Jason Seems To Think You're Deluded

[Escalus]

I'm wondering, freezoners, recidivists, over-complicated significance experts, people still enamored with the tech, people who think L Ron Hubbard was smarter than the average bear;

If you've looked at Jason Beghe's interview, where he pretty much says the tech is "insidious", a "con", and a few other choice words... how do you feel about that? I mean since he got so far along the Bridge and all?

Should you run out his O/W's? Is he the victim of poorly applied tech? He got some mu's? What?

He seems to think it's bullshit. Some of you folks are holding onto it like it's your private gold. How do you reconcile this?

 

[gomorrhan]

My own reconciliation is that there are parts of the tech that I consider worthwhile and valuable. These don't include the current OT Levels. Primarily, they would be the grades, including NED (Dianetics, R3RA), and the endwords technique of R6EW.

What he got from it is what he got from it. If people went in seeking Jedi abilities, then I think they leave disappointed and angry at being conned. If they go in seeking the ability to help themselves and others to improve the conditions of their lives, then I think they will be satisfied, until they hit the OT Levels, or until the Church decides they are an enemy or have no more resources to give them (same thing).

BTW: what is Jason's tech training level? Has he taken others in session? Or was he a "professional pc"?

 

[Dulloldfart]

I'm wondering, freezoners, recidivists, over-complicated significance experts, people still enamored with the tech, people who think L Ron Hubbard was smarter than the average bear;

If you've looked at Jason Beghe's interview, where he pretty much says the tech is "insidious", a "con", and a few other choice words... how do you feel about that? I mean since he got so far along the Bridge and all?

Should you run out his O/W's? Is he the victim of poorly applied tech? He got some mu's? What?

He seems to think it's bullshit. Some of you folks are holding onto it like it's your private gold. How do you reconcile this?

I wouldn't include myself in that first paragraph, but you might, so I will respond to your question anyway.

I think he got royally fucked over. I don't know how much of this was the same fucking-over that anyone gets, and how much of it was personal to him alone. For instance, he talks about getting tromped on hard for using "My God!" as an acknowledgment on TRs and being told he could only say "Good, fine, OK and thank you, with this only being remedied four years later. I recall this being a problem, but it was certainly remedied by 1986, and he got into Scn in when, 1994? So I don't know how he encountered that particular problem--was it at some backwater somewhere? Getting overrun on sec checks was pretty common to everyone, but it wouldn't have happened in the Freezone.

I don't think he would have made such a tape if he had received his auditing in the Freezone. It might not have all been perfect, but the financial excesses and routing-form idiocies and so forth don't happen like that in the FZ (not to say everyone in the FZ is perfect re money but at least you can sue them if they rip you off!).

I'm not a FZer but it is a better place to get unbranded Scn than the CofS. Especially if someone told him that some processes work great but Hubbard's definition of "Clear" in DMSMH is PR and bullshit and most of the EPs are overstated, so don't expect the moon, but if he gets it anyway (like his OT TR-0 win) it's a bonus.

Paul

 

[Escalus]

gomorrhan - Class V auditor. Because training is "half the wins". What?

Dull - So it's a tech "outness"?

 

[gomorrhan]

The reason auditor classification is important at all to me is that it shows the person wanted to understand scientology, and to use it to help the people he knows. This, to me, is the definition of a scientologist, per the ideas I had when I was on staff. Either you are an auditor, or you are training to become one, or you are a "professional pc", which means you can't take responsibility for yourself or others. Staff got my respect, as long as they were studying to become auditors, or moreso if they WERE auditing as Staff Auditors in the HGC or Qual. Other staffers, to me, were a grey area. I could value them for their contribution to "the cause", but I couldn't understand a person who had been on staff 20 years and wasn't clear or trained as an auditor... why bother? How can you want to clear the planet, but not be clear or capable of clearing someone else, yourself, after twenty years [or much less].

 

[Escalus]

Class V. Not too shabby that then.

 

[alex]

I'm wondering, freezoners, recidivists, over-complicated significance experts, people still enamored with the tech, people who think L Ron Hubbard was smarter than the average bear;

If you've looked at Jason Beghe's interview, where he pretty much says the tech is "insidious", a "con", and a few other choice words... how do you feel about that? I mean since he got so far along the Bridge and all?

Should you run out his O/W's? Is he the victim of poorly applied tech? He got some mu's? What?

He seems to think it's bullshit. Some of you folks are holding onto it like it's your private gold. How do you reconcile this?

I think there is a time when the bullshit of the church overcomes the memory of the gains one had, and of the sense some of the philosophy made.

Clearly he is fed up and not taking it.

There is much in the church today that is completely arbitrary.

Most of it in the realm of enforced group agreement.

No one needs to agree to be able to get along, just respect others and act accordingly. Yet the church insists that people think in agreement with even yet unexamined parts of the religion.

