The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
Its hard to argue with this post!
Carmelo, yours seems to be an astute observation of how the Universe works. It is hard to argue with your comments and point of view.
When I was Sea Org Staff at CCLA in the early 1970's, Yvonne frequently mentioned a line which would corroborate your observations. Her frequent comment to CCLA staff was said to be from LRH, although, we never were given the written reference, and was as follows: "One only has to be right 51% of the time to be successful in life."
This implied that even the brightest of people were wrong (i.e. using non optimum solutions) much of the time. Nevertheless, a person would prevail in life over the long run if they were right only 51% of the time.
A GREAT ANALOGY ILLUSTRATING THIS CONCEPT
Look no further than the dice tables at Las Vegas to see how this principle works! In the dice game of craps, the Casino or "house" wins the basic bet 50.7% of the time and the individual or "shooter" wins 49.3% of the time. This give the house a 1.4% edge on every bet played. It looks like a very close bet, almost and even and fair bet. But is it really?
Though there will be large fluctuations, both up and down, in a shooters fortune, after a sufficiently large number of trials, the shooter will ultimately be stripped of his fortune and go broke.
When you cut through all the bullshit and do the math, the house takes $1.40 from every $100 the shooter bets, On average, if the shooter bet $100 on every roll of the dice, after 72 rolls, he will be $100 behind. Therefore, if he came to the table with $500, it would, on average, take 5 x 72 or 360 rolls and he would be wiped clean. This process is nicknamed, "IN THE LONG RUN, IN ENGLISH, AND "A LA LARGA" IN SPANISH. There is also an expression, "The law of large numbers (of random trials)".
YVONNE'S EXAMPLE GIVES THE PERSON A 2% EDGE OVER THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, NOT JUST THE 1.4% OF A DICE GAME.
If you win 51% of the time and lose 49% of the time, your "house" advantage in life is 2% and instead of 72 rolls, you will increase your fortune one bet size in only 50 rolls or you will lose one bet size every in 50 rolls if the universe holds the "house" advantage of 2%.
Most casino games are set up with a much higher percentage of advantage such as 5.6% in roulette. In such a game as that, if you play a large number of trials, say 100, in a random game with an honest roulette wheel you will be rapidly annihilated.
I think this analysis useful, for doing well in life. If one can "out create" the random aspect of the physical universe to the extent of being right only 51% of the time, that person will end up, in the long run, being successful and wining in the game of life.
Lakey
Carmelo, yours seems to be an astute observation of how the Universe works. It is hard to argue with your comments and point of view.
When I was Sea Org Staff at CCLA in the early 1970's, Yvonne frequently mentioned a line which would corroborate your observations. Her frequent comment to CCLA staff was said to be from LRH, although, we never were given the written reference, and was as follows: "One only has to be right 51% of the time to be successful in life."
This implied that even the brightest of people were wrong (i.e. using non optimum solutions) much of the time. Nevertheless, a person would prevail in life over the long run if they were right only 51% of the time.
A GREAT ANALOGY ILLUSTRATING THIS CONCEPT
Look no further than the dice tables at Las Vegas to see how this principle works! In the dice game of craps, the Casino or "house" wins the basic bet 50.7% of the time and the individual or "shooter" wins 49.3% of the time. This give the house a 1.4% edge on every bet played. It looks like a very close bet, almost and even and fair bet. But is it really?
Though there will be large fluctuations, both up and down, in a shooters fortune, after a sufficiently large number of trials, the shooter will ultimately be stripped of his fortune and go broke.
When you cut through all the bullshit and do the math, the house takes $1.40 from every $100 the shooter bets, On average, if the shooter bet $100 on every roll of the dice, after 72 rolls, he will be $100 behind. Therefore, if he came to the table with $500, it would, on average, take 5 x 72 or 360 rolls and he would be wiped clean. This process is nicknamed, "IN THE LONG RUN, IN ENGLISH, AND "A LA LARGA" IN SPANISH. There is also an expression, "The law of large numbers (of random trials)".
YVONNE'S EXAMPLE GIVES THE PERSON A 2% EDGE OVER THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, NOT JUST THE 1.4% OF A DICE GAME.
