Itsa time...

[Lurker]

Okay, this started getting very long so I'm breaking it up into (hopefully) more easily digestible pieces. It seems I have quite a bit more to say than I originally thought.

This is not really a "my story," as it were, but this seemed the most correct place to post this. Let me know if it needed to go elsewhere, thanks.

At this time I'm not going to give any information, details or specific examples that would locate me as I have a large number of friends on lines and on staff that I don't wish to have disconnect from me.

I am married and have children. My wife is not now, nor has she been, involved in the church. She has studied quite a bit of the basics over the years and we have discussed our views on various pieces of it. My kids have not been involved, either.

I got involved a few years prior to the "IAS win" of '92.

I am quite trained, moderately processed and have been on staff in a Class V org. I have also been to LA and Flag.

To be continued...

 

[Div6]

Bring it on!

 

[Lurker]

Some pissing and moaning...

Now pardon me here, I'm going to do a bit of data dumping. This is the first place and time, outside of my marriage, that I will be able to get this off my chest and be heard and understood. With that in mind, please excuse me if it doesn't follow a logical sequence, it probably won't. As I said, this is simply a data dump and I need to just get some of it out, now.

I'm actually applying "doubt", "look, don't listen", "what's true for you is what you have seen and observed for yourself" and other similar sensical basics to this situation of mine.

By the way, if anyone has any good books or websites, preferably in layman's English, on sharpening one's critical thinking skills, I'd be interested in having a look. Also, I'm interested in hearing feedback on what folks have found workable for themselves, whether scn or not.

The way I currently (and have for many years now) feel is that the tech is not 100% correct, nor is it 100% b.s. I believe, if I remember correctly, that Ron said something like, "We don't have a perfect technology, but we have a workable technology." I'm sure that's in a reference somewhere. I don't have any to hand to search, though. I'll probably go more into detail on this some other time.

Over the years I have seen a number of things that didn't sit well with me. A large number of ex's over here and over at OCMB have put a lot of those things into proper perspective for me and it's very much appreciated.

A point of contention of mine which has caused conflict within me when dealing with various friends and staff is the tendency for many of them to just blindly do exactly and only what the tech says; especially when pulling bits out of context to justify their actions even when it conflicted with the basic technology and common sense!

Since I joined, I have also had a problem with being discouraged from looking at other bodies of information. I mean, why was it okay for Hubbard to study ancient and modern philosophies, for example, and that's not okay for me? Doesn't the term "scientology" mean "knowing how to know in the fullest sense of the word?" Why is it not okay for one to study it as well as anything else one finds interesting to further increase one's own knowledge?

Why can't I practice yoga or mindfulness or meditation or... or... or... if I so choose? I can read, I can study, I can understand, I can use a dictionary. Hell, he didn't invent dictionaries and I have been using them since I was taught how to read. My parents are both teachers, lol.

I can learn about anything I want, test the information out and form my own conclusions about the effectiveness of it or lack thereof.

Ron's word is everything and no other opinion, observation, etc. is valid? Huh? What, is everyone else on the entire planet a moron? No, I don't buy that; I can't think with that. Didn't he cull a ton of information from other sources? Best I can tell so far, he did, even though, as we go through time, some of that is being erased from the tech.

And what's with having to write a success story after every single action? Come on! After a while I just started writing them so as not to have to go to Qual and pay for a review. But no, not every action indicated to me. Some did for sure, but certainly not all of them.

This GAT evolution has been bothering me for reasons many have already stated and the topic has been covered thoroughly.

I have never liked events, especially with all the "hip hip hoorays" over and over ad nauseum. I haven't attended one in ages and I think the folks on call-in have finally given up on calling me about them.

I have also had a problem with all the photos of Ron all over the place. I didn't actually worship him and found the idea of that disturbing. And why the hell does he have an office in every org? That's absurd, he's not even around, is he?

The idea of "us vs. them" is stupid to me. I don't consider non-scn's "wogs." Labeling people like that is only meant to demean. I don't consider myself superior to non-scn's and never have. We're all part of the human race, each and every one of us.

I don't agree with "disconnection" or the overkill ethics actions. That, I believe, has been covered thoroughly by many already.

Pricing for services, lmfao. WTF? It's total bullshit. How the hell are we supposed to "clear the planet" with these insane prices that only upper middle-class and beyond can actually afford? Come on!

And where does all that money go? It certainly doesn't go to staff, I had to moonlight since I only made, what, $50-$60 a week working full time at a Class V org. As to the question, well, I'm looking online and substantiating what I can; I do not like the picture I'm seeing.