Personally I reconcile it by knowing that a viewpoint is not the only truth.

I think only good can come of the guy holding his position.

I think a lot could be accomplished by dm brushing up on his class 4 provisional skills and taking jason into session and asking "is there a protest?"

alex (in the spirit of church reform)

 

[Kathy (ImOut)]

gomorrhan - Class V auditor. Because training is "half the wins". What?

You never heard that line before? - "training is half the wins" or "training stabilizes your wins from session". Very common statements when being reg'd for training.


To answer the original question of this post. I personally think Jason is spot on with his observations with the Tech and CofS. In watching the video(s), at times it felt as if he'd been in my head getting all of my EXACT thoughts and stating them for me.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

If you've looked at Jason Beghe's interview, where he pretty much says the tech is "insidious", a "con", and a few other choice words... how do you feel about that? I mean since he got so far along the Bridge and all?

His perspective reflects his experiences.

Should you run out his O/W's? Is he the victim of poorly applied tech? He got some mu's? What?

What he should do depends on what HE wants to do. Although, clearly from his description he was the victim of BADLY applied tech. His comments in re L-12 in particular are quite telling. By all reputes that is NOT a good rundown on which to be hassling pcs.

The bad tech difficulties could certainly be addressed by competent freezone auditors if that were HIS choice.

Also, clearly he has been victimized by the management of the Co$ as have so many others before him. No news there.

Personally, I never put much faith in "policy" and since the 80s have had NO trust in the ability of the Co$ to deliver scientology technology to a good result.

That is not an attempt to invalidate any personal gains of anyone who may have experienced wins in auditing while in the church since that time. It merely reflects my view that tech within the Co$ "came a cropper" when, Miscavige took over, Mayo left, Mithof was put in charge of tech lines, and the old timers left by the thousands.

He seems to think it's bullshit. Some of you folks are holding onto it like it's your private gold. How do you reconcile this?

Easy to understand his perspective, I've heard many similar stories over the years.

If you paid thousands of dollars, spent over a decade of involvement, and felt betrayed by having any gains you may have experienced undone by constant attempts to control you enacted by silly (and often untrained or poorly trained) people in sailor suits spouting "source" that would certainly seem to validate his perspective.

For myself, I never bought into the "Hubbard is Source" equation. I did NOT go into auditing with overblown expectations. I always had good/excellent gains from auditing, both while in the Co$ & in the freezone. And, I frequently have had results that far exceed my own expectations.

And most importantly, the first time I was told to choose between my own sense of "values" and those of the Co$ group, I chose to leave that group. The latter is a "policy" I STRONGLY recommend.


Mark A. Baker

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

His "win" on OT-TR 0 is pretty awesome. Scientology tech being applied literally answered the most important question that he ever had. After it did that, really, he had EP'd the subject, IMHO.

I did notice that he mentioned that his wife had pointed out some inconsistencies to him a few times. That, coupled with his description of her as being able to drop Scientology so fast (maybe being open-minded?) will make a lot of Scns who see the film (and plenty will at one point or another) decide that she must be the "SP" who is responsible for him blowing. Some Scns apparently said its David Duchovny or the gays but the SP is not supposed to be obvious. If only the Church E/Os were as brilliant as I...

I personally think he is a kick-ass fellow who says what he thinks, got something cool out of it at the beginning, got f-ed over in a similar way to most other Scientologists and will be on to living his life happily before long without much thought about this whole thing. His video is more than enough to make up for any damage he feels he has caused by getting people into Scientology.

Jason, buddy - you're off the hook!

 

[Neo]

His "win" on OT-TR 0 is pretty awesome. Scientology tech being applied literally answered the most important question that he ever had. After it did that, really, he had EP'd the subject, IMHO.

What's the difference between OT TR0 and meditation. To me they seem the same. And I know I had a similar win to Jason pre-Scientology just from meditating. Unfortunately got caught up in Co$ and looked to them to explain this win. Big mistake.

Anyway, my point being, is this really Scientology tech, or something borrowed from other practices and labeled and sold as Scientology?

And I agree, after his win, Jason had clearly EP'd Scientology. If only he knew that then.

 

[gomorrhan]

like everything in scientology, it was a practice that Hubbard ran into, adopted, and then adapted to the purpose of training auditors. it is sometimes called dyad meditation in buddhism

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Anyway, my point being, is this really Scientology tech, or something borrowed from other practices and labeled and sold as Scientology?

I fail to see a distinction. Even as a public pc at the SOC mission I was aware that much of scientology tech was merely a repackaging of methods adopted from other traditions and earlier practices. Even LRH acknowledged that fact to some extent in the forward of various books, although he wasn't very direct or specific about such acknowledgements.

