing to do with OT abilities. MEST is MEST. Action in MEST is out come in MEST altering MEST. Of course you will all duplicate this on your own way as your own considerations will allow you to have it. One only can have a reality what is on Intangible if one no longer have the bank. While being, having the Bank= MEST reality one can not understand that concept, cant experience that concept because one is sitting in energy. So only the IDEA IS KNOWN BY the BEING but not in reality. the experience of nothingness the INFINITE. Elizabeth Hamre SOLO AUDITOR. Hell of a good one too. One who has solod the MEST out. On Silvia’s Blog there is on article posted last august. “TO WALK THE WALK OF SOLO AUDITOR” The Wins in that article are written in reality level of MEST understanding.

    • Maria Abian permalink
      March 21, 2011 2:50 pm

      A lot of words, but not very concise.
      It reminds me people who have no understanding of physics using the term “quantum” or “energy fields” all over the place to make their woo sound scientific and rational.
      Or throwing in a ton of words to add confusion to the claim

      It does not make the case more believable.

  20. elizabethhamre permalink
    March 20, 2011 6:40 pm

    PS: When one have attained the level, the State of Intangible Infinite, There is no guessing on the possibilities, what ones abilities are, could be, will be. There is no debate existing on the fact “KNOW'”. The Infinite the intangible, exactly is what is.

    • Maria Abian permalink
      March 21, 2011 2:54 pm

      What level did L. Ron achieve?…the person who discovered all this info somehow.

  21. SpecialFrog permalink
    March 20, 2011 6:53 pm

    Excellent post. I have nothing further to add at this stage. 🙂

  22. March 20, 2011 7:14 pm

    I agree with you 100% Jeff and found it interesting that this was the first time I had seen or noticed Marty Rathbun & Steve Hall jumping on the bandwagon with their own blog’s giving their definition or concept of what OT Abilities. Heck, Steve Hall, for some reason deleted his first post, renamed it, and posted it again to clarify his thoughts. To bad that it deleted the post that Steve flamed me on, but thats okay. Kind of funny though that I thanked him for actually post it because I disagreed.

    So that being said this should clear it all up. Let’s just use LRH’s definition or at least 2 of the 7 definitions of what LRH says is an Operating Thetan.

    Dianetics And Scientology Technical Dictionary Copyright 1975, 1978 Reprinted 1989

    Page 279 OPERATING THETAN (OT), 1. a thetan exterior who can have but doesn’t have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time. (SH Spec 82, 6611C29) 3. an individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn’t have one. He’s now himself, he’s not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)

    These definitions don’t say Operating Thetan VIII it just says Operating Thetan.

    OT Abilities have been oversold and under delivered by the corporation known as the Church of Scientology since the day LRH started giving lectures about the magical powers of Thetans. So let’s not try to rewrite history and LRH’s definitions regarding what OT Abilities are gained through Scientology auditing. Unless you have a vested interest in selling these OT Abilities as a profession. =)

    • March 20, 2011 9:47 pm

      I made a similar argument in another post, and was told that the Tech Dictionary definitions are taken out of context. Not sure how that’s possible, since it is supposed to be a dictionary, but there you go. It’s amazing the lengths people will go to to “make wrong” those who try to point out Hubbard’s blatantly obvious lies. One must admire the tenacity!

      ML,
      Caliwog

      • Maria Abian permalink
        March 21, 2011 3:01 pm

        A few months back I asked on Marty’s blog how come all these OTs (including Hubbard) were all over the place, but they could not see that DM was an SP until decades went by. It was actually posted.
        I can’t remember all the replies (I could look), but they were not satisfying.

        The answer is obvious to outsiders…OT powers are bogus and Hubbard was a human like the rest of us, and just as fallible.

        The same goes for current members of CoS. How come they took so long to see that people like Marty and Mike were SPs if OT powers really work?

    • Marildi permalink
      March 20, 2011 9:52 pm

      Jim, I don’t believe those definitions were what was sold as the EP of any of the OT levels to date. It seems clear to me that one would have to continue up the many higher OT levels not even released, to approach that ultimate EP of true and full OT.

      • Maria Abian permalink
        March 21, 2011 3:05 pm

        That reminds me of Piece of Blue Sky.
        Jon Atack talks of taking courses…not feeling like he really gained anything, and was always told by the FSM or whomever was pushing him that the NEXT course will solve his issues.

        It was always this magical next course.

        And it never was.

      • Marildi permalink
        March 21, 2011 5:34 pm

        I hear you, Maria. But what reg’s said and what the actual EP stated were often not the same and should be differentiated. To be accurate, the blame should go to the reg’s, rather than LRH, and I think that kind of accuracy matters in any discussion about *Scientology”. Otherwise, it’s the same old mushing together of LRH and Scientology with “the Church.”

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 4:17 pm

        Marildi wrote: “I don’t believe those definitions were what was sold as the EP of any of the OT levels to date.”

        That’s exactly right Marildi. The term “Operating Thetan” was always at the far end of the theoretical spectrum, and LRH never claimed that it had been completely achieved. LRH was noticing successes — and coming up with techniques — along the way, mostly with the goal of helping others achieve stable exteriorization (along with of course the goal of stability and causativeness across ones dynamics).

        Some here on this blog are claiming that they’ve achieved stable or near-stable exteriorization. Some are claiming they didn’t.

        The science appears to indicate that it is at least possible in some cases.

  23. Joy permalink
    March 20, 2011 7:54 pm

    standard Tec

    Can somebody explain me that point:

    When I Pay $8,000 for 1 intensive at Flag (12 hours), did I pay for standard tec or non standard tec?

    • Marildi permalink
      March 21, 2011 6:53 pm

      Joy, I don’t think anyone could answer that with just that much data. When was it? What was the intensive for? And – mainly – what did you get out of it? If you answer those questions you might get some answers – or guesses, I should say.

  24. Jeff permalink*
    March 20, 2011 8:08 pm

    By the way, as a courtesy to others reading this thread, please don’t post the same or similar comments over and over and over again. We heard you the first time. If you have something new to add, feel free to chime in.

  25. elizabethhamre permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:16 pm

    Jeff thanks. I only can say Tech works on no matter what Item what part of the bank. auditing questions do not recognize importance what should be erase or not. They work that is all. And dont tell me some banks are different from otheres that is the reason the tech do not work.

    • Jeff permalink*
      March 20, 2011 8:48 pm

      Far be it for me to tell you anything. To quote Harry Truman, “The only things worth learning are the things you learn after you know it all.”

  26. Operatingwog permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:24 pm

    If you have something new to add, feel free to chime in.

    Easier said than done.

  27. Martimus Maximus permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:55 pm

    I think your initial post “pushed some buttons” on the kool-aid drinkers over at Marty’s site. Frankly I found Marty’s response a bit condescending towards you. Fine, that’s his problem.

    “History of Man” was the first book when I read when I got into Scientology. And I do disctinctly remember LRH talking about how scientology processing could one to the point of being able to “tip hats at 50 yards” or some such. In fact, he talked about it rather matter of factly in the book and about how we (acientologists) should keep such abilities hidden from the average “wog”. I don’t why I was so gullible/naive at the time, perhaps because it was at the time the first few Star Wars movies came out (circa 1980).

    When I told my friends at the time about Scientology and what it could (per the books), their response was “They day you can come over and start re-arranging the furniture without using your body, is the day I’ll read a book by Ron L. Hubbard”. It didn’t help that the Div 6 reg at the mission was this weird guy who claimed to be able to change light signals telepathically. But when your surrounded by like-minded individuals who so want to be believe that such things are possible, then it’s easy to fool yourself. To this day I’ve never met an “OT” (someone who has done all or most ot the “Bridge to total free-dumb”, who could or would ever demonnstrate to me any kind of OT ability, though they still believed in it. When you realize that Scientology is a faith founded by a mildly successful science fiction writer with no college education, then everything falls into place. I’ll end off on this quote:

    “Nothing is easier than self-deceit. Whatever each man wishes to be true, he also believes to be true.”

    Demosthenes, ca. 340 BC

    • March 20, 2011 10:10 pm

      >”Whatever each man wishes to be true, he also believes to be true.” – Demosthenes, ca. 340 BC

      Outstanding. And much more accurate than “What’s true for you is true.”

      ML, CW

  28. March 20, 2011 10:10 pm

    My take on OT abilities – Why & How – here: http://isene.com/onwill.pdf

    • Marildi permalink
      March 21, 2011 4:40 am

      Hi Gier, I read your article but don’t see that you stated any definite conclusion about the existence of free will or, by extrapolation, your take on OT abilities. Did I miss it?

    • Fidelio permalink
      March 22, 2011 8:56 am

      Geir,

      years ago, I – deeply muddled into SCN (!!!) – had a talk with a Muslim friend who was in fact a Sufi Mystic.
      We discussed range and limits of free will and I had Hubbard’s OT myths about cause over MEST …”and so forth, and so on..…” in mind. 🙂

      While I am glad to have forgotten, what I said, he told me a story about Mohammed how he answered that very question to his simple illiterate disciple Ali:

      Mohammed said to him: “First lift one leg”. Poor Ali lifted his left leg and stood there on his one leg.

      Then Mohammed asked him: “Now lift the right leg also!”

      Ali was puzzled and asked how?

      Mohammed told him: “If you had wanted to, you could have lifted the right leg first, but now you cannot. A man is always free to lift the first leg – it can be whichever he wants – but the sooner has the first one been lifted then the other becomes bound to the Earth.”

      So much to “OT” abilities whatever they might be anyways.

      I happily tend to see it the Sufi way.

      Fidelio

  29. gOD permalink
    March 20, 2011 11:08 pm

    Jeff, I can’t see the contradiction. Shamans can ask you to pay for a course and they can teach you gnostic knowledge:) and “You can’t prove it happened, you can’t prove it didn’t happen. You can believe them, you can disbelieve them, you can say they are crazy, deluded, inspired or whatever.”
    Unfortunatelly, this is the world today:(
    But if you recognize that they are actually not shamans, but businessman, than you are really good;)

  30. Bert Schippers permalink
    March 21, 2011 12:15 am

    Great post Jeff, well said, well said.

    Bert

  31. Martimus Maximus permalink
    March 21, 2011 12:30 am

    The funny thing is that the “church” can’t even make a Clear, let alone an OT. I’ve never met a Clear as described in Book One: perfect recall, perfectly rational, perfect senses, perfect reaction time, no psychosomatic illnesses, i.e. a “Homo Novus”. Clear was later redefined by LRH to mean someone who simply no longer had their own reactive mind. So, one had to pay even more money to “handle the other dynamics” on the OT levels. The OT levels themselves (OT 1-7) were later redefined as “Pre-OT levels”, with the real OT levels starting at OT 8. LRH dropped the body in 1986 almost immediately after delivering the first “real” OT level. Whether more OT levels exist afyer OT 8, and whether they produce OT abilities, is something we’ll never know, but I have my suspicions based on earlier promises.

    I’ve never met an OT 7 or 8 who fit the original definition of Clear either. If such people did exist, wouldn’t you think we should all find a way to deliver scientology as cheaply as possible so that more people could achieve that state? How can the “average joe” pay $500,000 or more to get all the way to the top of the bridge? I’ve heard all the reasons and excuses, e.g. “scientology makes the able more able” or “we’ll audit the DBs the second time around”, but if Planet Earth is really a ticking time bomb, shouldn’t we err in the direction of auditing more people as quickly as possbile? It just shows that scientology was never more than a self-help business masquarading as a major religion, selling promises it could never really deliver on. A sign at a recent Anonymous protest read: “RELIGION IS FREE; SCIENTOLOGY IS NEITHER”.

    BTW, this isn’t some kind of ant-Scientology rant, I just feel that by making it a very expensive religion that only millionaires can afford, run by a very abusive cult-like, litigious corporation, does not benefit society in general. Compare Scientology to a real charity like the American Red Cross, and you’ll notice a difference in how it operates, and who it operates for. Does a legitmate business really need things like an RPF, disconnection and fair game? Ironically, perhaps if Scientology had been kept a low-cost, for-profit self help business, it might have expanded more than it did. But, it’s a lot easier to sue a business for fraud than it is a religion, isn’t it? Anyone remember Julie Christofferson? The “Battle of Portland 1985”? The religious cloaking gives Scientology a lot of legal protection it wouldn’t otherwise have.

  32. March 21, 2011 1:41 am

    Well stated Jeff, like always.

    Few people who have experienced the subject of Scientology will deny that it has value and can improve a persons life in many, many ways.

    Great. It should be represented that way and SOLD that way. Unfortunately it is not. Call a spade a spade – it’s FRAUD and nothing else. That’s really a shame because it hurts the subject and its acceptance into society.

    Back in 1977 when I was 20 years old, I was healthy, full of energy and doing fine socially. I didn’t feel I had a “problem” that I wanted handled. What I wanted was high end spiritual abilities. I wanted to be demonstratably cause over matter, energy, space and time if such could be achieved.

    The Scientology church claimed this was exactly what they provided. They claimed to provide it in exact gradients on their “Bridge To Total Freedom”. They claimed it was an exact and workable route.

    I spoke to the director at the church who said he was OT 7. He said that he could go exterior with full perception at will. He said that he could go to any library in the world, while his body slept, and read a book there.

    The Advance magazines that I was sent had wins where “OTs” told about playing hide and seek with other OTs in the fish tank in the pc waiting area of AOLA. They told stories of driving down the freeway in L.A. and at the same time going exterior and stopping a criminal act from occuring miles way.

    The free tape plays were the PDC lectures where LRH talked about how he had been walking down the street when he realized that his feet hadn’t touched the ground.

    Another tape was called “The Role Of Planet Earth” where LRH is auditing a girl on stage so as to demonstrate bodies in pawn. The girl is supposed to be operating a seperate body on a space ship and to be talking about it would be a breach of security. LRH tells the girl that its okay, that he is friends with the commander of her ship and he has a good laugh.

    It was the hope of achieving those kind of results, as was promoted and promised, that I joined the Sea Org and dedicated my life for the next 27 years. It took a lot of intention to go up that Bridge while in the Sea Org. I had lots of gains and fun while doing it but I found out for myself, with full certainty – THAT WHAT WAS PROMISED WAS A SCAM and that scam was intentionally run by LRH. Sorry, I don’t see any other way to say it.

  33. Joe Doakes permalink
    March 21, 2011 2:06 am

    Good follow-up, Jeff. It’s my belief that in any group you’ll get people that can be a bit too agreeable with the “leader” or mouthpiece of it. I think that works out no matter the blog, forum, etc. So I kind of take it with a grain of salt when I see people described as “Koolaid drinkers” post adamantly about things one way or another.

