Leon's Tech Page

[Leon]

Thanks Terril and Roger.

With music, we have potential notes from one end of the scale to the other, from high to low. Every change of a single Hertz changes the note. But in the classical (or conventional) scale only some of these notes have been isolated and are used as the scale of notes for musical composition. Because of their harmonies and other qualities they form a natural and usable grouping.

The same with conditions. Everyone is somewhere between the top and the bottom of their potentials and capabilities in life. Hubbard selected out some positions on this continuum and gave these positions names and worked out some sort of formulas for getting one up out of them. In itself this was and remains a valid exercise. One can find fault - or seek to improve - the particular positions he chose, the possible gaps between conditions he chose, the formulas for handling them and also the manner in which such formulas are applied. All of these can be improved on. None of them is cast in stone.

The skill in applying them - or as Roger correctly indicates - getting a person to apply them to himself, is the crucial ingredient. It takes a skilled and observant person to guide another through them. And this is particularly true where some conditions, for example "enemy", have a blind-spot as an inherent aspect of them. It is a very rare person indeed who will be able to recognize such a blind-spot in himself. This is when an "ethics officer" becomes essential.

 

[Terril park]

2) The Affluence formula is stupid and bullshit. It is designed to control Hubbard's money: not for the betterment of the individuals carrying out the formula. A correct formulaic sequence of actions is NOT the clamping down of power and energy flows as the first action to be taken as ordered by Hubbard.

The correct first action is to inform oneself of the reasons for and cause of the Affluence while not being influenced to engage in unusual expenditure of energy or power. The second action is to take full responsibility for the cause and production of the Affluence and strengthen those actions . . . then one can get into the other actions of correct management of resources, energy, money etc.
[/INDENT]


RogerB

Not sure if you are correct here. As it happens a few days ago we came into an
affluence condition. My imediate thoughts were along the lines of the affluence
formula with no thought about conditions or if I should apply one. It was just a natural
reaction.

There is an HCOPL 27 aug 1982 VITAL DATA: POWER AND AFFLUENCE CONDITIONS.

This is an 8 page issue, largely detailing what you consider the correct first actions should be.

However if one has splurged this affluence on an expensive holiday or whatever, one
might not have the time or resources on doing all that is needed to preserve the affluence.

So economise could be a useful temporary measure.

Also note that if you are doing this on first or second dynamic it is your or your families money not Hubbards.


If you look at what DM is doing its a half assed corrupt rendition of affluence.

He has step 1 economise really going. Except for the idle orgs which it seems he has to
build for maintaining tax exempt status. Probably the reason the superpower building hasn't been finished.

Step 2 Pay every bill, is failing. its almost impossible to get a refund now. Its not unknown
for Orgs utilities to be shut off. Narconon is not paying for the Doctors it should have and
thus being closed down.

Step 3 Invest the remainder in service facilities. This is almost at a standstill. The actual stat
DM works on is money to SO reserves or similar. There is it seems some investment in
IAS Reges. There is virtualy no investment in humanitarian endeavours. Its usually the parishioners who pay or contribute to that. The IJC spends his time selling basics as do
progam chiefs if there are any left. In other words the stat he is working on
is the wrong one for the aims of Scn.

Step 4 Discover what caused the affluence and strengthen it. So probably hiring more reges, having auditors reg PCs after session finishes, resulting in alienating the parishioners.

" It is, strangely enough, the most dangerous of all conditions in that if you don't
spot it and apply the formula, you splatter all over the street." LRH.

This is happening. And has been for some time. Also splattering over all media.

 

[RogerB]

So, Terril, you list the sequence of the steps of the Affluence Formula . . .

Let's look at another stupidity I didn't cite.

You wrote:
Step 3 Invest the remainder in service facilities.
Then,
Step 4 Discover what caused the affluence and strengthen it. . . .

Umm, don't you see the idiocy of "investing in service facilities" before you've done his step 4 of "discovering what caused the affluence" that you want to strengthen by investing "the remainder of the lolly" in?

How dull is it to invest in something before proper investigation and analysis!

R

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

May Song
by Wendell Berry
For whatever is let go
there's a taker.
The living discovers itself

where no preparation
was made for it,
where its only privilege

is to live if it can.
The window flies from the dark
of the subway mouth

into the sunlight
stained with the green
of the spring weeds

that crowd the improbable
black earth
of the embankment,

their stout leaves
like the tongues and bodies
of a herd, feeding

on the new heat,
drinking at the seepage
of the stones:

the freehold of life,
triumphant
even in the waste

of those who possess it.
But it is itself the possessor,
we know at last,
seeing it send out weeds
to take back
whatever is left.