Generally he preferred to give the impression that he was the one responsible for all the tech and was therefore to be regarded as "source". As has been commented on by others on the board, in addition to the source material originating from other spiritual traditions, many individuals personally aided LRH in the development of the tech, including some who regularly post here on ESMB.

What LRH was unequivocally "source" on was the particular "packaging" of the scientology tech and they way it was structured on a gradient for teaching. No doubt he also contributed to the specifics of tech development. But thanks to his efforts to obscure the specific contributions made by others and attribute the subject to his own efforts, the specific details of his personal contributions are likely to remain uncertain.



Mark A. Baker

 

[Neo]

I fail to see a distinction.

I guess it's just something that's been on my mind for sometime. Probably obvious to everyone else, but having only just moved on from Co$, I never looked at it too deeply.

The Church said LRH was Source, who was I to question? Well yeh, I was confused by many things, but I wasn't out to rock the boat, not then. So LRH was Source, got it! Yes he learnt from many other tradition. He states that clearly in many places. But I always interpreted the Church's position on the matter to be - LRH created it, so it's Scientology, not meditation (or whatever else he borrowed from).

Naive, I know. But I haven't been in possession of my own mind for the last few years now

 

[Veda]

-snip-

I did NOT go into auditing with overblown expectations. I always had good/excellent gains from auditing, both while in the Co$ & in the freezone. And, I frequently have had results that far exceed my own expectations.

-snip-

The Xenu Bridge is no Bridge. No amount of PR will change that.

What PR can do is project a protective perimeter around the $cientology operation. A protective perimeter that denounces "Admin" and the "Organization," but defends the Xenu Bridge (often while saying, "Xenu who?" at the same time). It does this is a slippery way, that retreats, when needed, into, "What true for you is what's true for you," and "It's a metaphor," and "Well, I didn't have overblown expectations, but frequently the results far exceeded my expectations."

PR is basically tacky. Slickly done, you're not supposed to notice.

The Xenu-Freezone is both an annoyance for the $cientology Cult, and a useful source of validation of its Xenu (Xenu who?) Bridge. It's an annoyance, in that it sometimes encourages people to leave the $cientology Cult (which is, of course, a good thing), but it's also useful, in that it sometimes, by validating the Xenu Bridge, keeps people in the $cientology Cult. It also encourages a class of people who (if David Miscavige "resigns from Management") are ready to eagerly return to the Cult. (After all, somewhere in a locked safe are those upper upper levels, and only the "Church" has them.)

So the strange game continues.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The Xenu Bridge is no Bridge. No amount of PR will change that. ...

Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with "gusto"
And just overlorded the place
Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was blue in the face
For holding one note was his ace - L.Hart



Mark A. Baker

 

[Free to shine]

Are you singing to yourself?

 

[gomorrhan]

Neo, an interesting point, one that I've visited once or twice, concerning Ron Hubbard "being" Source. Something to look at is the Gradation and Awareness Chart. Up at the top, in terms of awareness characteristics, is SOURCE. It's a state of awareness. Ron Hubbard was identified as being source, but the way I saw it is that he arrived at source as an awareness characteristic. I've been there, actually. When you spot validity, or invalidity, you are essentially saying that you are the arbiter of truth, fact, validity, etc. You are at source, as an awareness characteristic. I admired Hubbard's prolific writing. I admired him for creating an organization with the resources that he did, to accomplish the goals that he set for himself. EVEN IF I DISAGREED WITH THE GOALS! But I would sometimes see behind the curtain, in terms of seeing different quality levels in his writing. Sometimes he appeared to be at source, or close, and others he seemed to be at COPE, or lower. Sometimes he seemed delusional.

I'd get gung ho, quite a bit, when I was first on staff, and convince myself that Ron had it all figured out, and I just needed to study what he wrote, and then I would have it all nailed. But then I'd look around, and notice that the organization was nearly devoid of students quite frequently, or that the auditors were all in cramming, or out putting out pamphlets to drum up business. What that meant to me, what it INDICATED, was that they couldn't deliver what was promised. It is very unlikely that my fellow staffers WOULDN'T have delivered, if they had the technology or ability to do so, so this meant, to me, that they COULDN'T, and that thus, Ron DIDN'T have it all figured out. And this was the seed of my doubt. Things weren't going according to the plans. Top-trained executives couldn't follow simple instructions in the programs handed out for the Birthday Game, and neither could bottom-level booksellers. Ron had figured SOME things out, but not others. He had to be seen as infallible, and scientology had to be seen as "an exactly taped path", otherwise people wouldn't keep signing up for courses and auditing when these things weren't "solving their ruin". Ultimately, this resulted in "confidentiality", IMO. The reason stuff wasn't working, or the reason that your ruin wasn't handled would become clear when you got onto the OT levels, or when you went Clear. How? That's confidential. Meanwhile, keep working on the other stuff, and get some more letters out, sell some more books, etc.