    For my money (figuratively), I think a lot of what you said (and Marty as well — haven’t read Steve’s article in full) has some truths.

    For me the allure of supernatural/paranormal experiences is what drew me to Scn to begin with. I was happily going along with Dianetics and wanted nothing to do with religion, so was fine on never getting to know Scn.

    But once I heard a lecture or two with some Space Opera and some more info about OT Abilities I was hooked. These books, lectures & techniques had been delivered to the general public — certainly as I moved up the new and improved Bridge I’d make similar gains, right?

    I think this is a significant point that your blog entry (previous one) lays out. I mean the typical Scientologist is pretty particular when it comes to the definition of terms. So when it comes to defining “ability” vs. “phenomenon” it caught my attention.

    I’m of the frame of mind where I’d LOVE to see some parlor tricks. I don’t buy into the whole idea that “A real OT is above all that…” It’s just nonsense. Could you imagine the stir it would cause if the types of things LRH spoke of were demonstrated? It wouldn’t be fearful or “out reality”, it’d be amazing! People would sign up in droves to get at it and would be able to justify the expense. And those struggling on the Bridge would have such a fantastic carrot it would undoubtedly help compel them to continue.

    Of course along with the parlor trick the OT would talk about how minor of a thing it really is and that the real gains he’s acquired are how much more confident and responsible he is in life, how it’s affected his friends/family/community, etc. how only following the ethical road can one achieve this power, etc. I think that would be obvious. It’s really hard to conceive of someone that has gotten so spiritually aware of life, livingness & the universe that he can levitate things, but is also an out-ethics pig. Just doesn’t fit…

    This is part of what made me “wake up” from the church. The lack of gains the higher I moved on the Bridge. And it’s not like I wasn’t contributing. A long-term staff veteran, significant contributor to the IAS, trained auditor & C/S, holding the Snr C/S post in an org. I should be at the top of the top, right? Doing everything for all the right reasons (the major plus point was purpose, after all). I even had my wife on the Bridge as well and my son in an Applied Scholastics school! I’m thinking the bases were covered for me as far as “Eligibility” goes. But the gains at the lower levels were more significant than the upper ones — even though they cost considerably more!

    Each OT level I started with a similar anticipation — I’m going to finally get some of those OT Processes that I’ve read about/listened to, and start working on real OT abilities. The promise & practicality made sense. I mean if I could even telekinetic-ally move a grain of salt or remote view with any sort of regularity I would be so thrilled. It would make sense that I would do but anything to continue on. It would be such a strong validation of the work I was doing and the purpose I was working to achieve. And there’d be no argument for it! And as person after person came off the assembly line with these OT Abilities (even with micro-abilities like the single grain of salt) it would truly be awesome to behold.

    NO ONE WOULDN’T WANT TO BE PART OF IT!

    Do I think these abilities are attainable? I have “hope” that they are. I’ve read enough phenomena that I can envision a time where things could be done causatively, even if not with perfect regularity. My only reason for having this hope are the wins I DID get. Surely if lower Bridge actions could change conditions like they did (and were promised to do), upper Bridge actions could have similar end-results.

    I personally took exception to the “Poor Jeff…” comment(s). To me comments like that are polarizing and create an “us” versus “them” mentality. Good on you for keeping your retort short and sweet. 🙂

    My biggest concerns is that the old-timers and high-level people aren’t talking more about the fact very little ability is achieved with the current Grade Chart actions. That worries the hell out of me because it means they’re willing to keep the status quo. I recall LRH talking about “shoving mass into one’s body” as an experiment and how the PC eventually (on a real, physical scale) gained significant weight. I want to DO that type of thing and see it work! And what about all the stuff in the PDC’s & other early lecture series? There’s all sorts of things that have somehow been relegated to “…old, no longer used” status while we grind away on actions that demonstrably DON’T get those kinds of results. And yet, virtually any Indie I know of that still wants auditing, is completely willing to keep moving on the new path that hasn’t produced these types of results!

    Anyway, I’m not really trying to say OT Ability does or doesn’t exist. I’m really saying, “Show me the money!” from the perspective of it being the best thing anyone could do for the subject. Heck, do you think those sitting on the fence inside the church would hang around if they knew a $600 OT Course in the Indie field could actually produce real OT Ability? And if people by the hundreds or thousands in the Indie field were demonstrating some sort of ability, having been produced by these “old processes”, wouldn’t it be an easy sell to anyone that the current management has corrupted the subject?

    Again, the fact it isn’t happening and that no one is talking about it, is what has me worried more than anything about my “hope”. Because then what we have in actuality is the same thing we had in the church — promises of a full glass, but only receiving half. Sure it’s with way less duress, punishment & expense. But it’s still only half a glass of water…

    • Tony DePhillips permalink
      March 22, 2011 1:29 am

      I liked your comment Joe Doakes.

      I think I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

      For me though, I like auditing no matter if I ever get OT ability or not. I really enjoy having a good comm cycle and having someone letting me talk until I am done. I find that it is a good way for me to calmly and rationally come to my own understanding of things. And for this service I will pay an amount money that is realistic. I don’t expect OT ability anymore, but I do get some cool phenomena that seems to be of a higher quality than most mere mortals. I don’t really care if anyone believes me or not because it isn’t my purpose to convince anyone. I enjoy it.
      When in the church of Scientology I USED to enjoy it. Then it got more and more tyrannical and it was no longer worth paying for. For me it became totally out-exchange and criminal exchange. I thought of an LRH quote which was something like: Sure people have the right to have their own ideas as long as it doesn’t block the way out for others. Something like this. This is a pretty bizarre comment the way I see it now. That say’s that if the current leadership thinks that others that have left the church apply Scn. in a certain way then they have the purpose of “stamping that out of existence” because it violates KSW. It tells me that they think that they have the right to stamp out other groups that don’t think like they do. Where would it ever end?? Would it just be a gradient of trying to bully more and more people out of doing ANYTHING that this leader thinks is out KSW? Pretty scary thought.
      I like the idea of freedom of religion. I don’t like people saying this is ok and this is not ok. But I agree with the idea that if a religion starts demonstrably to hurt people by large numbers and do not take action to remedy their wrongs that organization should be shut down. It doesn’t mean that the philosophy should be shut down, but any group applying a philosophy that gets the populace so wriled up and wanting it stopped must be doing a lot of things wrong. I don’t believe that the group is always a “group dominated bank” and always doing the most destructive thing. It does sometimes. The current cult has brought all of it’s black PR on itself by failing to put it’s own ethics in. By failing to make up the damage it has done to it’s own staff and paritioners. It has failed to show that it is a benevolent group and needs to be reinvented.

      • Tony DePhillips permalink
        March 22, 2011 1:32 am

        Oh! By the way Jeff, I really love the way you differentiate and confront the things that othes sometimes don’t want to. You have intellectual courage and I admire that. You are a few cuts above the ordinary Man. You are a free being in your own way. Thanks.

  34. March 21, 2011 4:34 am

    I quite like Marty’s latest post. “What do claims, representations, and promises have to do with it? Not a blessed thing.” He seems to be saying that you might not get any of the promised gains from Scientology, but it might be fun trying.

    Of course, the paragraph before that says that since his wife started auditing, they can communicate telepathically.

    Go figure.

    ML, CW

  35. Jewel permalink
    March 21, 2011 9:16 am

    Jeff,
    You bring up a good point regarding Scientology being a religion or a corporation. I don’t know how a religion, such as the Catholic Church, structures itself legally. But I do not like the fact that the Church makes staff sign that they are volunteers. This gives them the ability to not pay a decent or even a minimum wage, yet when someone breaks the (volunteer) contract, they have to pay back whatever courses or auditing they received at full price. When I was on staff in the 70’s we did not sign papers saying we were “volunteers”. I don’t understand how they can be allowed to collect money from staff who leave their (volunteer) contract, and yet not be forced to pay back pay as in the Headleys case. I was hoping they had a legal stance and can appeal. The Church wants the benefits of a corporation and a religion. Is that status quo for religons?

    Also, I get what you are saying about the OT levels and what the Ex Editor of Advance was saying about the wins being comparatively less awesome as time went on. I didn’t know if it was just because of the difference in me, or what, but I did start feeling not very unimpressed with them.

    The promo on the OT levels can be so hyperbolic it is ridiculous. Still, the books and tapes talk about the potentials of theta and the definitions in 8-80-08 and, as the Advance guy pointed out, the tech dictionary alone says it all. I think that Ron did exactly what he says to do in the 5 Conditions tape. If I may paraphrase, he basically says to promote like crazy and then when the interest is there and the demand, then you better start being able to deliver one way or another. Essentially, you don’t have to have the product all wrapped up and ready to go, you just promote like hell and then hurry up to get it done. I think this is the basis of how he operated.

    From the time I walked into the Org the Bridge To Total Freedom was always there and the KSW etc said it was as well. We were told it was complete and all we had to do was walk it. Now days, I wonder how many c/s’s can even tell if someone is clear. Anyway, it should not have been promoted by Ron or anyone else that it was all wrapped up as the ot levels we have are only the preOT levels …so where are the ones that gives us positive gain? Ron may have finished figuring it all out, but if that is true, then he didn’t make sure that the right info got into the right hands! His own KSW was out and he obviously was pts as hell.

    The simplest way to promote would have been to say only what he use to tell us to say…Scientology is a workable system. I do think this is true, but as you say, if you go around selling it like soap then you are going to be taken to task if you don’t deliver, which is exactly what he says is the only thing which one can be upbraided for,by students and pcs, is when you don’t deliver what is promised. If you ask for a spoon and you are sold a fork, then you want to take the spoon back, but if you do, then you can never ask for a fork again! Scientology as an organization doesn’t apply Scientology. It is that simple.

  36. Fidelio permalink
    March 21, 2011 11:16 am

    Jeff,

    coming from the comment on the private phone conversation with your friend:

    You say: “He pointed out that Scientology has to decide which model it is going to operate on, as a gnostic religion or as a business.”

    made me picture a strategic meeting on that issue with top execs in Int Mgmt headed by COB Mr. David Miscavige in current SP Hole………

    Fidelio

    • Jeff permalink*
      March 21, 2011 5:30 pm

      🙂

  37. Expelled 4 Life permalink
    March 21, 2011 12:38 pm

    Mission Into Time: I haven’t heard of one Scientologist (or anyone else for that matter) demonstrating such abilities. By the way why wasn’t Mission Into Time part of the “Basics” not to mention Have You Live Before This Life, Hymn of Asia and oh yeah, Child Dianetics?

    • Valkov permalink
      March 23, 2011 10:00 am

      E4L,

      http://www.childpastlives.org/

      has stories about little children who spontaneously talked about a past life, concerns about how their previous families were doing, describing the houses or towns they lived in. And in some cases their descriptions were found to be entirely accurate.

  38. March 21, 2011 1:02 pm

    Let me expand upon my Turrets-like outburst above.

    Here is the legal definition of fraud:

    A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

    Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

    Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.

    Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

    L Ron Hubbard, being the Founder, principal auditor and case supervisor for almost all cases worldwide since the beginning of the subject he created, was in a position to know that people did not actually achieve the abilities he claimed that his processes would deliver. Yet he continued to make these claims throughout his life, and he continued to sell Scientology OT levels based on those claims.

    This is fraud.

    Just as he knew he was lying when he said that he was wounded and crippled in WWII and cured himself with Dianetics, and used these claims to sell his Dianetics services to people, he knew these claims for the OT Levels were false, too. But he never stopped lying. He had many chances to get his own ethics in throughout the 36 years that he ran Scientology.

    And he never did.

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 9:25 am

      Alanzo wrote: “…people did not actually achieve the abilities he claimed that his processes would deliver.”

      Except for all the people that were achieving these abilities. I think I counted half a dozen here on this blog alone that experienced exteriorization as a result of Scientology. And of course many others beyond this blog feel that way too.

      • March 22, 2011 6:02 pm

        @Margaret:

        >experienced exteriorization

        Perhaps “perceived exteriorization” would be a better way to describe it.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • Ananon permalink
        March 22, 2011 6:12 pm

        You don’t need Scientology to go exterior, Margaret. You can also sign up for neurological research into out-of-body experiences. In fact, they’ll be paying YOU to go exterior, something they will achieve in the straightforward manner of sticking electrodes to your head and applying a slight electric current.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 23, 2011 2:44 am

        I have been meaning to read up on that research.

        Have they had any cases of people seeing things in the physical environment that they wouldn’t have been able to perceive with their physical eyes or other senses?

    • MostlyLurker permalink
      March 22, 2011 1:25 pm

      Maybe he was just trying to be Cause over Truth!

      It reminds me the The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy book, stating “The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.”

      LOL!

  39. March 21, 2011 3:05 pm

    On the OT-ability stuff you need to take the following into account:
    The data/information given in “History of man” and on the PDC is either:
    a) data verified by an e-meter (past-track experience)
    b) extrapolated data.
    c) LRH personal ability/experience

    a) is usually unreal to “Wogs” and anybody else who had not made the EXP in session
    c) cannot be verified, one can believe it but its up to him if he agrees

    b) is the most important part: extrapolated data means: developed based on existing, proven and verified knowledge.!!

    The knowledge basis is here:
    a)Axioms
    b)Factors
    c) Logics

    Especially b+c because there you find the assumption that men is spirit/a thetan which operates or must be able to operate in a specific way.

    SOME GUYS TOOK the extrapolated data as “Promise” or “hope to achive” and this is not correct. They left and said: SCN is fraud. Also not correct.

    Flying teapots are an extreme example of extrapolated “abilities” and even speaking about it causes so much antagonism, denial and invalidation, that I would not even think of doing it even if I could do it.

    You cannot discuss the abilities away or ago, because its individual nature. It is it was and it will ever be and the discussion will never end.

    • Jeff permalink*
      March 21, 2011 5:26 pm

      Sidewinder said: “On the OT-ability stuff you need to take the following into account:
      The data/information given in “History of man” and on the PDC is either:
      a) data verified by an e-meter (past-track experience)
      b) extrapolated data.
      c) LRH personal ability/experience”

      You left out a fourth possibility:
      d) fabricated or imagined information not based on any research.

      Not saying it is, but I find it significant that you didn’t even envision this as a possibility.

      And it wasn’t “some guys” who took this and stated it as a promise of what one would achieve on the OT Levels. It was Hubbard. He was hands-on on all of the OT promotion.