If you win 51% of the time and lose 49% of the time, your "house" advantage in life is 2% and instead of 72 rolls, you will increase your fortune one bet size in only 50 rolls or you will lose one bet size every in 50 rolls if the universe holds the "house" advantage of 2%.
Most casino games are set up with a much higher percentage of advantage such as 5.6% in roulette. In such a game as that, if you play a large number of trials, say 100, in a random game with an honest roulette wheel you will be rapidly annihilated.
I think this analysis useful, for doing well in life. If one can "out create" the random aspect of the physical universe to the extent of being right only 51% of the time, that person will end up, in the long run, being successful and wining in the game of life.
Lakey
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
I agree. It's hard to ague with this post. I might add my 2-cent opinion:
Alan was a tremendous marketer of Scientology. His efforts to market Knowledgism never paralleled his Scientology experience. This statement I make as no slam on Alan. Some forty years later, market conditions changed. Admit it or not, Hubbard was not the sole source of Scientology or its expansion into the society. The '60s drug culture contributed greatly in their desire for further, mind-blowing expansion. Scientology seemed to fulfill that desire--or at least imply that it could. So did EST.
The free sex attitude of the '60s produced some very creative people, Alan among them. Although, I suspect he would have been free on that part of life even if the '60s had been stifled. Some of the best marketing and sales people, in or out of Scientology, are free and expansive on the sex part of Scientology's dynamic number two. Pucker-butts would say, "Promiscous," but I think that is not quite right.
Alan's Scientology connections, many of equal or better experience in other areas of life, no longer existed, or they were so filled with BPC that the idea of another run at the human potential movement appeared as most unappealing.
I could go on. The point is, society moved on past what it was during Scientology's growth period. And the condition of that society was as responsible for the growth of Scientology as was Hubbard and other key personnel. Marketing success demands a convergence of perceived need and supplier.
Given the negative impact of organized Scientology on public perception, it is and was only smart marketing to position AWAY from it. Given organized Scientology's propensity to raise legal hell for anyone whom they perceive as crossing their lines of Command Intention or Gross Income, it was and is smart legal ruds to position AWAY from Scientology. And those matters, I believe, are the real reasons why Alan would choose to position Knowledgism AWAY from Scientology.
Had Scientology been straight up honest in its dealings, free and easy in the spirit of Planetary Clearing, saying "Go forth and multiple, my son. You have our blessings," I suspect that any one of us would have no problem positioning with Scientology and acknowledging our heritage.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
I believe that quote is on one of the tapes talking about Conditions.
The rest of the quote is important. It goes something like,"...and not wrong on any of the major issues."
lkwdblds
Crusader
Yes, a bit "me" centric
Thanks for this Roger! The "I" and "me" count has occurred to me numerous times and I know mine has been very high. The main reason for this, in my case, is that my own personal are experiences and anecdotes seem to be the only things which I have objective experience with. On most other topics I can only conjecture or give opinions. If one is trying to get something over or assert something, it seems that his/her main tool in being objective is to use mainly things from his/her own personal experiences.
There are ways to get the "I" and "me" count down. One is to choose broad topics which are not just based on personal experiences. I made a real effort to omit I's and me's in my post above in reply to Carmelo about being right just 51% of the time and it seemed to work out fine.
Lakey
Lakey wrote:
WOT?? Nah, no way . . . . maybe a bit "me centric" . . . but hey, Lakey, it keeps us entertained.
Come to think of it, a count of the number of times the word "I" and things about "me" occur in posts would be an interesting exercise, no?
Ditto the number of times accusations directed against the "you's" of the world are voiced.
Jeeezzzuzz, scrap that idea. It might just cut the traffic on ESMB in half!
R
Thanks for this Roger! The "I" and "me" count has occurred to me numerous times and I know mine has been very high. The main reason for this, in my case, is that my own personal are experiences and anecdotes seem to be the only things which I have objective experience with. On most other topics I can only conjecture or give opinions. If one is trying to get something over or assert something, it seems that his/her main tool in being objective is to use mainly things from his/her own personal experiences.
