Kha Khan
Patron Meritorious
The time was the mid 1980s. Big Blue complex in Los Angeles. I was not Sea Org. I was not on staff at a Class V Org or Mission. To tell you the truth, I wasn't even a Scientologist. I was a professional contractor to the Church. And a student of Scientology. A very serious student of Scientology -- which may have proved the problem.
Given my professional relationship with the Church, I pretty much had the run of the place for awhile. Ate in the Sea Org dining room. People mistakenly called me Sir, which I found weird but (and this unfortunately says a lot about me at the time) not displeasing.
I initially got into Scientology in a way far different from most, only possibly excluding people who enter on the WISE route. My professional responsibilities first required me to master the green on whites, and particularly the management volumes regarding organization and structure. Out of pure interest and curiosity, I then read all of the basic books. I then moved on the to red on whites, the tech vols.
Scientology was attractive to me in at least four ways. First, I am a student and academic at heart, and I do very well with reading, understanding, distinguishing, applying and extrapolating from text. If Scientology has anything, it is text. Moreover, at least at the basic and lower levels Scientology appears (excluding History of Man) to be rational, logical and deductive.
Secondly, I was an Idealist who was searching for a purpose larger than myself.
Thirdly, in my initial introduction to the Church and its members they played the role of the persecuted minority and victims of religious bigotry and discrimination. People who needed "saving" and an religion that needed protection. Perfect.
Finally, I really liked, and came to care for, many of the people. The vast majority of the people I met initially were nice, caring, well meaning and well intentioned idealists who were serving a purpose larger than themselves -- or could convincingly play the role.
I came to Scientology with a pretty good undergraduate education in political science and philosophy, a good undergraduate grounding in hard science (for not winding up getting a major in a hard science), and an enthusiastic self-educated amateur's education in religion. This would prove problematic.
The first issue arose when I read about "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." I recognized this was a further development of and elaboration on Utilitarianism, and specifically the formulation of Jeremy Bentham. I thought (and continued to think) that Ron's addition to Utilitarian ethical theory was a real contribution, and indeed brilliant, because it addressed a well known and very serious problem with Utilitarian theory -- i.e., its purely quantitative nature. This problem can perhaps best be demonstrated by seeing that pure, quantitative utilitarianism would justify placing 10% of the population in slavery (or feeding them to the lions, etc.) if it made the remaining 90% of the population sufficiently happy. [Make your Y axis utility, place a number on the X access for each member of the population, and simply calculate the area under the curve.] Ron's elaboration was akin to those made by other, well recognized and well respected academic philosophers who had attempted to combine Utilitarianism with Kant's Categorical Imperative. (In subsequent years I actually toyed with the idea of writing an academic article on Ron's contribution to this area.)
I was truly excited about these ideas, and particularly the relationship between Ron's work and the prior work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. As a result, I tried to talk to (my fellow??) Scientologists about these ideas. To discuss, for example, whether the average or total approach was used; did one simply count up dynamics, or use a weighted average or expected value analysis?
My attempts to discuss these matters were met with incomprehension. Not only incomprehension, but hostility. First, despite the fact that I had made it clear that I thought (and continue to think) that Ron's work in this regard was brilliant, the suggestion that Ron had any intellectual antecedents (e.g., Bentham, Mill) caused great distress, some anger (though not nearly as much as it might because it was clear I was impressed by Ron and not trying to criticize him), and in the end was simply unacceptable. I mean that literally. The (my fellow?) Scientologists I tried to discuss this with, who come to think of it were probably all Sea Org members, were simply incapable of taking into their minds the thought that Ron's "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" formulation was not entirely and completely original, no matter how much I emphasized the fact that it was an original, creative and brilliant development of prior ideas.
I found this confusing and, to tell you the truth, rather sad. Even Newton recognized that he had stood on the shoulder of giants.
Secondly, I only later understood that I was engaging in "verbal tech." One simply couldn't discuss the tech. Period. But how do you apply the tech where Ron has not explicitly answered a specific question or issue? Don't you have to think about it? And isn't your thinking enhanced by rationally discussing the issue with other students (and perhaps more learned students) of the tech? By sharing ideas? As I later discovered, all the (my fellow?) Scientologists could do was point me to the correct reference, if any, that answered the question. But, again, what if there was no specific reference that answered a specific question?