Proprietor, pasturing foliage
on the rubble,
making use

of the useless—a beauty
we have less than not
deserved.​

Says a lot more about "survival" than all the Hubbard claptrap put together.

 

[Terril park]

So, Terril, you list the sequence of the steps of the Affluence Formula . . .

Let's look at another stupidity I didn't cite.

You wrote:
Step 3 Invest the remainder in service facilities.
Then,
Step 4 Discover what caused the affluence and strengthen it. . . .

Umm, don't you see the idiocy of "investing in service facilities" before you've done his step 4 of "discovering what caused the affluence" that you want to strengthen by investing "the remainder of the lolly" in?

How dull is it to invest in something before proper investigation and analysis!

R

Not nessessarily. Lets say a building company finds its built up a back log of profitable
jobs to do, and has been working full stretch on some particularly profitable ones,
making the affluence. It makes sense to hire more personnel imediately.

Then one must find out why all this work has been coming your way. New wording to adverts? New advertising outlets? Using the internet for promotion? A new recruit has a flair
for advertising copy? or some other reason. Maybe your secretary is sleeping with the CEO
of a company who requires such jobs.

 

[Freeminds]

Not nessessarily. Lets say a building company finds its built up a back log of profitable
jobs . . .

OK, but that's not Scientology. Scientology means doing illogical, often embarrassing or dangerous things because a mentally ill fat man was trying to train other people to be as greedy, sociopathic and ruthless as he was.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

OK, but that's not Scientology. Scientology means doing illogical, often embarrassing or dangerous things because a mentally ill fat man was trying to train other people to be as greedy, sociopathic and ruthless as he was.

His example does resemble Scientology in one way - backlog of undelivered service. FSO's value of undelivered service is many tens of millions of dollars.

Perhaps that's the example Teril was thinking of?

 

[degraded being]

Not sure if you are correct here. As it happens a few days ago we came into an
affluence condition. My imediate thoughts were along the lines of the affluence
formula with no thought about conditions or if I should apply one. It was just a natural
reaction.

So you are a scientologist and have been thinking like a scientologist for decades and immediately your thinking was along the lines of the "affluence formula." It was just "natural". I wonder why that was your natural reaction.

 

[Terril park]

OK, but that's not Scientology. Scientology means doing illogical, often embarrassing or dangerous things because a mentally ill fat man was trying to train other people to be as greedy, sociopathic and ruthless as he was.

True for you I guess.

 

[Terril park]

His example does resemble Scientology in one way - backlog of undelivered service. FSO's value of undelivered service is many tens of millions of dollars.

Perhaps that's the example Teril was thinking of?

Sort of. Just tried to give a realistic scenario to illustrate the issue at hand.

 

[Terril park]

So you are a scientologist and have been thinking like a scientologist for decades and immediately your thinking was along the lines of the "affluence formula." It was just "natural". I wonder why that was your natural reaction.

Was my consideration of what was true for me.

 

[RogerB]

Not nessessarily. Lets say a building company finds its built up a back log of profitable
jobs to do, and has been working full stretch on some particularly profitable ones,
making the affluence. It makes sense to hire more personnel imediately.

Then one must find out why all this work has been coming your way. New wording to adverts? New advertising outlets? Using the internet for promotion? A new recruit has a flair
for advertising copy? or some other reason. Maybe your secretary is sleeping with the CEO
of a company who requires such jobs.

You know, Terril . . you really need to read and re-read the nonsense you write. It really is quite stupid. You do try so hard to make yourself or Hubbard right, it is painful to watch.

Look at what you wrote as an example of your think . . . you are obviously not applying any knowledge of any form of org board structure here and you are knocking out time sequence . . . this from someone who claims is data series trained??

You wrote:

a building company finds its built up a back log of profitable
jobs to do, and has been working full stretch on some particularly profitable ones,
making the affluence.

"Having built up" a backlog means one of two things . . . either the affluence in orders occurred much earlier, as in some time ago, or the production department are in emergency or danger.

Why wasn't the affluence formula applied before the backlog when the increase in sales occurred . . . if it occurred, and I say this because "building up a backlog of profitable jobs to do" is way NOT an affluence situation as you try to present. Getting a flood of orders might be . . . but you are too thick to cite that: instead you cite a wrong what!!!

And as to your thing of hiring more staff to handle any "backlog," a) that is normal operation and, b) why wasn't it done before the backlog built up and, c) you are not giving an example of the affluence formula being applied.