      • Sidewinder permalink
        March 21, 2011 6:30 pm

        I am not a class 12 Jeff not even class 4. I am not a tech and theory specialist,
        scientist or researcher. I write from the view as far as I am trained.
        Maybe its sounds like I am defending LRH. But not really.
        I agree that there is a possibility to “extrapolate” more than neccessary. *ggg
        You know the sales tech best. Mystery sandwich keeps people on-line and sticking on the subject. Have a funny day Jeff.

      • Bunkai permalink
        March 22, 2011 3:49 pm

        Jeff, many religious apologists often leave out and stymie the real answer as an option when promoting their “truth.” C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” said that the claim of Jesus Christ being Lord of all allowed only three possibilities.

        1. He was Lord and God as he claimed.
        2. He was a Liar
        3. He was a Lunatic.

        He then agues how all three of these are not true and that JESUS IS LORD!

        Josh McDowell, in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” parrots Lewis’ three options as well and how he became a Christian when he “confronted them.” And when I was younger, I fell for it completely as well.

        BUT THE MOST LIKELY OPTION WAS LEFT OFF.

        4. Mythologized human being. A being believed to have mythical status and super-natural abilities by a group as a result of either a direct lie or by organic mythical evolution by transmission.

        Now a mythologized human can be created fraudulently by the Human seeking to by Mythologized, OR THE BEING CAN BE MYTHOLOGIZED BY FOLLOWERS LATER.

        A mythologized human can be #1 AND #4.

        It’s easy to prove the ridiculous when you leave out the most plausible answer.

    • SpecialFrog permalink
      March 21, 2011 6:03 pm

      Sidewinder: Just a question about the e-meter. Doesn’t data verified by the e-meter just mean that it doesn’t appear to be a lie? To quote George Constanza, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.” Hubbard believing that stuff about Piltdown Man doesn’t make it true in a meaningful way.

      Additionally, extrapolation based on Hubbard’s axioms is not the same as “developed based on existing, proven and verified knowledge.” His axioms are postulates rather than self-evident truths. It’s fine to use them as a basis for an extrapolation but it will persuade anyone who doesn’t agree that the axioms are valid.

      And personally, I think it’s d). 🙂

      • March 21, 2011 7:28 pm

        Not to interrupt your interesting discussion with SW, SF but the meter does not tell the auditor whether the PC is lying or telling the truth it only shows that there is some kind of charge relating to the topic of discussion.

        It works similar to a polygraph but the reaction is interpreted differently.

        Whereas the person doing the polygraph may assume the person is lying when he gets a spike or reaction an auditor just knows there is charge on the question being asked.

      • March 22, 2011 7:38 am

        See reply from RJ. But there is more to the e-meter. It “reads” on the reality level of the person only! An extreme example would be the following:
        You got a professional bank robber. he did nothing else than robbing banks in his life. If you ask this guy on the meter: “Did you ever robb banks?” You will not get a read. Its his reality, his codex he is running on. He thinks there is nothing wrong with the action. Its his way to survive.
        This is applicable to every field of activity. You ask the stupid Hitler: “Did you ever commit genocide?” NO READ. We call it a “reverse kodex”. Therefore the trick to “get” him is the following. You reverse the question: “Did you ever MISS to commit genocide, (or bank robbery) and the e-meter READS like crazy. The purpose of the action is simply to clean the reverse codex, and at
        one point in time he will change, because he (probably) finds out why he has decided in the past to become a professional bank robber. Once he finbd out he will be able to change his view and his activity.

      • March 22, 2011 7:46 am

        >It works similar to a polygraph but the reaction is interpreted differently.

        As is the method of attachment to the subject. Imagine what a mess the criminal justice system would be if a defense attorney could get a conviction overturned because the polygraph operator used the wrong hand cream or had shoes that were too tight.

        ML, CW

      • March 22, 2011 7:48 am

        I meant the subject’s shoes. Darnit!

        ML, CW

      • March 22, 2011 8:27 am

        >You got a professional bank robber. he did nothing else than robbing banks in his life…. He thinks there is nothing wrong with the action. Its his way to survive.

        Just an observation: Hubbard illustrated his points with stories like this all the time. You know that oversimplified people like this don’t exist, right?

        ML, CW

      • Valkov permalink
        March 22, 2011 8:38 am

        SF,

        “Self-evident truths” are exactly “postulates” or assumptions made without proof. This is from Wikipedia, but you can use a dictionary to verify this:

        From Wikipedia:

        “In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

        Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident.

        For most others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one’s belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident.”

        So I believe you may be conscious, but it is just an assumption. According to the Gudjieff-Ouspensky school, you may not be! 🙂

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 22, 2011 12:16 pm

        RF/ SW: Thanks for the clarification. Setting aside the question of what the e-meter actually does for the moment, what does it actually mean that “data [is] verified by an e-meter?”

        Additionally, do you see my point that deductions based on Hubbard’s axioms can be doctrinally sound but are not proven or verified unless you accept the underlying postulates?

      • March 22, 2011 5:08 pm

        Let me add something on the axioms. I don´t know if you read them. Axiom 28 is the Axiom for communication, the comm-formula. Its claimed to be true in this universe. TR´s and the auditing comm-cycle is a direct development from axiom 28. It was designed to straighten out “old”, confused communication-cycles. Its the basis for all auditing. I experienced that it works, it does what its supposed to do. So why shall I argue about it?
        Let me say some more about me. I joined SCN in 1986. I live in Europe. I used to be public most of the time. I did not join SCN because of “strange” promises
        about Ot levels. This was FAR away from my reality at this time. I was mentally in deep shit, quite confused. I had tremendous wins by Book 1.
        within 25 years I have written tons of success stories. I simply cannot agree that a guy named LRH is a bandit. A bandit does not hold 3000 lectures and writes thousands of bulletins , just to trick people or just to make money.
        I do not believe this. I have always given a shit if it was claimed that SCN is a religion. I was interested in results, I got results. Therefore I never had the wish to look somewhere else. Therefore I don´t have a datum of comaparable magnitude. These statements refer to red tech only.
        But I was always suspicious about the administrative frame LRH has given SCN. I understand that he tried to protect SCN to a certain degree against external influences, but finally I decided that I would never again join staff or even join the Sea Org. I realized that almost never thetgame conditions about being staff or SO-member are being communicated. (especially by recruiters)
        They just say: this is our purpose, sign here. *lool
        No way.
        I even agree with jeff on most of the points of his “dirty dozens”. You cannot claim to make people free and at the same point in time creating a new type of slavery. (the rules in the Sea Org). Thats cross data and it does not make sense.
        Six month ago I noticed an out point and started researching the net. I found Marty, Mike and all the other stories about their experiences. It has broken my heart, believe me.
        But I do decisions based on my reality and my experience. This is very important. My reality is My stable datum. If a reg comes to me and says
        I need amount x, i say and said: The question ist not how much money you need: I give you whats real to me. END of discussion.
        And finally: to make one thing clear: I was not , I am not known as a violent person. But if some guy (in the church) is trying to beat me, or just threatening me , with the usual administrative instruments, he does it never again.
        ML SW

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 22, 2011 6:27 pm

        Valkov: You are right. My language was slightly imprecise.

        A postulate _can_ be a self-evident truth but it can also be a “theory-specific assumption.” I would argue that Hubbard’s axioms are in this second category — they sketch out his theories and provide a deductive framework but are not self-evident any more than the existence or non-existence of God is to many people.

        For the record, I try and assume that I’m conscious as well. 🙂

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 22, 2011 6:32 pm

        Additionally, unless the domain covered by Scientology is less complex than elementary arithmetic, one could argue that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem undermines any attempt to axiomatize it. 🙂

      • March 23, 2011 8:01 am

        @caliwog . I said ITS an EXTREME example an i used to show how the e-meter works. John Dillinger and Hitler are such Extreme examples and for sure they would never join the CO$.

    • Valkov permalink
      March 21, 2011 7:05 pm

      All the stuff in History of Man was referred to by Hubbard as “para-scientology”. As was Dianetics.

  40. Bryan U. permalink
    March 21, 2011 3:56 pm

    I sometimes wonder if we’re even supposed to have any real answers to OT abilities (whatever they might be), while on earth, in bodies.

    Perhaps the game is that once you incarnate (enter a body), you must not know your true nature at all or the entire game is blown and you won’t have any interest or fun living in a physical universe any longer.

    It could be that only when you leave the body at the end of a lifetime do you go back to your OT abilities, whatever they are or aren’t.

    The above is mere speculation with zero assertiveness included.

    But, when you look at how many millenia and how many philosophies have gone by thus far and how CONFUSED man remains on the subject of OT abilities (especially, it seems, during involvement in and right after leaving the Scientology philosophy), there may be some truth in the above somewhere.

    In looking at all the blogs and threads on this subject over the last week or so, I see one main thing…..CONFUSION. No real answers. Lots of disagreements. A continuing total mystery. The dialogue is certainly entertaining and perhaps informative in spots. And certain individuals like to make everyone wrong with their comments, as usual.

    I also see that this particular subject is the single biggest button out there, based on the sheer volume of comments on Marty’s site and here.

    In my humble opinion, nobody has a real, tangible, total answer to OT ability whatsoever. There does however seem to be an eternal qwest to find an always-elusive answer. There do seem to be individuals who make promises or wild statements and then collect cash for “products/services” which apparently leave us with less money in our bank accounts and with the confusion/frustration I witness on these threads, very much in present time.

    And so, the game of mystery on earth continues.

    And continues….

    And continues….

    • lunamoth permalink
      March 21, 2011 8:42 pm

      Boy, Bryan, you said it.

    • Bunkai permalink
      March 22, 2011 3:57 pm

      When one is losing a chess game, the best one can hope for is a draw.

      This is the same old “play to a draw” argument.

      Sorry dude. Hubbard promised REAL abilities in the REAL world.

      Checkmate!

    • Nomnom permalink
      March 24, 2011 5:42 am

      Very nicely put!
      I think you are very close to the truth on this one.

      My own analogy is that we are all in a swimming pool. We are told that there is a state where you can be dry. However, if you achieve that state, you are no longer in the pool.

      I think LRH had very clear glimpses of this (whether through auditing, drugs or magick, who knows).
      Some of the processes can give you a taste of this (yes, it’s subjective).

      I had my own experiences that were significant enough to convince me that there was more to Scientology than just a scam. As an example, three weeks into Scientology and with only a comm course under me and with very little reality on the Bridge, I received my Objectives whereupon I went absolutely exterior ( my perception).
      Over the years I had a few other incidents of similar impact.
      Although the promises of the OT Levels never materialized, and I agree that there is fraud in the way that they are presented, I do feel that they can give you a very real “taste” of being a spirit.
      Lastly, there’s a conundrum. From a Scientology perspective, to be free of a condition you must first create the condition that you want to be free from.
      Therefore to be free of the human condition, to become an OT, you must cease creating the human condition.
      It follows that you can’t be human and an OT.
      One or the other.

  41. Joanne Doe permalink
    March 21, 2011 5:30 pm

    Jeff,
    You wrote a post last year about ” Magical Thinking.” This is what I see that all these OT abilities are. There is magic in this world but it didn’t come from LRH. He was a magician though, a magician of the mind…he dangled that carrot, and dangled that carrot until the con wore itself out.

    Also, it seems from a lot of people’s testimony that they got involved in the church at a vulnerable age when life is unsure and very few know who they are. Well LRH tells you who you are and you have “gains” that include..communication, ARC, self assurance!
    Wow, do you think maybe growing up a bit, along with life experience and maturity would have given you the same gains…It happened to me without the “church.”

    Jason Beghe said there is no such thing as a Clear..(left out a few explicatives) He is correct..show us a clear..that’s a good start.

  42. It's me again permalink
    March 21, 2011 7:19 pm

    Jeff, your friend is correct, but this has been going on for Centuries with religion. Business, Politics and Control. This is just part of someone’s research:

    Christianity & Reincarnation

    Who Invented The “One-Life” Belief Anyway?

    The Catholic Encyclopedia itself states, in regard to the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 A.D., that “anyone asserting the belief in the preexistence of souls (reincarnation) would be anathema.”

    anathema = cursed, damned, excommunicated

    Today, two thirds of all the people living on planet Earth believe in reincarnation. Those who now feel they have one life to live find themselves in a steadily declining minority.

    The Eastern-based philosophy of past lives continues to make more and more of its presence felt throughout the Western world. If one interprets the principals of reincarnation with an open mind and heart, it will not take long to appreciate the reasons for its growing popularity.

    Reincarnation does not require an angry God to judge and punish us after we pass on. Rather, this belief system tells us that God loves us unconditionally, but it asks us to take responsibility for our thoughts and actions. All of it is governed by a Universal Truth that applies anywhere in the universe: What we put out comes back to us, this lifetime or next.

    Spiritual wisdom tells us that after the death of our physical body we are the ones who will evaluate every one of our thoughts and actions in a process called a “life review.” Then, if we so chose, we will set new goals and challenges for our next life, especially those which attempt to heal lesser choices (negative karma) with love. In other words, karma is not a punishment – it is an opportunity to bring our past actions with others into loving alignment, life after life, until all of it is healed.

    Many people on this planet also believe in the Christian, one-life concept. In this belief system, an angry God punishes us if we have been bad by sending our souls to hell for eternity, or he sends us to heaven if we’ve been good. We’ve got one lifetime to get it all right, which has been the source of much guilt and anxiety for those who believe in this man-made dogma.

    Who’s right? Almost 6 billion people are betting an awful lot on these two vastly different beliefs. I believe this is enough information available today to say that the process of reincarnation and karma makes far more sense.

    Before we go further there are some very important facts that should be mentioned about the origin of the Bible and what we know about the Old and New Testament. A visit to any well-stocked library can provide this same information.

    This is crucial because there are many people today who take things for granted about this book without examining its history…

    The Holy Bible, as we know it today, can be traced back to the fourth century A.D.

    During that time, the emperor Constantine formed a council of historians and scholars (the Council of Nice).

    The purpose of that council was to take all the loosely organized religious and historic traditions of the time and simplify them.

    As a result of that council, many sacred documents concerning ancient mysteries and Jesus’ teachings were modified, edited or secreted away for a privileged few where they remain to this day in the Vatican.

    The council produced a single document in A.D. 325 known today as the Holy Bible.

    Many documents and historical writings have been edited out of our modern Bible, in addition to those deemed inappropriate by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

    In essence, much of today’s Bible is someone else’s version of what they want you to believe and many fear-driven dogmas have resulted because of it.

    Who invented the “we only have one life” dogma anyway? When did it happen? Why did it happen? God didn’t invent it. It certainly wasn’t Christ’s idea.