There are ways to get the "I" and "me" count down. One is to choose broad topics which are not just based on personal experiences. I made a real effort to omit I's and me's in my post above in reply to Carmelo about being right just 51% of the time and it seemed to work out fine.
Lakey
Veda
Sponsor
If Scientology had been "straight up honest" it wouldn't have been Scientology.
I realize that some of you don't "get" that.
Nonetheless, try to respect the wishes of those who, although they've been involved in Scientology, no longer regard themselves as Scientologists.
Can you do that?
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
My "Happiness" Rundown
Hats...I always read your stuff on the Board…great stuff and very, very helpful to me.
Re: the HRD...Part of mine was some of the better stuff I did and the other part was close to the worst stuff that ever happened to me in auditing…real nasty…turned out to be the MDR—Mad Dog Rundown. Like much of my Scn auditing, IMHO, there’s back doors, trap doors and hidden doors set in place…that’s the best way I can describe it for now…very subtle, dangerous and potentially deadly.
I have no problem whatsoever with the “Techies” and processors here…I’m confident they get great results, do no harm and render real and valuable help. But, the folks here are not “100% Standard Tech” blind bats.
I have no problems or regrets—now—about one minute of my auditing; the process of “dismantling” the stuff—that was going on that I was not aware of at the time—is being very beneficial to me…I’m just grateful that I lived long enough to do it and that so many others came into my life—many of them here—to be, like you, signposts and lights along my pathway.
Face
Hats...I always read your stuff on the Board…great stuff and very, very helpful to me.
Re: the HRD...Part of mine was some of the better stuff I did and the other part was close to the worst stuff that ever happened to me in auditing…real nasty…turned out to be the MDR—Mad Dog Rundown. Like much of my Scn auditing, IMHO, there’s back doors, trap doors and hidden doors set in place…that’s the best way I can describe it for now…very subtle, dangerous and potentially deadly.
I have no problem whatsoever with the “Techies” and processors here…I’m confident they get great results, do no harm and render real and valuable help. But, the folks here are not “100% Standard Tech” blind bats.
I have no problems or regrets—now—about one minute of my auditing; the process of “dismantling” the stuff—that was going on that I was not aware of at the time—is being very beneficial to me…I’m just grateful that I lived long enough to do it and that so many others came into my life—many of them here—to be, like you, signposts and lights along my pathway.
Face
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
You still insist that eating at the Golden Corral Buffet means eating all of every item. I am just a guy who likes the dishes he likes leaving the rest for other customers or to rot in the hot tray or on the salad bar. Yet, I can still say I have dined at the Golden Corral even though I haven't tried everything and even though I don't go there any longer.
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Hats...I always read your stuff on the Board…great stuff and very, very helpful to me.
Re: the HRD...Part of mine was some of the better stuff I did and the other part was close to the worst stuff that ever happened to me in auditing…real nasty…turned out to be the MDR—Mad Dog Rundown. Like much of my Scn auditing, IMHO, there’s back doors, trap doors and hidden doors set in place…that’s the best way I can describe it for now…very subtle, dangerous and potentially deadly.
I have no problem whatsoever with the “Techies” and processors here…I’m confident they get great results, do no harm and render real and valuable help. But, the folks here are not “100% Standards Tech” blind bats.
I have no problems or regrets—now—about one minute of my auditing; the process of “dismantling” the stuff—that was going on that I was not aware of at the time—is being very beneficial to me…I’m just grateful that I lived long enough to do it and that so many others came into my life—many of them here—to be, like you, signposts and lights along my pathway.
Face
About that HRD (Happiness Rundown): It was a fantastically simple procedure. Betty Kerswell delivered mine. She and the C/S, Wayne Bennett, had the perception to end off when I got through with Precept 7: Seek To Live With The Truth. After looking it over I suddenly interpreted that to mean, to me, seek to live with yourself. My simple self. My damn-near static self. I am the Truth. Beyond any and all argument. There was nothing more betta' than that. End of rundown.
The False Data Stripping process, and that portion of the HRD, always drove me crazy. The stripping part was all fine and dandy right up to the point where the auditor shows the pc the "true data."