I always thought that Ron's achievements were blown out of proportion. The fact is, I didn't get in because of any of those. I joined up for the reason that most I know did -- basically to help make the world a better place. 99% of the folks I have known over the years came aboard for the same reason. Now a number of them are declared, blown, have caved in or are just sucking it up and are going with the flow. Umm, no, not for me.

Now I'm tasked with having to try and figure out how to point friends of mine in the direction of taking an honest look for themselves and finding out what I have discovered while at the same time not causing a disconnection to occur. Thoughts on that?

If you've made it this far, thanks, lol. I think this is plenty enough for one sitting. I had a lot more attention stuck on this than I considered I did.

Regards,
Lurker

 

[Div6]

2 things.

1. DM never finished High School. His subject literacy is very low, and as he was raised in the SO, he is a control freak. To that end he demands robotism as the only acceptable condition, and that is what he is attempting to create.

From the Robotism HCOB
"END PRODUCT
The end product when one has fully handled robotism is not a person who cannot follow orders or who operates solely on his own. Totalitarian states fear any relief of the condition as they foolishly actively promote and hope for such beings. But this is only a deficiency in their own causes and their lack of experience with fully self-determined beings. Yet education, advertising and amusements have been designed only for robots. Even religions existed to suppress “Man’s Evil Nature”.
Lacking any examples or understanding many have feared to free the robot to his own control and think even with horror on it.
But you see, beings are NOT basically robots. They are miserable when they are.
Basically they prosper only when they are self-determined and can be pan-determined to help in the prosperity of all."

The entirety of the GAT is designed to make robot auditors.






2. Safe space. Grade 0 in....talk to any one about any thing. Thats what Emma is doing here on ESMB, and I think she is doing a stellar job of it.
Be there. Communicate. If you are a stable terminal, they should start originating questions, confusions, etc. Don't be judgemental, just listen.

 

[beyond_horizons]

So far it's a 'de ja vue' experience, word for word and letter for letter.

 

[Veda]

2 things.

1. DM never finished High School. His subject literacy is very low, and as he was raised in the SO, he is a control freak. To that end he demands robotism as the only acceptable condition, and that is what he is attempting to create.

From the Robotism HCOB
"END PRODUCT
The end product when one has fully handled robotism is not a person who cannot follow orders or who operates solely on his own. Totalitarian states fear any relief of the condition as they foolishly actively promote and hope for such beings. But this is only a deficiency in their own causes and their lack of experience with fully self-determined beings. Yet education, advertising and amusements have been designed only for robots. Even religions existed to suppress “Man’s Evil Nature”.
Lacking any examples or understanding many have feared to free the robot to his own control and think even with horror on it.
But you see, beings are NOT basically robots. They are miserable when they are.
Basically they prosper only when they are self-determined and can be pan-determined to help in the prosperity of all."

The entirety of the GAT is designed to make robot auditors.

It might be useful, when trying to reach someone who is IN, to quote something from Hubbard, but it's not always logical, or necessary, or useful, to do so once someone is out.

When the "Robotism HCOB" was written, Hubbard was the absolute dictator and practiced draconian punishments on his subjects when they didn't obey him.

Probably the first time that I had the thought, that "Hubbard is insane," was reading a similar statement, made from his pedestal of absolute dictator, complete with chain locker punishments, etc., that others (his Sea Org servants) should (had better!) "think for themselves."

Don't you feel a bit silly quoting this, knowing that it was just words spat out by a megalomaniac control freak? - the first one... the founding control freak?

"Think for yourself! and do what I say! And you'd better damn well think for yourself or there'll be extreme penalties, and that's an order! Now obey me! Or else!"

There is not an "LRH datum for every occasion," unless one wants to look very very silly.

2. Safe space. Grade 0 in....talk to any one about any thing. Thats what Emma is doing here on ESMB, and I think she is doing a stellar job of it.
Be there. Communicate. If you are a stable terminal, they should start originating questions, confusions, etc. Don't be judgemental, just listen.

 

[nexus100]

Agreed. LRH sucks donkey dicks. Big ones. That is the only information useful to anyone who brushes up, runs against, or swallows ANY SCN information. Not one bit of it isn't subject to evaluation and I suspect every bit of it is false if taken as itself. That means you can't count on one single line in one single book or bulletin or HCOB as the truth.
The reason? Basic is out. That which allows a person to know who they are is overriden in a hundred ways in both auditing and management "tech". The people on this board who appear well meaning and who wish upon you "correct" versions are likely well meaning. They are also deadly wrong. Deadly, horribly, insanely wrong. Tough darts to them. But don't buy one word of it. Decide for yourself. Look around. Best wishes!