Your writing above demonstrates you are incapable of observing and comprehending what is what in the traffic flow of an organization or of recognizing the operating conditions of its parts or the whole

Then you give as an example of handling your putative affluence as noted in paragraph one, your handling before inspection to find the source of the affluence, the hiring of staff to handle the "affluence of the backlog" . . . but then in paragraph two you yap on about investigating something else: i.e., " find out why all this work has been coming your way." . . . . well according to your piece here, you've already shot your bolt on handling "the affluence" by hiring extra staff!!

And you say you did the Data Series Evaluator Course but write or think as illogically as the above?

As I said: Hubbard's sequence for the formula is out-sequence . . . you can't strengthen the source of the affluence before you correctly learn what it is. And you can't strengthen the source of an affluence by doing something to something else as you cite in your example above!

R

 

[I told you I was trouble]

As with much of hubbards tek and other peoples for that matter, the conditions when used with hard work and common sense ... will 'produce results' but it's the effort put in via the work that will make the real difference towards creating a successful business, relationship or morale.

It doesn't really matter which of the 'conditions' you use at any given time ... you could even mix them up and use bits of each in many cases, but it would matter if you did them without effort/work in the area you are addressing.

The conditions are just more wordy, hubbard, unnecessary waffle which he had to produce to keep his own business 'flourishing and prospering' and to keep the people he was using and abusing in line.

If the original business is needed/wanted and easy to access ... hard work and common sense will usually be enough.

​

 

[Leon]

There's truth in that.

 

[PirateAndBum]

As with much of hubbards tek and other peoples for that matter, the conditions when used with hard work and common sense ... will 'produce results' but it's the effort put in via the work that will make the real difference towards creating a successful business, relationship or morale.

It doesn't really matter which of the 'conditions' you use at any given time ... you could even mix them up and use bits of each in many cases, but it would matter if you did them without effort/work in the area you are addressing.

The conditions are just more wordy, hubbard, unnecessary waffle which he had to produce to keep his own business 'flourishing and prospering' and to keep the people he was using and abusing in line.

If the original business is needed/wanted and easy to access ... hard work and common sense will usually be enough.

​

But but ... Scn is so needed & wanted.... wait... um... then why ... oh! No common sense! Whew thanks!

 

[PirateAndBum]

Limited distribution... I have a hard time buying any reasons for withholding such information. Hard to evaluate something when you are not allowed to see it.

 

[Leon]

Yeah, so be it. Such restrictions exist all over the place. Live with it.

 

[programmer_guy]

Was my consideration of what was true for me.

If I said that it is true for me that the moon is made of green cheese wouldn't you see a problem with that belief?

 

[PirateAndBum]

If I said that it is true for me that the moon is made of green cheese wouldn't you see a problem with that belief?

No, I'd want to know what you were smoking.

Makes me wonder how the color green ever got involved...

 

[Terril park]

You know, Terril . . you really need to read and re-read the nonsense you write. It really is quite stupid. You do try so hard to make yourself or Hubbard right, it is painful to watch.

Look at what you wrote as an example of your think . . . you are obviously not applying any knowledge of any form of org board structure here and you are knocking out time sequence . . . this from someone who claims is data series trained??

You wrote:


"Having built up" a backlog means one of two things . . . either the affluence in orders occurred much earlier, as in some time ago, or the production department are in emergency or danger.

Why wasn't the affluence formula applied before the backlog when the increase in sales occurred . . . if it occurred, and I say this because "building up a backlog of profitable jobs to do" is way NOT an affluence situation as you try to present. Getting a flood of orders might be . . . but you are too thick to cite that: instead you cite a wrong what!!!

And as to your thing of hiring more staff to handle any "backlog," a) that is normal operation and, b) why wasn't it done before the backlog built up and, c) you are not giving an example of the affluence formula being applied.

Your writing above demonstrates you are incapable of observing and comprehending what is what in the traffic flow of an organization or of recognizing the operating conditions of its parts or the whole

Then you give as an example of handling your putative affluence as noted in paragraph one, your handling before inspection to find the source of the affluence, the hiring of staff to handle the "affluence of the backlog" . . . but then in paragraph two you yap on about investigating something else: i.e., " find out why all this work has been coming your way." . . . . well according to your piece here, you've already shot your bolt on handling "the affluence" by hiring extra staff!!

And you say you did the Data Series Evaluator Course but write or think as illogically as the above?

As I said: Hubbard's sequence for the formula is out-sequence . . . you can't strengthen the source of the affluence before you correctly learn what it is. And you can't strengthen the source of an affluence by doing something to something else as you cite in your example above!

R

When I come across some green on white I havn't visited for a long time I always like to re-evaluate.

I havn't looked at or thought about the affluence formula for decades. Could have been an interesting
conversation. However you just persist with hate filled insults.

This is disgusting coming from someone who is supposed to be a well trained techie. You say more about
yourself than me here.

This conversation is ended.