So the auditor digs up a tech or policy reference, shows it to the pc, and ...
Wait a minute!
There is a mighty big assumption going on there, that the tech is true.
I can make an argument showing policy that the tech is not necessarily true, it is simply workable. And who would determine the workability of that tech or policy? The pc, of course! Not LRH; not the auditor; not the C/S; not the person's "senior."
So ya, I had a good result on the HRD, as did many other people. But then I am, or at least was, a Caddy of a pc so my results are not a standard by which anyone else might judge their own.
Ja. It only worked well when the preclear was allowed to arrive at his own truth. At these times it was a fabulous action. But when you use it to try and feed some politically correct datum to him while calling it truth then you are really busy with reverse auditing.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
You should recognize it. I fed it to you before.
Try this: You are like Hubbard in that you are capable of relaying some good info, yet your are nuts in some of your assertions.
RogerB
Crusader
Well, I would, lakey . . . but I really don't have the time and inclination.
Be rather a reasonable proposition if those who sounded off on what ACW and his body of work is or isn't had actually done any, or sufficient, courses in and studies of his work and/or spent sufficient time with the man to actually know what he did.
But noooo . . . we have opinions based on what?
And anyone who thinks the "emotional curve" is the same as the "power split," and similarly is asserting sameness-cum-similarity of the "Tone Scale" to ACW's Zones Technology, just has not studied the relevant materials.
One might just as well say Knowledgism (or $cn, for that matter) is similar to or the same as Buddhism because they both deal with the spiritual nature of mankind.
The problem is that folks try to comprehend the new by comparing it to what they are already familiar with.
That's OK as a system of learning, of course, but it goes awry when folks err in making the things being compared (usually through insufficient study and differentiation) the same as or identical to each other.
Time to get out of the old boxes, gentlemen.
R
lkwdblds
Crusader
Okay, I recant what I said about AW
I had very little contact with AW and am not well enough versed in AW or Knowledgism to make any comments about either. The statement I made concerning AW was made based on heresay; some comments made by someone I know who was a close personal friend of AW for many years.
That is insufficient "data" to base any opinion on so I recant my earlier statement made to Leon. My proper resoinse is that I DON"T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Lakey
Well, I would, lakey . . . but I really don't have the time and inclination.
Be rather a reasonable proposition if those who sounded off on what ACW and his body of work is or isn't had actually done any, or sufficient, courses in and studies of his work and/or spent sufficient time with the man to actually know what he did.
But noooo . . . we have opinions based on what?
And anyone who thinks the "emotional curve" is the same as the "power split," and similarly is asserting sameness-cum-similarity of the "Tone Scale" to ACW's Zones Technology, just has not studied the relevant materials.
One might just as well say Knowledgism (or $cn, for that matter) is similar to or the same as Buddhism because they both deal with the spiritual nature of mankind.
The problem is that folks try to comprehend the new by comparing it to what they are already familiar with.
That's OK as a system of learning, of course, but it goes awry when folks err in making the things being compared (usually through insufficient study and differentiation) the same as or identical to each other.
Time to get out of the old boxes, gentlemen.
R
I had very little contact with AW and am not well enough versed in AW or Knowledgism to make any comments about either. The statement I made concerning AW was made based on heresay; some comments made by someone I know who was a close personal friend of AW for many years.
That is insufficient "data" to base any opinion on so I recant my earlier statement made to Leon. My proper resoinse is that I DON"T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Nice post!!
I am on board with this post! I personally do not know enough about AW to comment about his activities but the post is very savy, the logic of all the topics is tied together very nicely and the whole post makes a lot of sense.
Lakey
I agree. It's hard to ague with this post. I might add my 2-cent opinion:
Alan was a tremendous marketer of Scientology. His efforts to market Knowledgism never paralleled his Scientology experience. This statement I make as no slam on Alan. Some forty years later, market conditions changed. Admit it or not, Hubbard was not the sole source of Scientology or its expansion into the society. The '60s drug culture contributed greatly in their desire for further, mind-blowing expansion. Scientology seemed to fulfill that desire--or at least imply that it could. So did EST.
