Thing You always wanted to know (but Never dared to ask)

[sandygirl]

Thought we could start a thread with some questions that may have come up for us but that we felt we couldn't ask in the church.

Here's one of mine for you tech guys-The basic premise of the SP tech is that a suppressive person IMMEDIATlY recognizes the power of Scio tech to free beings and it drives him quite mad. DM even mentioned this at the Lisa Mcphearson event.

However, I found dissem to be quite difficult. Most people thought Scio sounded weird or like a lot of "hooey". (Like that word?) One friend of mine asked me how I could possibly believe that ONE person discovered all the answers to the universe. She thought I was full of "hooey" after THAT little dissem.

So the theory is...SPs instantly recognize that $Scio is working to free beings and regular people need convincing?

[gomorrhan]

That theory was never convincing to me. I agree with your "regular people", I'd need convincing. I do think there are people who have secrets they don't want exposed who would be frightened if they really believed that scio could expose them. Other than that, I don't believe that anyone is concerned about scientology except that they abuse people and deprive them of their rights while seeking to separate them from their cash.

[CarmeloOrchards]

To begin with, I wouldn't buy a used gold ingot from Diem.

But I do think, based on observation, that there are "evil deed doers," such as Diem, who attach themselves to powerful beings, and suck them dry.

I think there are also powerful beings, such as LRH, who recognize other powerful beings, such as John McMaster, Jack Horner, ACW, Rocky Stump, etc. and kill them or try.

Then there are groups such as the CIA, which got an eyeful of Scientology at the Palo Alto center in the 1970s by way of SRI (Stanford Research Institute) in regards to remote viewing, etc.). You can google: Hal Puthoff, Bill Church, Uri Geller, Ed Mitchell, etc.

It looks to me like a sub set of the US government took control of the Co$ without a shot being fired.

There are people, who live to dominate and subjugate others. Those people recognize power terminals and work to disable them.

Good auditors, on the other hand, work to enable them more so.

[Zinjifar]

That 'theory' is the essence of the 'PTS/SP' theory.

Pull it out and the card-house crashes down. And, what's Scientology without its 'PTS/SP Theory'? Does Scientology 'Ethics' work? If there are'nt SPs out to destroy Scientology for exactly the reason given, is Scientology's 'War' on wogs (society) justified? Can one justify 'Greatest Good For The Greatest Number of Dynamics' if the 'theory' is hooey?

Scientology is a monolithic lead balloon. One prick and it pops.

Zinj

[Leon]

Thought we could start a thread with some questions that may have come up for us but that we felt we couldn't ask in the church.

Here's one of mine for you tech guys-The basic premise of the SP tech is that a suppressive person IMMEDIATlY recognizes the power of Scio tech to free beings and it drives him quite mad. DM even mentioned this at the Lisa Mcphearson event.

However, I found dissem to be quite difficult. Most people thought Scio sounded weird or like a lot of "hooey". (Like that word?) One friend of mine asked me how I could possibly believe that ONE person discovered all the answers to the universe. She thought I was full of "hooey" after THAT little dissem.

So the theory is...SPs instantly recognize that $Scio is working to free beings and regular people need convincing?


To answer your second question first - one man didn't discover all of it. He did a hell of a lot but also took unfair credit for what others did.

re You first question - it is a reference to what the Ron's Org guys call LTA and which LRH refers to obliquely here and there. The notion is that Scientology existed before on the track and that real SPs will get a restim of it when they hear the name and so "recognise it instantly". Bear in mind on this that the term SP has been broadened by the CofS (including LRH) to include anyone who disagrees with him. I think what LRH was refering to when he made the comment about them recognising and hating Scio was those "SPs" who were affected by Scio on the previous time on the track etc etc etc assuming that the data on that is all valid.

Got it?

Simple.

[Veda]

As early as 1951 ('Science of Survival'), Hubbard wrote that one can place someone on the tone scale by his/her opinion of Dianetics, and - by implication - himself.

Additionally, one need only examine Hubbard's "Russian Textbook" (circa 1955), to see the parallels, that he later (1960s) used on Scientologists.

Hubbard told Scientologists what he was going to do to them - albeit obliquely - before he did to to them.

The notion of an sociopath is not new, only Hubbard's take on it. Sure, there's some truth to the idea, but that's only the first half (the solvent), then comes the second half (the lacquer).

Happy ungluing yourself!

[sandygirl]

Quote from Leon:

re You first question - it is a reference to what the Ron's Org guys call LTA and which LRH refers to obliquely here and there. The notion is that Scientology existed before on the track and that real SPs will get a restim of it when they hear the name and so "recognise it instantly". Bear in mind on this that the term SP has been broadened by the CofS (including LRH) to include anyone who disagrees with him. I think what LRH was refering to when he made the comment about them recognising and hating Scio was those "SPs" who were affected by Scio on the previous time on the track etc etc etc assuming that the data on that is all valid.

Got it?

Simple.

Leon thank you for that succinct reply!
Do you think my new favorite word- "hooey" is applicable here?

Seriously though I really like how Zinj refers to the PTS/Sp tech as a "lead balloon". I really thought a lot of the tech in this area is crappola.
For example, I saw some looney staff member in a big frenzy because she parked her car on a really shi**y street and surprise-it got broken into to. So instead of deciding not to make that stupid move again-she was racing to the EO to do an O/W write-up!!

That kind of "think" never made sense because it violates simple cause and effect. If I run into the middle of the highway and get hit, it's not because of the evil SPs. My five year old knows that!! I think the PTS/SP course made some people introvert into a weird state. Maybe that's why it's so heavily promoted.

I try to use common sense and also to realise-Sometimes shi*t happens!!

[Leon]

Quote from Leon:


Leon thank you for that succinct reply!
Do you think my new favorite word- "hooey" is applicable here?

Seriously though I really like how Zinj refers to the PTS/Sp tech as a "lead balloon". I really thought a lot of the tech in this area is crappola.
For example, I saw some looney staff member in a big frenzy because she parked her car on a really shi**y street and surprise-it got broken into to. So instead of deciding not to make that stupid move again-she was racing to the EO to do an O/W write-up!!

That kind of "think" never made sense because it violates simple cause and effect. If I run into the middle of the highway and get hit, it's not because of the evil SPs. My five year old knows that!! I think the PTS/SP course made some people introvert into a weird state. Maybe that's why it's so heavily promoted.

I try to use common sense and also to realise-Sometimes shi*t happens!!