When I left, I was very confused, because I kept trying to make EVERY piece work, but they didn't. Some of it does. Ron was sometimes at source, but not most of the time. He just SOLD us that he was. Eventually, I realized that I was evaluating everything myself, and thus, I had to learn to trust myself, trust my own evaluations, and as long as I was doing that, wasn't I source? Why was Ron Hubbard any better than me? How did he "come to rise above the bank"? That line in KSW or Safeguarding Technology (I can't remember any more) always bugged me. Why shouldn't we speculate how Ron came to rise above the bank? Why wouldn't he simply SAY how he rose above the bank? Anyway, I digress. The point is, YOU are source, whenever you make determinations.

Perhaps I ramble. It is, after all, 2:00 in the morning, my time, and I worked 38 hours in the last three days. Perhaps I ought to sleep more, and preach less. Best.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Dull - So it's a tech "outness"?

It is no secret that CofS admin procedures--the PR hype, the intense pressures to screw money out of people, ethics actions that keep people out of session, the lies, the dirty tricks, and on and on and on--cause disharmony, often to an extreme extent.

It is no secret that parts (that can be 1% or 99%, depending on your view) of the tech don't work even if one manages to go through all the hoops in the CofS and finally get some. The parts of the tech that don't work in the CofS wouldn't work in the Freezone either, although it is less painful to obtain them there.

That leaves the parts that do work, whether developed by Hubbard personally, other Scientologists, or stolen from earlier researchers or practices. If one's experiences include enough of the parts that did work, then one's view tends to be different from someone whose only experience has been of the parts that didn't work.

That's a general view. With regard to Jason Beghe, it's clear he's not a happy camper. Exactly why, I wouldn't presume to know. But I do know about myself. I think the CofS is destructive and the world would be a better place without it. But overall I got some good gains out of the hundreds of hours of auditing I received there at no cost, and ten years supervising in courserooms have given me a good appreciation of the value of sup tech when applied correctly. That does not include robotically saying "What do your materials state?" to a student having trouble understanding something. Plus the wins of pcs I have audited. That's people, not BTs.

This "50% of the wins come from training" is a line used to reg people. But there is some truth to it. At a minimum, if you study about a process before receiving it, if your auditor tries to get you to run it wrong you can deal with it. You can understand what the process is supposed to do, and as a pc run it with that in mind. Of course, if the theory includes too much PR then it doesn't help much. TRs can be useful in life. If you audit many people, there is a tremendous personal glow simply from helping others achieve whatever they consider to be wins in their lives. Tremendous. Makes it all worthwhile. Like the feedback I get from my online Rub & Yawn stuff. Makes it worth getting up in the morning.

Paul

 

[Neo]

Neo, an interesting point, one that I've visited once or twice, concerning Ron Hubbard "being" Source. Something to look at is the Gradation and Awareness Chart. Up at the top, in terms of awareness characteristics, is SOURCE. It's a state of awareness. Ron Hubbard was identified as being source, but the way I saw it is that he arrived at source as an awareness characteristic. I've been there, actually. When you spot validity, or invalidity, you are essentially saying that you are the arbiter of truth, fact, validity, etc. You are at source, as an awareness characteristic.

You know I had never looked at it this way. But then I guess it was never my awareness level. It's an interesting viewpoint, and I'm glad you shared it. I have no more attention on the Bridge, as a path to travel, but it's still good to get this viewpoint.

I'd get gung ho, quite a bit, when I was first on staff, and convince myself that Ron had it all figured out, and I just needed to study what he wrote, and then I would have it all nailed. But then I'd look around, and notice that the organization was nearly devoid of students quite frequently, or that the auditors were all in cramming, or out putting out pamphlets to drum up business. What that meant to me, what it INDICATED, was that they couldn't deliver what was promised. It is very unlikely that my fellow staffers WOULDN'T have delivered, if they had the technology or ability to do so, so this meant, to me, that they COULDN'T, and that thus, Ron DIDN'T have it all figured out. And this was the seed of my doubt.

This same pattern was the seed of my doubt, too. I went in, believing it to be valid. I had wins. I had losses too, but wrote those off as my case, or whatever. But then the losses, whether as described in your experience above, or actual personal experience of the tech not working for me, became too much, and too obvious. My fixed attention and belief in LRH and the tech was broken at that point. I started to look around. I started to way up the pros-and-cons of being a Scientologist. I didn't like what I saw, or what I was experiencing.

Perhaps I ramble. It is, after all, 2:00 in the morning, my time, and I worked 38 hours in the last three days. Perhaps I ought to sleep more, and preach less. Best.

No rambling, that I noticed
Your experience and thoughts on this point are appreciated