Understanding LRH

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I see that some individuals in the FZ can evaluate what works for them. Most if not all of the things I've dropped personally have been excessive prerequisites and stops. I can see that the OT levels, as they stand, do not produce the states that used to be stated on the grade chart. OT3 does not produce "Freedom from Overwhelm". I've been studying a lot of the early positivite processing used in the 50s and am looking at putting together an ACC hopefully in the not too distant future. A lot of LRH's early research was based on working with a number of co-audits in a group situation. That's where I think development of actual OT states could become real.

That is also when LRH had some capable assistants. I wish I could recall what auditing process he ran on me in 1948. I just know I went exterior with pretty good perceptics. As you probably know from my posts I have been tracking with some of John Galusha's work. That is because with LRH's early tech I get an initial high state (lovely to behold) that does not last long. Then there was something Filbert said about one having to do the Bridge, especially the lower level more than once, so I got to thinking that if one resolved the stuck identities directly and right away, then I would be better able to evaluate (for myself) the rest of the tech.

Ralph, I think that if you put together an ACC using the bag of processes that the earlier auditors successfully audited with (pre-Bridge) you will face the same problem Ron faced -- PC's not sticking around long enough to make you rich and famous. Just talk to Mike Goldstein over at Idenics and see for yourself. This is not a problem if you have handled yourself on money and power. In the 60's John Galusha was auditing that way as a field auditor and he was averaging $300 per week.

I love the direction you are going in, focusing on the earlier positive processes and I hope you revive those good ole days.

 

[nw2394]

That is also when LRH had some capable assistants. I wish I could recall what auditing process he ran on me in 1948.

If I understand Hubbard and the time track of Scn at all, then he was a master who understood what he was doing (or, at least, far more than the vast majority of us anyway!). As such it wasn't so much what exact words he used, rather the style, the perception as well as the words. You could give the same PC and the same words to another auditor and they wouldn't get the same results.

He spent most of his research in trying to find ways that the rest of us could understand/apply it as well as he did. He wanted to make people into 'auditing technicians'. This had limited workability in my opinion. Certainly, when new to the subject, his post Class VIII bulletins are more organised and easier to understand. But they miss the flavour of the earlier work.

I just know I went exterior with pretty good perceptics. As you probably know from my posts I have been tracking with some of John Galusha's work. That is because with LRH's early tech I get an initial high state (lovely to behold) that does not last long. Then there was something Filbert said about one having to do the Bridge, especially the lower level more than once, so I got to thinking that if one resolved the stuck identities directly and right away, then I would be better able to evaluate (for myself) the rest of the tech.

In my opinion, a person (well, most PCs anyway) trying to do grades for the first time and handle the identities as identities, certainly OT3 or NOTs style, would be beyond most and not a workable idea. Someone coming back to look at grades again later may well be able to. Even then there are many who would need a lot of training.

Goldstein, if I understand his write ups well, handles the identities more directly. He, however, has no Bridge. He thinks this is an advantage. In a limited sense it is. The PC is not evaluated for at all. But there comes a time when someone on the road to OT needs not just to be told to look, but prodded to "look over here".

Nick

 

[alex]

If I understand Hubbard and the time track of Scn at all, then he was a master who understood what he was doing (or, at least, far more than the vast majority of us anyway!). As such it wasn't so much what exact words he used, rather the style, the perception as well as the words. You could give the same PC and the same words to another auditor and they wouldn't get the same results.

He spent most of his research in trying to find ways that the rest of us could understand/apply it as well as he did. He wanted to make people into 'auditing technicians'. This had limited workability in my opinion. Certainly, when new to the subject, his post Class VIII bulletins are more organised and easier to understand. But they miss the flavour of the earlier work.



In my opinion, a person (well, most PCs anyway) trying to do grades for the first time and handle the identities as identities, certainly OT3 or NOTs style, would be beyond most and not a workable idea. Someone coming back to look at grades again later may well be able to. Even then there are many who would need a lot of training.