    Over the past 9 plus years of my life I have read well over 400 metaphysical/New Age books. From time to time, I would come across a statement explaining that many centuries ago reincarnation was a widely accepted belief even when Jeshua (Jesus) walked the Earth. There is solid evidence that some of the early philosophers, Christian fathers and saints believed in and supported that concept.

    Who were some of these people?

    – Plato (582-507 B.C.)
    – Origen (185-254 A.D.)
    – St. Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.)
    – St. Gregory (257-332 A.D.)
    – St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)

    Note: please visit their connections to reincarnation
    at the end of this article (1)

    I had been raised a catholic and was taught from an early age that we only have one life to get it all right or there was hell to pay (literally). The church asked me to trust them on this one. They programmed me to believe that they had all the answers and asked that I place blind faith in their teachings.

    After my spiritual awakening I wondered where that dogma really came from. That led to tougher questions such as, “At what time in religious history did the one-life law originate? Who came up with this teaching? Why did more than half the people on this planet believe in something totally foreign to me called reincarnation? Most importantly, who was right?”

    As I began to dig into this puzzle more and more, I suspected that the answer could be found somewhere between the time Jeshua died (33 A.D.) and 600 A.D. During that time, the Christian religion was born, organized, defined, politicized and “dogmatized.” All of this information is available in the libraries and has been well researched over the years. Why don’t we hear more about it? The leaders of Western religions don’t want you to know this.

    Modern Christianity began with James (the brother of Jeshua), Paul, the early church fathers and others. As a teacher of righteousness, Jesus’ seeds of spiritual wisdom and universal truths were given to many people. After his death, some of those people brought those seeds to local and foreign lands. Many religious groups or sects were formed based upon his teachings. There was a lot of opinion and disagreement on what to do with them and how they were to be interpreted.

    One major offshoot was the formation of the Christian (Roman Catholic) religion. Throughout those first 500 years, other man-made laws were added to those that Jesus first taught. After His death, each new generation reinterpreted those original teachings. Then they were edited and embellished for many different reasons.

    Part of Jesus’ wisdom was put into the New Testament. But, the earliest existing (hard) copy we have of that document is dated to the 4th century, almost 400 years after Christ’s appearance. We have nothing earlier in writing except bits of pieces here and there found on various ancient parchments.

    Sometime during the first 600 years of early Christianity, several major events happened…

    Early references to reincarnation in the New Testament had been deleted in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

    In the sixth century, the Second Council of Constantinople ruled that reincarnation was a false belief punishable by persecution and death.

    At the same time, the Church and the Roman Emperors knew that the concept of prior lives would weaken and undermine their power over their followers, since it would give these people too much time to achieve salvation. The threat of a Judgment Day and punishment by an angry God at the end of one’s life worked a lot better to control the masses.

    Furthermore, reincarnation is a system of belief in which each individual must take responsibility for his or her choices and actions through the universal law of, “What you put out comes back to you.” We don’t need an organized religion for this system of belief to work. That was a threat to the existence of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The Roman Catholic Church realized it would have more power and influence by becoming not only a religious organization, but also a political one. As a result, the church formed powerful alliances with the Roman emperors.

    Why did the church form these alliances with the Roman emperors? Because the emperors wanted to make sure that the people didn’t riot and an organized religion that controlled the masses through fear could help to accomplish that.

    To read his whole theory, look here:

    http://www.fromthestars.com/page48.html

    • Valkov permalink
      March 22, 2011 8:20 am

      An excellent book on the early history of Christianity is “Beyond Belief”, by Elaine Pagels, who is perhaps the premier historian of early Christianity. She draws on the most recent available discoveries and translations such as the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. She is a very vivid and down-to-earth writer who really knows her stuff!
      She clearly explains the political climate of the early times, and explains why the Gospel of Thomas was left out of the Bible.

      Some of the parallels to the CoS’ history are amazing.

  43. Infinity permalink
    March 21, 2011 10:16 pm

    Hi Jeff,

    Sometimes I like to have a debate so here’s some counter-arguments to yours.

    1. Religion vs. Business

    Totally see where you’re coming from. From my understanding, in an IDEAL world you are correct. People would have been flooding to the churches in the 20th century, no selling would have been required, some other exchange system done…

    But considering the emergency situation the planet was in (most importantly, the cold war…) I think we can forgive this business approach and say, “well done on getting as many people as-ising 4D charge on nuclear disaster”.

    We now see that this emergency situation has been handled on this planet. To me as a result of all that auditing on that material. The EP was attained. That to me is OT on a 4D basis.

    It seems obvious to me that this is what was being as-ised and how it was handled. The political MECHANICS of how this 4D emergency situation unravelled and was handled obviously has it’s own story.

    By the way, not sure if you’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but did you do the original OT levels? These are where the OT abilities you are interested in are drilled, as well as in certain books such as The Creation of Human Ability. Did you ever go through those processes either? Seems to me you might have been expecting to be able to do stuff like telekinesis by auditing out a 4D engram!?

    2. Redefining OT Abilities

    Point taken. I would agree that stuff like telekinesis and telepathy are OT abilities but let’s not omit that so is creating a life you want on all dynamics, considering all the counter-efforts, counter-intentions, counter-postulates, etc, that can get in ones way.

    For example, there is a school that teaches telekinesis in a few weeks, it’s in the guinness book of records, but how much harder is it to become a world class sports star, considering the level of competition there is to do so and the years it takes to achieve the level of ability needed?

    3. Flying Teapots and Parlor Tricks

    Again, did you do the original OT levels? They got taken out later in the 80’s I think. Not to mention running the processes from The Creation of Human Ability and Scientology 8-8008. For me, the undercut in scientology that occured after the 50’s was there to handle the playing field called earth in an emergency handling. But there’s more to the subject than 4D emergency handlings.

    4. “Poor Jeff…”

    I don’t think you had hidden standards, just perhaps didn’t get the full cup due to not having done all the auditing possible. Not to mention processing in a suppressive environment.

    5. You have to believe before you can see OT Abilities

    If you have postulates against having OT abilities (especially when these are wrapped up in charge on these abilities), then it’s going to be hard if not impossible to attain them. If you know your scientology basics, such as considerations are senior to mechanics, then you can see why. Postulates are the core of the case, the HOW of life. In otherwords, the only way you can keep yourself down is to postulate it in some way.

    • Jeff permalink*
      March 22, 2011 6:07 am

      Infinity, thanks for your counter arguments.
      1. The planet is always in an emergency condition of one kind or another. Excuses nothing. And there is no evidence – none – that Scientology or Scientologists had anything to do with majorly influencing world events, then or now.
      2. There’s a school that teaches telekinesis in a few weeks? Of course no link or evidence supplied. Just “it exists, I read it somewhere.” Give me a break.
      3. The idea that the “earlier OT Levels” produced “real OTs” is a myth. No evidence.
      4. See my reply to this in my post.
      5. And your point?

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 7:14 am

        “3. The idea that the ‘earlier OT Levels’ produced ‘real OTs’ is a myth. No evidence.”

        Except for the evidence.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 22, 2011 7:30 am

        Anecdotal. And SRI, which was not designed to test Scientology’s OT Levels (and didn’t). I’ll probably write more about the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 8:32 am

        Great. And don’t forget, anecdotal evidence with supporting experimental and scientific evidence, has far more weight than anecdotal evidence all on its own.

        One of the logical fallacies (the all or nothing proposition) of many critics.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 22, 2011 5:58 pm

        That’s like saying that a helium balloon combined with a 300 pound refrigerator has more weight than a helium balloon on its own.

      • Infinity permalink
        March 22, 2011 12:59 pm

        Hi Jeff, thanks for your thoughts. Some more countering 🙂

        1. The situation that existed mid 20th century was very precarious when it came to the risk of nuclear fallout. Came close to happening. This risk has been nulified now. It takes a long time for a planet to recover from nuclear disaster. All other situations on the planet can be handled in much shorter periods of time and are much less dangerous to the playing field, the planet. Therefore not emergency situations.

        Regardless of whether you think scientology auditing was ultimately responsible for this or not, can you see the difference in importance between nuclear war and the result of the planet being non-habitable for a long time, and other non-optimum situations like economic recession, for example…?

        2. The Institute of Biosensory Psychology in St. Petersburg.

        3. Jeff, let me ask you a question. How many people do you know that had an out of body experience from scientology auditing (exteriorization)? This is quite a standard win and end phenomena from processing. Although not an ability unless one can do this at will, the percentage of people who have had an OBE from x amount of good quality processing must be quite high. There is probably quite a lot of evidence in PC folders around the world of this particular phenomena. I can tell you that 33% of the people I have processed on objectives have had an out of body experience. Objectives seems to produce this most commonly as it is processing the spiritual being in relation to the MEST universe directly.

        4. Okay. I think then the distinction should be made that the church is not delivering good scientology tech and hasn’t been for a long time. Does this mean that scientology is a bad tech because church members deliver it badly?

        Your argument on point 4 doesn’t refute the importance of 1) doing the auditing necessary to produce the gains specifically wanted (again, did you do the original OT levels?), and 2) auditing done in an suppressive environment is less effective and beneficial, if workable at all.

        The OT levels as they exist in the RTC bridge, were there as a booster to the original OT levels in the original bridge pre-RTC. The original OT levels being where these OT abilities are drilled.

        5. My point is that if you postulated you can’t, then you won’t really believe you can. There is a counter-postulate, a counter-belief you could say, that holds you back.

      • March 22, 2011 3:21 pm

        Margaret,

        If you are speaking of the SRI/CIA study, that study showed that ten people, which included eight non-Scientologists, appeared to have some remote viewing abilities. The eight non-Scientologists were just as “successful” as the “OTs”.

        Do you really want to point to a study that shows that two “OTs” have no more abilities and powers than eight “wogs”?

      • Margaret permalink
        March 23, 2011 2:52 am

        Jeff wrote: “That’s like saying that a helium balloon combined with a 300 pound refrigerator has more weight than a helium balloon on its own.”

        A 400 pound helium balloon on its own would have more weight. 😉

        But seriously, not all anecdotes are created equal. Some anecdotes send people to prison for life. Some anecdotes — especially when combined with other physical evidence — do weigh the scales of science and justice in certain directions.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 23, 2011 3:07 am

        William wrote: “If you are speaking of the SRI/CIA study, that study showed that ten people, which included eight non-Scientologists,”

        William, I responded to this above. According to Swann, there were “fourteen Clears working with SRI”. Hella Hammid was apparently a fairly gifted RVer, and I found another source that said “her boyfriend was a Scientologist”. I have no idea if she was though.

        Overall though, I’m not suggesting that there aren’t naturally gifted exteriorizers. It seems to be natural for many.

    • March 22, 2011 3:11 pm

      A perfect response to Jeff’s points. For every point, your response boils down to the core Scientology response: “I believe, so it is true. You don’t believe, so you can’t see it.”

      • Infinity permalink
        March 22, 2011 8:21 pm

        Hey William,

        Yes beliefs are powerful things. How do you think we all got here in the current state of life? A line of postulates, considerations and opinions shape our destiny…

        For example, how many times have you said to yourself that you can’t do something just because you failed to do it once or twice, but this thought made it a chronic belief…and condition…set in stone.

        Or how many times have you had the thought that something must be so, and then evidence of that something suddenly pops up everywhere around you?

        If you look at the basics of scio you’ll see that yes, considerations are senior to mechanics, meaning that a core scientology concept is that there is no objective reality. Only what we conjure up in our imaginations with the power of our thoughts. These thoughts then manifesting things/mechanics.

        Einstein was on to it as well IMO:

        “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
        ——-
        I should also clarify a comment I made above
        “The OT levels as they exist in the RTC bridge, were there as a booster to the original OT levels in the original bridge pre-RTC. The original OT levels being where these OT abilities are drilled.”
        To clarify I meant the NOTS and SOLO NOTS levels, not OT1-3, which replaced original OT 4-7.

      • March 23, 2011 4:50 am

        >How do you think we all got here in the current state of life?

        Evolution and politics?

        >how many times have you said to yourself that you can’t do something just because you failed to do it once or twice…a chronic belief

        A few. Lifting my house with my bare hands, for one. I’ve also gone back to re-try things I thought I couldn’t do and found I could do them. But I’m not sure what this has to do with Scientology. And I still haven’t managed to lift my house.

        I know, Margaret – Swann could do it! 🙂 🙂 🙂

        >thought that something must be so…evidence of that something suddenly pops up everywhere

        This too happens all the time, it’s attention and perception. When I was thinking about buying a Honda Accord, all of a sudden I noticed the streets were crawling with them. Same thing when I borrowed a friend’s Mustang. I did not postulate all those Accords and Mustangs into being; I simply noticed what was already there. You will always see what you are looking for.

        Again, I don’t see what this has to do with Scientology. Your explanation of “Scio basics” notwithstanding.

        These are common experiences that happen to everyone. All Hubbard did was pluck a bunch of little experiences like this and turn then into three-hour lectures. That does not make them Scn phenomenon.

        Again, we see what we want to see. The proof of that is all over these comments!

        ML, CW

      • Infinity permalink
        March 23, 2011 11:34 am

        Hi Caliwog,

        Well why do you expect scientology to be completely disrelated to…life?

        The reason you perceive the things you postulated after you postulated them was because you were creating them by postulate! It’s not just attention/perception. It’s postulate—>perception.

        Did you ever watch The Secret? This would give you a good general idea of what I’m talking about.

        By the way, new things are postulated by beings all the time, these things were not already there, the being imagined something new and then it came into existence…

        But yes, people also commonly postulate things that are already invented too, and then more of them appear.

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 23, 2011 4:54 pm

        Infinity,

        Out of curiosity, how do you react to the following sentences:

        – The reason Caliwog perceived things after postulating them is because God made it happen.

        – Likewise, new things come into existence only when God makes them.

        You are welcome to take your beliefs as established facts about the nature of the universe but it’s not persuasive to people who don’t share the belief.

        Regards

      • Infinity permalink
        March 23, 2011 7:54 pm

        Hi Specialfrog,

        Well yes you can create a god to create for you if you want! Been there done that.

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 23, 2011 9:22 pm

        Hi Infinity,

        I was merely trying to get you to acknowledge that other viewpoints exist. It is often helpful to do this when you are trying to talk to others.

        Regards

      • Infinity permalink
        March 23, 2011 10:38 pm

        Yes everyone has opinions, considerations and postulates about things. An infinity…

      • March 23, 2011 11:36 pm

        >The reason you perceive the things you postulated after you postulated them was because you were creating them by postulate!