The free sex attitude of the '60s produced some very creative people, Alan among them. Although, I suspect he would have been free on that part of life even if the '60s had been stifled. Some of the best marketing and sales people, in or out of Scientology, are free and expansive on the sex part of Scientology's dynamic number two. Pucker-butts would say, "Promiscous," but I think that is not quite right.
Alan's Scientology connections, many of equal or better experience in other areas of life, no longer existed, or they were so filled with BPC that the idea of another run at the human potential movement appeared as most unappealing.
I could go on. The point is, society moved on past what it was during Scientology's growth period. And the condition of that society was as responsible for the growth of Scientology as was Hubbard and other key personnel. Marketing success demands a convergence of perceived need and supplier.
Given the negative impact of organized Scientology on public perception, it is and was only smart marketing to position AWAY from it. Given organized Scientology's propensity to raise legal hell for anyone whom they perceive as crossing their lines of Command Intention or Gross Income, it was and is smart legal ruds to position AWAY from Scientology. And those matters, I believe, are the real reasons why Alan would choose to position Knowledgism AWAY from Scientology.
Had Scientology been straight up honest in its dealings, free and easy in the spirit of Planetary Clearing, saying "Go forth and multiple, my son. You have our blessings," I suspect that any one of us would have no problem positioning with Scientology and acknowledging our heritage.
I am on board with this post! I personally do not know enough about AW to comment about his activities but the post is very savy, the logic of all the topics is tied together very nicely and the whole post makes a lot of sense.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Aha - I believe Yvonne never mentioned the last part.
Thanks for adding the rest of the quote. I do not remember Yvonne ever giving us that last bit of vital data. That does not mean she never did so but just that I do not remember it ever been told to us.
It makes sense that she never told us that. If you follow the careers of those who were CC staff under Yvonne, you do not see special consideration being given to "vital issues" as opposed to normal or mundane issues.
In essense, the vital issues were dispensed with in short order, identical to the way mundane issues were handled. For example, the Org management moved the Org up to a large mansion in the hills below Griffith Park. Int Management and CC management both invested a lot of time money and labor on this move and the expectations were high. There was a very vital but simple issue involved and that was that the area we were moving to was zoned R1 by the City of LA. This meant that it was for single family dwellings only.
Int Management and CCLA local management approved the move, simply ignoring or not being aware of the zoning requirement. They moved the CCLA Org up there with an enormous flow of people and autos coming through this conservative upper class single family neighborhood. The neighbors both vandalized our cars and complained to the City of L.A.. CCLA had to move out in 60 days. This was an enormous flub which cost C of S and CCLA very dearly.
Wouldn't you say that not looking deeply into vital issues was typical of C of S senior management of that day. They simply were not professionals and just wanted to be at least 51% right, treating vital issues such as city zoning laws equal to mundane items.
Lakey
Thanks for adding the rest of the quote. I do not remember Yvonne ever giving us that last bit of vital data. That does not mean she never did so but just that I do not remember it ever been told to us.
It makes sense that she never told us that. If you follow the careers of those who were CC staff under Yvonne, you do not see special consideration being given to "vital issues" as opposed to normal or mundane issues.
In essense, the vital issues were dispensed with in short order, identical to the way mundane issues were handled. For example, the Org management moved the Org up to a large mansion in the hills below Griffith Park. Int Management and CC management both invested a lot of time money and labor on this move and the expectations were high. There was a very vital but simple issue involved and that was that the area we were moving to was zoned R1 by the City of LA. This meant that it was for single family dwellings only.
Int Management and CCLA local management approved the move, simply ignoring or not being aware of the zoning requirement. They moved the CCLA Org up there with an enormous flow of people and autos coming through this conservative upper class single family neighborhood. The neighbors both vandalized our cars and complained to the City of L.A.. CCLA had to move out in 60 days. This was an enormous flub which cost C of S and CCLA very dearly.
Wouldn't you say that not looking deeply into vital issues was typical of C of S senior management of that day. They simply were not professionals and just wanted to be at least 51% right, treating vital issues such as city zoning laws equal to mundane items.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
That's an honest response, my friend.
Here's another honest response.