[I later discovered on my own that the "average vs. total" calculation issue was resolved by the Scientology datum that "if you cut out half of one dynamic, you have cut out half of the rest of the dynamics." Interestingly, none of the Scientologists, again probably all Sea Org members, could point me to this datum; I had to find it on my own. More importantly, the simple truth remained that Ron did not, and simply could not, explicitly answer all possible questions. Application and, yes, interpretation were required and are always required.]
I also found this difficult because I came from an undergraduate background where giving proper credit was an ethical requirement, tracing the development of intellectual ideas through history was routine, and people freely talked about and discussed ideas.
But that, alas, was not how I changed Scientology forever. That was just the warm up.
The next problem arose when I read the 1982 edition of Understanding the E-Meter. At page 50 Ron explained:
-- Understanding the E-Meter (1982 ed.), at page 50.
The text was accompanied by three pictures. The first showed a man standing calmly on a scale, which reflected a weight of "150." The next showed the man on the same scale, bent over, holding his head under the burden of (illustrated) "Mental Image Pictures," and the scale indicated a weight of "180." The last picture showed the man standing upright on the scale, again unburdened by "Mental Image Pictures," his arms widespread, with a smile on his face, and the scale again indicated a weight of "150."
Unfortunately, nowhere in Understanding the E-Meter did Ron reference any controlled experiments that had "actually been made" which confirmed that the weight of a person who had created "mental image pictures" increased by "as much as thirty pounds."
When I read this I was flabbergasted. I honestly didn't know what to do. I mean, what could one possibly say?
Did I go to the media? No. Did I talk with anybody outside the Church? No? Did I criticize Ron, the Church or anyone inside the Church? No? Did I drop down the tone scale or natter? No and no.
What I did was calmly, rationally, gently, kindly, with great "ARC," and with impeccable intent approach my "senior" and explain the following. That not only had Ron proposed a falsifiable hypothesis or experiment, but a falsifiable hypothesis or experiment that as a practical matter was rather easily falsified. That the book invited critics of the Church to ask the Church to repeatedly conduct the experiment and demonstrate the accumulation of 30 pounds of "mental mass," or any "mental mass" at all. And to repeatedly fail.
That unless the subject's skull contained a fusion reactor capable of converting energy into mass, the experiment was very unlikely to succeed.
That in the modern world religions survive, thrive and grow -- or at least are taken seriously by intelligent, well-educated people -- only to the extent that they deal with non-falsifiable hypothesis (questions of faith) and/or perhaps the "ought" half of the is-ought problem.
What I already knew (and always remembered in the future) was not to say or imply that anything Ron had said or written was wrong or incorrect. I knew that message could not be received. No, I explained (and in the future would always explain) that the data was "out pr" and/or "out gradient."
In other words, I couldn't say something was moronically stupid. Only that it could or might be perceived (mis-perceived????? lol) as moronically stupid.
The message, though well intentioned, given with great ARC, and kept entirely in-house and private, was not well received. The bottom line was that I had stated, or at least implied, that something Ron had written was not correct. In the end, the only stable datum for a Scientologist is "Ron." And you all know what happens when you disturb someone's stable datum.
I could no longer eat in the Sea Org dining room. Access was restricted. People became less friendly. And less friendly. And disconnected. You know the drill. People who supposedly liked and cared about me, who were supposedly my friends, wouldn't talk to me.
The Church and I parted ways.
For a time.
********
Later, in the days before Google Groups, somebody who then went under the nom de Usenet of "Elvis Cole" happened to post precisely the above data regarding the book Understanding the E-Meter to the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (sometimes referred to as "ARS"). Indeed, "Evlis Cole" was the first person to so so. (You can still find the reference in Martin Hunt's old A.R.S. FAQ, credited to the mysterious "Elvis Cole.")
********
Still later, I read a subsequent edition of Understanding the E-Meter. The text quoted above had been deleted. All of the pictures had been deleted. Any mention of the experiment had been deleted. Any mention of weight (as opposed to mass), or the gain or loss of weight, had been deleted. While there were still of course references to "mental mass," it was no longer a "mass" one could weigh. It was no longer a "mass" one could possibly measure. Except, of course, by an e-meter where "mental mass" was now the non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, completely tautological explanation for meter reads.
********
Had I changed the Church of Scientology forever?
Had "Elvis Cole?"
You decide.
As Kurt Vonnegut might have said -- So it goes.
