What's new

Fundamentalist KSW Independent Scientology

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
[NOTE: In an effort not to create so many threads, I will try to put future cross-posts from the Fundamentalist KSW Independent Scientology community in this thread. If I think something is sufficiently important or unique, I may create a new thread, but will try not to do so too often. :)]

The Fundamentalist KSW Independent Scientology blog, iScientology blog, has an interesting post in which Steve "Thoughtful" Hall: (a) attempts to create some "wiggle room" concerning KSW and strict adherence to the written word of LRH as gospel; but also (b) takes some shots at "former members who criticize Scientology for its supposed "flaws."" Gee, I wonder who he could be talking about. :whistling:

Oh, and as discussed beneath the cross-post, Steve also
conviently absolves Scentology of responsibility for all objectionable conduct and behavior done in its name and/or pursuant to its scriptures.


http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt
Lessening the Overt

by Thoughtful

On the home page of iScientology.org you will see some key LRH references along with two principles that are integral to our movement: “Guaranteeing Scientology as a force for good” and “Keeping Scientology true to its own philosophic core.”
One of the concepts I've tried to emphasize from the outset is that Scientology without A-R-C is not Scientology. One could call it idiocy, or Miscavology, or invalidation, or suppression, or abuse — any of these names would be correct. But "Scientology" without ARC is just not Scientology. How could it be? “ARC” represents only the greatest single discovery of Scientology and sits at the very heart of the subject.

It's not even because LRH said so. The reason I can say that is because affinity, reality and communication are the three component parts of understanding, and what is Scientology if not an effort to attain greater understanding?

So even if LRH himself had said in some emotional outburst, "to hell with ARC" that would still not make "hurting people" into Scientology.

The discoveries of Scientology are not something LRH invented. They are something LRH discovered. That’s why we call them “discoveries” and not “inventions.” The fundamental agreements underlying existence are not “inventions.” Therefore Scientology is not whatever David Miscavige OR EVEN WHAT LRH says it is. The subject is what it is.

Perhaps some former members who criticize Scientology for its supposed "flaws" never fully understood Scientology in the first place. Perhaps if we were to roll back their track record we would reveal a person who grossly altered Scientology principles in a harmful way and adopted that as "Scientology." This new version of Scientology they invented would have then been used as the justification to harm people.

Fast forward several decades and now you might have someone who justifies their own cesspool of past crimes (instead of taking responsibility for them) by "lessening the overt" i.e. criticizing the subject and blaming it for their own harmful deeds, still pretending their corrupted version of Scientology was the real thing.

Yet thousands of people have read the same LRH issues and policies and never interpreted any of it as a license to kill.



Portland Chocolate Cake

I’m not much of a cook, but I could mix up a chocolate cake, then stir in a hearty portion of Portland cement. And when it hardened into solid stone I could still call it a "cake." But as soon as someone chipped a tooth on their first bite, would anyone really be so stupid they would say, "Wow, chocolate cake is the worst cake in the world! Chocolate cake is evil and will chip your teeth! I just want to warn people chocolate cake is a scam and a con. And Duncan Hines (the inventor of cake mix) was a liar with a false military record!"

No, there isn’t anyone that stupid. What there is, is individuals who have piled up so much guilt they now need to “lessen the overt” by attacking the subject to lessening the pressure that way. As LRH explained in 1960,

“When a person has committed an overt act and then withholds it, he or she usually employs the social mechanism of justification.

“We have all heard people attempt to justify their actions and all of us have known instinctively that justification was tantamount to a confession of guilt. But not until now have we understood the exact mechanism behind justification.

“Short of Scientology auditing, there was no means by which a person could relieve himself of consciousness of having done an overt act except to try to lessen the overt. ...

“...when the burden became too great man was driven to another mechanism—the effort to lessen the size and pressure of the overt. He or she could only do this by attempting to reduce the size and repute of the terminal. Hence, not-isness. Hence when a man or a woman has done an overt act there usually follows an effort to reduce the goodness or importance of the target of the overt. Hence the husband who betrays his wife must then state that the wife was no good in some way. Thus the wife who betrayed her husband had to reduce the husband to reduce the overt. This works on all dynamics. In this light most criticism is justification of having done an overt.” - LRH

None of this isn’t to say those same individuals were not ALSO victimized. They were. I’m not saying they weren’t. Their lives were destroyed by others. But why did they allow their lives to be destroyed by others? Why did they stand there and take it? How did they become so weak or blind that they couldn’t see their way out? Because of their own overts. I know. It happened to me, too. This is no “holier than thou” speech. And people who were simply victimized don't feel the need to lessen the overt.

“Lessening the overt” also occurs in the case of someone who has betrayed a person or group of people. You might one day see this if someone started to criticize not just the Church of Miscavige, but even those who had left the cult and courageously spoken out to protect others from harm.

Once, in Scientology’s history, there was a person who—while acting as auditor and case supervisor to a group of people who had left the Church—suddenly began to publicly criticize the members of his very own group. He was warning and complaining and nattering about his very own paying pcs—a remarkably flagrant violation of the Auditor’s Code: “2. I promise not to invalidate the preclear’s case or gains in or out of session.”


Make a test


Why do people stay in abusive situations? There is a theory called the “boiled frog syndrome” — basically if you plop a frog into boiling water he will jump out. But if you slowly raise the temperature he will calmly remain in the water and be boiled alive. But that doesn’t account for why people stay in an abusive situation like the Church of Scientology for one very good reason. People are not frogs.

Some psychopaths get people under their thumb by persuading them to commit harmful deeds. By compromising the victim’s own integrity, he becomes complicit in the crime and trapped by his own guilt. Now the SP can turn up the heat all he wants and poor Mr. Toad will not leave.

How do I know? Well, let’s make a test. Invite such a person do a proper O/W write up covering all the times he or she failed to refuse suppressive orders, or failed to go along with the insanity and actually harmed another person (or himself) when he was told to. What result could there be but a person freed from such past sufferings and hostilities?

Lots of ex-staff still have nightmares of being trapped in the CoS. The way to turn off such nightmares is simply to write up your overts. Failing to pounce on DM when he walked by. Failing to thrash his goons within an inch of their lives. Letting yourself be degraded. Letting them break up your marriage or family. Accepting wrong condition assignments. Putting up with injustices. Going with the flow. Not walking out. Failing to get others out of the CoS when you had the chance. Failing to leave when you had the chance. Failing to take evidence with you when you did leave. These are the things we continue to kick ourselves for. These are the source of nightmares. A nightmare is you kicking yourself for messing up and getting yourself trapped.

So if any of this applies to you, why not make a test. Do an O/W write up. After you are done, see if you can’t forgive yourself. For anyone this applies to, I bet you’d gain considerable insight, peace, closure and maybe even a playful sense of youth.

I started by simply spotting the points where I’d violated my own integrity early on in Scientology and that alone was enough to totally stop my nightmares a couple of years ago. After that, if I ever dreamed of Scientology (which became rare), it was generally about me tearing into them.

All the nightmares stopped. Instead I had some fun dreams like being back at the Int base, but now having the ability to open my mouth and devastate these suppressive group members for supporting and condoning a regime that manufactured an atmosphere of fear and intimidation through the intentional misapplication of Ethics. I was able to say things like, "Do you realize you are a degraded being? DM is an SP. He’s been an SP the entire time and you never noticed? Here you sit, imprisoned behind razor wire fences with cameras everywhere and security guards who's main job is to keep you in. You’re a prisoner with no freedom to leave. You can’t even call 911. Or have kids. Your corporation orders your children to be murdered before they are born. And you think YOU are going to bring people greater freedom? The orgs are EMPTY. How are you achieving any purpose? You’re not. You guys are the most suppressed, repressed, oppressed, backwards, enslaved group of pathetic prisoners on earth." They had no defense whatsoever against the truth.

Wow, how fun that was.

I told a friend about this and it worked for him, too. He subsequently had a dream where he physically beat the crap out of DM. Now that’s a dream I want to have! A few months later he had a dream where DM had been overthrown and was now giving up his crimes, though very, very reluctantly, which is what one would expect from DM.

In short, it’s only normal that your attention goes onto the abuse you received, which is a Flow 1. But the source of the hang up is actually Flow 2, what you did along with Flow 0, what you did to yourself. And there you have the way to make the problem vanish. (For info, others doing things to others is Flow 3).


O/W write up

So of course I had to test this theory by starting an O/W write up myself to see what I could find. Oh, it didn't take long to find stuff I had no idea was there. My ex-wife Sue turned me into Ethics in 1998 when I mentioned an interest in leaving the Sea Org. That was a motivator (Flow 1) for me. I had forgotten about the time in 1986 when a beautiful Italian girl (who looked like Raquel Welch, but even more beautiful) invited me to leave the Sea Org for her. I turned her into Ethics. Ouch, was that ever stupid!

Likewise there was a time in 1988 when I was chairman of a Comm Ev on a young artist who wanted to leave CMU (Central Marketing Unit). I’m ashamed to say I angrily told her she was an enemy and I never even listened to her side of the story. Ouch!

As well there were scores of times when I failed to speak up despite witnessing an injustice. Failed to say anything despite outpoints. Failed to keep my own counsel, keep in my own integrity and Code of Honor. Failed to call the police. Failed to walk out. There were strong feelings of guilt and regret attached to every overt that I located, the very stuff of stupidity and blindness. (For info, nothing restores intelligence, perception and improves eyesight like cleaning up your own O/Ws). You remember how an o/w write up is done?

1. Time — when it occurred exactly

2. Place — where you were exactly

3. Form — what form of overt it was

4. Event — what exactly happened and any consequences


Then it just goes 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, etc. FAST. If you spent any time on staff or in Scientology, you may find it hard to write fast enough to keep up with the gush of material. This is how you can heal yourself. Why not free yourself?

As LRH points out in numerous lectures, what matters isn't what other people (including in the CoS) consider to be overts. It’s what you consider to be an overt. The only overts that matter are the instances where you violated your own moral code. Those are the transgressions that hurt.

By getting you to violate your own moral code, a psychopath can get you to forget you even have your own moral code. So you can be more easily manipulated.

I shall write another article when I finish my o/w write up and let you know how it went.

Sleepwalking

The fact that many people do go ahead and commit harmful acts on themselves and on others when told to by an authority like Hitler or Dave Miscavige or their local IAS Registrar is more a comment on the general low ebb of personal awareness in our culture.

Scientology is not a belief system. But one of its maxims is that most people out in the world ARE asleep already. They became that way long before Scientology came along. That’s what the subject is there for—to gently wake them up into higher levels of awareness which is accomplished by training (study), ethics and auditing. People are at a low ebb. Many of them don’t really know what personal integrity is, not in a way they can reliably use. Some people wake up slowly and so may go on being quite groggy for years in Scientology. They haven’t woken up fully.

Groggy people do stupid things. Like harming others or themselves on command. Or because “everyone else is doing it.” The only solution is to do what you can to wake yourself up more fully. Maybe grogginess is also why some people get such towering misconceptions of Scientology, like assuming ARC is only for auditing sessions. Or eight dynamics are only for public (not staff). Or a dictator can replace the org board. Or “command intention” supersedes common sense.

One of the things that galvanized me in deciding to leave the Int base was a book, not by LRH. The author said something brilliant: “The problem with Earth is it’s populated entirely by victims. Stop being a victim and take responsibility for yourself.” That woke me up.


Career Nazis?

A very few may not have any guilt or remorse for their harmful acts. They may not be even remotely sorry for what they did. If so, their motives would be different. Their motives might simply be to go on suppressing people in plain sight like they always have done perhaps even by pretending to be lessening the overt (since it’s currently in vogue) and thereby tricking ex members into providing a safe haven.

No doubt certain SS Officers or Gestapo made a big show of criticizing Nazi policies wherever they went after the war. “Terrible thing, Nazism.” They simply don’t mention how they used the subject as a license to kill.

Part of such camouflage would be to be seen far and wide as a victim of the former group. Such a person might steadfastly ignore the advice of experienced law enforcement personnel on how to immediately END any harassment since they were themselves using the harassment to establish their cover.

That doesn’t mean everyone who wrongly criticizes anything or anyone is a sociopath. Far from it. Miscavige and his cronies constantly accused people of the wrong overts—non-compliance with RTC—whereas the actual overt was harming people by following DM’s orders. What better way of making slaves than by constantly misdirecting them to false overts?

Of course all that would just be reverse Ethics. And through it, Miscavige and friends effectively killed many decent Scientologists.

So if you ever encounter someone attempting to justify their own war crimes by lessening the overt, i.e., wrongly criticizing Scientology tech and/or Scientologists (some of whom may have even helped or steadfastly supported that person) while also refusing to apply any tech remedy for the situation, there you may have you finger on a legitimate 2 ½ percent CoS war criminal.

After WWII was over, hundreds of Nazi officers had to hide. Some hid in Argentina. Some hid in the USA. Some hid in plain sight as professional psychologists and mental counselors.

Unfortunately for the Nazis, Simon Wiesenthal never forgot the people they callously helped murder.

If you ever meet such a person who refuses to atone for his or her war crimes by coming clean and getting honest and straight, who instead starts to publicly attack his own pcs, you are certainly justified in refusing to forget your friends and family members whom they helped kill.

— Thoughtful
Note that Steve also absolves Scentology (if not LRH who, after all, may have said or written something in an "emotional outburst") of responsibility for all objectionable conduct and behavior done in its name and/or pursuant to its scriptures. How? Easy. "
Scientology without A-R-C is not Scientology." Anything objectionable done in the name of Scientology cannot properly be attributed to, or is the result of or caused by, Scientology -- no matter how consistent it is with Scientology scriptures -- because, you guessed it, "Scientology without A-R-C is not Scientology."

How convenient.

And who could Steve possibly be talking about when he refers to "a person who—while acting as auditor and case supervisor to a group of people who had left the Church—suddenly began to publicly criticize the members of his very own group?"

Who could Steve possibly be talking about when he refers to "steadfastly ignore the advice of experienced law enforcement personnel on how to immediately END any harassment since they were themselves using the harassment to establish their cover?"

Who could Steve possibly be talking about when he refers to "someone attempting to justify their own war crimes by lessening the overt, i.e., wrongly criticizing Scientology tech and/or Scientologists (some of whom may have even helped or steadfastly supported that person) while also refusing to apply any tech remedy for the situation?"

Who could Steve possibly be taking about when he refers to "a person who refuses to atone for his or her war crimes by coming clean and getting honest and straight, who instead starts to publicly attack his own pcs?"


 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

Contrast and compare . . .

Steve Hall said:
. . . One of the concepts I've tried to emphasize from the outset is that Scientology without A-R-C is not Scientology. One could call it idiocy, or Miscavology, or invalidation, or suppression, or abuse — any of these names would be correct. But "Scientology" without ARC is just not Scientology. How could it be? “ARC” represents only the greatest single discovery of Scientology and sits at the very heart of the subject.

It's not even because LRH said so. The reason I can say that is because affinity, reality and communication are the three component parts of understanding, and what is Scientology if not an effort to attain greater understanding? . . .



Steve Hall said:
. . . Not every person in Independent Scientology has to attack Miscavige, because people can specialize. But they better damn well support, IN FULL, the concept that beating the living snot out of this maggot is the only way to go WHILE we also reopen the Bridge for the millions. That IS what we are doing.

It’s brass knuckles in one hand and an e-meter in the other. The brass knuckles are reserved for Miscavige and his supporters only. But if someone starts forwarding Miscavige propaganda, they too can have a taste of brass.

If someone doesn’t like getting their nose rubbed into their own shit, then my advice is don’t walk into our home and take a shit on the living room floor . . .
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
This 'Thoughtful' guy does a good job explaining the 'Portland chocolate cake' principle: adding bad stuff to a good thing does not mean that the good thing is bad, any more than adding cement mix to chocolate cake proves that cake is bad. The principle is hardly novel. It is so old that it has a Latin expression, from ancient Roman law: abusus non tollit usum. [The possibility of] misuse does not remove [the possibility of] proper use. This is a succinct and very general statement of the principle.

It's a principle that can apply, though; not one that always applies automatically. The flip side of abusus non tollit usum is the True Scotsman Fallacy. A fanatical Scot insists that all Scotsmen are brave, and being faced with the undeniable existence of a Scottish coward, declares that the fellow is 'no true Scotsman'. If only brave Scotsmen count as Scotsmen at all to the fanatic, then in effect he is just defining 'Scotsman' to mean 'brave', and his position has no real content at all, because it reduces to the tautology that brave people are brave. Confusing the issue by introducing a second, loaded term "Scotsman" that means the same as the standard term 'brave man' is merely a propagandistic word game. It's a bait-and-switch move, where you let people think that 'Scotsman' means one thing, but then unilaterally change the definition to something else. So apart from just not really meaning anything, as an argument trick the True Scotsman Fallacy is an example of sophistry.

Thoughtful says that Scientology without ARC is not Scientology. Is this saying that cake with cement is not real cake? Or is it saying that Scotsmen without courage are no true Scotsmen?

The issue is a basic but subtle one. I think of it as the issue of coherence. Does there exist a coherent thing behind the label 'Scientology', which is more than just a collection of unrelated ideas and practices? Do the components of Scientology actively hang together, rather than falling apart from each other as soon as the covering label is removed? If not, if Scientology is only an arbitrary grab bag of things with no natural connection to each other, then it's meaningless to talk about Scientology with or without ARC, because including ARC in the grab bag is just as arbitrary as including anything else.

If Scientology is coherent, on the other hand, or at least if some portion of Scientology is coherent within itself, then it's meaningful to ask whether ARC is part of that coherent thing, or whether ARC is just an extraneous additional thing that could be artificially attached, or not, at anyone's whim. Or indeed: whether the absence of 'ARC' is a coherent part of Scientology, such that adding ARC weakens the whole, for what it is. Like adding cement to chocolate cake. Or adding emetic to poison.

So it isn't really enough to just talk about Portland cake, to defend Scientology. The coherence of Scientology has to first be established, and the coherent role of ARC within that whole. Perhaps Thoughtful is addressing an audience for whom both of those things are a given. I'm not exactly criticizing his text. I'm just saying, it's kind of a sideshow. The really big issue is something else, and what he says here does nothing about it.
 
Last edited:

TG1

Angelic Poster
Thanks for that analysis ToS.

Steve often writes long screeds to rationalize his strong, conflicting emotions about brass knuckles v. ARC, hate v. friendship, organizational lockstep v. personal freedoms. He wrestles with many cognitive and affective dissonances. But he hasn't seriously considered yet whether his most precious Scientological truth (e.g., LRH's "discoveries" are workable) could be at the heart of his agony.

I predict that Steve will eventually have a dramatic Damascus moment and turn overnight into a Hubbard hater. And being Steve, he'll do this in public.

TG1
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
That would really be something. The guy does seem to be sharp and thoughtful.

The problem as I see it is that no human beings are all that smart. We're jumped up monkeys trying to think with meat, and we're all rather easily confused. But we don't want to admit this, so most of us have this idea that we should be able to straighten everything out, intellectually, without all that much effort. So if somebody who's a little swifter than average sees a few bad arguments, and exposes their flaws, then they tend to pat themselves on the back and think that they themselves have the truth. They put in a good day's work correcting errors, and now they can relax with a cold mug of smug.

The sad truth is that picking holes in someone else's bad arguments can be like removing the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own. The wonder is that humans can think at all. We are not right by default. The default is that we are totally confused. A little bit of cleverness, or even an awful lot of it by human standards, just does not really go very far towards reaching the truth.

Unfortunately, although I don't know Steve Hall in the slightest, I can easily imagine someone like him going to his grave without ever really looking his beliefs full in the face. It's too easy to just talk around the big questions, scoring points off people a little slower than you are — or who just put a bit less time into posting online — and letting those victories convince you that your ground is secure. Too bad it doesn't really work that way.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
That would really be something. The guy does seem to be sharp and thoughtful.

The problem as I see it is that no human beings are all that smart. We're jumped up monkeys trying to think with meat, and we're all rather easily confused. But we don't want to admit this, so most of us have this idea that we should be able to straighten everything out, intellectually, without all that much effort. So if somebody who's a little swifter than average sees a few bad arguments, and exposes their flaws, then they tend to pat themselves on the back and think that they themselves have the truth. They put in a good day's work correcting errors, and now they can relax with a cold mug of smug.

The sad truth is that picking holes in someone else's bad arguments can be like removing the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own. The wonder is that humans can think at all. We are not right by default. The default is that we are totally confused. A little bit of cleverness, or even an awful lot of it by human standards, just does not really go very far towards reaching the truth.

Unfortunately, although I don't know Steve Hall in the slightest, I can easily imagine someone like him going to his grave without ever really looking his beliefs full in the face. It's too easy to just talk around the big questions, scoring points off people a little slower than you are — or who just put a bit less time into posting online — and letting those victories convince you that your ground is secure. Too bad it doesn't really work that way.

ToS,

Your posts are rocking lately (emphasis added above).

You (and Kodachrome Paul Simon) said it well: "It's a wonder [we] can think at all."

TG1
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Ralph Hilton doesn't see dead people, but he has seen Nazis.... and manages to pile on:

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1059
[name="Ralph Hilton"]

Perhaps this is a touch heavy .. I knew one of the auditors and the i/c of the Crackerjack Unit which audited the CMO. Both independently told me that most of the CMO (not the early messengers who were on the Apollo) came up with past lifetime Nazi identities, were difficult to audit, withholdy and had high TA.

To put things a little indirectly I consider that anyone who publicly attacks David Mayo in a place where he cannot speak in his own defense has not confronted his own misdeeds.


Quite a few have used the approach you mention:

"Part of such camouflage would be to be seen far and wide as a victim of the former group. Such a person might steadfastly ignore the advice of experienced law enforcement personnel on how to immediately END any harassment since they were themselves using the harassment to establish their cover."

What might also be noticed is that they tend to cover up for each other.
It is sad when such people refuse auditing and seek to "transcend" Scientology rather than confront their misdeeds.
Bernie Winbush has picked up the new defense of the Tech:

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1065
[name="Bernie Wimbush"]

What a great artcle. Criticism ca only be leveled at what is done in the name of Scientology, not at the subject itself. As you pointed out it is only a series of discoveries. These discoveries are only as true for you as you can use them.

And on overts, they are just a source of charge. The underlying truth is thatyou cannot hurt a thetan, but you sure can get him to buy into an entheta game so they can stuff themselves up nicely.

It is our Scientology, not anyone elses. Lets play to win. DM is on the wrong side of history and needs to do an O/W writeup as suggested.

Bernie
Chris "Q&A" Mann, the former DSA, may lose his moniker:
http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1075
[name="Chris Mann"]

I believe you are on to something here.

It might help to step back and really look at actual products too. What's the goal and what is the end result?

Attack, make wrong (lessening the overt), attack, make wrong, attack, make wrong in some sort of cycle is what I see. What is that exactly- I don't know, other than it's just not my kind of game.
Ingrid Smith still doesn't want to be "a nice little homo sapien":

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1077
[name="Ingrid Smith"]

A comm such as yours Steve, is like a very fresh breath of much needed Scientology air. I feel I can breathe again. Thank you.

There are alot of books on how to be a nice little homo sapien. What Ron pointed us toward is OT !! That is what I want! Where the space is huge and fun! His discoveries are staggering.

Lessening the overt is lessening oneself and the game. it's soap box material-some old, same old
Silvia duplicates the latest defense:

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1087
[name="Silvia"]

Corect Steve, totally correct.

When things were very bad at FSO in 2007 and I did not see the light anymore I sat down and wrote OWs. This is what snapped me up to PT again and I was then stronger to plan how I would leave that SP envireonment and I did leave.

As far as Scientology - it is part of LIFE itself, is not because LRH said it, it is simply part of a high level of LIFE and has truth in it.

Yes LRH is the Source of this presentation of principles and procedures that work, but in the final term each individual is the Source of his or her life.
How each one decides to go on, is fine and should be allowed to do so as long as it does not harm himself or others. If the person wants to wear yello hair and his life is well, so let it be, this does not hurt anybody.

Another thing that could help an individual is, after OWs restudy the materials that were missed and landed the person inn that condition. Clear the MUs and having that tech will protect you and or make you able to handle such similar situations.

Thanks again for the write up - SILVIA
And Dani Lemberger, while conceding that there are those who "fail the test for of taking responsibility for past misconduct," really just wants everyone to get along and fight the "one common enemy":

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1094
[name="Dani Lemberger"]

Thank you Steve for a touching, brilliant article.

Those who fail the test of taking responsibility for past misconduct, can we still be pan-determined and give them a hand out?

We really do have one common enemy. Let's all work together to rid us of him and save Scientology.

There'll be eternity then to squabble and bicker!
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Fundamentalist KSW IS Blog: The Tech was NOT at fault!

Steve "Thoughtful" Hall, Lana and Ingrid Smith articulate their position. Anything wrong with Scientology was not in any way the fault or attributable to the Tech, but was instead caused by people (clearly including Marty, albeit unnamed) who "justified their actions by claiming suppression was “on Source.”"

Steve in particular is clearly taking shots at Marty. The schism is widening.

Also, be sure to watch for the "imminent VERY BIG projects about to surface which you will hear a lot about in the next few weeks."

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1101
Thoughtful 2013-04-10 01:23

Dani, Thank you. It's not really about bickering or making anybody wrong, it's about keeping Scientology true to its own philosophic core -- Understanding: Affinity, Reality and Communication. The Church that exists today is a product of the opposite: no understanding: i.e. tone levels below death (like owning bodies or worshiping bodies), total unreality, and a brutally arrogant refusal to communicate. These elements are NOT Scientology. Yet for decades the old regime attempted to cover their tracks by redefining Scientology as containing such elements. They justified their actions by claiming suppression was “on Source.” And now one of the very same people who did that is going to say we need to change Scientology because really it included all these bad concepts? No.

In fact, the old regime did such a good job at alloying Scientology with various forms of entheta that many, many people became convinced that Scientology was indeed full of shit.

Maybe the old regime did it because they were a pack of SPs. Maybe they did it because they were just so groggy and stupid they didn’t know which way was up. I don’t know why they did it. That is for them to figure out.

But the "shit" they mixed into Scientology was not inherent in the subject in the first place because how can you have a subject who’s entire purpose is the creation of understanding, have elements within it that destroy understanding?

It would be like driving a car welded to an 80-ton anchor. Does it really take a genius to see the anchor doesn’t belong? An anchor doesn’t fit within a car’s admin scale. It’s an outpoint called “added inapplicable.”

So such elements were ADDITIVES. So the solution isn't now to change the whole subject because Larry Wright said so. The solution is strip out the additives. It’s easy! Guess what makes it hard: un-handled O/Ws.

All organizations have some criminality and abuse, because sociopaths are distributed throughout the population. But the fact that sociopaths existed in an organization and produced chaos doesn't necessarily mean the organizational philosophy was corrupt. It simply means (1) the people responsible for catching and evicting such people were non existent, or (2) utterly incompetent, or (3) they were themselves suppressive. LRH tried to give the Church a fighting chance by putting people on post (an entire organization called “RTC” was given the hat) who's entire product was to root out such SPs and keep the tech pure. But “RTC” turned out to be the biggest, most colossal, super sized failure in the history of Scientology organizations. Since there were people expressly posted to do this job, that leaves the cause as either #2 (incompetence) or #3 (suppressive).

I wasn't going to write anything more on the subject, but someone keeps motivating and I noticed some people were getting enturbulated. Even I got enturbulated and got sick for the first time in a couple of years. I know PTS tech and after 3 weeks when the condition was persisting I took a look. I saw that a piece of the Int base had followed me up the track. And when I saw that, the illness completely blew and I was completely well. I went from sick for three weeks to completely well in seconds.

Still, I wasn’t going to say anything until I noticed several others had gotten enturbulated and so it was time to speak up. This article was simply to provide insight to anyone who had gotten confused. I spoke up on principle, as a public service. Not because I'm personally upset.

Throughout this long cold winter since DM arrived most people simply wanted standard tech and were denied. Now that we can actually deliver it, that's what we should do. make it available to who ever wants it. Not mix in some earlier practices and this and that. Hey, I'm a Scientologist. It never even occurred to me that I couldn't or shouldn't study other subjects. I thought that was Scientology was FOR — you use it as a flashlight to go explore other subjects. I’ve ALWAYS used it for that. And lots of others have done the same thing.

Scientology is defined as "knowing how to know." Life is all about learning. The whole insular idea that no one needs anything but Scientology is itself an additive that came from RTC. We don't need to now fix that about Scientology because it never existed in Scientology in the first place.

I have no time to waste on bickering. However, as it says on Scientology-cult, there comes a time when silence is betrayal. Hope this clarifies.

Steve

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

**********************

avatar.php

+1 # Lana M 2013-04-10 02:17
Steve,

I want to add something here also -- the reason WHY I left the Sea Org it finally dawned on me (I finally woke up out of my stupor) that the church that I was working for 24/7, supporting and dedicating my every day's efforts to, no longer resembled in any way, the philosophy and principles that are Scientology themselves. It was not that I betrayed my group in leaving -- I actually woke up and realized that whilst I had joined one group -- over time it had morphed and transformed into something altogether different. And I had been so stuck inside of it, I could not see it. I had morphed too -- downwards. I had, scarily enough, become part of a real "cult" and had not seen it.

Scientology is not a cult. Never was, never will be. But the church of Miscavige is.

Further -- on the subject of recent enturbulation in the independent field -- I started getting upset back in December, when it seemed that if I communicated my passion and love for Scientology, the body of work, I was labelled as being a "true believer", a "zealot" and all manner of other names. If I defended myself or others the attacks got nastier. I had no game or any desire to get into such a game - so I dropped the entheta comm. I created this new community blog as a place where people who have the same beliefs as I can communicate freely without having to defend or justify that we feel Scientology works.

There is no time for bickering here. We are just getting on with the job of delivering and dissemination and there are some imminent VERY BIG projects about to surface which you will hear a lot about in the next few weeks.

Projects that all can get involved in. Projects that are only limited by the imagination and ability of OT (which is none really). Stay tuned!


Reply | Reply with quote | Quote


**********************


avatar.php



0 # Ingrid Smith 2013-04-10 12:21
Thank you so much Lana for creating this much needed forum. It was getting hard to navigate through the rotten tomatoes being thrown for being a Scientologist. I saw others really getting charged up too and for what?? Helping people with the Tech, loving the Tech, using it corrrectly-this, of course, is considered an "overt" by the aberrated personality.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Funadentalist KSW IS not KSW? LRH material can be cut, but nothing new can be added.

Funadentalist KSW IS not KSW? LRH material can be cut, but nothing new can be added.

Crap! The "Fundamentalist KSW IS" label may need to be modified, and drop the "KSW," to be simply "Fundamentalist IS." Only time will tell.

Steve "Thoughtful" Hall now concedes that LRH added, well, additives -- "80-ton boat anchors" -- that are no longer applicable or workable, and should be cut away. So much for KSW as written. He also takes yet another shot at Marty -- again without naming him.

So it appears current Fundamentalist IS doctrine is that some of even Hubbard's stuff can, and perhaps should and need, be cut away, but nothing new can, should or need be added.

And Steve again asserts that Scientology can be properly defined, and the appropriate policies retained and the inappropriate policies culled, if everything is filtered through the primary filter of ARC.

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/430-lessening-the-overt#comment-1109
# Thoughtful 2013-04-10 13:48
SKM, Of course I agree with you. To clarify (and I apologize for the long answer),

1. Regarding the additives that LRH himself installed into Scientology, I like the analogy about the car welded to an 80-ton anchor. That would be like someone becoming hysterical because, "But what if it was GM that welded the anchor to the car?!? OMG!!!" General Motors makes mistakes too, same as you and me… and LRH. No doubt LRH did wrongly weld a few anchors onto Scientology. I don’t think that would be cause to decree that “Automobiles are no good. There’s so much more we can learn from horse wagons." No, if it were your car, you wouldn’t be a robot; you’d just cut the anchors off and drive down the road regardless of who put them on. And if Scientology were your Scientology, you’d also just cut the anchors off regardless of who put them on there. It’s pretty obvious and easy to do.

But apparently some people can’t admit that the problem was always easy to solve. Is that because such an admission would completely ruin their credibility for having failed to do the right thing for 25 years? So they are STILL waving a bony RTC finger and croaking, “Beware! It can’t be done! I hold that ego-centricism is quantified with quantum overtones of chronic cognitive digestive dissonance leading to corresponding judgmental dysfunction!” I thought we had a Scientologist there but somehow he turned into a psychologist.


And where does the freedom to cut the anchors off your car take us? Exactly to the first datum most people learned in Scientology: What is true in Scientology is what is true for YOU. That’s why I have said from the beginning, in the Independent movement we have finally arrived back at the very beginning. In the Route to Infinity Lectures LRH explains the symbol of the circle being with us for a very long time, and he points out that at the top of the circle zero and infinity meet. That is the threshold to Independence. We’ve all come full circle and arrived back at the beginning.

So none of this is to say some Policies don’t need to be fixed. I’m just saying, as I always have, that fixing that stuff is easy. And the reason I say that is because when I did my eval of the entire situation in 2008, most of the outpoints did not go back to LRH. Most went back to DM and his enablers. Some went to LRH. But the WHY resides in the area of the predominance of outpoints. And the WHY opens the door to a handling. In other words, if we handle the WHY, the rest is EASY to deal with. Scientology is EASY to fix. What makes it hard are the line of thugs standing in the way blocking it from being fixed.

2. The idea that we have to implement ALL of the “old solutions” is an idea that itself came from RTC. LRH never said that. He himself cancelled scores of policies. So that idea is also an additive. He even gave us a Qual division to correct the organization. And he gave us KSW Policy — does that mean to blanket enforce everything? No, it doesn’t say that and the crashing MU is the word “Scientology.” Before one can “Keep Scientology Working” maybe one has to first have a conceptual understanding of what Scientology is. And no one in RTC knew that because they thought ARC — the very foundation of Scientology and the source of all it’s power — was a joke.

To someone with a conceptual understanding of what Scientology is, KSW means to keep in everything in that creates understanding and ruthlessly stamp into oblivion the things that block the growth of affinity on all dynamics, reality on all dynamics, communication on all dynamics, and understanding on all dynamics. So KSW itself isn’t even a bad policy, it’s just been implemented in reverse for 30 years by a pack of yellow rats.

Did you know that many of LRH’s issues had an expiration on them? Some per LRH were set to expire in a year. But DM and his renegades in RTC ignored such expirations so they could establish more justification for his criminal acts. And the entire time he was pretending to be enforcing all the old solutions, he was actually doing nothing of the sort. There are no doubt many issues that he and his treacherous renegades suppressed that you’ve never even heard of. Like the LRH CBO that forbids International events — because they were found (in 1978) to crash org stats (because they took everyone off post). Where was RTC in keeping that tech pure? Where the f**k where those arrogant, haughty, cold-chrome-steel con men in keeping THAT LRH tech in place? These renegade “Scientologists” in RTC crashed org stats since 1986 with a relentless schedule of off-policy “International” events. I’ve never heard a single person in Independent Scientology say we needed to implement all of the “old solutions.” So that is a problem that does not exist, aka a “no sit.” No one wants to blanket-style re-implement all the old solutions.

The compass that leads the way out is the ARC triangle. If some element leads to greater understanding on all dynamics, then we keep it. If it does the opposite, then cut it off.

Contrary to the plaintive bleat of sociopaths, people do not start out as decent people with a conscience and then magically turn into a sociopath with no conscience. If you look at DM’s record, he was poison from the start. Before you and I ever heard of him, he lost millions of LRH’s money on bad investments and then secretly paid back the accounts by getting ASI to become hucksters of soft-core porn — worthless prints of paintings for LRH’s books. Those “collectible” prints, sold at $10,000 a pop, cannot be sold on eBay. They are trash. And I know plenty of people who were crush regged to buy them instead of their Bridge. ASI made millions selling trash instead of making auditors, moving people up the Bridge to Clear and OT! So here was DM, a snake from the get go. Just because he picked up the ball and ran backwards with it doesn’t mean anyone who picks up the ball is going to run the wrong way, too, because somehow the ball is so defective. Hope that helps.

Steve
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
In principle, there's nothing at all inconsistent with that. The great 19th century physicist Clark Maxwell developed the theory of classical electromagnetism that we will use today, but his own understanding of it was based entirely on the notion of a material ether filling all of space. He put a huge amount of thought into the ether's mechanical properties. Today we simply discard what to him was the essence of his theory, and keep only the final equations.

If Scientology really has a coherent core of real understanding, that really is unique to Scientology, then there's nothing whatever foolish or inconsistent about picking that coherent core out from whatever excrescences anyone may have built up around it, even Hubbard himself.

The only thing is: that's a big If. It takes a lot more to make that If true, than just saying it is. And in particular I find it very suspicious that all these people who talk about Scientology as a real subject, that was discovered by Hubbard rather than being created by him, never seem to say much about exactly what it is. They just repeat the label, Scientology. If I talk up Maxwell's equations, I mention the equations themselves pretty often. These folks don't seem to talk that way. That bothers me.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Fundamentalist IS forming new membership group!

Fundamentalist Independent Scientologists forming new membership group

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group
Creating a true group
By Lana Mitchell

Many of you will recall that about a month ago I conducted a survey of independent Scientologists on this blog. Over a 2 day period we had more than 130 people respond, and the results were, at least for me, really surprising.

Prior to the survey I had become somewhat jaded about a future Scientology 3rd dynamic. I had been reading too much entheta online and had come to the view that creating a new group was not something that others wanted. Or at least that was the apparency.

But then I did the survey.

The answers opened my eyes to the fact that a vast number of independent Scientologists feel like I do. Namely, they don’t feel they are part of a cohesive Scientology group; they would like to be part of a membership community that works to help establish resources for the standard delivery of Scientology and to introduce new people to LRH and his technologies; and the majority of people who responded to the survey wanted to be part of a supportive community, want to train and audit, and many want to work to deliver or disseminate Scientology.

I actually cried when I read the survey responses.

the-bridge.jpg

Remember this?

I did not realise how significant the loss of the Scientology 3D had been for me (and I am not talking about the crazy Miscavige cult – I am talking about the dear friends, the enjoyable projects, the shared purposes, and the excitement and fun of moving up The Bridge and helping others to do the same).

So, since the survey, I have been collaborating with a number of veteran OTs, that all know and trust, and there is a new group forming.

It is unlike any group that has existed to date. It is not a management unit. It is not in any way a new Sea Org. And it is certainly not some new RTC to police people.

The envisioned group has a transparent model unlike anything that has existed prior to now. It will essentially be a membership community of dedicated Scientologists, working together to achieve LRH’s aims for Scientology.

You will hear more of this very soon, as we plan to open doors in the next month or so – but while we get the last vital establishment targets completed, I thought you may be wanting to know the broad strokes on this planned new group.

An admin scale has been worked out, in detail, up and down till all items were in alignment. We finalized the objectives and purposes of the group, the structure, the functions and also the checks and balances to prevent a C $ S number two.

You will be privy to all this information in the not too distant future, but as a first, here are the objectives and purposes.
They are to,

  • Preserve and protect and correctly use the original philosophy and technologies developed by L. Ron Hubbard in order to secure this path to spiritual freedom for all those who wish to walk it.
  • Foster an open enterprise virtual platform for a broad and supportive Scientology community, uniting people to use the tools of Scientology on a daily basis to better conditions in the world, and to help themselves as well.
  • Create and support an abundance of communication lines to achieve the aims of the organization and to maintain inviting, supportive, honest and transparent communications for any who are interested in participating or wishing to discover what we are doing.
  • Establish a training, quality services, internship and certification line, that makes Scientology training readily available across the planet to maintain the standard application of L. Ron Hubbard’s auditing, ethics and management technologies.
  • Provide support and service for Scientology Field Auditors, groups and organizations so they can obtain and maintain high technical standards and thus ensure their effectiveness and prosperity.
  • Initiate broad-reaching dissemination programs that individual members or groups can use to introduce people who are searching for answers to the ultimate questions of life, as well as those who are searching for methods to help others, to LRH’s discoveries, philosophy and technology.
  • Foster the training of standard auditors using only proven LRH methods that have already produced thousands of successful auditors.
  • Support an inter-faith program, promoting tolerance, cooperation, care and understanding as integral aspects to any movement that pursues ethical purposes.
  • Support the ongoing whistle-blower program on abuses and corruption of standard Scientology, to create a clear distinction between such and the body of work itself. Providing a place where abuses and corruption of Scientology can be standardly reported, and a notice board of such reports that remain unhandled, so the community can remain informed.
  • In accord with LRH’s Essay on Management, to build and foster a true group by:

    1. Creating affinity, group to group, and within the organization, and to create and maintain a high affinity with the rest of the world.
    2. Creating an organization that sets a good example for the better world.
    3. Persevering in the continual raising of organizational tone, toward the goal of the highest individual tone.
    4. Self-generating the organization into a model of efficiency in all its functions and programs, with high pride in the performance on the part of every individual member of the group, and working to correct any individuals, units, or groups, with hatting, word clearing, ethics, de-PTSing, cramming, evaluation, justice or other appropriate technologies.
    5. Make prolific use of the evaluator tech to always find correct situations and right whys that generate effective plans to move the organization continually towards its various ideal scenes.
    6. Guaranteeing the longevity, greatness and general survival of the organization and its members by exchanging in abundance with those it serves, and by continually building on the amount of theta in the group.

We are firmly of the view that the above objectives and purposes CAN be achieved, by a true group. And much work has gone into working out a foundation, structure and system that can will allow us to do this. It is a community group – not a new dictatorship or power struggle. It is simply a system that allows the members to direct and contribute and succeed in achieving the above.

It is actually really exciting and I have been bursting to tell people about this for the last few weeks. But, we are not quite ready yet.... so you have to be patient.

Stay tuned…
Coming to a blog near you…. soon.
http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group#comment-1169
# Lana M 2013-04-11 18:37
Hi Ralph,
To clarify -- the new group is not a blog -- nor is a forum. It is a membership community, online, that can speak freely and contribute freely. There is nothing like it that exists, now, or in the past.
Open comm lines is a vital point of creating a true group -- but also curbing entheta from destroying the group tone is another.
It will be exciting -- and ALL are welcome to be a part of it, once we open the doors. Aint no holier than thou attitude -- it is a group that follows the creed of Scientology. If you agree with out objectives and purposes -- then you are welcome.
http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group#comment-1171
# Lana M. 2013-04-11 19:12
KFrancis,
I am not someone that normally gets glassy eyed, so to find myself sitting reading the survey results with tears streaming down my face was more than a surprise to me.

I think many of us, having belonged to a theta and OT group at one point in the past, crave to be part of one. I certainly do. LRH states that OTs do better with OTs -- and after personal exerience, I agree with him. To not have a 3rd dynamic group and agreed upon purpose makes me feel empty. I work hard on the 1st dynamic, and on the 2nd. I certainly put my all into the 5th and 6th dynamics. But I consider that unless there is dedicated work also on the 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th dynamics -- then we are to that degree incomplete. That diagram of LRH's with the concentric circles of the dynamics (with the 1st in the middle and the smallest, and then each dynamic getting a little larger -- till you get to the all encompassing 8th dynamic which is itself and also all the others) is a stable datum to me. To the degree that I work to operate and succeed on all dynamics, then things are on the up.
Not one senior to or more important than the others -- but all dynamics flourishing and prospering.
I do believe that we have the chance to now create a new group that can assist us to achieve that.

Further, it is a model that allows people to contribute and initiate what they wish to, with the resources, or time that they have at this time. Many of us have young children and the extra randomity of this adds all sorts of excitement in itself.

Lots of fun ahead. And all of us will be able to choose how we take that journey, what degree we are involved and where we head to first.
http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group#comment-1177
0 # David Cooke 2013-04-11 23:53
Lana, I'm very glad to hear that capable people are planning to form a community group of scientologists. Your objectives and purposes have my full support.

While such a group would primarily be supporting the specialised activities of auditing, training and dissemination, do you see it eventually becoming a base for much wider applications of the scientology philosophy in society? Going back to the early days of Dianetics, LRH knew that his discoveries had the potential to revitalise such things as education, law, politics, in fact the whole civilisation.

A single datum such as "a person is a spirit, not a body" could change the face of society if it was generally understood and accepted. One of the failings of the old church was that, while holding for half a century the axioms that underlie all the sciences and humanities, it did not encourage their integration into these fields. If I wasn't so lazy, I might long ago have written up some applications to ecology and botany - and been comm ev'd for mixing practices, splintering and divergence.
http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group#comment-1179
# Lana M 2013-04-12 00:23
David,
Do I see it eventually becoming a base for much wider applications of the Scientology philosophy in society?
Yes. To be totally clear - absolutely!
In fact, I think that is a vital part of this group, not eventually at some undetermined point, but from the onset.
And we will be very much encouraging and assisting members to do this.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
So how many Scientologists do you need to get together before they start planning to take over the world? Four, apparently.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
That would really be something. The guy does seem to be sharp and thoughtful.

The problem as I see it is that no human beings are all that smart. We're jumped up monkeys trying to think with meat, and we're all rather easily confused. But we don't want to admit this, so most of us have this idea that we should be able to straighten everything out, intellectually, without all that much effort. So if somebody who's a little swifter than average sees a few bad arguments, and exposes their flaws, then they tend to pat themselves on the back and think that they themselves have the truth. They put in a good day's work correcting errors, and now they can relax with a cold mug of smug.

The sad truth is that picking holes in someone else's bad arguments can be like removing the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own. The wonder is that humans can think at all. We are not right by default. The default is that we are totally confused. A little bit of cleverness, or even an awful lot of it by human standards, just does not really go very far towards reaching the truth.

Unfortunately, although I don't know Steve Hall in the slightest, I can easily imagine someone like him going to his grave without ever really looking his beliefs full in the face. It's too easy to just talk around the big questions, scoring points off people a little slower than you are — or who just put a bit less time into posting online — and letting those victories convince you that your ground is secure. Too bad it doesn't really work that way.


Steve Hall has given evidence to your point that we are all jumped up monkeys.

A while back he viciously attacked the FZ saying they were responsible for people in CO$
being butchered and had make some agreement with CO$ to leave them alone of they left them alone. And a fair bit more stupid nonsense. He admitted he had been studying such matters for
a year to come to that conclusion!

Now he piously preaches that scientology should always be based on ARC, yet it was those who
most think like him that he didn't recognize as brethren. He has since been informed of the error
of his ways and now allies himself with those FZers who are also somewhat fundamentalistically
inclined. Note that label apart there is no difference between FZers and Independents.

I don't qualify for entry in their club.

I don't like fundamentalism, and in the FZ there have been many quarrels of who is
"More Standard" and KSW has been so often been used to make others wrong. Forums
have been destroyed, labels have been given.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
OK, so first there was the HASI.

And then there was the IAS.

And now, finally, we have SHIT -- the Scientology Home for Independent Thetans.

:shithitfan:

TG1
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Fundamentalist IS forming new membership group!

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group#comment-1190

# Lana M 2013-04-12 04:35

Nickname - this is a truly valid and important point. I am currently training as an auditor and the fact that I have not been able to be under someone's watchful eye, not have an available cramming or correction line, not have an internship checksheet, nor the simple lines of Qual OKs and High Crimes, has been a problem. This new group will be wanting to make such lines and standard actions available to all -- and we will need help to do so.

We will initially start off a basic pilot line, and work through how to make the lines work (with existing resources, and across a planet). It will be a great membership project that people all over the planet can get involved in (either as auditors in training, or as auditors brushing up on their skills/tools, or as experienced Qual people who are helping others).

We predict this group will always have a number of large projects on the board, that we, as a membership community, are working to build and carry through on. And course rooms are an integral part of this.

Look forward to working with you ("The Authority on Everything") -- as we need each of our knowledgeable and experienced individuals!
 
Last edited:

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
This 'Thoughtful' guy does a good job explaining the 'Portland chocolate cake' principle: adding bad stuff to a good thing does not mean that the good thing is bad, any more than adding cement mix to chocolate cake proves that cake is bad. The principle is hardly novel. It is so old that it has a Latin expression, from ancient Roman law: abusus non tollit usum. [The possibility of] misuse does not remove [the possibility of] proper use. This is a succinct and very general statement of the principle.

It's a principle that can apply, though; not one that always applies automatically. The flip side of abusus non tollit usum is the True Scotsman Fallacy. A fanatical Scot insists that all Scotsmen are brave, and being faced with the undeniable existence of a Scottish coward, declares that the fellow is 'no true Scotsman'. If only brave Scotsmen count as Scotsmen at all to the fanatic, then in effect he is just defining 'Scotsman' to mean 'brave', and his position has no real content at all, because it reduces to the tautology that brave people are brave. Confusing the issue by introducing a second, loaded term "Scotsman" that means the same as the standard term 'brave man' is merely a propagandistic word game. It's a bait-and-switch move, where you let people think that 'Scotsman' means one thing, but then unilaterally change the definition to something else. So apart from just not really meaning anything, as an argument trick the True Scotsman Fallacy is an example of sophistry.

Thoughtful says that Scientology without ARC is not Scientology. Is this saying that cake with cement is not real cake? Or is it saying that Scotsmen without courage are no true Scotsmen?

The issue is a basic but subtle one. I think of it as the issue of coherence. Does there exist a coherent thing behind the label 'Scientology', which is more than just a collection of unrelated ideas and practices? Do the components of Scientology actively hang together, rather than falling apart from each other as soon as the covering label is removed? If not, if Scientology is only an arbitrary grab bag of things with no natural connection to each other, then it's meaningless to talk about Scientology with or without ARC, because including ARC in the grab bag is just as arbitrary as including anything else.

If Scientology is coherent, on the other hand, or at least if some portion of Scientology is coherent within itself, then it's meaningful to ask whether ARC is part of that coherent thing, or whether ARC is just an extraneous additional thing that could be artificially attached, or not, at anyone's whim. Or indeed: whether the absence of 'ARC' is a coherent part of Scientology, such that adding ARC weakens the whole, for what it is. Like adding cement to chocolate cake. Or adding emetic to poison.

So it isn't really enough to just talk about Portland cake, to defend Scientology. The coherence of Scientology has to first be established, and the coherent role of ARC within that whole. Perhaps Thoughtful is addressing an audience for whom both of those things are a given. I'm not exactly criticizing his text. I'm just saying, it's kind of a sideshow. The really big issue is something else, and what he says here does nothing about it.

Good points.

Scientology has no true coherent whole. Any apparency of a coherent whole is an illusion projected upon it by someone vested in its having a content worth being so vested. Not just money, this is true of all of the absolutes Scientology insists upon having achieved (but then dissembles about and insists those are hidden standards, wink wink)_.

What Scientology does have is a shiny stolen piece of truth here and there, mined and then repainted by source, and the contributions of others NOT source which were then misattributed (and they persist...).

There are some basic truths present, but they were never exclusive to Scientology and were never original to LRH, nor did he refine or test or research them except in his own drug-infused delusions.

Good luck sorting it out. Have fun storming the castles.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Fundamentalist IS forming new membership group!

http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/433-creating-a-true-group#comment-1235

# Gerhard Waterkamp 2013-04-13 20:30
Hi Lana,
good points.
A few people in LA are thinking along the lines of building a group to provide, standard services in regards to the grade chart, specifically qualifications and training functions. Devising a program for technical people that allows them to participate in needed training and qualification and also a set of common standards from folder sharing to other forms of cooperation could lead to a certification. All this would allow anybody looking for services to understand upfront how much standard tech to expect from a certain source.
I could not agree more that non of this should be ever used to disqualify others, just a defined set of voluntary actions to assure standard grade chart delivery to keep the tech intact and working.
 
Top