In conversation with Alan, and we've had some
. . . we discussed all this and our common experiences both in $cn and other areas of knowledge and research . . . and he looked me in the eye, and simply said: "Well, if it wasn't for $cn, we wouldn't have Knowledgism."But that does not mean that Kn is based on or a derivative of $cn.
The fact is, and I know this for fact, he (and I) were so messed up (case wise) by the $cn stuff that he simply had to solve the mess by doing the research necessary to get the right answers to handle the mess. There are also some references to this in one or two of his lectures.
The truth is, the last thing he actually wanted to be doing was setting up another "-ology or -ism." He actually wanted to get on with enjoying the game of life he was capable of enjoying.
But the fact was, he and too many were in rough shape at the end of their $cn experience and, as he said to me: "After talking to the other tech terminals (the other exes in the field after the Cof$ blow-up [that he named to me]) and hearing what they had to say about tech and making the tech advances needed to clean up the mess, I (he) realized I had to take on the hat to do the research to get the right tech needed to fix things."
Truth is, Alan always was researching for enhanced performance . . . it's what led to his success as a pro athlete . . . before $cn. And as is well recorded, he contributed to $cn some of its proven breakthroughs and workable stuff.
He, like me and, I suspect all here, believed Hubbard when we first got a hold of his stuff . . . but even so, Alan and many others also had exterior views and made contributions to Hubbard's thing . . . and this very much, at the time, based on our trust in Hubbard and deferring to him the hat to research and get it right.
But history records that trust was betrayed.
Knowledgism is, in actuality, the continuance of Alan's search for workable answers that began before his encounter with $cn which; had it not been for $cn, he'd have kept to himself, not shared, and enjoyed his life a hell of a lot more.
But the fact is, he saw he had a duty . . . rather like our good Emma . . . he saw the need to help those who'd been screwed by $cn. And so he set to, to complete his own earlier begun search for knowledge and the right answers on this subject of "the human condition."
You see, had it not been for $cn, he wouldn't have had the "motivation" to act to repair the mess $cn made
And, of course, there are some on ESMB who feel there is little or nothing wrong or erroneous in $cn tech, and they staunchly defend LRH's "truth." Well, OK. I say leave them to it.
But I will say this: $cn has been unable to correct the messes it has made; and so Kn had better bloody not be anything too much like that which caused the mess if it is to clean it up
R
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, I would, lakey . . . but I really don't have the time and inclination.
Be rather a reasonable proposition if those who sounded off on what ACW and his body of work is or isn't had actually done any, or sufficient, courses in and studies of his work and/or spent sufficient time with the man to actually know what he did.
But noooo . . . we have opinions based on what?
And anyone who thinks the "emotional curve" is the same as the "power split," and similarly is asserting sameness-cum-similarity of the "Tone Scale" to ACW's Zones Technology, just has not studied the relevant materials.
One might just as well say Knowledgism (or $cn, for that matter) is similar to or the same as Buddhism because they both deal with the spiritual nature of mankind.
The problem is that folks try to comprehend the new by comparing it to what they are already familiar with.
That's OK as a system of learning, of course, but it goes awry when folks err in making the things being compared (usually through insufficient study and differentiation) the same as or identical to each other.
Time to get out of the old boxes, gentlemen.
R
Well, Rog, I played a lot of baseball in my youth. Had some Ascension Experiences with which only another athlete might relate. I have a little thing I have been meaning to write up relating C/S 44R to baseball--or any other game for that matter. I'll do it later...
The AE's I attained in baseball were achieved in the playing of the game. I get nothing out of spectating. I can only suppose that while fans can be fanatic, they do not know the AE of play on the field.
The game of baseball does not require a particular field to be played. It can be played on dirt, or grass, or asphalt, ... It just requires the basic setup of three bases, home plate, bat, ball, etc.
As a kid, some of us even got by with no bases, no gloves, no field of play that resembled a baseball field. Stickball played off the schoolhouse wall was an interesting game and a ton of fun. A tennis ball can be made to hop and jump and your mama's broom handle makes a fine bat for that game.
