I see the same old, tired arguments from the same folks about what Scn is and what Scn isn't.
And what I observe is that those in argument are talking at each other about different times, different periods of Scn development.
Yes Hubbard had his agenda, yes Hubbard lied, yes all of that shit . . . . we
now know that. And we also now know what the org scene
is as has come to be . . . but the scene was not always that way . . . and that is what some of the mutton-heads in this argument seem to refuse to acknowledge.
It is now well documented that Scn,
as a technical endeavor, went negative in early 1963. I wrote on this on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread.
There are several aspects of this negativity. One is that Hubbard abandoned addressing
your powers, abilities, goals, dreams and aspirations in April 1963 when he wrote that "all GPMs processed to date were not your own but implants." And the tech abandoned you and your powers/abilities and focused on what was affecting you and what you were effect of/suffering. It put the source and cause of your condition of existence elsewhere than with you . . . and that is a grave, grievous error . . . it posits you are not responsible, but a victim.
Additionally, as CarmelO writes, the beginning session Ruds that used to ask for the PC goals for life and livingness and for the session, were dropped (some time in '64-'65) . . . . so now the sessions were not towards what the PC wanted but instead towards what he/she was being told to have!
Prior to 1965, the predominance of folks coming in were interested in betterment as in increased knowledge and ability to perform and accomplish what they wanted in life. Scn was an interesting new look at life and the conditions of existence, and a huge departure from the status quo . . . so it attracted the adventurous and those who were willing to step outside of the box and learn something and do some good for themselves and their fellows.
A huge part of the scenario up until 1963 was that virtually all folks that came into Scn did training and learned to audit. When I was on staff in Melbourne in '62-'64 all the staff were auditors and we all co-audited, give and get, 20 hours per week.
Indeed, the first "grades" (1964 from memory, not the Grade Chart which came out originally in '65, but the original delineation of the grades) required the person be trained on the processes of the grade to qualify for receiving them.
But with the shift by Hubbard from addressing your cause and powers/abilities to focus on what's wrong with you that needs be removed, we had a vast shift in emphasis to victimhood.
You see this with the Dissem Formula when it was introduced ('65?) effectively all recruitment of newbies focused on what is wrong, what is "ruining" the person's life . . . and with this change in focus also was created the two paths of Scn . . . the PC side of the Grade Chart, and the Auditor/Training side.
So, by then, in '65 we had the victim side of the "bridge" and the more causative side of the training . . .
I spell all this out because this history of change that occurred in Scn is not something folks who came in after '65 understand. It might be ancient history to them . . . and superficially "known," but is sure as hell is not understood by them; and so we see the arguments we see.
There was a time in Scn, early Scn, when folks were honored as to their personal wants, dreams, aspirations, powers and abilities and they were given the tools (processes) and freedom to pursue them and to benefit from the application of the tech in the way that best suited
them.
And we had big time, phenomenal gains and wins from it. Their was no KSW straight-jacket. Auditors honored each other and worked to help each other both is session and outside of session with discussion of the tech and advices to each other.
The early days was truly a voyage of discovery and of benefit for those who participated.
However, having said that, it is also true that the tech was incomplete . . . we knew that as we knew it was still being researched and developed. The tech, in retrospect now, can also be seen to contain some errors . . . . but one should not be too critical of that as it was a learning curve and research.
The only valid gripes any should and ought to have about it all, in my view, are these issues: a) Hubbard lied to us about so many things, b) his research methodology was so superficial, skimpy and flawed that areas addressed were routinely left incomplete or remained containing critical errors . . . and this all the while he lied to us about his competence and thoroughness and all the bullshit about him "rising above the bank."
So, what we have had as "Scn" is two distinct scenarios: one wherein we individually were and could be responsible for our actions and progress; and the other wherein you are assumed to not be responsible where in "upper management" has to control and direct you, wherein you as an auditor are not allowed to address the case you see in front of you but are told what to deal with by the system, and as a student of the subject you are not allowed the courtesy and right to "discuss" the tech in any way!
And as I have said above, these are two distinct and different times in the history and development of the entity we call "Scn."
But, I've said it before, and will do so again: the early days
were FUN! And my participation in them benefited me enormously.
RogerB
(besides, I still had the vid in the buffer)
