Veda
Sponsor
Don't forget Hubbard's confidential writings, including his confidential HCOPLs. Hubbard certainly didn't forget them, nor does Miscavige.
From Miss X - About Annie Broeker
- Thread starter Lulu Belle
- Start date
Don't forget Hubbard's confidential writings, including his confidential HCOPLs. Hubbard certainly didn't forget them, nor does Miscavige.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
I would suggest that it's far more efficient, when you're looking for raisins, to go down to the store and buy a box, rather than hunting for them in turds, even though you might find some there too.
Even the most reasonable and rational HCOBs and HCOPLs are tainted by their provenance.
Zinj
Jim Logan
Dear Petra,
Sweetheart, you sound like one to me so I hope you don't mind if I use that, but here's the truth of it. In the Data Series, it is very well stated that 'policy' if need be, will be reviewed and set or cancelled. That is also part of the Admin Scale, and make no mistake, LRH realized and wrote that policy by necessity would evolve. Tech on the other hand was made Standard and by sheer experience he found that for whatever goddamn reason others just couldn't consistently get that together. Not that they didn't every now and then and those parts are still there, albeit under his name, but it was inconsistent. So he said that's it on it.
LRH worked non-stop to refine and work this body of work. What is there as Standard Tech is a workable route. It isn't a perfect route, but it works and it will get one to the point where one doesn't need to hold someone's hand or ask for OK to have an idea or do something or create or just go on and be whoever or whatever it is they want. With NO limits on it. You see, the product is a free being and since we are all so different then who can say what we all do or think or whatever. Policy is meant and clearly stated to be a means to co-operative action amongst a group composed of individuals who freely decide to work co-operatively. It is OUR group, not just LRH's. In fact, he isn't even here anymore. What we do with it is our responsibility and blaming Ron is a tired old wrong why is God. And remember, he too was a being, with his own ideas. Can you grant him that beingness and maybe see if it was your own ideal being that you wanted him to be and just because he personally wasn't doesn't mean he threw you a curve with the work.
The fact is, on an eval, policy is meant as an Ideal Scene from which to judge departures, but there is plenty of stuff in the Data Series which covers an 'operating scene' that isn't in policy and if it's working then that's the whole freakin' point. You don't then wreck it because it is 'off policy'. You see what I mean. What works is the senior datum. That's the truth. Not slavish obedience. That, was never LRH's aim or intention. Come on now, you think he wanted us going to him for permission to wipe our backsides or read a book or succeed or, or you get it?
An eval that leads to a wrong why and drops stats is to be cancelled. No matter who did it. Including Ron. He wanted this to succeed, not just be 'right'. And that is in the Data Series and all over the place in the data. Just because we deny ourselves and our own ability to see and have the courage to look and say what we observe doesn't then mean Ron was out to get you. He pleaded, extolled, exhorted, cried, yelled, screamed and did everything a guy could do to get us to stand on our own two damned feet and take responsibility for our own lives and stop asking him for a license to survive. Will you please see that you, you yourself, are a causitive, caring, capable, honest, and vibrant, living, independent being who is all that is positive and right about life and pick up your own bootstraps, get on that horse again and ride it like you know what you are doing and if you don't then for God's sake, read the subject, all of it, and everything you can get your hands on, and find out. It's quite a horse once you get some skill with it. My best to you. Jim
Dear Petra,
Sweetheart, you sound like one to me so I hope you don't mind if I use that, but here's the truth of it. In the Data Series, it is very well stated that 'policy' if need be, will be reviewed and set or cancelled. That is also part of the Admin Scale, and make no mistake, LRH realized and wrote that policy by necessity would evolve. Tech on the other hand was made Standard and by sheer experience he found that for whatever goddamn reason others just couldn't consistently get that together. Not that they didn't every now and then and those parts are still there, albeit under his name, but it was inconsistent. So he said that's it on it.
LRH worked non-stop to refine and work this body of work. What is there as Standard Tech is a workable route. It isn't a perfect route, but it works and it will get one to the point where one doesn't need to hold someone's hand or ask for OK to have an idea or do something or create or just go on and be whoever or whatever it is they want. With NO limits on it. You see, the product is a free being and since we are all so different then who can say what we all do or think or whatever. Policy is meant and clearly stated to be a means to co-operative action amongst a group composed of individuals who freely decide to work co-operatively. It is OUR group, not just LRH's. In fact, he isn't even here anymore. What we do with it is our responsibility and blaming Ron is a tired old wrong why is God. And remember, he too was a being, with his own ideas. Can you grant him that beingness and maybe see if it was your own ideal being that you wanted him to be and just because he personally wasn't doesn't mean he threw you a curve with the work.
The fact is, on an eval, policy is meant as an Ideal Scene from which to judge departures, but there is plenty of stuff in the Data Series which covers an 'operating scene' that isn't in policy and if it's working then that's the whole freakin' point. You don't then wreck it because it is 'off policy'. You see what I mean. What works is the senior datum. That's the truth. Not slavish obedience. That, was never LRH's aim or intention. Come on now, you think he wanted us going to him for permission to wipe our backsides or read a book or succeed or, or you get it?
An eval that leads to a wrong why and drops stats is to be cancelled. No matter who did it. Including Ron. He wanted this to succeed, not just be 'right'. And that is in the Data Series and all over the place in the data. Just because we deny ourselves and our own ability to see and have the courage to look and say what we observe doesn't then mean Ron was out to get you. He pleaded, extolled, exhorted, cried, yelled, screamed and did everything a guy could do to get us to stand on our own two damned feet and take responsibility for our own lives and stop asking him for a license to survive. Will you please see that you, you yourself, are a causitive, caring, capable, honest, and vibrant, living, independent being who is all that is positive and right about life and pick up your own bootstraps, get on that horse again and ride it like you know what you are doing and if you don't then for God's sake, read the subject, all of it, and everything you can get your hands on, and find out. It's quite a horse once you get some skill with it. My best to you. Jim
That remark makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Normally, I'd dismiss it, but since you seem like a smart (raisin-filled) cookie - would you care to expand on it?
Vinaire
Sponsor
Vinaire
Sponsor
One just have to be rational and/or intuitive on one's own determinism. That is the ultimate one can ask of anybody.
.
Ralph Hilton
Patron Meritorious
Ideally, it would violate the Data Series itself to violate an HCOB or HCOPL.
Evaluations need to be conducted with an awareness of an Ideal Scene. Without the datum of an Ideal Scene one has no datum against which to evaluate.
In practice, HCOBs and HCOPLs are not perfect. Some were written by LRH and many were written by others. HCOBs sometimes contradict each other.
To evolve the technology one would have to evaluate using senior data to policy and tech such as the Axioms, Logics and Pre-Logics.
There are flaws in the tech. They can't be found without evaluating the tech itself. But an Ideal Scene needs to be used in the eval.
Evaluations need to be conducted with an awareness of an Ideal Scene. Without the datum of an Ideal Scene one has no datum against which to evaluate.
In practice, HCOBs and HCOPLs are not perfect. Some were written by LRH and many were written by others. HCOBs sometimes contradict each other.
To evolve the technology one would have to evaluate using senior data to policy and tech such as the Axioms, Logics and Pre-Logics.
There are flaws in the tech. They can't be found without evaluating the tech itself. But an Ideal Scene needs to be used in the eval.
Veda
Sponsor
Terril park
Sponsor
Have totally loved your posts Jim. I take a small issue here.
" Very well stated....etc"
I'd say hedged and grudgingly stated.
DATA series 49, which I quoted earlier also says:-
" Any recomendation in this eval for change of policy or tech must be
cleared by the watchdog commitee (WDC) before being placed in an eval as a target and resulting PL or bulletin must be reviewed by the founder personally."
In New vols data series 48, and dated 26 DEC 1979.
I've long suspected that the eval line was corrupted, because the stats declined.
1979 was probably the high point of COS stats. Its not very clear when LRH lost full control and knowledge of management lines. Not sure who comprised the WDC in 1979, or how diligently they would apply this PL. Or
even pass on info to LRH.
I presume it was an eval that led to the cancellation of disconnection?
Way back when? Anyone know the history of cancelled PLs from evals?
LRH had many other problems taking his attention then and went into hiding.
But from here on, there was a decline. Petra's example showed how
" politics" got in the way of purity of evaluation.
Evals of course can no longer " be reviewed"by the founder. I suspect
only DM is allowed to do evals now.
Veda
Sponsor
Just as the SP Doctrine was never "cancelled," neither was Disconnection - in practice.
The fake "cancellation of Disconnection" - in some public statement PR-level display "policy" - was sometimes not understood by some staff, etc. to be only display policy - display-only "cancellation."
An earlier instance of this was the phony "Reform Code" of 1968, that "cancelled" (the name of) "Fair Game," and (the name of) "Security Checking," etc. Some people really thought it "cancelled" Fair Game, Security Checking, etc. This created some minor confusion for a while.
Some didn't understand that there is policy and then there is Policy and then there is POLICY and then there is Command Intention.
Senior policy is usually limited issue "non-remimeo" or confidential.
Scientology, as designed by its founder, is patterned after a covert operation. Come on - wake up and smell the coffee.
Vinaire
Sponsor
Just envisioning the Ideal scene would be the make and break point of the evaluation.
.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Could LRH ever have been objective enough to say "The policies about staff pay, freeloader debts, etc, need to be revised." ?
I doubt it.
I think it would be hard for anyone and LRH did suffer from some measure of hubris.
I doubt it.
I think it would be hard for anyone and LRH did suffer from some measure of hubris.
Jim Logan
Do all you guys see what happens when you get the basics. You get understanding, like Ralph has expostulated, and there is NO substitute.
Do all you guys see what happens when you get the basics. You get understanding, like Ralph has expostulated, and there is NO substitute.
Jim Logan
First, LRH never 'lost control of the lines' he turned over his hats. That's what one has to do when he's going to move off a point of power. It's in Simon Bolivar, and also in there is that you may have to turn them over to someone who ain't as good. It takes guts to do that. Factually, each of us has part of the hat and that's clearly enunciated in KSW. Terril, it is OUR turn. But you've read the point I made and methinks you are going to do jus' fine. If you aren't already. Love to you, Jim
First, LRH never 'lost control of the lines' he turned over his hats. That's what one has to do when he's going to move off a point of power. It's in Simon Bolivar, and also in there is that you may have to turn them over to someone who ain't as good. It takes guts to do that. Factually, each of us has part of the hat and that's clearly enunciated in KSW. Terril, it is OUR turn. But you've read the point I made and methinks you are going to do jus' fine. If you aren't already. Love to you, Jim
Jim Logan
His policy is not what you are currently seeing on Freeloader debts. Sorry, it's all there but if you don't look, you can't see. LOOK.
Jim Logan
Pshaww, Fair Game was cancelled, but how the SP case is handled is how it is handled, and that hasn't changed because if it's done it works and the guy is himself, which isn't a case condition and he isn't an SP anymore. You haven't studied or used this material and have a spectator only experience. You are a mere 'critic' having never written a play. How many people have you run through an engram? How many people have you done an L1C on when their dog died? How many have you helped understand their math courses? What do you know about using this data anyway? Nyah, nyah, nyah, like some sort of GAT drill goes the parrot.
Sorry, that wasn't very social. Geez, where are those circuits. Oh, there they are, 'why what a wonderful piece of investigative journalism you have done and presented us to our shock and surprise, he IS a poo poo head. Why didn't I see it earlier before all this 'time' was wasted.'
Wait a sec, that isn't the right circuit... I'll have to let this one go. I'll be back. Maybe.
OK, I'm back, and sorry about any smart alecy stuff. I sometimes let the Highlander that I am loose and I do apologize. I guess the thing is, I know all these arguments. I've done my homework and there comes a time when you move on. They are resolved. Not that what you are saying isn't valid, that there ARE things that have not been done well. YOU are absolutely right. I am choosing a different route to deal with these irrational issues which you see. I have experienced and seen at my own hands, others experience incredible gain with Scientology. I personally don't give a tat about LRH as a man. He did some outrageous stuff in a packed life. I can't claim I haven't fallen from grace. Nonetheless, Scientology works. That's what is important to me.
Again, sorry if I got steppy on toesy there. Good luck to you all. I'll be around for and field stuff as I find time. My love to each. Jim
Pshaww, Fair Game was cancelled, but how the SP case is handled is how it is handled, and that hasn't changed because if it's done it works and the guy is himself, which isn't a case condition and he isn't an SP anymore. You haven't studied or used this material and have a spectator only experience. You are a mere 'critic' having never written a play. How many people have you run through an engram? How many people have you done an L1C on when their dog died? How many have you helped understand their math courses? What do you know about using this data anyway? Nyah, nyah, nyah, like some sort of GAT drill goes the parrot.
Sorry, that wasn't very social. Geez, where are those circuits. Oh, there they are, 'why what a wonderful piece of investigative journalism you have done and presented us to our shock and surprise, he IS a poo poo head. Why didn't I see it earlier before all this 'time' was wasted.'
Wait a sec, that isn't the right circuit... I'll have to let this one go. I'll be back. Maybe.
OK, I'm back, and sorry about any smart alecy stuff. I sometimes let the Highlander that I am loose and I do apologize. I guess the thing is, I know all these arguments. I've done my homework and there comes a time when you move on. They are resolved. Not that what you are saying isn't valid, that there ARE things that have not been done well. YOU are absolutely right. I am choosing a different route to deal with these irrational issues which you see. I have experienced and seen at my own hands, others experience incredible gain with Scientology. I personally don't give a tat about LRH as a man. He did some outrageous stuff in a packed life. I can't claim I haven't fallen from grace. Nonetheless, Scientology works. That's what is important to me.
Again, sorry if I got steppy on toesy there. Good luck to you all. I'll be around for and field stuff as I find time. My love to each. Jim
Last edited:
Similar threads