So it is with Scientology and Knowledgism. There are similarities in the basics. There are great differences in the particulars where Knowledgism shows great divergence then blows way beyond Scientology. Scientology is heavy on focus on the negative. Knowledgism leans to the positive. Scientology insists on one-size-fits-all abandoning its basic principle of "audit the pc in front of you." As I understand it, Knowledgism audits/processes the client on the client's own needs/wants.
The most important piece of tech, or at least the one I most appreciate in Knowledgism, is the bit about the AE being a double-edged sword. As Scientology pushes the client/pc towards greater, more expansive, AE's and greater number of AE's, the client/pc is made to fall on the opposing blade of his own sword. Then out comes the C/S 53, another Int R/D is put on the table, lists are repaired, etc. etc. None of that addresses the real difficulty.
What is the real difficulty? From my perspective and experience, it is the processing itself which neglects the pc's involvement with his environment, and terminals therein. That environment continues to create the new you as the old you. Alan has a name for that. Since I am not familiar with his acronym I will skip trying to say what it is.
The thing I have discovered is that if I am in a big AE I need to upgrade the environment and the people in my life. Then and only then can I achieve stability. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I feel it is a big deal and a big piece of the puzzle that needs to be in a seekers toolbox. In Scientology the AE crash just means here's an opportunity to sell more processing, FES time, repair, Ethics, PTS handling, and so on.
I spent a number of lifetimes studying Buddhism. In the end, all I did was implant myself. It took a major stable win on OT-TR-0 and years of sorting what it all meant to bring the study of Buddhism to a close. When I got to Knowledgism and conversing with Alan, I was able to wrap up much of what I studied in Scientology that left me hanging, and, I might add, I was hanging up unknowingly.
Following Knowledgism I undertook a bit of Chakra Clearing. In that I was able to achieve an AE that far surpassed anything yet experienced elsewhere. If I had not done Scientology, if I had not studied Knowledgism and the AE, I would not have achieved the AE in Chakra Clearing, and had I attained the AE without the knowledge of the double-edged sword of the AE's in general, I would have been really screwed up. This AE produced phenomena immediately and thereafter IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. This is after all, one of the stated goals of Scientology processing. I had to go outside that box to achieve it.
I don't know that in a being's mind these subjects can be held completely separate because they are not--and they are. They can be held separate in the physical universe, but not in the mind of the seeker.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I agree. It's hard to ague with this post. I might add my 2-cent opinion:
Alan was a tremendous marketer of Scientology. His efforts to market Knowledgism never paralleled his Scientology experience. This statement I make as no slam on Alan. Some forty years later, market conditions changed. Admit it or not, Hubbard was not the sole source of Scientology or its expansion into the society. The '60s drug culture contributed greatly in their desire for further, mind-blowing expansion. Scientology seemed to fulfill that desire--or at least imply that it could. So did EST.
The free sex attitude of the '60s produced some very creative people, Alan among them. Although, I suspect he would have been free on that part of life even if the '60s had been stifled. Some of the best marketing and sales people, in or out of Scientology, are free and expansive on the sex part of Scientology's dynamic number two. Pucker-butts would say, "Promiscous," but I think that is not quite right.
Alan's Scientology connections, many of equal or better experience in other areas of life, no longer existed, or they were so filled with BPC that the idea of another run at the human potential movement appeared as most unappealing.
I could go on. The point is, society moved on past what it was during Scientology's growth period. And the condition of that society was as responsible for the growth of Scientology as was Hubbard and other key personnel. Marketing success demands a convergence of perceived need and supplier.
Given the negative impact of organized Scientology on public perception, it is and was only smart marketing to position AWAY from it. Given organized Scientology's propensity to raise legal hell for anyone whom they perceive as crossing their lines of Command Intention or Gross Income, it was and is smart legal ruds to position AWAY from Scientology. And those matters, I believe, are the real reasons why Alan would choose to position Knowledgism AWAY from Scientology.
Had Scientology been straight up honest in its dealings, free and easy in the spirit of Planetary Clearing, saying "Go forth and multiple, my son. You have our blessings," I suspect that any one of us would have no problem positioning with Scientology and acknowledging our heritage.
Mark A. Baker
- Status