 

[Tanstaafl]

Lurker - you're alright!

The views you express are very similar to my own.

On staff pay: I would say that with the exception of Flag and possibly a handful of relatively successful orgs, there is no money to pay staff.
The main two reasons for this are, IMO, 1. Simply not enough revenue generated, 2. the admin:tech ratio is too heavy on the admin side.

For me, the question is: Why don't orgs make more money?
They can do why findings until the cows come home, but my guess is that whatever outnesses may exist in promotion, PR and delivery, there just aren't that many people interested.

The way I currently (and have for many years now) feel is that the tech is not 100% correct, nor is it 100% b.s. I believe, if I remember correctly, that Ron said something like, "We don't have a perfect technology, but we have a workable technology." I'm sure that's in a reference somewhere. I don't have any to hand to search, though. I'll probably go more into detail on this some other time.

I think that's a PR statement by LRH.
There are plenty of quotes around that state that standard tech works perfectly 100% of the time on all PCs.

I look forward to your future contributions/input.
Good to have you here.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Div6]

It might be useful, when trying to reach someone who is IN, to quote something from Hubbard, but it's not always logical, or necessary, or useful, to do so once someone is out.

When the "Robotism HCOB" was written, Hubbard was the absolute dictator and practiced draconian punishments on his subjects when they didn't obey him.

Probably the first time that I had the thought, that "Hubbard is insane," was reading a similar statement, made from his pedestal of absolute dictator, complete with chain locker punishments, etc., that others (his Sea Org servants) should (had better!) "think for themselves."

Don't you feel a bit silly quoting this, knowing that it was just words spat out by a megalomaniac control freak? - the first one... the founding control freak?

"Think for yourself! and do what I say! And you'd better damn well think for yourself or there'll be extreme penalties, and that's an order! Now obey me! Or else!"

There is not an "LRH datum for every occasion," unless one wants to look very very silly.

Veda, my friend, my shadow,

If there in one thing that "unites" people still in or around Scn, it is "the tech" and LRH. That is the foundation of the common "reality". If I quote LRH it is usually done as a sounding out to determine from the response where the person is at both in the sense of technical literacy and in the sense of "loyalty", or lack of. Find the "R" to raise the "C". Make them right, not wrong. Vaidate their reach.

Your response is quite revealing. I have asked to hear your personal story for quite some time. It seems you were there, on the Apollo, while all of this was going down. I think that would be a valuable narrative to hear. Perhaps you are not willing to do so at this time, in this place, but if not now, when?
I was not there. So forgive me if my efforts restimulate some bad experiences or seem completely out of sync with your personal viewpoints.


Of all the people on this board you seem to have the deepest knowledge of LRH and his early years. I find some of the things you share interesting. I hope to hear more. I was very much a "2nd generation" scientologist. By that I mean I was NOT on the "research line" but a downlevel "consumer" who was expected to read, duplicate and apply the tech so as to create meaningful "results" in others.

In this I garnered few complaints, and some positive "repute". When I realized I was flowing power to a**holes, I left. But this highlights perhaps an essential difference between me and you. I applied the tech to others. The feedback I got was usually quite positive. This feedback then did 2 things: it told me that there was some validity to this approach in communicating with others; and that others liked and also were able to get results with this approach. But again, this was "downlevel" from the fanatical SO units. Here is one example: in one part of my stint on staff I did Book 1 auditing. I had a pc who was a college kid who had just read DMSMH and wanted auditing "right away". He paid his $50 and came in and sat down in the chair. Within 10 minutes, I ended off as the guy had gone exterior.
The next day, he came in wanting more auditing...he was still "blown out" so I
didn't plow him back in. Per his own origination his "bad acne" cleared up overnight. I saw that as a "positive". You disagree?

On the other hand I get the sense from you that you see NO redeeming qualities in "the tech" And perhaps that should be a thread of its own. I have heard of some rather extreme examples of Mis-Application (Lisa McPhereson comes to mind). Susan Meister is another unresolved enigma.
Is there any validity to LRH's approach to addressing the Mind? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about that.
Does "Ex" mean "Anti"?
I don't think so. What say you?

 

[MarkWI]

At this time I'm not going to give any information, details or specific examples that would locate me as I have a large number of friends on lines and on staff that I don't wish to have disconnect from me.

You may be better able to help your friends if you avoid disconnection.