Given my professional relationship with the Church, I pretty much had the run of the place for awhile. Ate in the Sea Org dining room. People mistakenly called me Sir, which I found weird but (and this unfortunately says a lot about me at the time) not displeasing.
I initially got into Scientology in a way far different from most, only possibly excluding people who enter on the WISE route. My professional responsibilities first required me to master the green on whites, and particularly the management volumes regarding organization and structure. Out of pure interest and curiosity, I then read all of the basic books. I then moved on the to red on whites, the tech vols.
Scientology was attractive to me in at least four ways. First, I am a student and academic at heart, and I do very well with reading, understanding, distinguishing, applying and extrapolating from text. If Scientology has anything, it is text. Moreover, at least at the basic and lower levels Scientology appears (excluding History of Man) to be rational, logical and deductive.
Secondly, I was an Idealist who was searching for a purpose larger than myself.
Thirdly, in my initial introduction to the Church and its members they played the role of the persecuted minority and victims of religious bigotry and discrimination. People who needed "saving" and an religion that needed protection. Perfect.
Finally, I really liked, and came to care for, many of the people. The vast majority of the people I met initially were nice, caring, well meaning and well intentioned idealists who were serving a purpose larger than themselves -- or could convincingly play the role.
I came to Scientology with a pretty good undergraduate education in political science and philosophy, a good undergraduate grounding in hard science (for not winding up getting a major in a hard science), and an enthusiastic self-educated amateur's education in religion. This would prove problematic.
The first issue arose when I read about "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." I recognized this was a further development of and elaboration on Utilitarianism, and specifically the formulation of Jeremy Bentham. I thought (and continued to think) that Ron's addition to Utilitarian ethical theory was a real contribution, and indeed brilliant, because it addressed a well known and very serious problem with Utilitarian theory -- i.e., its purely quantitative nature. This problem can perhaps best be demonstrated by seeing that pure, quantitative utilitarianism would justify placing 10% of the population in slavery (or feeding them to the lions, etc.) if it made the remaining 90% of the population sufficiently happy. [Make your Y axis utility, place a number on the X access for each member of the population, and simply calculate the area under the curve.] Ron's elaboration was akin to those made by other, well recognized and well respected academic philosophers who had attempted to combine Utilitarianism with Kant's Categorical Imperative. (In subsequent years I actually toyed with the idea of writing an academic article on Ron's contribution to this area.)
I was truly excited about these ideas, and particularly the relationship between Ron's work and the prior work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. As a result, I tried to talk to (my fellow??) Scientologists about these ideas. To discuss, for example, whether the average or total approach was used; did one simply count up dynamics, or use a weighted average or expected value analysis?
My attempts to discuss these matters were met with incomprehension. Not only incomprehension, but hostility. First, despite the fact that I had made it clear that I thought (and continue to think) that Ron's work in this regard was brilliant, the suggestion that Ron had any intellectual antecedents (e.g., Bentham, Mill) caused great distress, some anger (though not nearly as much as it might because it was clear I was impressed by Ron and not trying to criticize him), and in the end was simply unacceptable. I mean that literally. The (my fellow?) Scientologists I tried to discuss this with, who come to think of it were probably all Sea Org members, were simply incapable of taking into their minds the thought that Ron's "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" formulation was not entirely and completely original, no matter how much I emphasized the fact that it was an original, creative and brilliant development of prior ideas.
I found this confusing and, to tell you the truth, rather sad. Even Newton recognized that he had stood on the shoulder of giants.
Secondly, I only later understood that I was engaging in "verbal tech." One simply couldn't discuss the tech. Period. But how do you apply the tech where Ron has not explicitly answered a specific question or issue? Don't you have to think about it? And isn't your thinking enhanced by rationally discussing the issue with other students (and perhaps more learned students) of the tech? By sharing ideas? As I later discovered, all the (my fellow?) Scientologists could do was point me to the correct reference, if any, that answered the question. But, again, what if there was no specific reference that answered a specific question?
[I later discovered on my own that the "average vs. total" calculation issue was resolved by the Scientology datum that "if you cut out half of one dynamic, you have cut out half of the rest of the dynamics." Interestingly, none of the Scientologists, again probably all Sea Org members, could point me to this datum; I had to find it on my own. More importantly, the simple truth remained that Ron did not, and simply could not, explicitly answer all possible questions. Application and, yes, interpretation were required and are always required.]