Goldstein, if I understand his write ups well, handles the identities more directly. He, however, has no Bridge. He thinks this is an advantage. In a limited sense it is. The PC is not evaluated for at all. But there comes a time when someone on the road to OT needs not just to be told to look, but prodded to "look over here".

Nick

Yes, that look over there is what is missing from some viewpoints, who have decided that people should only run what comes up.

That results in happy people who are now cleared middle class wage slaves.

alex

 

[Veda]

L. Ron Hubbard requests psychiatric help, October 15, 1947:

http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/psychiat.htm

http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/psych.gif

Hubbard was medicated - on and off - much of his life. He never swore off drugs the way ordinary Scientologists were expected to. This letter appears to have been a request for free drugs.

I don't regard Hubbard's drug use, or for that matter his long term self-serving hidden agenda, as negating everything he did that might have been of a positive nature. Much of his most positive work was borrowed from others, and Hubbard - himself - was, in his own way, an extraordinary person, capable - erratically - of moments of brilliance.

However, his drug use, and ulterior motives, inevitably warped, tainted, and corrupted his work.

If one intends to "understand L. Ron Hubbard," these areas need, at least, to be acknowledged.

 

[nw2394]

alex

I wouldn't put it quite so harshly. For some that is all they want just now. But I recognise what you say.

Nick

 

[nw2394]

However, his drug use, and ulterior motives, inevitably warped, tainted, and corrupted his work.

If one intends to "understand L. Ron Hubbard," these areas need, at least, to be acknowledged.

Well, you provided some fairly hard evidence of drug use in 1947. I certainly acknowledge that.

I am not sure I see ulterior motives in that though. He was a bit of hard task master to say the least and, like the rest of us, not perfect. This certainly did influence the policy he wrote.

At the risk of provoking a long post from you that I probably won't care much to read, let alone reply to, since you didn't demonstrate ulterior motives, then "warped, tainted and corrupted" do not "inevitably" follow.

Nick

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Ralph, I think that if you put together an ACC using the bag of processes that the earlier auditors successfully audited with (pre-Bridge) you will face the same problem Ron faced -- PC's not sticking around long enough to make you rich and famous. Just talk to Mike Goldstein over at Idenics and see for yourself. This is not a problem if you have handled yourself on money and power. In the 60's John Galusha was auditing that way as a field auditor and he was averaging $300 per week.

I love the direction you are going in, focusing on the earlier positive processes and I hope you revive those good ole days.

Many of the earlier PCs wanted their ruin handled. Their ruin was handled, they paid their money and left.

Such is the liability of that approach.

I don't promote on the basis of solving people's ruins. I look at what do they
want to achieve.

People can improve and improve and improve. With that approach I think people will stay and keep improving.

As Alan keeps on saying the accent needs to be on the positives.

 

[Veda]

Well, you provided some fairly hard evidence of drug use in 1947. I certainly acknowledge that.

I am not sure I see ulterior motives in that though. He was a bit of hard task master to say the least and, like the rest of us, not perfect. This certainly did influence the policy he wrote.

At the risk of provoking a long post from you that I probably won't care much to read, let alone reply to, since you didn't demonstrate ulterior motives, then "warped, tainted and corrupted" do not "inevitably" follow.

Nick

The evidence is abundant.

As you indicated, you are inclined not to read it.

I suspect when you're ready to do so, you'll begin to examine it.

ESMB contains a rich supply to information and insight for those interested.

 

[Alan]

Yes, that look over there is what is missing from some viewpoints, who have decided that people should only run what comes up.

That results in happy people who are now cleared middle class wage slaves.

alex

Alex, you could not be farther from the truth! :confused2:

The reach for connection, oneness, restoration of full self, being all you can be, etc., - blows to view material that most cannot confront- or worse the tech or practitioners do not exist who are willing or able to produce those products consistently.

Scientology continuously prevented me from handling what came up.