        So are you saying that these Honda Accords that I did not notice did not exist before I noticed them?

        Or at some point 10 or 15 years ago, before I even knew I’d want one, I postulated Accord sales up to 250k a year, so they’d all be out there when I wanted to see them?

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • Infinity permalink
        March 24, 2011 12:37 am

        “So are you saying that these Honda Accords that I did not notice did not exist before I noticed them?”

        Not in your universe until you postulated them. Maybe in other beings’ universes though.

        The truth is there is no objective universe. Just a bunch of indivdual universes that *can* share alot in common. And then we can communicate more easily using commonalities, and do things easily together like play games.

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 24, 2011 12:52 am

        God, I hope I didn’t sound like this when I was a Scientologist. You might try prefacing such things with “I believe that…” or “In my opinion…”

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 24, 2011 2:34 am

        Jeff: 🙂
        Infinity: You seem unable to recognize that there exist other points of view that are not expressible in your terms.

      • Infinity permalink
        March 24, 2011 1:14 pm

        Jeff,

        I think it’s a given that when someone says something it’s nearly always an “in my opinion” or “in my experience” context. So to say that everytime I say something, or to expect someone else to say that before they say something isn’t necessary.

        Also, who cares what people think of you. Such a limiting way to live life.

        SpecialFrog,

        You can always argue about the person if what they are saying is hard to argue with I suppose…

      • March 24, 2011 5:41 pm

        @SF:
        >Infinity: You seem unable to recognize that there exist other points of view that are not expressible in your terms.

        In our universe, maybe. Not in his.

        Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go postulate myself an early lunch.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • SpecialFrog permalink
        March 24, 2011 6:24 pm

        Infinity,

        There is nothing you are saying that _can_ be argued against but you are telling others they are wrong. While one can imply that your remarks are prefaced with, “in my opinion”, your lack of providing them comes across as rude and belittling.

        I’m an atheist, but if someone says, “I believe in God.” I’m not going to reply, “God doesn’t exist. You made him up.”

        If you are being rude I don’t feel pointing this out is an ad hominem.

        I appreciate that it may not be intentional on your part but you may find this to be a barrier if you are trying to have a conversation about ideas with a non-Scientologist.

        Regards

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 24, 2011 6:57 pm

        It’s just a matter of politeness I guess, and a certain openness to discussion. Compare these two statements:

        “Salvation is only possible by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.”

        and

        “As a Christian, I believe that salvation is only possible by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.”

      • Infinity permalink
        March 24, 2011 7:43 pm

        SF,

        Didnt say anyone was wrong.

        Again, IMO/IME etc is a given.

        “your lack of providing them comes across as rude and belittling.”

        Shouldn’t that be started with an “imo”… 😉

      • Infinity permalink
        March 24, 2011 7:55 pm

        Jeff,

        Caliwog challenged what I was saying with an example (about the hondas) and seemed to want some kind application or clarification of what I was saying to the example, which then I gave.

        But yes, I understand what you’re saying about statements and the semantic argument you’re presenting.

        Caliwog,

        Seems you got what I was saying precisely…

      • Marildi permalink
        March 24, 2011 8:34 pm

        Infinity, regardless of the criticisms, right or wrong, constructive or otherwise, your response itself has been gracious.

      • Infinity permalink
        March 24, 2011 10:45 pm

        Hi Marildi,

        Thank you for the compliment. 🙂

  44. March 21, 2011 11:10 pm

    Enjoyed both these posts and all the replies. I just wanted to thank you for not censoring as Marty does. I only replied a few times at his site, and was censored for mentioning OTIII and I had to laugh because it was an HONEST question about how LRH said that you would ‘get pneumonia and die’ if you found out before you were ready, yet everyone knows and no one got pneumonia and died. I really don’t know how the stalwarts reason that one out. LRH was WRONG. What part of that don’t they get?? I also asked about BTs and clusters and said do you really truly think that is the cause of all your problems? and got no reply of course, as well as censored for my troubles.

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 7:19 am

      “I just wanted to thank you for not censoring as Marty does.”

      Hi Jo, Jeff does censor, and I didn’t get a reason why. I tried posting several rebuttals to the James Randi $1 million dollar challenge the other day, but Jeff didn’t let them through. No reasons given.

      Do you have a reason, Jeff?

      • Jeff permalink*
        March 22, 2011 7:25 am

        With over 600 posts and very little time to deal with them, I’m sure more than one was lost in the shuffle. If you feel it was important, feel free to repost.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 8:35 am

        Nah, it’s ok. It made it through on Marty’s blog, and someone even re-posted it on a skeptics blog. So no worries. 🙂

        But if someone brings up the $1M Challenge again, I hope you let my response through…

  45. Brenda permalink
    March 22, 2011 1:58 am

    The arguments for “exteriorzation” as being neither confirmable or debunkable are very much like what I hear from those claiming a spiritual experience in which they claim they have communicated with god. It turns out that we can conslusively show that such “spiritual experiences” or a sense of disconnection from the “self” that leads to an out-of-body sense can be produced by application of moderate magnetic fields to a key portion of the brain. (google “michael persinger god helmet” for more info). What this demonstrates is that the experience lies completely within the brain, and that exteriorization in any objective sense is a myth. There have been futher experiments debunking out-of-body experineces in near death cases. Scientology does not need to decide between being a gnostic religion and a business, it just needs to be held accountable for defrauding people regardless of whether it is under the banner of religion or commerce.

    • Margaret permalink
      March 22, 2011 7:12 am

      “What this demonstrates is that the experience lies completely within the brain, and that exteriorization in any objective sense is a myth.”

      I’m afraid you’re mistaken. It’s been known for decades that exteriorization (or some form of it) can happen while taking LSD or other drugs. This doesn’t show that “it’s all subjective”, it only shows that it can be triggered or forced by various mechanisms.

      If a guy exteriorizes while unconscious and being operated on and “sees”, from the corner of the room, the doctor flapping his arms like a chicken, and the doctor WAS flapping his arms like a chicken, that’s not simply “subjective” any more. It’s actually seeing something without the use of one’s five senses.

      If someone exteriorizes to Jupiter in 1974 and says “I saw thin rings”, and everyone scoffs, until six years later a space probe confirms that Jupiter has thin rings, that’s not just subjective. That’s objective, and testable.

      Both of the above examples actually occurred and were documented (with the latter one being done by Ingo Swann).

      • March 22, 2011 8:23 am

        >exteriorization (or some form of it) can happen while taking LSD or other drugs.

        That’s a hallucination, Margaret, not actual exteriorization. And don’t forget that hallucination draws on a deep well of knowledge that we may not consciously remember. (Just as it sometimes takes a while to remember song lyrics, memory retrieval is not instant.)

        >If someone exteriorizes to Jupiter in 1974 and says “I saw thin rings”, and everyone scoffs, until six years later a space probe confirms that Jupiter has thin rings, that’s not just subjective. That’s objective, and testable.

        Except that’s not what Swann said. What he said was:

        “Very high in the atmosphere there are crystals… they glitter. Maybe the stripes are like bands of crystals, maybe like rings of Saturn, though not far out like that. Very close within the atmosphere.”

        He was wrong about the crystals (they’re dust), wrong about the distance from Jupiter (they are well outside the atmosphere), and one could interpret “maybe like rings of Saturn” as referring to the contents. And if he was talking about stuff going around Jupiter, how did he miss the sixty-three moons orbiting the planet?

        A nifty observation, one humdinger of a coincidence, but I’d hardly call it “objective and testable.”

        ML,CW

      • Valkov permalink
        March 22, 2011 9:37 pm

        caliwog wrote, about the possibility of exteriorization on LSD:

        “That’s a hallucination, Margaret, not actual exteriorization.”

        CW, there is no way you can possibly know that. It is entirely an opinion, and you are stating it as authoritative fact. Shame.

        The situation is no different than what I said in my response to Brenda about the “god helmet”.

        Both the “god helmet”and LSD (and Objective Processes, and Life Repair auditing, for that matter), have produced the subjective experience of “exteriorization” for many people, but science has no way whatsoever of proving whether it is an illusion, delusion, hallucination, or the being actually moving outside of the body.

      • Margaret permalink
        March 22, 2011 10:42 pm

        caliwog wrote: “He was wrong about the crystals (they’re dust)”

        They’re charged (sparkling) dust particles. They look like crystals.

        “wrong about the distance from Jupiter (they are well outside the atmosphere)”

        They are right outside the “taurus ring”. The taurus ring in fact looks very much like it’s part of the atmosphere. In fact, the rings are closer in to the planet (as Ingo suggested), than Saturn’s.

        “and one could interpret ‘maybe like rings of Saturn’ as referring to the contents.”

        That would be true, however Swann actually drew the rings as being outside the planet (a fact most critics tend to ignore).

        And if he was talking about stuff going around Jupiter, how did he miss the sixty-three moons orbiting the planet?

        That’s true. Of course, pointing out that someone didn’t notice or mention something is an “appeal to ignorance”, i.e. saying evidence of absence is absence of evidence.

        —-

        I couldn’t help but notice, caliwog, that most of your arguments appear to come from the wikipage on Ingo Swann. Sadly, the wiki page on Ingo Swann ignores some pretty basic facts, for example the fact that Ingo actually drew the rings. In fact, the wiki article goes off into a verbose discussion of how the rings were made and why they exist. It struck me as what scientists call “proof by verbosity” — a common fallacy of logic. It’s often done in hopes of diverting the reader’s attention from the simplicity of the subject at hand. Further, by only including the “James Randi analysis”, and not the opposing view, the article engages in what Carl Sagan called the “Logical Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence or Half-truths”.

        In my view, if you want to get to the bottom of it all, my suggestion is that you look beyond the unbalanced wiki page (if you haven’t already), and start digging up the raw data of what Swann said, drew and wrote and then what the rings and planet would have actually looked like to a non-scientist.

        Once looked at in balance, the chances of a “coincidence” become very unlikely, imho.

      • March 23, 2011 4:38 am

        >>“That’s a hallucination, Margaret, not actual exteriorization.”
        >CW, there is no way you can possibly know that. It is entirely an opinion, and you are stating it as authoritative fact. Shame.

        Um… no.

        >science has no way whatsoever of proving whether it is an illusion, delusion, hallucination, or the being actually moving outside of the body.

        I would think exteriorization would be extraordinarily easy to test. Take the subject to a location he/she does not know with complete sensory deprivation for the trip. Place him/her in a room, the have him/her exteriorize to the area outside the building. If they can accurately describe the settings, maybe get a few license numbers off cars in the parking lot, you’ve got pretty strong evidence.

        Exteriorizing and taking a body-free walk around one’s house doesn’t count – there’s the chance of recalling what you saw on your way in.

        ML,
        CW

      • Valkov permalink
        March 23, 2011 7:42 am

        CW,

        Like I said, present-day science has no way of verifying it one way or the other. It is possible that someday science will, as there are wavelengths allegedly associated with thetan, therefore it could be possible to detect them and thus detect a thetan.

        You propose an experiment that I believe has actually been tried; see the discussion re: Ingo Swann etc. One problem there is that no-one could find a way to exclude “remote viewing”. Did Ingo, sans body, go to Jupiter and observe what he saw, or did Ingo stay right there in the room and “see” what he saw right from where he was (remote viewing)? It could have been either one.

        My point is, YOU have not done this experiment and I doubt you know anyone who has, or have seen any research study reports on such an experiment; yet you have the temerity to proclaim your opinion as an authoritative fact, like “That’s the way it is, period, so says Caliwog.”

        Additionally, you are assuming that anyone who exteriorizes can clearly perceive the environment around him without using the body’s eyes; this is a big IF. Also that he can move around (or be moved around by command) to different locations. Another problem that was discovered is that a person tended to “go back in” (interiorize, co-locate with the body again), and was notoriously hard to exteriorize after that. A special rundown had to be developed to deal with this problem.

        If these things were true, I think there would not be upper-level special rundowns addressing “Exteriorization with full perception” to help people gain that ability.

        As it is, my impression is people who exteriorize, especially for the first time, don’t see very well at all, and can’t move around but stay close by their bodies.

        If a person exteriorizes as a result of a drug like LSD, he may well be even worse off, could be out of present time and hallucinating as well. A difficult scene to sort out indeed.

        I’ve wandered far, here, but my original point stands. You state things as “fact” without any supporting evidence, when they are just your “opinion” and there is no supporting evidence for them.

      • March 24, 2011 4:11 pm

        > Did Ingo, sans body, go to Jupiter and observe what he saw, or did Ingo stay right there in the room and “see”

        …or did he read up on theories about Jupiter before his session? We will never know.

        >You state things as “fact” without any supporting evidence

        I think if you re-read my comments, you won’t find that to be the case. There are some scientifically known facts that I am citing. But primarily what I am talking about is that there is so far no compelling scientifically-verifiable proof that the phenomenon being described here are a result of Scientology services.

        Just because it is true for you, Valkov, that does not *actually* make it true. Our perceptions of truth may vary, but truth itself is not a variable state.

        ML, CW

    • Valkov permalink
      March 22, 2011 8:27 am

      Brenda,

      There is actually no evidence that the “god helmet” doesn’t make a person exteriorize, rather than just creating the illusion in his brain. It may have made those people who tried it, actually exteriorize. We don’t know that it didn’t.

      All that is really known is that it creates the subjective experience of exteriorization; it does not tell us what this experience actually is or what happens during it.

      • Brenda permalink
        March 23, 2011 3:15 am

        Valkov – You are correct that the god helmet does not prove that exteriorization does not exist…. because it is not possible, no matter the evidence, to prove a negative. What is does show is that there is a natural explination possible without reference to the supernatural. However, the burden of proof still rests on those that claim literal exteriorization, and to believe that it exists without the evidence is irrational.

      • Valkov permalink
        March 23, 2011 7:12 am

        I do not believe in the “supernatural”. All things and phenomena are “natural”, although since we don’t know everything yet, we don’t know the explanations of many things that happen.

      • Valkov permalink
        March 23, 2011 7:52 am

        Brenda,

        If I had an OOBE that was real to me, why would I bother to try to convince you or anyone that it was real rather than an illusion?

        Putting the shoe on the other foot, why would you or anyone else try to convince me the experience was an illusion rather than real?

        What do you or anyone else have invested in believing that? And it is a “belief” you can no more “prove” than I can “prove” I left my body at sometime.

        There is no “burden of proof” here. There are only people with different beliefs.

      • March 24, 2011 4:10 pm

        @Valkov

        >If I had an OOBE that was real to me, why would I bother to try to convince you or anyone that it was real rather than an illusion?