I also found this difficult because I came from an undergraduate background where giving proper credit was an ethical requirement, tracing the development of intellectual ideas through history was routine, and people freely talked about and discussed ideas.
But that, alas, was not how I changed Scientology forever. That was just the warm up.
The next problem arose when I read the 1982 edition of Understanding the E-Meter. At page 50 Ron explained:
"In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is simply a finer, higher level of physical energy. The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan "mocking up" (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and by casting them away again can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as thirty pounds, actually measured on scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating "mental energy." Energy is energy. Matter is condensed energy."
-- Understanding the E-Meter (1982 ed.), at page 50.
The text was accompanied by three pictures. The first showed a man standing calmly on a scale, which reflected a weight of "150." The next showed the man on the same scale, bent over, holding his head under the burden of (illustrated) "Mental Image Pictures," and the scale indicated a weight of "180." The last picture showed the man standing upright on the scale, again unburdened by "Mental Image Pictures," his arms widespread, with a smile on his face, and the scale again indicated a weight of "150."
Unfortunately, nowhere in Understanding the E-Meter did Ron reference any controlled experiments that had "actually been made" which confirmed that the weight of a person who had created "mental image pictures" increased by "as much as thirty pounds."
When I read this I was flabbergasted. I honestly didn't know what to do. I mean, what could one possibly say?
Did I go to the media? No. Did I talk with anybody outside the Church? No? Did I criticize Ron, the Church or anyone inside the Church? No? Did I drop down the tone scale or natter? No and no.
What I did was calmly, rationally, gently, kindly, with great "ARC," and with impeccable intent approach my "senior" and explain the following. That not only had Ron proposed a falsifiable hypothesis or experiment, but a falsifiable hypothesis or experiment that as a practical matter was rather easily falsified. That the book invited critics of the Church to ask the Church to repeatedly conduct the experiment and demonstrate the accumulation of 30 pounds of "mental mass," or any "mental mass" at all. And to repeatedly fail.
That unless the subject's skull contained a fusion reactor capable of converting energy into mass, the experiment was very unlikely to succeed.
That in the modern world religions survive, thrive and grow -- or at least are taken seriously by intelligent, well-educated people -- only to the extent that they deal with non-falsifiable hypothesis (questions of faith) and/or perhaps the "ought" half of the is-ought problem.
What I already knew (and always remembered in the future) was not to say or imply that anything Ron had said or written was wrong or incorrect. I knew that message could not be received. No, I explained (and in the future would always explain) that the data was "out pr" and/or "out gradient."
In other words, I couldn't say something was moronically stupid. Only that it could or might be perceived (mis-perceived????? lol) as moronically stupid.
The message, though well intentioned, given with great ARC, and kept entirely in-house and private, was not well received. The bottom line was that I had stated, or at least implied, that something Ron had written was not correct. In the end, the only stable datum for a Scientologist is "Ron." And you all know what happens when you disturb someone's stable datum.
I could no longer eat in the Sea Org dining room. Access was restricted. People became less friendly. And less friendly. And disconnected. You know the drill. People who supposedly liked and cared about me, who were supposedly my friends, wouldn't talk to me.
The Church and I parted ways.
For a time.
********
Later, in the days before Google Groups, somebody who then went under the nom de Usenet of "Elvis Cole" happened to post precisely the above data regarding the book Understanding the E-Meter to the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (sometimes referred to as "ARS"). Indeed, "Evlis Cole" was the first person to so so. (You can still find the reference in Martin Hunt's old A.R.S. FAQ, credited to the mysterious "Elvis Cole.")
********
Still later, I read a subsequent edition of Understanding the E-Meter. The text quoted above had been deleted. All of the pictures had been deleted. Any mention of the experiment had been deleted. Any mention of weight (as opposed to mass), or the gain or loss of weight, had been deleted. While there were still of course references to "mental mass," it was no longer a "mass" one could weigh. It was no longer a "mass" one could possibly measure. Except, of course, by an e-meter where "mental mass" was now the non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, completely tautological explanation for meter reads.
********
Had I changed the Church of Scientology forever?
Had "Elvis Cole?"
You decide.
As Kurt Vonnegut might have said -- So it goes.
Then I realized that I read Understanding the E-Meter first, had the reaction and experience I described, and parted ways... for a time.
As a result, Ron could often get away with representing that his ideas were entirely and complete original, when they built on a long history and foundation.