Mark

 

[Div6]

Agreed. LRH sucks donkey dicks. Big ones. That is the only information useful to anyone who brushes up, runs against, or swallows ANY SCN information. Not one bit of it isn't subject to evaluation and I suspect every bit of it is false if taken as itself. That means you can't count on one single line in one single book or bulletin or HCOB as the truth.
The reason? Basic is out. That which allows a person to know who they are is overriden in a hundred ways in both auditing and management "tech". The people on this board who appear well meaning and who wish upon you "correct" versions are likely well meaning. They are also deadly wrong. Deadly, horribly, insanely wrong. Tough darts to them. But don't buy one word of it. Decide for yourself. Look around. Best wishes!

Now THAT is serious!
In a fanatical sort of anti-taliban way.

"Basic is out."

Can you elaborate?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Agreed. LRH sucks donkey dicks. Big ones. That is the only information useful to anyone who brushes up, runs against, or swallows ANY SCN information. Not one bit of it isn't subject to evaluation and I suspect every bit of it is false if taken as itself.

Every bit of it is false?
Can you elaborate on "if taken as itself"?

That means you can't count on one single line in one single book or bulletin or HCOB as the truth.
The reason? Basic is out.

That's true of any data anywhere. It doesn't matter if the source can walk on water and pluck gold from thin air. All the data one needs to protect oneself from the excesses and blind alleys of Scn is contained within the subject itself.

Decide for yourself. Look around.

Isn't that what LRH said?

 

[Dulloldfart]

Now pardon me here, I'm going to do a bit of data dumping. This is the first place and time, outside of my marriage, that I will be able to get this off my chest and be heard and understood. With that in mind, please excuse me if it doesn't follow a logical sequence, it probably won't. As I said, this is simply a data dump and I need to just get some of it out, now.

The logical sequence to me is the order in which things come up.

Putting things in a chronological or different order might make for a more coherent article, but it makes for lousy itsa.

Paul

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Lurker - you're alright!

The views you express are very similar to my own.

On staff pay: I would say that with the exception of Flag and possibly a handful of relatively successful orgs, there is no money to pay staff.
The main two reasons for this are, IMO, 1. Simply not enough revenue generated, 2. the admin:tech ratio is too heavy on the admin side.

Your point 1 I think is correct - the point about "tech/admin" ratio is a complete red herring. Hubbard came up with his T/A ratio out of thin air - it has nothing to do with reality.

For me, the question is: Why don't orgs make more money?
They can do why findings until the cows come home, but my guess is that whatever outnesses may exist in promotion, PR and delivery, there just aren't that many people interested.

I think you are being waaay too kind to the Hubbardian dreck.

The reason why orgs don't make money is because what they offer is absolutely worthless. Scientology promises a lot - it never, ever delivers. It does not even come close. So while you can interest people with grandiose waffle it takes more than that to get them to keep paying.

80% of new major service starts are gone in two years. Most pay in a few grand before they leave - not enough to support any size of organization.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Your point 1 I think is correct - the point about "tech/admin" ratio is a complete red herring. Hubbard came up with his T/A ratio out of thin air - it has nothing to do with reality.

My point was that the same degree of delivery could be achieved by substantially fewer staff overall and therefore staff pay would be higher.
Alternatively, more delivery could be achieved with the same number of staff, thus raising pay. That of course would depend on the demand being there.
However, I take your point. It would not, as things stand, raise pay to an "acceptable" level.

I think you are being waaay too kind to the Hubbardian dreck.

The reason why orgs don't make money is because what they offer is absolutely worthless. Scientology promises a lot - it never, ever delivers. It does not even come close. So while you can interest people with grandiose waffle it takes more than that to get them to keep paying.

80% of new major service starts are gone in two years. Most pay in a few grand before they leave - not enough to support any size of organization.

I disagree, Mick.

You say: "Scientology promises a lot - it never, ever delivers.". You certainly have a point there. For those of us who (naively or not) came in on the promise of OT, it does not deliver. For those who came in to handle something specific or were on a mild self-improvement kick, I believe it can deliver valuable results in many cases. However, since auditing is criminally over-priced, few will have the opportunity to test this for themselves.

If, during your Scn experiences, you have not witnessed improvement in people's abilities or general happiness, then who am I to argue? I've seen a lot less of Scn in action than you have, I'm sure. But I am confident I have seen people improve through application of auditing/training. How long these effects will last and how valuable they are is a subjective call.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Mick Wenlock]

By the way, if anyone has any good books or websites, preferably in layman's English, on sharpening one's critical thinking skills, I'd be interested in having a look. Also, I'm interested in hearing feedback on what folks have found workable for themselves, whether scn or not.

www.randi.org - great sceptical website with great message boards

http://skepdic.com/

Google "logical fallacies" and then you can spend endless housr playing the game of "spot which logical fallacy Hubbard is using in this lecture".