Shows how Scientology has been barstardised into something completely crazy. There's a great bit on on of the Briefing Course tapes where the old man talks about what an OT should do if he got a pimple on his nose. No doubt today they'd need all sorts of actions done - O/Ws, dePTSing, deHumanoiding, etc etc etc. LRH's advice was "Put some Sav on it, man!" Sav bein Savlon.

[Zinjifar]

Shows how Scientology has been barstardised into something completely crazy. There's a great bit on on of the Briefing Course tapes where the old man talks about what an OT should do if he got a pimple on his nose. No doubt today they'd need all sorts of actions done - O/Ws, dePTSing, deHumanoiding, etc etc etc. LRH's advice was "Put some Sav on it, man!" Sav bein Savlon.

Two things:

One, there's always the 'cut off the nose to spite the thetan' rundown, and, how would a pimple on the nose *not* fit within the PTS/SP 'Theory'?

Where is the room for 'shit happens' in Scientology's 'total responsibility for your own condition'?

Is it an 'exception'?

Are you saying that a pimple on your nose is *not* something you 'pulled in'?

Zinj

[grundy]

If we're not supposed to accept "Hidden Data Lines" where the hell is the HANDWRITTEN or VERIFIABLE source for the revisions to the materials, especially, the Golden Showers .... er I meant ... the Golden Ages of Tech and Knowledge?

[Free to shine]

Two things:

One, there's always the 'cut off the nose to spite the thetan' rundown, and, how would a pimple on the nose *not* fit within the PTS/SP 'Theory'?

Where is the room for 'shit happens' in Scientology's 'total responsibility for your own condition'?

Is it an 'exception'?

Are you saying that a pimple on your nose is *not* something you 'pulled in'?

Zinj

I used to wonder about things like a plane crash where hundreds of people died. They ALL had to have been PTS and ALL had to have pulled it in at that exact synchronistic moment in time. What an amazing thing! :omg:

I don't wonder about stuff like that anymore. Shit happens. :D

[Zinjifar]

I used to wonder about things like a plane crash where hundreds of people died. They ALL had to have been PTS and ALL had to have pulled it in at that exact synchronistic moment in time. What an amazing thing! :omg:

I don't wonder about stuff like that anymore. Shit happens. :D

A little non-scientology related, kind of. Way back before I was involved in Scientology Criticism, I was going through college (for the 2nd time) and had to take some General Education classes, including 'health'.

Mostly, I did well in my classes then, but, the 'health' class became a bit of a problem. The 'theory' behind the class was very 'new agey', which didn't surprise me, but, a corollary to 'the mind/matter interface' is that, if you can keep yourself 'healthy' by 'good thoughts', you can also make yourself *sick* by 'bad thoughts'.

I don't doubt that there's some truth there, but, taken to the kind of extreme that 'Newage' (pronounced to rymne with 'sewage') does, it would mean that, if a 'good attitude' can prevent cancer, a *bad* attitude would cause it; i.e. if you have cancer, you had a 'bad attitude'.

You 'pulled it in' :(

It doesn't disprove a connection between attitude and health, but, it *does* expose the simplistic thinking behind the 'total responsibility' so popular with pseudoscience like Newage, 'Religious Science' and 'Scientology'.

According to *that* criminally stupid 'paradigm', if you're sick, you 'caused it yourself'.

Shit doesn't happen; you *are* shit.

Zinj

[Free to shine]

According to *that* criminally stupid 'paradigm', if you're sick, you 'caused it yourself'.

Shit doesn't happen; you *are* shit.

Zinj

Well...it took me about a decade of working on this all by myself (before ESMB) to get over the worst of that indoctrination. I had to, or I would have died from despair.

I do believe in the connection between thought and manifestation and have proved it to myself many times over. However I no longer agree to the "low road" of blame, shame and regret should things go haywire sometimes or the concept that you are totally and wholly responsible for any rotten thing that happens to you and therefore a DB PTS shit (which I have been called) unless your life is magically full of high status goods, health and vibrant good times every minute. Yeah right.

[Leon]

This whole thing has been grossly misunderstood and misapplied ad nauseaum to the nth degree.

If a mosquito comes and bits me on the toe did I really postulate that that very mossie would bite me right then and there on that very toe? Is there a PTS condition I need to resolve to get mosquitoes to stop biting me?

Such a line of reasoning is not only pointless it will drive anyone loopy if they get stuck in trying to figure it out.


For a free thetan to go and get himself totally in the valence of a meat body - now there is some PTSness. There must be overts on meat bodies by him before he got so sucked into one. But there is no way in hell anyone doing an O/W write-up is going to access such an area of track. But maybe in some auditing somewhere, who knows, maybe one could clean up such an area and thereby become free of meat bodies, and by becoming free of them also become free of the randomities to which they are prone. Like mossie bites and pimples on the nose and getting your car broken into.

Maybe. But get there first.

We are here on earth and we've taken it on as a package deal - one size fits all. By doing that we take on and become the effect of all of the randomities that are inherent to life on earth. Trying to unpick little threads one by one in the hope of no longer having one single one of that myriad of randomities is not only fultile, it is STUPID.

But then, once in a while someone will hit the right item and blow out. Good luck to him.

[sandygirl]

I think there is stuff that I will never know the answer to and I am ok with that.

I think a lot of scientologists go wrong when they really believe LRH knew all and they can too if they cough up enough $$$$$.

I don't beleive this is possible. Then you see guys go off the rails because people go crazy, get cancer, die in car accidents.

I think the fundamental lie is selling the idea that ALL life is under someone's control for enough cash. Look at TCs career-he's an "OT" and he is most definatly NOT in control. Is DM (whom I assume is privy to all available tech) in control of anon.

And the bottom line is.....who wants to be so introverted into trying to control every little thing every little minute? Where's the fun in that?

[Reasonable Lady]

The question that I never asked was "How can you label someone PTS who is not manifesting any PTS symptoms?"

The idea that if a friend or family member disagrees with someone doing Scn requires that that someone must handle or disconnect from the friend or family member doesn't speak well for the effectiveness of Scn training and processing. When my husband started getting services from David Mayo's center I was on an internship at a Class IV org. I was told that I had to handle (get husband back into Scn) or disconnect from my husband before I could complete the internship. I was not rollercoasting or ill and my husband had no disagreement with what I was doing, but I was labelled "PTS". For a split second, I thought about trying to reason with the EO, discuss how I was not manifesting PTS symptoms, why label me as PTS before the fact. But then I realized that if I did that, I would be making trouble, which would prove that I was PTS. So I bowed to his greater stupidity and walked out.