        Um… have you read any of these other comments? 🙂

        ML, CW

  46. March 22, 2011 12:58 pm

    It seems to be sort of tabu for some reason to strive for OT-abilities. It seems that it is more politically correct to strive for a better life, better relations, more real friends etc through auditing. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think there’s nothing wrong at all to wish for OT-abilities such as exteriorisation at will, being able to move physical objects by thought etc.

    If a lame person all of a sudden could walk and thus move to a less handicapped state, wouldn’t that be a great win for that person? If a person all of a sudden could leave his body, couldn’t that be considered moving to a less handicapped state as well?

    There’s nothing wrong with wanting OT-abilities, so I just say it our loud in a politically incorrect, childlike fashion:

    I WANT MY OT-ABILITIES GOD DAMN IT! BEING ABLE TO GO EXTERIOR, SEE OTHER GALAXIES, PLAY WITH PHYSICAL OBJECTS BY THOUGHT AND PLAY WITH MEST LIKE A GOD!

    Also, I’m not so sure Hubbard ever promised that OT VII would be full OT. He labeled them pre-OT levels. He also stated that going full OT would take “years”. Hubbard has always been overly positive, I would say too positive, but it has also lead somewhere. He also said that we should “build a better bridge”.

    Perhaps full OT is possible in the future?

    (This blog is a great environment by the way. There are many believers in the paranormal and Scientology, but there’s also some critical thinking. Great mix.)

    • It's me again permalink
      March 22, 2011 7:19 pm

      You are correct. The OT Levels are pre-OT Levels. If you have done them you will notice that they are mostly corrections on that part of your case. Yes, when most are done they feel some relief because of those corrections and some have ability improvements…sometimes it is only noticing that there is no longer a react on certain things in their life like they used to have and can think more freely.

      I don’t know what the original OT Levels were, but I know the current ones, up to OT V and if I am correct from figuring it out, up to OT VII, are mostly corrections for that certain area which the pre- OT Levels deals with. Probably an undercut because other results were not permanent or not consistent, not sure.

      I can see the upset. These should never of been sold as Levels to get certain OT abilities.

      You wrote:

      I WANT MY OT-ABILITIES GOD DAMN IT! BEING ABLE TO GO EXTERIOR, SEE OTHER GALAXIES, PLAY WITH PHYSICAL OBJECTS BY THOUGHT AND PLAY WITH MEST LIKE A GOD!

      I am with you. I believe we already have these abilities. Now all we need to figure out how to revitalize them.

  47. March 22, 2011 2:04 pm

    Jeff,

    Very interesting differentiation. I’ve always hated Scientology the business and been fascinated by Sceintology as an epistemology. Differentiation is such a vital skill in logic that I marvel at those who pretend to be logical while using black and white arguments.

    Our national political scene has deteriorated with this “all or nothing” mentality. Being neither Republican nor Democrat, I shake my head over the inability to see any rightness on the other side. And both have valid positions that are necessary to the well being of the nation.

    Scanning through this current argument, I’m struck, not by the arguments but by the patterns of thinking. The mental loops, the entrenched ideas that go round and round and round. The unwillingness to try to understand the other’s position because “they’re wrong and I’m right.”

    Having something to say is not the same as understanding. Holding desperately to ignorance because the cherished idea serves to make you right and the other person wrong…. Well, I guess doing that has a use, but not a use I value. Call me wishy-washy, but I’ll change my position whenever I see a better one.

    Emotion never serves reason. All this anger and indignation and protest and hostility don’t contribute to reason. Whenever I’m angry or upset, I know my conclusions will be flawed, so I try to let the emotion pass before I even try to analyze the situation.

    I find the Science versus Religion argument to be an example of an inability to reason and differentiate. Neither one has all the answers. Each solves a few of human problems, but not all. To claim that we should not try to understand life because “God has a plan” is simply nonsensical, just as claiming that “nothing created life because it can’t be proven in a laboratory” is nonsensical. Knowing and learning obviously improve the conditions of one’s life, and life definitely manifests as something that has been meticulously designed.

    When I argue with my Christian friends, I stress the value of science. When I argue with friends who are scientists/atheists I stress the value of religion. Both have value that can’t be reasonably discounted.

    People have been asking who or what designed life for a long time. How do we know? What is the source of that knowledge? Is there just one life? Do we go onto something when the body dies? Those are all very interesting questions.

    Hubbard did claim that OT 8 made one “cause over matter, energy, space and time across all the dynamics.” That might not be an exact quote, but it’s close enough. To me that meant if I wanted to mock up a Ferrari and drive off with my girlfriend, I could. If I wanted to create a body on a distant planet and take a stroll, I could. Just taking it literally. What the hell, sounded good on paper.

    Without the business end entering the picture, those claims wouldn’t have been that big a deal. A lot of Eastern Religion states that all we perceive in the physical universe is illusion which can be created and controlled. Christianity claims that all existence is created by God, so if we as individual spirits comprised “God” then we could create whatever we chose. The goal is to awaken from our spiritual sleep so we can be cause over life, cause over our destiny. That’s a pretty common goal in gnostic thought. It’s just that Scientology continued the tradition and westernized the concept.

    Definition of words has two major aspects: denotation and connotation. The word “Scientology” is so fraught with connotation that the denotation becomes lost. It’s like the word “liberal” to a Fox anchor: grrrrr, snarl, spit, yah, yah, yah, wrong, wrong, wrong, snarl, grrrrrrrrr. So much emotion is connected to the word logic goes by the boards.

    “Look at all the ruined lives! Look at all the criminality! Look at how Hubbard lied about his past!”

    Yeah, I’m familiar with all that. I’ve read all the biographies. I read enough horror stories on the internet to infuriate me. I’d like to see Scientology the unscrupulous business perish.

    It’s not that I care whether Scientology the business endures, it’s just the criminality that I would want to end, the misrepresentations and lies. It’s not a business I would visit either way, but just as we have the right to free communication, we have the right to sell what we want without fraud. Some guy made quite a killing selling pet rocks. Pet rocks!

    I don’t want my ability to understand to be blocked by fixed ideas and “thought stoppers.” I want to be able to differentiate the lies and truths and shades between in everything I read, study and experience. I want my understanding to continue to expand. I don’t want to be trapped in mental loops saturated with emotion.

    So much of what passes for “logic” in the replies is nothing more than fixed patterns of systemic thinking that value with “accept” or “reject” responses. It’s mostly binary thinking which produces complex patterns. On/off. Right/wrong. Black/white. Binary.

    My wife teaches her kindergarten students to recognize patterns. Patterns. What is the pattern?

    I find it valuable to continuously examine and reexamine the patterns of my thinking so I can avoid being trapped and allow my understanding to grow. Having people with differing views helps me in that process of reexamination. But something that doesn’t help is what I would call the “tar baby effect.”

    I realize that my not agreeing with some of you really, really, really pisses you off. You are sooooooooo right that I must be soooooo wrong not to agree. I don’t understand this or that theory. I’m desperate. I’m yah, yah, yah. Pretty funny. I know just what Jeff’s talking about, except I don’t have the irons in the fire that he does. I find your sanctimonious, condescending comments absolutely fascinating. Why humans think as they do and how they go about this process just captures my interest like nothing else. Wow!

    So many self contradictions! But, I suppose those mental systems bring about balance by denying our personal contradictions. And when counter arguments are made, a mental homeostasis occurs. You either understand and incorporate the counter argument and expand your basis of thought or you reject it and sink back into the limits of the previous “balance.”

    I notice that much of this homeostatic process involves the limits of the individual. I see individuals claiming, “you don’t understand my position” against individuals who have obviously understood and incorporated that position in their reasoning. The limited position has been examined and incorporated in a broader position, but the holder of that limited position doesn’t have the breadth of view and understanding to recognize that their argument has long ago been examined, analyzed, evaluated, differentiated and categorized.

    Because I had an extra days off, I could afford to spend a couple of hours reading, analyzing and commenting here and Marty’s and Steve’s. I didn’t read everything. Certain posters just aren’t worth reading after a quick look. I can’t imagine spending day after day after day, comment after comment after comment with this stuff. As Just Me has said, “someone needs to get a life!” (paraphrased.)

    But, who am I to talk: my timer just went off for the second time. I have no discipline. And I need to go weed where it might do some good.

    Michael

    • March 23, 2011 2:32 am

      This is by far the most uptone post in all the recent discussions on the OT abilities I’ve read (not that I’ve read all of them). Sorry I don’t know which Michael you are.

      • Cinnamon permalink
        March 24, 2011 7:42 am

        profant,

        By “high-toned”, did you mean “Serenity of Beingness” – because that’s pretty much what I have felt since reading Michael’s comment more than an hour ago.

    • Infinity permalink
      March 23, 2011 12:07 pm

      “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

      -Einstein

    • Marildi permalink
      March 24, 2011 2:59 am

      OnceUponATime, as regards this post – I wish I had said that. 🙂

      Seriously, this is one of my favorite posts on just about any thread on this site or elsewhere. Makes it worth all the time spent poring through them. You really have a way of putting it all together – and more. You and Jeff and a few others are worth your weight in gold! Keep ’em coming.’

  48. Ex$cnAnon permalink
    March 22, 2011 6:06 pm

    I’ve NEVER written a comment on ANY blog but this one got my attention & interest.

    OT abilities are at the very core of the FRAUD perpetrated by Hubbard & Scientology. And, now, of course, by David Miscavige; although, during his watch, the OT levels & “resultant” OT abilities, themselves, have become more toned down or diluted; leaving one to very plausibly extrapolate that, he, himself, doesn’t believe in them nor Scientology but sees them only as a means to retain power & the money flowing in, as in any scam.

    I am at a loss for words to actually see, well, not so many but as many as I did & have read defending the very real fraud of OT abilities. And here I thought Scientologists were more able to face or confront reality. But what does one find, instead? Nothing but excuses & dilutions or watered down versions of what these aforementioned abilities actually consist of. Of course, some have even argued that Hubbard never made any “promises” until they see the futility of trying to defend this point of view in the face of unsurmountable evidence to the contrary. From the Advance mags, to the PDC & many other taped lectures, books like History of Man, Scientology 8-8008, HYLBTL, Hymn of Asia & obviously, now, his not so con-fidential OT levels; especially OTIII & OTVIII, they all DEFINED and PROMISED OT abilities & results. Hence, the redifinition (a squirrel practice if I’ve ever seen one) of the state of OT & OT abilities to mean any and everything except as what LRH described them to be; from running a business better, to having great relations with one’s life or business partner and/or telekinetically raising one’s own hand =)

    I was in Scientology for 27 yrs, though increasingly more disaffected each day from the mid 1990’s (’95 or ’96) until I finally decided I was completely OUT in 2005 due in part to a couple of events that, as they say, jarred me into more critical thinking & woke me up from “under the spell” enough, to actually do some serious and real R&D. I won’t go into this now but suffice it to say I knew as much about Scientology as anyone, regardless of “training” or “auditing level.” And the MAIN reason I stayed in were the promises of Nirvana: The always slippery & almost out of reach but always dangling like the carrot of Total Spiritual Freedom OT abilities -what a concept! Even when Hubbard told you early on that anyone selling you “Total Freedom or Total anything” was only trying to entrap you. Do we not remember? Were we run on “Reverse Amnesia on the Whole Track?” I used to joke about “undoing Scientology” by running the bridge backwards from OT VIII down, thru Clear & the Grades & when you got to Grade 0 & were in perfect communication, you did an ARC straightwire down to the first time you ever did anything in it, and voila! You were out! However, Hubbard did say one could undo Scientology with Scientology, and I think there is definitely something to it – I seem to have unraveled quite a lot of it doing just that. And btw, speaking of R&D, I did discover LRH to be the SP who suppressed my dynamics in my spiritual search -using Scn to unravel Scn as I mention & putting it in Scienospeak- but I digress…

    Yes, Hubbard & Scientology DID promise OT abilities that were never delivered and they were not the watered down versions we’ve all come to know and a few times even wondered about; if only in the back of our minds. With Miscavige it’s all a sad comedy, ironic as that may sound. A farce gone wild. A pure shameless scam without pretext nor regret, in an attempt to continue his Scientology status quo. And, as we’ve learned, his abusiveness to his staff, to boot. (pun intended)

    In all the factors that weighed in the most, at the top of the list was this one realization that “there was no bridge.” There are no OT IX and X; much less thru to OT XV. Watch the video on Google video titled “The Death of L. Ron Hubbard” to see a very young David Miscavige looking like the cat who ate the canary (or stole the Bridge) announce our dear Fuehrer’s departure from the material world to go where no man had gone before & return with THE FORCE -I think DM said Ron had gone to explore the upper realms of OT where the body would be an impediment, seemingly implying we’d all have to “drop our bodies” if we were ever to go there. Never mind that Ron had said the entire bridge was complete & all mapped out & all one would have to do was follow the well marked route out of the labyrinth. In this video, Miscavige also looks as if he’s thinking “Are these fools swallowing all this?!” The body language is QUITE telling. But I’ll let others be the judge.