The way I currently (and have for many years now) feel is that the tech is not 100% correct, nor is it 100% b.s. I believe, if I remember correctly, that Ron said something like, "We don't have a perfect technology, but we have a workable technology." I'm sure that's in a reference somewhere. I don't have any to hand to search, though. I'll probably go more into detail on this some other time.

You are fooling yourself. First of all the "it's not perfect, it's workable" does not imply what you seem to think it does. Let me ask you this - how much of Scientology have you found unworkable? From your post I think it is quite a bit - correct? Therefore you know that the statement you just made is complete cobblers. Patently it is not even 'workable'.

Now, let's take this a step further. What, about Scientology, makes you think that you can use it to find out what bits work and what bits don't? The Scientological answer to that question is "well you should try it and see if it works for you". That sounds reasonable eh? Well yeah except if you apply that "principle" to anything other than Scientology - how about testing parachute packing "tech"? Think you should just "try it"? It is a stupid idea.

If Scientology is "knowing how to know" then it should be able to teach anyone to spot the parts of this "not perfect" system that do not work. Only it doesn't do it.

Hubbard had no idea how to develpe any sort of a 'science" he was a failed student himself. He had no idea how to conduct research. Take a look at what Scientology calls "Research and Development" - it is a bunch of transcripts of lectures from Hubbard - that is not research. Waffling and lecturing is not research - it is what comes AFTER research.

Try and find the research - good luck BTW, it does not exist.

A point of contention of mine which has caused conflict within me when dealing with various friends and staff is the tendency for many of them to just blindly do exactly and only what the tech says; especially when pulling bits out of context to justify their actions even when it conflicted with the basic technology and common sense!

The 'basic' technology is cobblers. ARC triangle? Rubbish. Study Tech? Rubbish. Purif RD? - made up dreck.

If you've made it this far, thanks, lol. I think this is plenty enough for one sitting. I had a lot more attention stuck on this than I considered I did.

Regards,
Lurker

You are on your way. Good luck.

 

[Tanstaafl]

The 'basic' technology is cobblers. ARC triangle? Rubbish. Study Tech? Rubbish. Purif RD? - made up dreck.

I'll let ARC triangle and Purif slide.

But study tech is rubbish?
Now I'll admit that the idea of looking up words in a dictionary is hardly rocket science or some divine insight no-one else ever had. But the funny thing is - a lot of people don't do it!

My problem with study tech is simply: why do I have to listen to 8/9 long lectures of Hubbard waffling on when he could have summed it all up nicely in just one?

 

[Veda]

-snip-

I get the sense from you that you see NO redeeming qualities in "the tech" And perhaps that should be a thread of its own. I have heard of some rather extreme examples of Mis-Application (Lisa McPhereson comes to mind). Susan Meister is another unresolved enigma.
Is there any validity to LRH's approach to addressing the Mind? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about that.
Does "Ex" mean "Anti"?
I don't think so. What say you?

Apparently you haven't read my posts, or the contents of the links I've posted. Or, if you have read them, there's a mental block that prevents you from understanding them.

IMO, the people who can most be helped by the existence of the "Standard Tech Freezone," with its Xenu-era Bridge, are those, still in $cientology, who are encouraged to leave, since they see that their much desired "Standard Bridge" is available outside.

However, once a person is safely out and free of $cientology, the Standard Tech Freezone, with its naivete, begins to resemble an over-sized "novelty" baby pacifier. People usually evolve beyond the Xenu-era Standard Tech mind-set fairly quickly.

You ask, "Is there any validity," etc. ?

The question has been answered many times.

Go take a look if you're curious. It couldn't be any easier.

 

[Nec_V20]

Lurker,

By the way, if anyone has any good books or websites, preferably in layman's English, on sharpening one's critical thinking skills, I'd be interested in having a look.

Mick Wenlock already mentioned James Randi's site, but also a good site would be http://www.badastronomy.com/intro.html which takes a look at charlatans and debunks their claims about astronomical things.

It links to the original arguments, so that you can see the manipulation for yourself, and then debunks the bogus claims.

 

[Alan]

not[/B] research. Waffling and lecturing is not research - it is what comes AFTER research.

Try and find the research - good luck BTW, it does not exist.

The research exists - you were part of it, as were many thousands of others!

It is not recognised because it does not have Hubbard's name on it! Also a lot of it did NOT work!

The 'basic' technology is cobblers. ARC triangle? Rubbish. Study Tech? Rubbish. Purif RD? - made up dreck.

So many sacred "cows" challenged in one paragraph!

Alan