Just some odds and sods from as and when I remember them. This is from post 34;
==========================================
subj : Super Scio - To A-J On Cluelessness
TO A-J ON CLUELESSNESS
On 11 Aug 98,
[email protected] reponded to an FZA repost of
my writup on "SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECH AND COPYRIGHTS"
> In article <
[email protected]>,
>
[email protected] wrote:
> > SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECH AND COPYRIGHTS
> >
> >
>
> > In the current hate filled atmosphere encouraged by the
> > CofS, where they label any freezoner's as "squirrels" and
> > subject to any form of mistreatment, it is not even possible
> > for a known freezoner to walk into a CofS organization and
> > purchase materials since they are officially barred from the
> > organization.
> >
>
> Dear Mr. Pilot,
>
> Why is there all this goddamned fuss about wanting to go into the
> C of $ to get Hubbard's materials? Why don't you ask your German
> counterparts - they have the Robertson bridge up to OT 40. It's
> right in their home page.
>
> A-J
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Indeed thou art clueless.
I'm not a Robertson follower.
I'm a follower of 1950s LRH Scientology.
That Scientology, unlike yours (which is a watered down scam),
allows for multiple sources and extending the tech.
In those days, Ron was only an organizer of data and not
source (by his own statement). It includes how to intelligently
separate the wheat from the chaff. That is how we got all those
great datums from Crowly and Science of Mind and the Rosecrucians
and the Tibetan Book of the Dead and endless other sources.
They did not have an adequate logic structure to evaluate their
own data and evolve a workable tech.
Ron did. That is his genius. That was the breakthrough.
With KSW in 1965, he lies and claims to be the single source
even though he was acknowledging other sources as late as 1963.
From there on there is more and more hostility towards further
research and the subject gradually becomes a fanaticism.
As to an evaluation of stats, OT phenomena used to be common
and now are virtualy non-existant in the subject. Ron used
to talk a mile a minute full of brilliant ideas and then he
shut up like a clam (hundreds of tapes a year, and then a
handful, and then none).
The 1950s material is incomplete. It was always known to be
incomplete. It was a research line. It was the best
leap towards freedom that this planet has ever had.
Unfortunately we missed the grab at the top of our jump
and fell back down.
There is good later data. But it is trapped in a ridgid
framework that does not support really producing OTs
or completing the research.
So I follow early Ron from the days when he was most inspired.
And then I follow his orders to evaluate and extend the
subject and mix in anything that you can find that works.
So I mix in the later materials, but I do so with the same
critical eye that I would use to judge things coming in from
EST or Krishnamurti.
So I look at sec checks and toss them out the window because
accoring to the basics and according to early Ron, they
will make people mean and nasty due to unbalanced flows
(and Sea Org behavior amply illustrates that he was right
the first time). But I look at real grade 2 processes and
they fit in with the basics just fine.
As to Robertson, I like him but he goes through the same
logic sieve as everyone else.
I'm glad that Robertson's folks are auditing just as I'm glad
that CofS is auditing (when they do - usually they just reg
people and then waste the hours on sec checking at cadillac
prices).
But my goal is to see the tech evolve into something that
really can produce a stable OT (rather than just giving out
OT numbers on pieces of paper).
For that my greatest inspiration is Ron in the 1952-4 period.
And I do not want to commit the overt of obscuring the
sources I am working from. So I want all who follow me
to have access to those same source materials.
So I am still a follower of Hubbard. But not the later
stupidity. The formation of the Sea Org was an overt
product.
That is why your statement was totally clueless.
And another bit of cluelessness that you have been spouting
about is your concern about Oldtimer possibly being located
in Southern California.
It is meaningless. Both the German Freezone and Freezone
America are International in scope and overlap everywhere.
There are (or were) Roberston style orgs in both New York
and Los Angeles. There are also dozens of non-Robertson
style orgs in these places.
And Freezone America is an information clearinghouse
(with a stong Pilot bias, but carrying everything they
can) rather than a specific organizational network.
They inspire orgs rather than controlling them.
Still clueless or is this finally sinking in?
The Pilot