    I’m going to go off topic here a bit but I contend that it’s not only the OT levels & OT abilities that are “unworkable” but ALL of Scientology -when taken as a whole- IS, as well. Let’s take Grade 0, which I spoke of; can those who’ve done this grade FREELY communicate with “anyone,” and on “any” subject? Can anyone see the source of problems & make them vanish? And I don’t mean by the use of that “frowned upon” process R2-45 which Rex Fowler so flagrantly squirreled. He violated one of Hubbard’s no-nos: Being there & “communicating” three bullets into another human being’s head, “shattering,” not suppression, but all his dynamic urges & definitely not helping to create a world without insanity & criminality. How many marriages have broken up after one or more co-audits? What happened when it DIDN’T work? Not to mention due to disconnection. How many abandoned and disenfranchised children in the Sea Org and even lower orgs & missions? Can Scientology & Scientologists be wrong? Are they free from the hostilities of life? I know it was Hubbard & his followers’ pet phrase (myself included, once, seems so long ago) but let’s get over it,. as someone said here, even: $cientology’s a $CAM, Scientology DOESN’T “work”…but perhaps for the TRUE BELIEVER. It’s a faith based cult or religion at best. I see it as a criminal enterprise at the very top, now; regardless of the many good, well intentioned and decent members at different levels. I considered myself among them, once upon a time. Although, it seems the higher or closer one got to the power -which was absolutely corrupt- the worse one became. So, my response to this blog is no, there are NO OT abilities gained from the OT levels; there are NO OTs and NO, SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT WORK! Just because you felt better or are still “under the spell” of a theory or idea that like a totalitarian one, as Communism, looks better on paper than in practice, does not prove that it worked for the overwhelming majority who were smart to leave it in droves at an early stage: A one-time bookbuyer or 1-2 basic courses. The longer we stayed the more susceptible we were to the indoctrination until we swallowed the LIES hook, line & sinker. And, before I forget, don’t tell me it didn’t work for the myriad of reasons LRH & the “church” say it didn’t. All the tired excuses, from blaming it on the practioner (auditor) or the many alphabet soup labels applied to the “preclear,” leaving little for the APA, with all their labels, to envy; despite all of the CCHR vitriollic rants against them. To a WOG, this just insults our intelligence: We’re perfect, or “workable,” excuse me BUT…if it DOESN’T work, so and so was PTS & connected to an SP or he was an NCG, DB, or suffer from ADD (Aversion to Dianetic Deprogramming) or ADHD (Aversion to Dianetic Hubbardian Dehumanization) or a Bi-Polar bear or “have fish to fry” when you should be barbecueing. Now, I’m just having fun with it. 🙂 But you get my point, they’re al the same. And my ALL-TIME favorite Scientological Tech term: Splattered-All-Over-the-Universe. WTH does THAT mean?! ;D And for all you kool-aid drinkers who thought “That’s you!” I’m sorry. At least, I left no “bodies in pawn” in any of the planets I was in – I killed them all off before I went on the ultimate all expenses paid vacation on an intergalactic DC-8 (free drinks included) to Teegeeack. And when I got here, I just chilled going on geological tours to volcanoes & watching movies for 36 days straight…..at least, until that awful explosion ruined it all. That WAS “so sad.”

    That’s how I, at least, see it all. And I STILL can’t get over how those who are OUT of the Co$ can still be trapped in this “ideology,” after all they must’ve seen and/or experienced but I guess they’re still following THE DREAM OF “OT” — Nirvana! And the “spiritual path.” That is fine but I can’t help to be reminded of the title of one of Jon Atack’s books, “The Total Freedom Trap.” Ladies & gentlemen, it’s not a “bridge,” ITSA TRAP!

    On the other hand, and for the benefit of those who still wish to make something of it with “Scientology,” I would like to see a kinder, gentler and REFORMED Scientology, as Jeff points out in his “The Dirty Dozen.” That’s a lot of reform. Can Scientology do it? Only time will tell.

    Anyway, Jeff, sorry for making this so much longer than even I expected. And, in closing, I would like to say I have followed your journey since you first started your other blog and I have read your book which is wonderfully insightful & keen in its observations. I’ve been an admirer of your marvelous writing abilities, your honesty, courage and OBJECTIVITY. Thank you! You are one of a kind -as most on here already know. And you are a wonderful human being or “wo-g.” ;D How about Wonderful, Objective & Good? There! You are a true WOG, Jeff.

    Bless you heart and good luck in whatever you endeavor to accomplish.

    And for the Scientologists: Hep! Hep! Hooray!!! Let’s give a hand to the ole [con] man and have a shot of Victory-Gin flavored kool-aid.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go haev my caek and eat it, too. FTW.

    We never forgive (those who have committed unforgivable acts)
    We never forget (all the human rights violations, injustices & abuse)
    We are Legion (and despite what some may think, we are growing)
    Expect us (DM, you better move to Bulgravia or Colombia; otherwise, expect Justice!)

    Ex$cnAnon

    P.S.
    In the final analysis, Scientology’s TRUE product is ENEMIES or SPs, in Scienospeak.

    • Fidelio permalink
      March 22, 2011 6:42 pm

      What a whale of a comment!! Wonderful summary. 🙂
      Thank you very much!
      Fidelio

      • Ex$cnAnon permalink
        March 23, 2011 5:01 am

        Thank you for the, what do “THEY” [ Boy, I feel so “SPish…” 🙂 ] call it in Scientology? Oh yes, VALIDATION. I had a blast writing it. A “whale” of a time, you might say, Fidelio.

        And btw, I love the name. I, too, no longer have my EYES WIDE SHUT. I loved the movie and the music at “the party.” But my wife says I’m crazy for liking it; especially the music. ;D

        You’re welcome! And thanks again for making me feel at home.

        Ex$cnAnon

      • Fidelio permalink
        March 23, 2011 2:52 pm

        🙂
        I feel found out… 🙂
        Fidelio

    • Marildi permalink
      March 22, 2011 7:01 pm

      ExScnAnon, firstly – you really do write well.

      But my question to you would be – why is it that you are still interested enough in the subject of Scientology to spend so much time on these blogs?

      I hope you will answer that with the same amount of intellectual honesty that it seems you strive for and are capable of.

      • Advanced Soul permalink
        March 23, 2011 1:50 am

        Marildi, I too enjoyed Ex$cnAnon’s satirical comments , anecdotes and truth that he wrote.
        Your question to him though I find is is aimed at discouraging him from voicing his views on this blog.
        Or did you mean something else by saying it that way?

      • Marildi permalink
        March 23, 2011 4:15 am

        Advanced Soul, it was absolutely a sincere question. I had NO intention of discouraging, just the opposite.

      • Ex$cnAnon permalink
        March 23, 2011 4:32 am

        Well, that’s an excellent question, Marildi. I will enjoy answering it, with painful honesty.

        First of all, I have a question for you: What made you say “why is it that you are still interested enough in the subject of Scientology to spend so much time on these blogs?” when I said at the very beginning of my post that “I’ve NEVER written a comment on ANY blog but this one got my attention & interest?” I’m curious, that’s all. But please don’t say you were exercising your OT abilities. 🙂 Actually, you can say so, if that’s what you think happened. That’s your freedom, I shall always, when possible, defend.

        Secondly, I would like to somewhat qualify my position in that I’m not as perhaps closed-minded as I may have come across to some. I don’t think censorship of belief is a reasonable position but quite a dangerous stance, actually. I just vehemently disagree with the entire subject of Scientology, when taken for its overall detrimental effect -in Scientologese, even- for the greatest number of dynamics, in the final assay. The devastation is observable in the number of ruined families, businesses & individuals; in the unsatisfied customers & disillusioned believers and many enemies Scientology creates as their daily bread.

        Thirdly, and this is the painfully honest part, I have learned, even upon my reading of this blog’s comments on THIS subject of OT abilities, that I can be too easily swayed by my personal passions to the exclusion of others’ ideas or beliefs, etc. And while this isn’t entirely bad IMHO, it could use a tad of toning down for the purpose of a better, more rational discussion – which is the level at which you want these volatile, very hot subjects, such as religious & political beliefs to be discoursed: at a level of rationality conducive to understanding & respect for the human condition, a trolley in which we are all passengers; regardless of our individual beliefs, opinions, theories and/or political or philosophical affiliations. So, my apologies to anyone who I may have offended. That was not my intention. And I want to reiterate that I came to this conclusion after reading a few more level headed posts in which this idea was made a point. I thank you all for THAT lesson. My passions do most times cloud my reason or, at least, my approach; when I would be best served by heeding to the latter more closely.

        Now, to the more interesting part of your excellent question -and I’m sure to learn a lot from my answer to it, as well:
        “why is it that you are still interested enough in the subject of Scientology”
        Above it all, I think it’s because of, number one, the amount of time I spent absorbing & assimilating the subject – which was near & dear to my heart, ONCE. Probably still is but in a much different way 🙂 I often say that “Scientology cured me of ALL organized religion” and though I stand by that with no regrets & perfectly satisfied in the outcome, there still is a void which I am grappling with at this very moment and have been for quite some time. It is part of the idea, again, expressed in the phrase, “the human condition.” Who or what am I? Why am I here? Where is this (life) all heading to? And lately, I’ve been entertaining something completely foreign to my previous ways of thinking – a new paradigm. Or as I say in a poem of mine:
        “Who or what, those are just questions.
        It’s only life that we possess
        And who did say it’s what you make it?
        Does it imply we have a choice?
        Is it our freedom that we determine?”

        See the problem? LOL
        It’s the old Freedom vs Determinism I left behind in college philosophy class, oh so many, many moons ago.
        It’s the Religious / Spiritual / Philosophic vs Materialistic / Scientific / Objective views of life

        Or how about another poem I titled “I Am” and subtitled “Like man!” as in the 1960’s phrase:

        “I am a man, I say
        But some insist and so they say
        That man’s a word.
        A word is thought
        Expressed through writing
        Expressed through sound.
        Sound is vibration;
        What keeps me on such investigation.

        I am a man, I am alive
        I do exist, I pray.
        But some insist and so they say
        That man’s a word.
        A word, an idea
        Produced by the brain.

        I am a man, I say.
        But some insist and so they say
        That man’s vibration.
        Therefore, I am vibration
        That makes sound
        To express thoughts
        In words.
        Like man!

        Or “I believe”

        I believe.
        Yes, I believe, as nothing else I can do.
        Is it reality? Is it a dream?
        How do I choose?

        I believe.
        Yes, I believe, as nothing else I can do.
        Is that a reason? Is it the truth?
        What’s there to lose?

        You see, I’ve always been a believer. 🙂

        But back on topic, I’ve been entertaining something new: The Scientific Approach. Science, observation, objectivism & what I can see and perceive with my senses (Objective Reality) as opposed to my ideas, opinions or “beliefs” after I’ve processed my perceptions (Subjective Reality) by means of this wonderfully complex and very maligned organ by religionists; especially, Mr Hubbard, Scientologists, and others, too; which is the product of millions of years of evolution, if not more.

        And I just hit upon something that believe it or may be part of the answer to your question. Why does the brain -if it is, the brain; indulge me for a moment- produce these metaphysical questions that are very abstruse & subjective in nature from very real and objective “things?” Why does a man look at a “woman” and see “beauty?” Why does a child look at a rock & wonder where it came from? Or I look at the Universe & wonder when it started & why? And why do we ask WHY?! Animals don’t ask why. They don’t wonder where they come from or are going. Why can’t man be happy with living just one life? Why does there have to be a reason for everything? Why does there have to be order? The Universe is a very chaotic place, you know. Or could it all be an extension of mankind to survive to the Nth degree? Could this desire for immortality & spirituality be nothing more than that? His desire to extrapolate himself into an uncertain future. To achieve a continuum he cannot attain to in reality? Does any of this make sense? I am ½ playing Devil’s advocatew and ½ trying to work all this out for myself. I always used to think of myself somewhat humorously & a tad flippantly, as an agnostic gnostic. 🙂 Now, I know THAT wont make sense; except to me. LOL

        Lately, I’ve been asking myself questions like, “Does God exist? Does he have to exist? Is there a God?” I have taken the position of one of the many people I’ve admired and respected for various reasons; albeit knowing no man is perfect, and this, in particular, being one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who in a 1787 letter to his nephew and ward, Peter Carr, Jefferson offered him the following advice:

        “Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences….”

        This is “new skin” to me, as I’ve always believed in there being something none of us understand out there; some force, spiritual energy, something. Never a Judeochristian punitive, warring, jealous, envious, misogynist, homophobic, insecure God or YHWH, although I have my theories on where this and other gods might have come from. Can you tell I have been influenced by Richard Dawkins?

        I guess I was more of an agnostic or a desit who finds himself being drawn closer to being an atheist. I’m trying this out on you, btw. I still feel strange saying it. There is a bit of apprehension but I’ll get over it. What does this have to do with “interest in Scientology?” Well, if I don’t believe in God, I definitely would not believe in “OT abilities”; especially when I consider the claims being made & even insinuated or implied, fraudulent.

        This brings me to my last & final, real reason I’m still interested, which is that I want to put in my 2¢ in seeing the monstruosity I helped to create to rest. I tried my best to answer you honestly. Though, maybe, I am trying to de-Scientologize myself. And this is simply another way to help in achieving this. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. I WRITE JUST FOR YOU… No, no, no. 😀

        They say it takes about 10-12 yrs to make a FULL recovery. That’s what I consider myself, at times, an Ex-Scientologist in recovery. 🙂 However, as I stated in my previous post, I have to credit my Scientology experience for dissuading me from ever again joining another cult, or organized religion, for that matter.

        You didn’t think this was going to be a short, did you? LOL

        Thank you for your question.

        Ex$cnAnon

      • Marildi permalink
        March 23, 2011 7:50 am

        Ex$cnAnon, thank you so much for your full and honest reply.

        First, to answer your question, it seemed your reference to “THESE blogs” meant SCIENTOLOGY blogs and from that I inferred that you’ve been READING them. Also, your stress on “NEVER” (your caps) having commented before seemed to imply the unspoken notion of – “in spite of a lot of reading,” which would indicate a lot of interest. Maybe just dub-in on my part, maybe OT. 🙂

        On your “secondly” and “thirdly” you didn’t come across as closed-minded or any more biased than the rest of us. We’re all here exchanging viewpoints, and yours was expressed well – and I too can attest that there is a lot that can be learned in this exchange.

        But – I personally am still holding out the hope, if not the belief, that organized Scn took a very bad turn and that the basic nature of the philosophy itself was and is a true path to our spiritual nature as well as “a better game.” As I already expressed in a comment above, when I “look” at the basic philosophy of Scn, quite simply put, it rings true for me. Truth communicates and truth is perceivable. At the very least, I do believe Scn has and can yet achieve a lot of good even if it never will fulfill its own ultimate promises (and that’s still an “if,” for me).

        Well, from one former philosophy student to another, your poems were very appealing – and the question of determinism is still the burning one, I would say. And who knows, I too may evolve to a stage of “recovery” similar to yours – and we both may further evolve to coming full circle… 😉

        Anyway, your input is very welcome! Oh, and I loved your funny, “Thank you for listening, I write just…” LOL

      • Marildi permalink
        March 23, 2011 7:50 pm

        Ex$cnAnon, I meant to also say, on that subject of determinism, that you might want to check out Isene’s article “On Will,” which he posts a link to on his comment above. It might appeal to your agnostic-gnostic scientific leanings. He’s another Independent and also writes well about his own Scn experience, from the perspective of an OT VIII. (But I don’t know if you scientific types will ever be as deep as LRH – singing, that is. 😉 THANK YOU FOR LISTENING… )

    • IMMORTAL permalink
      March 23, 2011 4:41 am

      Dear Ex $cn Anon,

      Thank you for that post. And Welcome! I hope to hear more from you. I appreciated what you had to say. You have said much that I agree with.