Alan

 

[Dulloldfart]

Many of the earlier PCs wanted their ruin handled. Their ruin was handled, they paid their money and left.

Such is the liability of that approach.

Depends on how you go about it. Handle the ruin of a million people a week and there isn't too much liability to it.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

Depends on how you go about it. Handle the ruin of a million people a week and there isn't too much liability to it.

Paul

But, then you end up with millions of 'unruined' people who are unlikely to buy into the 'Ever Dwindling Spiral' or see the need to 'Clear the Planet' or join a movement (cult) that advertises itself as 'Mankind's Only Hope' and declares itself above 'wog' law because otherwise humanity is doomed...

Not to mention that 'call-backs' are usually a better source of 'reg cycles' than 'raw meat', unless of course, they're happily 'unruined' or unterrified...

Zinj

 

[Dulloldfart]

But, then you end up with millions of 'unruined' people who are unlikely to buy into the 'Ever Dwindling Spiral' or see the need to 'Clear the Planet' or join a movement (cult) that advertises itself as 'Mankind's Only Hope' and declares itself above 'wog' law because otherwise humanity is doomed...

Not to mention that 'call-backs' are usually a better source of 'reg cycles' than 'raw meat', unless of course, they're happily 'unruined' or unterrified...

Zinj

Not everyone who provides auditing solutions requires the pcs to become devout churchies or even adherents of Hubbard, Zinj.

Don't you think the world would be a better place with a million people a week getting "unruined" and just going about their lives with a brighter outlook on it all?

I agree that repeat customers are easier to sell than new ones.

Paul

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Paul - I meant that they get their ruin handled and go. Perhaps its my own agenda in wanting to resolve the riddles of the universe. So I don't really want to work with people who want to solve their fear of dogs or their problems with Aunt Agatha. I try to get people involved with me who are looking at a long term exploration and resolution of the human situation.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul - I meant that they get their ruin handled and go. Perhaps its my own agenda in wanting to resolve the riddles of the universe. So I don't really want to work with people who want to solve their fear of dogs or their problems with Aunt Agatha. I try to get people involved with me who are looking at a long term exploration and resolution of the human situation.

I did get that, Ralph, but I didn't think the thought through enough.

I used to be more interested in working with a few people in it for life, and not really be at all interested in the Div 6-type people.

Now I am more interested in the auditing solutions for the millions, as I believe they have become feasible (and available) at last. As I promote.

Paul

 

[nw2394]

The evidence is abundant.

As you indicated, you are inclined not to read it.

I suspect when you're ready to do so, you'll begin to examine it.

ESMB contains a rich supply to information and insight for those interested.

I don't entirely disagree with you actually. While quite a bit of the policy he wrote was useful, some of it certainly was influenced in a way that I would not think good.

I do think he was quite good, however, at keeping personal bias out of the tech side of things. That doesn't mean that I think it is necessarily perfect in every way, but I wouldn't accept that it was full of "ulterior motive" or however you want to put it.

Nick

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

If I understand Hubbard and the time track of Scn at all, then he was a master who understood what he was doing (or, at least, far more than the vast majority of us anyway!). As such it wasn't so much what exact words he used, rather the style, the perception as well as the words. You could give the same PC and the same words to another auditor and they wouldn't get the same results.

Yes I had a great auditor. Auditing is a skill and an art.

[snipped]

In my opinion, a person (well, most PCs anyway) trying to do grades for the first time and handle the identities as identities, certainly OT3 or NOTs style, would be beyond most and not a workable idea. Someone coming back to look at grades again later may well be able to. Even then there are many who would need a lot of training.

I was listening to a 1952 ACC lecture with an ear to whatever Hubbard may have to say about identities. I think he got close but he missed the boat, which is evidenced by how idenics does effectively address what he briefly alluded to in his lectures.

Goldstein, if I understand his write ups well, handles the identities more directly. He, however, has no Bridge. He thinks this is an advantage. In a limited sense it is. The PC is not evaluated for at all. But there comes a time when someone on the road to OT needs not just to be told to look, but prodded to "look over here".

He does not have LRH's Bridge. I have my own bridge, you have your own bridge, or onion, or whatever you want to call it. There will come a time on my Path (sic Bridge) when I don't need to be told by anyone where to look. At least not anyone in this universe, lol. If you ever have in the future, the pure joy of running the Idenics template on someone you would understand why they do not need to be told to "look over there", "there" probably being someone else's case phenomena.

Nick

replies above.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I don't entirely disagree with you actually. While quite a bit of the policy he wrote was useful, some of it certainly was influenced in a way that I would not think good.

I do think he was quite good, however, at keeping personal bias out of the tech side of things. That doesn't mean that I think it is necessarily perfect in every way, but I wouldn't accept that it was full of "ulterior motive" or however you want to put it.

Nick

Nick, I think your viewpoint is more balanced. I listened to one of his older tape lectures and this time I also took a more balanced viewpoint of whatever he had to say. Once you figure out his abberrations, then you just know what to ignore and what to keep and take a better look at. It's sort of like trying to steal cheese out of a trap. How big is that cheese anyway? is another thread.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Yes, that look over there is what is missing from some viewpoints, who have decided that people should only run what comes up.

That results in happy people who are now cleared middle class wage slaves.

alex

You wrote in reference to a previous post about Idenics. I don't know what Mike would say about that, having audited using Idenics for the past 20 years.
My understanding is that, okay, if they want to assume the identity of a middle class worker, then at least they would be doing it more causatively.

What identity would you have them assume? You see, that then gets into your own case being put onto others. If you yourself had Idenics auditing, are you afraid you would become a middle class jerk?

 

[Zinjifar]

You wrote in reference to a previous post about Idenics. I don't know what Mike would say about that, having audited using Idenics for the past 20 years.
My understanding is that, okay, if they want to assume the identity of a middle class worker, then at least they would be doing it more causatively.

What identity would you have them assume? You see, that then gets into your own case being put onto others. If you yourself had Idenics auditing, are you afraid you would become a middle class jerk?

Alex has a conundrum. He wants 'spirituality', but, he also wants a *movement* that will help him justify his spirituality by having everybody join him; whether they want to or not.

Zinj

 

[nw2394]

He does not have LRH's Bridge. I have my own bridge, you have your own bridge, or onion, or whatever you want to call it. There will come a time on my Path (sic Bridge) when I don't need to be told by anyone where to look. At least not anyone in this universe, lol. If you ever have in the future, the pure joy of running the Idenics template on someone you would understand why they do not need to be told to "look over there", "there" probably being someone else's case phenomena.

Yeah, well I think you hit the nail on the head there about why we part company at this point.

I desperately needed OT2. I mean I needed that. It wouldn't have been there without LRH's Bridge. There have been many other things that were good in Scn, life changing, but this one I needed.

When you say someone else's case phenomena - you're completely right. The actual thing that was bugging me about that area actually boiled down to (though I had no idea at the time I started) the fact that I wanted to release my wife and children of 75 million years ago from that god awful mess. I needed OT2 for that and it was, to be pedantic, their case. It was my emotional trauma though and I couldn't have done it without OT2.

After that session I cried like a baby. It was such a relief. It still brings a tear to my eye now.

With regard to the "idenics template" - well there isn't much prospect of me ever running it. I like Golstein's definition of identity and confusion. I think they are more general and less evaluative than Hubbard's equivalents. So it is not that I am not interested. However, Goldstein does not actually write up very much specific of his and Galusha's actual procedure and application style/rules/guide lines or whatever they actually are. AFAIK he expects people to pay him - well it won't be there for future generations like that. It is not that I can't afford to buy it. I just think the tech should be free. And, no doubt, Alan will now chip in on the thread and say "f you". Well, so be it. I have a long record of paying for whatever assistance with application I need and I have no objection to people charging handsomely for that.

Nick