RL

[Mark A. Baker]

I used to wonder about things like a plane crash where hundreds of people died. They ALL had to have been PTS and ALL had to have pulled it in at that exact synchronistic moment in time. What an amazing thing! :omg:

I don't wonder about stuff like that anymore. Shit happens. :D

I see this as an inappropriate application of the principle of "pts'ness". And before you say FTS, you are COMPLETELY CORRECT, it IS the way the Co$ uses it and there ARE LRH statements which back them up.

It serves as a way of making someone WRONG and themselves RIGHT(serfac). It is attempting to control others by putting a STOP on what they are doing. It is a means of coercing others through shame, blame, regret, etc, into unwanted or inappropriate services.

Both LRH & the Co$ are heavy hitters when it comes to "serfacs". I have never known a person or group who wasn't. The "brighter lights" are aware to some extent that they are doing it and try to alter the pattern.

Part of a game, such as "mest body", is "randomity". That is activity inherently out of control. Being in the game means accepting the principle of being exposed to randomness. That MAY well be "aberrated" but that is part of "having a game".

Further, beings who choose to create destructive effects are part of the environment of the game. So SOME of the randomness you experience is bound to be destructive. Like as not you are creating some of that destructiveness yourself. We all do.

Where "pts'ness" is useful is not in addressing EVERY bad thing that happens to a person, but ONLY where there may be a PATTERN of bad things which are continuing to happen to a person.

Randomity of the environment can account for the "odd" unfortunate event. However, if a person is facing continuing problems the question of what is he doing to perpetuate the phenomena is a VERY GOOD ONE.


Mark A. Baker

[Zinjifar]

Randomity of the environment can account for the "odd" unfortunate event. However, if a person is facing continuing problems the question of what is he doing to perpetuate the phenomena is a VERY GOOD ONE.


Mark A. Baker

So, what you're saying is that Ron and the essence of Scientology is a load of hooey.

Because, Ron said it was a very simple mechanism. Absolute. Absolute 'responsibility'.

If it's not, then, there were thousands of people before Ron who said that 'you reap what you sow'. Are you saying Ron wasn't anything new?

Zinj

[Mark A. Baker]

So, what you're saying is that Ron and the essence of Scientology is a load of hooey.

Because, Ron said it was a very simple mechanism. Absolute. Absolute 'responsibility'.

If it's not, then, there were thousands of people before Ron who said that 'you reap what you sow'. Are you saying Ron wasn't anything new?

Zinj

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. My comments were directed to the misuse of "pts'ness" as a "serfac" in order to make another wrong.

"Pts'ness" is very useful tech for discerning patterns of recurrent out/ethics by the turmoil resulting therefrom and addressing the underlying decisions.

Choosing to walk onto a battlefield is a question of personal responsibility. The physical universe is a metaphorical battlefield. Being here you get "shot at". Somewhere up the line we all made a "decision" of some sort which has resulted in our being in circumstances which we now conclude are "less than optimal".

That may well make us all in some sense a bit "pts". It doesn't justify ANYONE being MADE WRONG for it.

Sometimes it's been called "karma".


As to "LRH & absolutes", you can believe in those if that's your choice. I prefer to work on a basis of what I know for myself.


Mark A. Baker

[Zinjifar]

Without 'His' source-given absolutes, Ron was nothing more than a liver-lipped liar, fraud and all-purpose excuse for simple-minded wishful-thinkers to abdicate their own responsibility to something 'greater' than themselves.

Naturally, if Ron was *right*, then, the self-abdicators were the cutting edge of the 'Clear Planet' (cough)

Zinj

[Free to shine]

I see this as an inappropriate application of the principle of "pts'ness". And before you say FTS, you are COMPLETELY CORRECT, it IS the way the Co$ uses it and there ARE LRH statements which back them up.

It serves as a way of making someone WRONG and themselves RIGHT(serfac). It is attempting to control others by putting a STOP on what they are doing. It is a means of coercing others through shame, blame, regret, etc, into unwanted or inappropriate services.

Both LRH & the Co$ are heavy hitters when it comes to "serfacs". I have never known a person or group who wasn't. The "brighter lights" are aware to some extent that they are doing it and try to alter the pattern.

Part of a game, such as "mest body", is "randomity". That is activity inherently out of control. Being in the game means accepting the principle of being exposed to randomness. That MAY well be "aberrated" but that is part of "having a game".

Further, beings who choose to create destructive effects are part of the environment of the game. So SOME of the randomness you experience is bound to be destructive. Like as not you are creating some of that destructiveness yourself. We all do.

Where "pts'ness" is useful is not in addressing EVERY bad thing that happens to a person, but ONLY where there may be a PATTERN of bad things which are continuing to happen to a person.

Randomity of the environment can account for the "odd" unfortunate event. However, if a person is facing continuing problems the question of what is he doing to perpetuate the phenomena is a VERY GOOD ONE.


Mark A. Baker

You are completely correct. Using "PTSness" to make others wrong is exactly what happens. :D

ps how do you explain the plane crash scenario, just out of interest?

[Zinjifar]

Hey, sometimes people *are* wrong!!! :)

Friends point that out to them. Sometimes, people who are really really wrong need to be shot like mad dogs. Often there is collateral damage.

Are there such things as 'SPs' who by their mere presence make otherwise innocent people into 'Potential Trouble Sources' ?

Is this the pattern of 'Good and Evil' on this planet?

Ummm...

Not bloody likely.
It doesn't even mention witches, the 'Evil Eye' and Bad Juju

Zinj

[Mark A. Baker]

Hey, sometimes people *are* wrong!!! :)

Having read many of your posts, I'm inclined to agree. :p

[You didn't really expect me to let an opportunity like THAT one pass, did you. :coolwink: ]




Friends point that out to them. Sometimes, people who are really really wrong need to be shot like mad dogs.

I disagree. Restrain & rehabilitate if possible. I'm not into "capital punishment". It's state sanctioned murder and I'm VERY LEERY about grants of the power of life & death over subjects to states or other governing bodies.

And, at best "capital punishment" is just victim's revenge. More dramatization, more hate, more violence. Not a "winning strategy".


From a "scientologist perspective" you could also argue that having identified the "mad dog" the last thing you should do is to shoot him and thus lose track of him. Never know where he might pop-up next or what he will manage to do before you spot him again. :confused2:



Often there is collateral damage.

Always. The damage just isn't always recognized and acknowledged.



Are there such things as 'SPs' who by their mere presence make otherwise innocent people into 'Potential Trouble Sources' ?

One can argue that "unusually beautiful women" have that effect on men. :omg:

Certainly they lower men's i.q.'s.




Is this the pattern of 'Good and Evil' on this planet?

Ummm...

Not bloody likely.
It doesn't even mention witches, the 'Evil Eye' and Bad Juju

Zinj

I'm beginning to think you should become a catholic priest, Zinj. You sound like a moral theologian. :)


Mark A. Baker

[sandygirl]

Quote from Zinj:

Are there such things as 'SPs' who by their mere presence make otherwise innocent people into 'Potential Trouble Sources' ?

Is this the pattern of 'Good and Evil' on this planet?

This makes me think of a bizarro conversation I had with a fanatical Scio. They used the example (this actually happened to someone they knew) of a mother ironing clothes,dropping the iron and burning her baby in a nipnap at her feet. According to this loony-the baby had whole track overts and pulled in the burn and mommy was PTS. I had a really hard time with that whole conversation
but was too afraid to mention it...this person was really "trained"
Try giving this info to the dr. in the burn unit!

[Zinjifar]

I was offered the opportunity at 13; I only refused because my parents objected. At 15 I auto-excommunicated because I rejected the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Since then I've continued my spiritual endeavors. I've never felt a need to swallow a pre-digested 'system'.

Zinj

[Leon]

So, what you're saying is that Ron and the essence of Scientology is a load of hooey.

Because, Ron said it was a very simple mechanism. Absolute. Absolute 'responsibility'.

Zinj

This is correct really, per the underlying theories of Scientology, but the level of responsibility required to undo all of it is totally unattainable while identified with a meat body. So it is all pie in the sky.

[Zinjifar]

This is correct really, per the underlying theories of Scientology, but the level of responsibility required to undo all of it is totally unattainable while identified with a meat body. So it is all pie in the sky.

I doubt Enteman's will sell it anytime soon :) Where's the market?

Zinj

[Leon]

What's Enteman's?

[Free to shine]

Quote from Zinj:


This makes me think of a bizarro conversation I had with a fanatical Scio. They used the example (this actually happened to someone they knew) of a mother ironing clothes,dropping the iron and burning her baby in a nipnap at her feet. According to this loony-the baby had whole track overts and pulled in the burn and mommy was PTS. I had a really hard time with that whole conversation
but was too afraid to mention it...this person was really "trained"
Try giving this info to the dr. in the burn unit!

Exactly!

[Dulloldfart]

The question that I never asked was "How can you label someone PTS who is not manifesting any PTS symptoms?"

The idea that if a friend or family member disagrees with someone doing Scn requires that that someone must handle or disconnect from the friend or family member doesn't speak well for the effectiveness of Scn training and processing. When my husband started getting services from David Mayo's center I was on an internship at a Class IV org. I was told that I had to handle (get husband back into Scn) or disconnect from my husband before I could complete the internship. I was not rollercoasting or ill and my husband had no disagreement with what I was doing, but I was labelled "PTS".

There are lots of entries in the Tech Dictionary under "PTS" or "Potential Trouble Source". A typical one is "PTS TYPE ONE, the SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person." Most of these entries include the idea of the SP doing suppressive things to the person, not the mere state of being connected to someone who has received the label "SP".

It makes sense to me in terms of a person being intimately involved with an anti-social someone who is invalidating him all the time, that the person would not make stable case gain in the presence of such environmental stress.

The recommended solution, either disconnect (even temporarily) from such a source of antagonism or deal with the source in such a way as to no longer be the effect of the crap, is also sensible. Witness the relief one feels when one decides to stop being afraid of the CofS and unmasks oneself and says what one thinks to whoever one wishes to in whatever manner one desires. :)

Where it gets crazy is when there is no inval etc., as there is nothing that needs to be dealt with. And an Ethics Officer doesn't have a whole lot of choice, especially as he usually isn't tech trained enough to see where the system went off the rails, and even if he is there is much precedent (and pressure from seniors) to dictate his actions.

That is taking Hubbard's tech at face value, and not getting into the expedient action of labelling someone "SP" to stop the spread of unwelcome communications about the misdeeds of Hubbard or people in his organizations. Nowadays, of course, almost all of the SP declares are of this second variety, and so any usefulness in the system has long been buried beneath the horror.

Paul

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Hmm.. And then 'PTS' means Potential Trouble Source... I imagine the snakeoil salesman becoming aware that some dude looks suspiciously at a bottle of snakeoil. Deciding that the dude is a Potential Trouble Source, since he might expose the con...

We tend to understand the term 'PTS' as some kind of fault with ourselves. Like some sickness.. Hubbard uses the acronym grammatically to make it so.

:yes:

[Mark A. Baker]

ps how do you explain the plane crash scenario, just out of interest?

The most likely explanation is as per my prior post, "randomity in the physical universe". That's the sort of thing we're all exposed to as a result of being someplace where we can not control all aspects of the environment.

It is also remotely possible that the person makes a point of seeking out "dodgy airlines", the sort of company that isn't good about regular inspections & maintenance, etc.. They may have some idea about saving a few bucks or some other such nonsense. THAT sort of thing would be addressable as "pts'ness". It is also highly unlikely, although NOT altogether unheard of. :)


Mark A. Baker

[promise]

There is an interesting thing in Applied Kinesiology - muscle testing.

You can calibrate someone like "in your mind say the word yes over and over." push down on their arm...they are strong.

then "in your mind say the word "no" over and over to yourself". push down on their arm and the arm will be noticably weaker.

This is EXACTLY what PTSNESS is. You have a response to something in the environment that makes you weaker because you are triggered / restimulated.

A great example of PTS type 1 is the classic case of domestic abuse. Which is fairly common. It happens a fair bit, unfortunately. Ever seen someone who was the "victim" of such? They tend to get sick, and make mistakes. Why, they are all upset, and worried and so forth about if they will say something that will cause the abuser to beat on them again, and so forth.

This is when disconnection should be used. Any psychologist would tell the "victim" to pack their bags.

Come on people, this is valid tech. Yes, wrongly declaring someone SP, and making kids disconnect from their parents cuz the parents didn't agree with scientology is wrong in most cases...and that is a wrong application of this tech.

I started to notice that every time I make a little mistake or accident or get sick, I am "restimulated / outruds" with something in my mind.

One time I had a hell of a bad cold. I thoroughly did the pts assist ("10aug") on myself, and the symptoms IMMEDIATELY abate by something on the order of 90%.

Promise

[SchwimmelPuckel]

A great example of PTS type 1 is the classic case of domestic abuse. Which is fairly common. It happens a fair bit, unfortunately. Ever seen someone who was the "victim" of such? They tend to get sick, and make mistakes. Why, they are all upset, and worried and so forth about if they will say something that will cause the abuser to beat on them again, and so forth.

This is when disconnection should be used. Any psychologist would tell the "victim" to pack their bags.Allright.. Why, then calll that condition that the victim is in PTS? - It means Potential (latent; something that may be, but isn't yet) Trouble (A nuisance or threat) Source (point of origin; the person who's fault it is)...

There was a woman living about 5 miles away from me in that situation. She was 50 or some.. And blind the last 15 years. She was actually a prisoner in her own home for 15 years... Since she lost eyesight.. Her insane husband 'cared' for her by ensuring that she could not get out and hurt herself. He had nailed all the windows in the house from the outside.

Now she wasn't any source of trouble. Not even potential! The husband had her completely under control. - This shit would have continued until she died.

The Potential Trouble Source was the neighbors, who became curious and noticed that someone was inside the house. I'd say that the neighbors was 'a' PTS to the insane husband.. The blind wife was no trouble at all!

Note that I use the phrase Potential Trouble Source as what the words means or convey.

So what was Hubbard doing by this curious misassignment to the 'victim' of being a trouble source? - Just flipping cause/effect vectors? - Hubbard really liked turning logic on it's head...

I thinkk Hubbard had a purpose. I'm inclined to think he wanted to screw with our minds! - This is related to the concept of 'pull-in', where the 'victim' is made the guilty party also...

:screwy:

[MarkWI]

I am with SchwimmelPuckel here.
PTS is a danger for the CoS, someone who may not be easily lied to into the Truman Show because has a comm-line with/may be influenced by someone that sees it's a 'show'. If I remember correctly there are not only PTS Type 1-2-3 (with attention of his case gains or lack of), but also PTS Type A,B,C,... (with attention at potential troubles for the Co$)

Mark

[promise]

Well, I think a lot of the nomenclature is non-optimum. However, if used with an intention to help, it's workable.

I think the main point where it goes off the rails is where the intention to help is missing.

What would you have called the "PTS" phenomena?

- Promise

[Zinjifar]

Once you accept the Hubbard Paradigm, which includes the nomenclature, the 'intent' becomes irrelevant. The result is predictable. The product is Scientoology; with all its warts.

Zinj

[promise]

That assumes that it's not possible to seperate out specific pieces of the body of distinctions called scientology, which - is not true. It's not necessarily all or nothing.

I think the logic you are putting forth here Zinj is flawed.

Promise

[Zinjifar]

That assumes that it's not possible to seperate out specific pieces of the body of distinctions called scientology, which - is not true. It's not necessarily all or nothing.

I think the logic you are putting forth here Zinj is flawed.

Promise

The 'nomenclature'/jargon is an integral part and direct expression of Ron's own worldview, which includes such bizarre and inherently flawed concepts as 'SP'/PTS, the 'Tone Scale'; the paranoid 'enemies' and 'Scientology Ethics' concepts; the 'you pulled it in' version of 'total responsibility'; as well as the entire 'Bridge to Total Freedom' promises.

The term 'PTS' is not a stand-alone, and, except within the context of Scientology is meaningless. And, the context of Scientology is the *whole* of Scientology, including the dire warnings against 'altering tech'; verbots against 'verbal tech' and doomsday threats of the 'Ever Dwindling Spiral' which stands at the basis of Keeping Scientology Working and the inherently anti-social (non-scientology-social) nature of the 'Scientology Movement'.

Can you pull out bits and pieces? Sure. Are they still Scientology? Hardly.

To use the term 'PTS' as if it actually *means* something is to swallow the whole turd sandwich.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

To use the term 'PTS' as if it actually *means* something is to swallow the whole turd sandwich.



What would you use then, Zinj? As an example, there are plenty of anonymous (lower case "A") people on this board who are afraid of the potential actions of the "SP" "Church" they are connected to, one way or another, and so choose to remain suppressed (for want of a better word....)

Paul

[Zinjifar]

What would you use then, Zinj? As an example, there are plenty of anonymous (lower case "A") people on this board who are afraid of the potential actions of the "SP" "Church" they are connected to, one way or another, and so choose to remain suppressed (for want of a better word....)

Paul

I would call them victims of extortion. Victims of terror. Hostages.

Zinj

[promise]

Although it's kind of cumbersome, the way I think of and describe PTS is "at the negative effect of"

- Promise

[Dulloldfart]

Although it's kind of cumbersome, the way I think of and describe PTS is "at the negative effect of"

- Promise

Yes. I used to think of it with regard to myself as "unwilling effect of".

Now I think they can go and do the solo sex-and-travel thing. :)

Paul

[promise]

"solo sex-and-travel thing"

Never heard it phrased that way before.... :clap: :D hahaha

love it

[Free to shine]

The most likely explanation is as per my prior post, "randomity in the physical universe". That's the sort of thing we're all exposed to as a result of being someplace where we can not control all aspects of the environment.

It is also remotely possible that the person makes a point of seeking out "dodgy airlines", the sort of company that isn't good about regular inspections & maintenance, etc.. They may have some idea about saving a few bucks or some other such nonsense. THAT sort of thing would be addressable as "pts'ness". It is also highly unlikely, although NOT altogether unheard of. :)


Mark A. Baker

I agree with you about randomity in the physical universe but not about control as I bolded above. One of the concepts I have discovered and now use to great benefit is about not 'being in control and responsible for everything'. It's when you resist an event or issue that problems occur and it's a delight to discover that instead of trying to erect a wall to keep a big sea out, it is much more survival to flow with it and see where you end up.

Funnily enough I was watching a tv show the other day. A bloke was rushing to catch a plane for his mother's funeral overseas and things kept going wrong to delay him. He finally races to the the gate with minutes to spare and suddenly can't find his boarding pass and is distraught. Now that would seem rather PTS in the usual sense - he is not in control, he is being stopped at every turn and he is a mess. The flight is closed, he accepts he won't make the funeral and turns away. A few minutes later the plane takes off and explodes.

Becoming aware of factors in your environment that are waving red flags offers choices. I just hate such general labels as "PTS" which tend to lump events that seem to stop or suppress in one big bag, when in fact some of those events are there to do the opposite. Make you stop and look and change whatever needs changing.

[sandygirl]

I think when I really started to "cave in" on Scientology is when the term resposibility started being used to make one wrong for not controlling everything.

It was not ever real to me that I was responsible for everything and that impossiblity equaled an unwillingness to "make it go right".

I try to make things better everyday. I love and care about people. I know they are trying their best also. I am not interested in controlling others and "slamming in their ethics ruthlessly"". I don't think that viewpoint is very pro survival.

i felt really sad today. I watched the video on the Scientology website where LRH talks about loving in spite of all is greatness. It is very well written and one of the main things that kept me in. I really beleived that was what the "church" stood for. I think that is what I stand for. I read stories like Ozzies and I feel sick that things are so different from what is stated.

I also feel really bad that there is such a double standard for "celebs". Most are so self rightous in their belief in Scio. and they have never experienced the other side. I used to feel so smug that I was right too. Now i just feel sad and disillusioned.:bigcry:

[Free to shine]

I think when I really started to "cave in" on Scientology is when the term resposibility started being used to make one wrong for not controlling everything.

It was not ever real to me that I was responsible for everything and that impossiblity equaled an unwillingness to "make it go right".

I try to make things better everyday. I love and care about people. I know they are trying their best also. I am not interested in controlling others and "slamming in their ethics ruthlessly"". I don't think that viewpoint is very pro survival.

i felt really sad today. I watched the video on the Scientology website where LRH talks about loving in spite of all is greatness. It is very well written and one of the main things that kept me in. I really beleived that was what the "church" stood for. I think that is what I stand for. I read stories like Ozzies and I feel sick that things are so different from what is stated.

I also feel really bad that there is such a double standard for "celebs". Most are so self rightous in their belief in Scio. and they have never experienced the other side. I used to feel so smug that I was right too. Now i just feel sad and disillusioned.:bigcry:

I know just how you feel.
I think the goodness within us was exploited and twisted into a control mechanism, and that is a crime.

The first thing taken away was respect and integrity for ourselves and that can easily progress on to having none for others. That sounds awfully general I know, yet it's a very general concept. Individuals react different ways, so we have different stories. "Slamming in ethics" is just so....so...ICK! :grouch:

[duddins]

I think when I really started to "cave in" on Scientology is when the term resposibility started being used to make one wrong for not controlling everything.

It was not ever real to me that I was responsible for everything and that impossiblity equaled an unwillingness to "make it go right".

I try to make things better everyday. I love and care about people. I know they are trying their best also. I am not interested in controlling others and "slamming in their ethics ruthlessly"". I don't think that viewpoint is very pro survival.

i felt really sad today. I watched the video on the Scientology website where LRH talks about loving in spite of all is greatness. It is very well written and one of the main things that kept me in. I really beleived that was what the "church" stood for. I think that is what I stand for. I read stories like Ozzies and I feel sick that things are so different from what is stated.

I also feel really bad that there is such a double standard for "celebs". Most are so self rightous in their belief in Scio. and they have never experienced the other side. I used to feel so smug that I was right too. Now i just feel sad and disillusioned.:bigcry:

Sandygirl,

IMHO, I think that you got to the core of it. No matter what you call it, or how you state it, those ideas were used to manipulate people into doing what they normally would not do.

ie: taking responsibility for things they did not cause
finding fault in themselves for things they did not do
finding fault in others for things that they did not do
disconnecting from people they love and who love them
etc, etc., etc.

It is a standard for brainwashing or propaganda, or any kind of manipulation:

.....Put enough truth in something that will draw some agreement because we inherantly understand it to be truth.

Then give it your own twist......

Well, LRH's twist was as twisted as he was.

We know that it is right to get away from an abusive condition....

But what if the abusers are the ones that are laying out the rules on what is abuse, what is a condition, and what if they tell you that if you are abused it is because you did something to cause it?

That is life inside Scientology.

It takes 'responsibility' away from the perpetrator and places it into the hands of the victim.

Therefore.....LRH can be justified when he abuses others, and the abusers of Ozzie and her children can be justified when they abuse, and any other abusive tendencies in anyone can be allowed to manifest itself with justification.

Perfect for LRH's need to manipulate his people.

These tactics of shifting of responsibility can be found in hundreds of accounts on Alcoholic, co-dependent, or abusive personality traits.

Alcoholics Anonymous or Alanon meetings are full of accounts of PTS/SP type relationships. They are defined differently: co dependent/alcoholic.

Abusers are understood to be excellent manipulators. (common knowledge among recovering alcoholics) They will find fault in others to justify their need to drink.

The co-dependent struggles to maintain peace and order in the wake of the insane actions of the abuser and is normally manipulated into feelings of inferiority so that they will cease questioning the authority of the abuser.

In Alanon tech, the victim is encouraged to decide not to be a victim and to disconnect emotionally from the abuser (the addict)........ it is in every 12 step program.

LRH did not invent any of this...he just rewrote his own twisted version of it to meet his own personal needs.

[sandygirl]

Excellent reply Duddins!:thumbsup:

[duddins]

Thanks Sandy!

Because I left the Sea Org to marry a (textbook) alcoholic, it did not take long for me to make the conection.

Having come out of the SO I was the perfect candidate for being on the recieving end of more abuse while on the outside. :duh:

PS are you related to Sandy the underwater squirrel?

[Vinaire]

I think there is stuff that I will never know the answer to and I am ok with that.

I think a lot of scientologists go wrong when they really believe LRH knew all and they can too if they cough up enough $$$$$.

I don't beleive this is possible. Then you see guys go off the rails because people go crazy, get cancer, die in car accidents.

I think the fundamental lie is selling the idea that ALL life is under someone's control for enough cash. Look at TCs career-he's an "OT" and he is most definatly NOT in control. Is DM (whom I assume is privy to all available tech) in control of anon.

And the bottom line is.....who wants to be so introverted into trying to control every little thing every little minute? Where's the fun in that?

I think that the person who labels another as PTS or SP is himself a PTS or SP to some degree because right there, by that action, he is admitting that he is being an effect and is unable to take control of the situation and destimulate the other person.

I think that designating others as PTS and SP has become an escape route for many who easily become effect.

.

[Mojo]

I think that the person who labels another as PTS or SP is himself a PTS or SP to some degree because right there, by that action, he is admitting that he is being an effect and is unable to take control of the situation and destimulate the other person.

I think that designating others as PTS and SP has become an escape route for many who easily become effect.

.

That's quite a beautiful and powerful response V.

If I might add to it I would add this : The capacity for labeling another requires what is traditionally called recognition, in oneself, of oneself.

Thus only an Sp can recognize an Sp. As only a Saint can recognize a Saint.

Junior to 'that' reality is the emotional significance one attachs to Sp's & Saints. For at higher levels of being neither the Sp nor the St are unequal in terms of value (and thus in terms of love).

Love,
Mojo

P.S. Where I perhaps misunderstand you and thus misinterpret you lies in the area of what you call "control of the situation and destimulate the other person". Here you make a connection that I am presently unable to conceive.

[Vinaire]

...
P.S. Where I perhaps misunderstand you and thus misinterpret you lies in the area of what you call "control of the situation and destimulate the other person". Here you make a connection that I am presently unable to conceive.

A person has to be at cause to be able to as-is something. He must be at cause in order to help another.

Controlling a situation while granting self-determinism to another is the only viable way to as-is a non-survival situation and help another.

You cannot help a person by controlling him (thus making him other-determined).

.

[Kathy (ImOut)]

What I was always curious about, but could never ask was: how can you (the CofS) clear the planet when X number of people are becoming illegal PCs each day with the number of new psych drug prescriptions?

In the late 90s I realized for all the street drugs (illegal drugs) I did, I wasn't deemed an illegal PC.

[Free to shine]

Way back in the days when I used to wonder about such things it was how the planet was going to be cleared when it involved the billions in India, China and Africa for example who can barely survive as it is. I had visions of major humanitarian help being given. Ahh...the innocence of youth.:melodramatic:

[duddins]

Isnt that funny! I had the same idea......I thought that we were going to be helping people.....really helping people!

.....not just selling books and "help" to people with money!

I just should have joined the Peace Corp!

[CarmeloOrchards]

Way back in the days when I used to wonder about such things it was how the planet was going to be cleared when it involved the billions in India, China and Africa for example who can barely survive as it is. I had visions of major humanitarian help being given. Ahh...the innocence of youth.:melodramatic:

Our youngest daughter, who, by the way, was a Class Vlll in her last lifetime, is in Lome, Togo, on the west coast of the African continent doing microfinance. The processing and training that she had and gave in the 60s and 70s freely translated over into enhanced abilities with a new body in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

I know the Co$ has become an evil of immense proportion, but the auditing going on in earlier times yielded some extraordinary results.

[DartSmohen]

That's quite a beautiful and powerful response V.

If I might add to it I would add this : The capacity for labeling another requires what is traditionally called recognition, in oneself, of oneself.

Thus only an Sp can recognize an Sp. As only a Saint can recognize a Saint.

Junior to 'that' reality is the emotional significance one attachs to Sp's & Saints. For at higher levels of being neither the Sp nor the St are unequal in terms of value (and thus in terms of love).

Love,
Mojo

P.S. Where I perhaps misunderstand you and thus misinterpret you lies in the area of what you call "control of the situation and destimulate the other person". Here you make a connection that I am presently unable to conceive.

Mojo,

Your logic is a bit "creaky" on this. It is somewhat A=A=A.

You do not have to be a saint to recognise a saint. You do not have to be a SP to recognise a SP.

What is required is that you be fully present and able to see WHAT IS, in it's exact time, place, form and event.

I seriously doubt if even the most "powerful" of SP's could do that. :yes:

[The Oracle]

[QUOTE=sandygirl;80510]
Here's one of mine for you tech guys-The basic premise of the SP tech is that a suppressive person IMMEDIATlY recognizes the power of Scio tech to free beings and it drives him quite mad. DM even mentioned this at the Lisa Mcphearson event.[QUOTE]

Either:

A. Just another DM boogeyman story to keep the slaves in check.

B.I did the pts sp course and never read anything like this. He is spewing verbal tech and has huge MU's and spreading false data.

C. Or was he giving off a withold? Telling you a little bit about himself?

Or all of the above.

T.O.

[Mojo]

Mojo,

Your logic is a bit "creaky" on this. It is somewhat A=A=A.

Fair enough, as logic has it's place. But it's place is not everwhere. Lol. Logic, from my point of view, is a necessary left-brain functionary Dartsmohen. But life is not limited to left-brain impressions experience and realities.


You do not have to be a saint to recognise a saint. You do not have to be a SP to recognise a SP.

With all due respect to both you and semantical nuances, I disagree. Notwithstanding my familiarity with the argument you present. To wit: 'seeing and being are not necessarily wed'. Whereas I suggest 'seeing and being are necessarily wed'. Granted your position is much more palatable and even justifiable from your logical based approach, yet mine is equally palatable and even justifiable from my intuitive based approach. So, as a testament to the beauty of paradoxes everwhere, we are both correct.

At the risk of stepping out of bounds here I will nonetheless make an attempt at the logic of my intuitive position. Lol.

Here goes: It is impossible to be at cause over anything that one is not being. Ok, let me try that again: Every visible impression is a reflection of the beholder of that impression. Ok, still muddy, lol, one last attempt: all 'recognition' is Self-recognition as the Self is the Source of all it Beholds. Well, left-brainers will scream 'NONSENSE' whilst right-brainers will simply smile.


What is required is that you be fully present and able to see WHAT IS, in it's exact time, place, form and event.

What is required is that you understand the source of what is and the source of time and the source of place and the source of form and the source of event. And that source is not independent of you. Nor is it outside of you. It is you. At the level of your being that is the same place where you are causing your heart to beat.


I seriously doubt if even the most "powerful" of SP's could do that. :yes:

Well, I am a 'powerful Sp' and I do it all the time. Lol

Mojo

[promise]

Remember Mr. Cho? The student who shot all the people at Virginia Tech last year (2007)?

What was he? PTS or SP?

I would say that he was mainly PTS. Of course the shootings were extremely suppressive.

He was bullied like crazy. (which unfortunately is common in the schools today). The bullies are the SP's typically.

See Cho was only a PTS for quite some time. Really not a bad kid. Once he was in an environment where he had been given a label ( = wrong item) of "weird" or "geek" or whatever,

In the introspection RD, it's mainly handling reactions to abuse (my interpretation).

Yes, Cho had a psychotic break that put him in an SP valence as a solution to the wrong item of identity, and general bullying he was being given by his "peers".

Up until that he was PTS. It was POTENTIAL that he would become a source of trouble, which since it wasn't handled for him (despite multiple visists to incompetent counselors) he ended up making trouble big time in his case by shooting and killing a bunch of people.

It's not that a PTS is the source of the suppression that is the basis for the term PTS, it's that if it goes unhandled they have the POTENTIAL to slide in a SP valence and become a SOURCE of TROUBLE for either themselves or other.

Yes, the CxxS used this tech wrongly, and pissed a bunch of you off. I'm in that boat too. Let's seperate out what works from what doesn't.

1. Identify and disconnect or handle the person who appears to you to be an SP, or suppressing you. Notice it's not that they necessarily are, it's that you respond to them as if they are. That is what needs to be handled the pc's response.

Life is a two-way street, and not all the time, but most of the time in human relations there are things that one person does that attracts abusive attention.

often by handling or changing these it drops out the trigger for the abuser to react to them in an abusive manner.

2. If step 1 was not a complete solution, educate the person completely on the necessary dynamics of the mind and communication and how abuser / victim cycles work, such as the comm cycle, tone scale, missed withholds, out-list, TR's etc. in other words a PTS/SP course with a couple things added and droppig out the A-E shit.

3. Audit out the effects of the abuse = PTS RD

4. if the abuser is still being abusive do the Suppressed Person RD to telepathically destim them --- i know this sounds sketchy to those who haven't experienced it, and would never fly in psych circles, but I have seen it work.

If at least steps 1-3 are done, you can change someones life. I know...it changed my life completely for the better, because it was handled well, per the tech on my case.

by the way ...

I suggest for your consideration that all school shootings follow a very similar pattern. as does the growing rate of teen suicide, and most problems teens are faced with are mainly issues of needing PTS/SP tech.


Promise

[promise]

I think Paul's Robot has a better chance of clearing the planet than the CxxS does.

promise

[Zinjifar]

I think it's a mistake to continue to attempt to force 'reality' into L. Ron Hubbard's arbitrary and exploitive 'shoe boxes'/categories.

Just because Ron said there were 'SPs' and that there was a 'condition' He called 'PTS' doesn't mean diddly.

Sometimes, talking to Scientologists (and ven *ex* Scientologists :) ) is like talking to the Spinal Tap bassist whose amp went up to '11'....

Zinj

[promise]

My point is let's NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are a TON of valuable distinctions available in Scientology.

I see far too many who look at Scientology and see the abuses that have happened, and conclude that it's all crap.

The fact is there are hundreds, if not thousands of pieces of data that are valuable.

There are a number of people here who want to dissuade everyone from anything having to do with Scientology. I think that is a mistake.

I say, take what is valuable, and dump the rest. Value is in the eye of the beholder. So it will vary by person.

I grant everyone the right dump the whole thing out.

However, I also want to play devils advocate to that point of view and say, "Wait, aren't there a few things there that are useful, that are worth keeping?"

Either / OR is a logical fallacy.

I am supporter of each of us taking the valuable pieces and reassembling it into something that makes sense to the person.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

Promise

[Zinjifar]

Sometimes, the best thing to do is throw the baby out with the bath and then pick up the baby afterwards. And, make sure you wash it off really really good.

The only people who think that Scientology has something so unique as to need to be saved, are Scientologists; and, they're *trained* to think that :(

Zinj

[Mark A. Baker]

Just because Ron said there were 'SPs' and that there was a 'condition' He called 'PTS' doesn't mean diddly.

You got it backwards, Zinj.

There is a phenomenon associated with personal abandonment of responsibility & the subsequent commission/omission of unethical acts. Such decisions & behaviors serve to put an individual at the effect of the abusive practices of others.

Addressing the underlying actions, thoughts & omissions of such personal unethical actions can produce a tremendous resurgence for an individual.

Various spiritual traditions recognize the condition and make various references to it.

Hubbard labeled his take on the subject "pts'ness". To the extent that this tech is confined to counseling for the purpose of enhancing the individual it is quite useful & effective.

When this tech has been used as a method for enforcing "group justice procedures" & over-riding the individual's power of decision, it has been proven to be tremendously abusive.

As an abusive practice it clearly demonstrates the truth of the undelying principles. As a group, the most obviously "pts" scientologists are those who have run afoul of and are actively being handled by Co$ "justice procedures".


Mark A. Baker

[Dulloldfart]

I think Paul's Robot has a better chance of clearing the planet than the CxxS does.

promise

Indeed.

Paul

[Veda]

One awkward consequence of Scientology being a secretive and shadowy subject, is that most Scientologists, although influenced by those parts of Scientology that have been hidden from them, have truly no awareness of its shadowy nooks and crannies. Those who leave $cientology, and have been exposed to the Internet, etc., and yet continue to call themselves Scientologists, have replaced the "Church" as chief censor, now taking on the task of censoring the subject of "Scientology" for themselves.

Those who are "happily" inside $cientology, that is $cientology, who have knowledge of the full extent of the subject - the "doctrine" - are few, and are corrupted morally in an unfortunate and profound way. They know they're part of a dark operation and don't care, or even think it's "cool." The rest of the $cientology membership are expected to operate on a compartmentalized "need to know"-basis, while at the same time remaining excited about following the 'taped path" to "total knowing."

Those on the outside who have knowledge of the full extent of the subject usually cease calling themselves Scientologists.

Since Scientology - as a subject - is set up not be fully known or fully understood, while yet influencing $cientologists (and even Scientologists) with that portion that it keeps hidden, discussions of $cientology/Scientology with $cientologists, or with Scientologists, can become - ah, how can I say this nicely - "difficult."

[duddins]

Great post VEDA!


....for saying this: "They know they're part of a dark operation and don't care, or even think it's "cool." The rest of the $cientology membership are expected to operate on a compartmentalized "need to know"-basis, while at the same time remaining excited about following the 'taped path" to "total knowing."..........

.............that never happens until you look back at it from the outside. Then you "know" that it was all just a pile of bile!


:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

[Free to shine]

One awkward consequence of Scientology being a secretive and shadowy subject, is that most Scientologists, although influenced by those parts of Scientology that have been hidden from them, have truly no awareness of its shadowy nooks and crannies. Those who leave $cientology, and have been exposed to the Internet, etc., and yet continue to call themselves Scientologists, have replaced the "Church" as chief censor, now taking on the task of censoring the subject of "Scientology" for themselves.

Those who are "happily" inside $cientology, that is $cientology, who have knowledge of the full extent of the subject - the "doctrine" - are few, and are corrupted morally in an unfortunate and profound way. They know they're part of a dark operation and don't care, or even think it's "cool." The rest of the $cientology membership are expected to operate on a compartmentalized "need to know"-basis, while at the same time remaining excited about following the 'taped path" to "total knowing."

Those on the outside who have knowledge of the full extent of the subject usually cease calling themselves Scientologists.

Since Scientology - as a subject - is set up not be fully known or fully understood, while yet influencing $cientologists (and even Scientologists) with that portion that it keeps hidden, discussions of $cientology/Scientology with $cientologists, or with Scientologists, can become - ah, how can I say this nicely - "difficult."

Excellent Veda.
It can be a shock to realise about the 'compartments' when you have only experienced one or two and come to find the nooks and crannies are deep indeed. To be able to do that requires objectivity, and can take quite a time.