      IM

    • Valkov permalink
      March 23, 2011 8:26 am

      This seems like a good time for me to pop up and say that in 1972 I knew a man who had some abilities along the lines of “perceiving and acting in the 3 universes.” He was able to create mockups others could see, apparently in the MEST universe(but I think they were actually illusions); he created pictures in others minds, ie mental image pictures without speaking; and it appeared to me he could simultaneously control control some number of objects, like a rack of pool balls. He appeared to do this by using energy flows rather than postulates, but I don’t know that for sure.

      His name was Bob Musack and he was a Field Auditor and Franchise Holder in the Detroit area at that time. He was a Class VIII auditor and had done up through original OTVII.

      He did attribute his abilities to Scientology

      I also knew some other folks who could do things like manifest themselves as glowing sources of a soft white radiance, at the same time as their bodies appeared to vanish or become invisible. That was the Klopp family from Southfield MI.

      Those were some interesting times!

    • April 9, 2011 10:35 pm

      @Ex$cnAnon, It’s always a thrill to read posts from someone who has never ventured to post on a blog or a forum until now. That’s a terrific post you wrote! Glad you are speaking out and with a sense of humor. It’s clear that you have been reading up on the internet with eyes wide open! Continue to do so and keep posting. You can find an helpful ongoing long list of critical informationwebsites and blogs, including this one, being compiled here to inform exs:
      http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=21499
      Best wishes,
      Mary

  49. March 22, 2011 7:42 pm

    What is missing from all this discussion is one thing: Where are all the Scientology OTs? All this discussion would be easily resolved by just one Scientology OT stepping forward to demonstrate, objectively, all their OT Powers and Abilities.

    We have all these Scientologists presenting guesses, conjectures, excuses, justifications, beliefs and hopes, but not one Scientology OT who could easily resolve all questions in an instant.

    • IMMORTAL permalink
      March 23, 2011 4:55 am

      William,

      Exactly. I agree. What comes to mind is something said earlier on this blog. That people have to “believe in” the OT abilities in order to experience them. Well, if that is the case and I’m an OT and I “believe” in my abilities as do my fellow OTs, but we are being “tested” in an effort to “prove” our abilities by “non-believers”, well, just how is that going to work out? Hm?
      From my view of things, the non-believer would not be able to experience these abilities because they didn’t believe. Sheesh. Hogwash.

      As to not getting “the real” OT materials before they were somehow changed, well, why don’t those people step up to the plate and demonstrate their abilities then? IF these abilities could be demonstrated, I have no doubt people would flood the orgs and pay lots of money to put themselves in a position to be able to have them themselves.

      But, that won’t happen. It’s like this club of OTs have to continue to talk about all their OT abilities and the OT phenomena among themselves and to continually talk themselves into the idea that it works, and talk it up so others believe it works, so the orgs can keep getting money for these things. Wouldn’t want to “damage” Scientology somehow by telling the truth of it. Whatever abilities some had before Scientology have now been assigned to Scientology. Anything is looked for to demonstrate they are making gains…..found a parking spot, found my keys.

      Talk about group agreement. That always struck me in KSW where Ron talked about group agreement. Isn’t that what Scientologists eventually come down to? If you don’t and happen to have a thought of your own that doesn’t fit with the group agreement, it’s perceived as not quite with the program.

      Yes, you’re right, William. For the believers, demonstrate to skeptics the OT abilities you have gained. That would handle it.

  50. SpecialFrog permalink
    March 23, 2011 1:28 am

    This just in, from an apparently real e-mail:
    —–
    Flag Presents:
    An Evening of OT Phenomena
    and Exteriorization
    OTs Sharing Their OT® Phenomena
    An Evening of Magic and OT!
    Stories from the Wild Side!
    What is it really like to operate as an OT?
    The latest OT Phenomena, the latest New OT VIII completions!
    What is it like fully living life as an OT?
    Speakers:
    Jerry & Jill Chen
    Robin Selmier Geoff Gault
    Donna Stewart!!!
    Special Audiovisual Presentations will be shown:
    Success and personal wins of an OT Celebrity!
    Plus: An OT in Action and her influence in the Bay Area!
    Saturday, March 26th 2011
    Doors open, Hors d’Oeuvres & Desserts served at 6:00 pm
    Event starts at 6:30 pm sharp.
    —–
    These names mean anything to anyone?

  51. Mimsey Borogrove permalink
    March 23, 2011 1:50 pm

    Ok. We should do something Scientolog-ific and really nail this puppy down. We need to find out what, in the words of the imortal Richard Dawson (Family Feud fame), “the survey says!”

    Think about it, there is a thing known as a bell curve where you have the extremes – on one end populated by the Ingo Swans who can bend spoons and do remote viewing at will and at the other end Rex Fowler who shot his business partner and turned the gun on him self or Steve Brackett who jumped off a bridge to his demise. And then there is the middle where fellow ots have told me in all seriousness, what they got out of OT7 was that they weren’t restimulated in life. Pin drop please.

    What we need is a simple html survey that the posters can push a button stating their case state (from atheists & wogs to new OT 8) and then select various abilities (positive and negative) and rate them – did it happen once, several times, a whole lot, it’s an ability man! –

    There can be a full panoply of abilities – knowing who is on the phone, premonitions, finding parking spaces, the colors in the room look brighter (my solo nots d of p hated it when I told her that), seeing through the walls of the RSM (old Otto Roos advance mag success story), bending the dented fender back in shape, going radically meltdown ballistic (happened to me) yadda yadda

    Lets see where those abilities lie. And Jeff, since you opened this Pandora’s box, could I prevail upon you to do the honors?

    Mimsey Borogrove

  52. disinfected permalink
    March 23, 2011 4:43 pm

    Hey Jeff

    The point you make is the key one. It is not about whether Scientology is “helpful”, it about whether Scientology is, to be blunt, full of shit. Not putting words in your mouth, those are my words and I will explain them.

    Marty and Co. would have us believe that “Scientology, Inc.” is full of shit in its current incarnation due solely the efforts of David Miscavige. Wow. Given the amount of crap in Scientology, that David Miscavige must be one “OT dude”. Marty seeks to minimize his own contribution to Scientology’s current state, which I understand was considerable. After all, he was “Inspector General”. In a similar vein, Marty minimizes the contribution of Richard Reiss to the current state of affairs. Dianna over at ESMB does not let him off so lightly – “He seemed to be enjoying the fact that he was sending all of the auditors of the planet to the bottom of the Bridge.” But it is essential to some, I guess, that Reiss not be held responsible for his willing adherence to Miscavige’s orders.

    To me, the key failure of Scientology is its institutionalized unwillingness to confront the truth, to deal with the truth, to speak the truth. There is a reason for that and the reason is NOT David Miscavige. The reason is L. Ron Hubbard.

    Any “truthful” examination of L. Ron Hubbard will reveal him to be a consummate con man. Ron was all about the con. He was the ultimate Wizard of Oz. Start with some of his earliest known exploits, the Caribbean Movie Expedition where he conned a group of young aspiring film-makers into financing his adventures. Continue with his naval career, his phony degrees later on. And I will not even go into DMSMH with its alleged “research” and never-acheived claims. All of that and more is readily available to anyone that is interested in what is behind the curtain. And I mean source documents, not some critic’s opinion.

    L. Ron Hubbard was all about the con. He was about saying absolutely anything if the whim took him and it contributed to whatever illusion he was spinning at the moment. And that is all well and good. It made Ron the rogue and character he was. It seems that everyone that every met him was absolutely enthralled by him. Ron had a nasty side (see letters he wrote to the FBI denoucing anyone that crossed him as a Communist during McCarthy years for one easily sourced instance; his treatment of his first wife for another) but I think that was the lesser part of his personality. He was all about spinning the Legend of L. Ron Hubbard and you were welcome to play along and have fun doing so. On his terms only, of course. It would have been just fine if that were all he was – a raconteur and a rogue.

    But he became more than that. By luck or design, he hit upon something that appealed to a certain type of person, that filled – or seemed to fill – an important need for some, myself included. And he proceeded to sell it. Because the other thing that Ron was all about was entitlement – his entitlement. But in selling it, he proceeded the only way he knew how, with illusion and grandiose claims unsupported by “reality”. That was easy to fix though, redefine “Reality” as agreement and get everyone to agree that the claims are “true”. There is no reality except the reality I get you to buy into and Heaven help you if you point out that the Emperor’s clothes seem a bit scanty.

    Ron hard-wired Scientology to forward his own legend about himself along with his overblown claims for Scientology and to keep the curtain firmly closed; with “attack with ferocity” anyone questioning the workability, with sec-checking critical thoughts, with KRs, with muzzles placed on talking about your “case”, i.e. your subjective experience of Scientology, with a hundred different mechanisms.

    Ron Hubbard was a bullshitter and he hard-wired bullshitting into the Church of Scientology. Miscavige only carries the flame.

    The key failure of Scientology is its institutionalized unwillingness to confront the truth, to deal with the truth, to speak the truth. That is why we will never see an official biography out of what-his-name. They cannot so officially commit the Legend of L. Ron Hubbard to paper all in one spot as it will not stand inspection and they will look like fools.

    Scientology lies. That is the gist of it. Personally, I do not think they have to. I think that Scientology would do just fine without the grandiose claims and the Legend. I don’t care that Scientology was developed by a con man and a rogue. So what. I think Scientology is helpful. I also think any number of other things can be helpful. I think spiritual growth is where you find it and there is plenty to be found in Scientology. However, forwarding and viciously defending lies is not conducive to the pursuit of truth.

  53. IMMORTAL permalink
    March 23, 2011 6:41 pm

    Ex $cn Anon, I couldn’t find a button to reply to you directly about your most recent post. WOW. I really appreciate the way you write and do hope you continue to share with us here. I found that your presentation of your thoughts and how you are evolving to believe what you do now was very enjoyable reading, enlightening and thought provoking. Thank you again for sharing that.

    Since I’m just a year out, the thought of it taking another 9-11 years to recover seems long to me. But even over the last year, I can see the changes that have occurred in my thinking. And yes, I would like to see a stop to the continual betrayal of help by the Cof$.

  54. newer permalink
    March 24, 2011 4:04 pm

    “Redefining OT Abilities”

    At the dawn of the Advanced Course delivery at Saint Hill (R6EW, Clearing Course) LRH wrote a POLICY Letter entitled, “An open letter to all clears”. In it he prohibits CLEARS from demonstrating named, physically demonstrable, OT abilities that supposedly, clears possess. On the assumption that it would be dangerous to the Church if people knew scn make people THAT able. (if someone wants or can, post a link to the policy that’d great.)

    Now, if you have read that PL and been in scn for any length of time, gone “clear” or know many “clears”, you just laugh yourself silly rereading that PL.

  55. newer permalink
    March 24, 2011 4:23 pm

    @RJ “Well whatever the naysayers say the fact is that there a huge black hole in the Church of Scientology’s current grade chart that somehow swallowed up the original OT Levels.”

    Sorry, I’ve met MANY OT 8’s & 7’s who DID do original OT 4-7 E.P. (old OT levels). No more OT abilities demonstrable than anyone else.

    • Valkov permalink
      March 24, 2011 8:45 pm

      newer,

      How do you know they didn’t read that “Open letter to all Clears”, and take it to heart?

    • March 24, 2011 9:31 pm

      I wasn’t going to chime in, but… Valkov, that’s not it. An Open Letter to All Clears (HCO PL 17 Jan 1967) basically says that clears should behave themselves, but nothing about not using their “powers.”

      Relevant excerpts

      “…at the state of Clear one should not assume that one has a license to do just whatever one will. … don’t use the abilities you have attained already to enslave others, or indeed, yourself.

      “Those who have not yet attained Clear will be watching you with some awe, so you have the duty of setting an example of exemplary behaviour in all aspects of your life. As a Clear you have no privileges beyond being declared Clear. […]

      “…there is no sitting down and resting upon your laurels, no waiving of policy, no promiscuous 2nd Dynamic activities, no improper assumption of power, control or influence or assuming that you automatically know best in every situation. It is a crime to invalidate the state of Clear-see to it that you don’t do this…

      “As a Clear you are welcomed and honoured. Don’t do anything that will wear out your welcome or bring dishonour on yourself or upon other Clears.”

      This is a pre-DM version so I don’t know if it was altered under the Miscavige regime.

      ML, CW
      Off to postulate some more Hondas.

      • Newer permalink
        March 25, 2011 6:03 pm

        VERY incorrect caliwog

        Since you have the reference to hand, you INTENTIONALLY left out the part where LRH says, “don’t go knocking hats off at 50 yards.” (paraphrased)

        THAT is a referenced OT “power”.

        Why did you do that?

      • March 28, 2011 6:29 pm

        Newer, neither of the copies I have says anything about knocking hats off. I can’t find a copy online that says that, either. Perhaps you are mixing this up with another policy? If you have a reference that says this, please post it.

        I have read that Hubbard alluded to *OTs* being able to knock hats off at 50 years and read a book a couple of countries away, but I have not found that reference myself.

        BTW, I excerpted rather than pasted in the whole PL because I didn’t know if Jeff had copyright concerns. If Jeff OKs it, I will paste in the whole thing.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • Newer permalink
        March 29, 2011 6:08 pm

        Sorry, Cali. It was in the original text of “An open letter to all clears”. At least up until ’79.

      • March 29, 2011 11:46 pm

        Not to be argumentative, but the books I’m going off of show are the 1974 editions. Will have to see if I can find an earlier copy of the OEC vols (1 and 4). Would be interesting if Hubbard changed one of his own policies without sticking an “R” on the date.

        There are a few policy misquotes that are taken as fact. Letter to Garcia has “Look don’t listen” as part of KSW, which it’s not. Rathbun re-printed that on his blog, and when I posted a comment pointing out the error, he censored it. Go figure.

        ML,
        Caliwog

  56. April 9, 2011 10:44 pm

    Jeff wrote:
    [..] 4. “Poor Jeff…”: Some people had the gall to make statements like, “Poor Jeff, he spent all that time in Scientology and never made it. He never made it to OT like the rest of us did. How sad. Too bad he had such strange hidden standards. Too bad he only wanted to levitate teapots. Poor guy.”

    You don’t often see me lose my temper. I’m usually pretty easy going, so this is a rarity. My reply to this is as follows: “You can take all your condescending, sanctimonious ‘pity’ and shove it.” [..]

    I thought the same thing! How OT of me!! lol 😉
    Seriously, first word that came to my mine was how condescending Marty’s comment was. It really pissed me off and I. too, don’t anger easy. You are one of the brightest and most articulate exs on the internet. He dies not hold a candle to you and your humility and your ability to observe, think things out and then write. Glad you are over it. I don’t know that I would be. Thanks.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: