I know Hubbard lived the life he wanted to live.

[The Oracle]

See? You have already enlightened us with the mechanics of blemish and the catagories of rightness and wrongness therein.

I can see you have the makings of the next leader to lead us into better livingness, undertstanding, and enlightenment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blemish

The dictionary defines blemish but does not go into the thoery behind it's importance and value, rightness and wrongness, as you do here.

I look forward to your next chapter of insights on social intercourse and the meanings behind it on Earth.



T.I.

 

[The Oracle]

out of my water here, i apologize

It is extremely difficult for me to explain things to people who are fixated on a dead mans past that occurred 25 to 30 years ago and are in a court to find him guilty.

Someone who is clear or ot3 has confronted "the past" and is no longer fixated what it is.

I am in a different time zone with my attention on different universe, not what was from a dead man decades before but tomorrow and the possibilities.

I am just located in a different galaxy.

I am only obstructing others view here.

There are some of us at this time who are homless, we do not belong in the Church, for the church, or against the church, or with people still suffering by the church.

We are those I can only describe as Druids. People who took what benefit there was, recorded it, and stored it for further tabulation for the benefit of mankind.


We move on now for the next harvest.

Best of luck to those of you here.

Thank you for this platform.



T.I.

 

[Veda]

See? You have already enlightened us with the mechanics of blemish and the catagories of rightness and wrongness therein.

I can see you have the makings of the next leader to lead us into better livingness, undertstanding, and enlightenment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blemish

The dictionary defines blemish but does not go into the thoery behind it's importance and value, rightness and wrongness, as you do here.

I look forward to your next chapter of insights on social intercourse and the meanings behind it on Earth.



T.I.

Blemish: A defect or flaw.

"Scientology" is pretty much as Hubbard designed it.

I don't have - handy - a link to the August 1938 'Skipper' letter, however, you can track down excerpts; all of Hubbard's 'Affirmations' are not available, but the 1946 (John [Jack] Parsons'-era) ones are on the Net; the 1950s Hubbard letters to the FBI, and to others, are also on the Net, as is Hubbard's "Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics," better known as the 'Brainwashing Manual'.

And there are those pesky "confidential" and "highly confidential" writings that were mentioned previously.

Then there are the earlier sources for Scientology - and that's quite an interesting area, as I think you know.

And the reason for looking at these things is not to "trash," or to "bash," but to understand.

 

[lionheart]

Hi T.I.

Thanks for your postings. Personally I enjoy opinions that challenge what might otherwise become an "everybody knows". Most of us have read at least some of the LRH boigraphical data on the net and the inside stuff of people who knew and worked with Hubbard. There is a danger we all homogenise into more or less one general viewpoint of the man.

One thing I wondered, what period, roughly, (you don't need to identify yourself too closely) were you in the CofS?

Your radical and can I say "forgiving" attitude towards Ron reads to me as someone who maybe was in the CofS after his death, when his influence became less direct and solely filtered through his writings and RTC interpretation.

I was in while he was still very much alive and his presence was directly felt right down through the Church structure to the missions, yet people's experience was very different depending to some extent on their distance from Source Command.

I am very interested in how interpretation of his life and influence will change over the years as his death-date receeds.

 

[The Oracle]

Cheers Lionheart!

I became acquanted with the Church in 1972.

In fact, Hubbard C/S ed my P.C. folders.

I saw the whole movement boom, saw the inner workings of the Sea Org as well, and watched the practice die with Hubbard.

However, I was not there to investigate Hubbard's living habits or his memo's.

I was curious about the magic.

As time goes by I am finding my focus there and importances did not align with others.

What "other" events or people or noise or ideas that fell beyond my particular interest I did pay much attention to.

I am certain as time goes by, someone will bring up the issue of what toilet paper he used and how often he had sex. I see someone is off to Guam now with some old photo's he took in a very ceremonious fashion. I can assure you the peoples of Guam and the Micronesia Islands do not want more reminders of the past. But that is a different tale.

The Scientology itself was my focus of cuiosity.

I don't disagree there is much dirt to dig up on Hubbard. Those are details that do not interest me.

As well, this compulsion to worship him and tour museums for a glimpse of his past do not interest me.

When we bow before "Gods" , we surrender freedoms.

When we prosecute our fellow people, we also surrender freedoms. Walls come up.

I stand back from rites that require that I surrender freedom.

Of course, when I go to buy clothing I do not know who thought of that design and would not care. But I see this fascination even in society of people buying clothing because it has a name on it.

There are many facets of the Scientology people's workings that I had no interest in. The green books for instance, the organization, the worship rites and public events.

But psycometering was turn of the century.

And a man named Claude M. Bristol wrote the most fascinating books pre 1950 concerning thoughts and postulates.

Hubbard was able to do research which pullled many ideas from many thinking men together in a way that more people could think it beyond the secret societies, Gnostics, and Harvard graduates.

To discount all of Hubbards writings one would have to discount hundreds of years of ideas of thinking people.

I was only interested in these formulas.

I got sidetracked with some mysteries, for instance, the Sea Org.

I wanted to know what was going on there.

Certainly I was glad to understand that.

I find it all very interesting.

But it already done and said.

And people are just tossing in reviews from the theatre.

I say, "So what's new?"

I have some ideas of where I want to go exploring next.

And why do I sit to make posts on these forums?

I am just looking for good company.





T.I.

 

[The Oracle]

I do understand there are people who had a "bad time" with the experience.

But I see there are people that have had "bad times" with marriages, finances, careers, legal problems, and a host of other events that can surprise one on the walks of life.

As far as I am concerned, personally, I hold my "bad experiences" as close to my heart as my "good experiences".

I am glad to have a life and to be experiencing at all.

Once I was able to see for myself that time is just objects moving through space, it all became a wonderland.




T.I.

 

[The Oracle]

In fact, I've had some "bad times" on these forums.

Ive been run off all of them.

But these forums have been great for me to understand more about the other peoples that got involved in Scientology.

Who they were, why they were, why they are, and where they still are or are not.

Through time I have been able to let go of "commeraderie" that was illusion, allegiences that were illusion, and ideas that were illusion.

I've found everything out here that was in there too.

The one benefit I have had from all of it is knowing the people are not the Scientology.

Not inside the Church, not outside the Church.

I went through my time of defending the Church, defending the tech, poking fun at it all, and a maze of other activity on the forums. It was as if passing through a hall of mirrors, and being able to change my reflections.

Exploring the personalities that made it what it was and made it what it wasn't.

I think these forums are great for all who still have wrinkles to iron out and all that is said from any avenue, pro or anti or in any capacity is theraputic.

I have more or less come full circle to a bemused view of it all.

I feel I understand enough to know why it all happened, why it is what it is, what happened to people, and to myself.

What I bought into that I wanted to leave behind.

What I put on Hubbard that wasn't his create.

Who I am without the trimmings.

I am glad for all of the forums and for all of the people having a say.

In the end, I am free of much illusion I took with me when I left that adventure.



T.I.

 

[freet43]

T.I.

Good to see you here and love your posts

There are such a wide range of viewpoints on this forum - and it is ok to share whatever you wish.

There are folks across the whole spectrum from fiercely antagonistic to pro-tech. I don't know that anyone, except perhaps lurking OSA, is pro-Church however...

Mostly folks are civil.

 

[The Oracle]

Thank you for your warm inviting welcome and your encouragement.

I will make an effort not to abuse my privilages.

Appears to be quite a wide arena of privilages on this forum!



T.I.

 

[The Oracle]

benefits of conflict

As an aside, since I made known my history of conflict on the forums, here is a very interesting essay on the benefits of conflict:

http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/essay/benefits/

Right now I am posting here because I enjoy this magic icon.

Does anyone know how I can own this icon for personal use?



T.I.

 

[The Oracle]

benefits of conflict

I think the essay is eye opening, ALL of this conflict around Scientology has been generated.

But by WHO and for WHAT?

Someone who will benefit from the conflict!

So, it is good to know what types benefit from conflict.

And I believe the conflict is generated from inside the Church.



T.I.

 

[ron's hat]

Freedom is a two edged sword, for everyone.

What the hell does that mean?

 

[The Oracle]

I think I understand now why you accused me of posting under different different personalities.



T.I.

 

[OHTEEATE]

LRH

I met LRH on the Apollo in 1974. He impressed me greatly, with his personal affinity and I really felt I was granted beingness as never before in my life. I know others who had similar conclusions from meetings with them. I also was not around long enough to be personally blasted by him. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, as the same events can be seen differently by different people. Most of the negatives I have heard are heresay. They DO add up to a very interesting life, quite extra-ordinary. Embellished? no doubt. He allowed himself to be called "Dr. Hubbard " in England. He was not a Dr. of anything, but he found it flattering and it probably opened some doors so he let it go. It was a mistake. His family life was unhappy. His oldest son was miserable, and probably commited suicide. I would not wish that on anyone. He made a lot of mistakes, but look at what he wrote! Probably we are too close to it. Maybe it will take some time for his lifes work to settle out and be evaluated. I still think meeting him was one of the highlights of MY extra-ordinary life. Mike

 

[programmer_guy]

Here is a quote from Bent Corydon who had quite a different experience in meeting Hubbard.

From: "L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?"

There was only myself and one of Mary Sue Hubbard's aides on the deck when Hubbard descended the stairs, alone, towards us. He passed the aide who bade him, "Good evening, sir." He nodded, without saying anything, and proceeded to walk in my direction.

Hubbard studiously avoided looking at me and there was a distinct air of tension. As he came up to me and began to pass, I ventured a "Good evening, sir." I felt I could say this with some sense of security, since the other guy just got away with it. Hubbard didn't answer, but instead looked at me, for a brief instant, with an unmistakable mixture of fear and antagonism in his eyes. He then sped up his pace so that he virtually scuttled off.

I felt stunned, and had considerable difficulty sleeping that night as I kept asking myself: "What did that look in his eyes mean? How come he was frightened of me?"

Interviewed at great length the following day, with the tin can electrodes of the E-Meter clutched in my hands, I was asked: "What were your intentions in coming to the ship? How do you feel about L. Ron Hubbard? Why have you taken photographs? Do you have any evil intentions towards L. Ron Hubbard? Mary Sue Hubbard? Any Scientologist in good standing? Are you a member of the FBI? The CIA? The KGB?", and many more questions in a similar vein.

I was then escorted to another interview with a security guard, who demanded my camera and removed the film. I was told I would be given my camera back (minus the film), along with my passport, just prior to leaving the ship, when returning to the States.

It wasn't until four years later that I came across a note written in Hubbard's hand, over his distinctive signature that read:

"Re. Bent Corydon: Check this guy out thoroughly! I am informed that he has been a reporter."

It was dated coincident with my visit to the Apollo.

I had been a reporter for an 18-month period, working for a weekly newspaper in Auckland, New Zealand, where one of my most notable stories was about a pig who had escaped and was running through a grocery store. I was a teenager during that time. I was now 32. Hubbard had apparently been alerted to my background by the intelligence section of his "Guardian office."

I told no one, except for my wife and my auditor, about this last meeting with Hubbard. But it left a deep impression, along with the same, haunting, unanswered question:

What had that look in Ron's eyes meant?

The answer to that question took years to appear.

At the time, I dared not consider the idea that perhaps Hubbard had something to hide.

My mood was sober as I flew back to California. "Why," I asked myself, "do I feel that I have been put under a microscope? Why this foreboding of danger? The feeling that from now on my life is somehow going to be fundamentally meddled with?" I tried hard to shrug off these thoughts and take a nap. Failing to sleep, I tried to read. The thoughts and feelings kept coming back.

I guess that there are many differing experiences?

 

[Emma]

I think he lived the life he wanted as well.

He wanted fame, money, to be worshipped and revered and to make men his slaves. He wanted to be fighting enemies his whole life and he wanted to be remembered.

He had it all.

 

[The Oracle]

And if he could have all that, I want it too. Except the slave part.

But I really can't stand for the people who work for me to suffer...I'm a mush!

But if people agree to to be slaves, you have to let them get on with it.

I think most of the people thought the exchange was a better world, for them and everyone. I did. The world is mine too.

That's the reason most people like ministers, nuns, whatever, dedicate the time.



T.I.

 

[OHTEEATE]

My sister Missy worked for Bent Corydon. She and her husband Danny Shea would audit 7o hours in the chair so they could go to LA one day a week to do the Briefing Course. I think they were making crap pay. LRH is often described in sinister terms by SPs. I liked Ron just fine. I think his drug use caught up with him, and he had manic mood swings that no one could understand. I saw him do some very kind, thoughtful things for his crew.

 

[programmer_guy]

I somewhat knew Missy and Danny Shea at the Riverside Mission. (Didn't Missy have red hair?)
I really liked both of them.

If you are comfortable to tell... where did they go? How are they doing now?

(Danny was one of my examiners after auditing sessions.)

I never heard of people doing SHSBC one day per week. That's weird. That would take forever to complete.

Best regards

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hubbard made some bad decisions and he was venal. Even early on. If you read Dianetics in Limbo, you can see that.

But he also did other things that were good. I think some people have trouble separating the latter from the former.

Kilia, many people have thanked John and myself for the auditing we delivered to them- back in the day when we were doing that- saying it really helped.

I've also known many others who derived a lot of benefit from Scn procedures and methods.

Why do you think so many people stay on the hook in CofS? Oh sure, there's the coercion and so forth but the real sticking point is that people had derived a lot of satisfaction from the "tech' and they, too, have difficulty separating out the good from the bad.

Scn has wonderful methods. It also contains some justifications, some paranoia, some invasiveness.

It's relatively easy enough to spot which is which.

And as I mentioned to you before, Scn has some things in common with witchcraft. There are techniques that are similar to the visualization(s) many magickal practitiones do in their various practices.

As far as Hubbard living the life he wanted to live, well, I think he wasn't always in control. I think that being a cult leader and a founder of a movement was too much for him. He himself said not everyone could handle that but that he thought and hoped he could. Well, I think that he didn't handle it all that well in many respects. But he did give us some wonderful procedures and many observations.

Just the other day I was reading a thriller "Four kinds of Rain". Just a regular well written thriller, not a book by someone who'd done Dn or Scn. (Or at least I don't think the writer has) But there were many behaviorisms of that character that I immediately recognized. Not because the guy was writing about Dn or Scn or Scn'ists- he wasn't. But because he had a keen grasp on human nature and had his characters doing things that people really do and he even came up with their reasons, justifications, etc.

Well, this is all stuff I studied in Dn. And, yes, of course psychology and other things out there also address the things people do- sometimes very well. But that does not mean that Scn does NOT. It does. One of the things it does is codify existing phenomena. Other people in other venues also have done so, but Hubbard has, in many places, done a very nice job on some of his observations.

This is good information.

The fruit of the poisoned tree argument is dead as a dodo