Leon's Tech Page

Aiki

Patron with Honors
No doubt, you believe that you did that for yourself.

However, your posts on this MB reveal that you are naive, and happy to remain naive, and uninformed, on the topic of Scientology.

If you ever develop the motivation or desire to take the time, and make the effort, to examine the subject of Scientology, in its totality, the information is easily available. :)

Sorry but you seem naive to me. "Scientology in it's totality???":eyeroll: You enjoy your totality:coolwink:

Peace.Aiki.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Back to the conditions...

How does a drug dealer apply the conditions?

Danger - step on writin up O/Ws?

Gave away extra snort to some hot babes because I wanted to score some poon tang. They left me hanging.

Didn't collect on delivery and the mark got busted and fled the country so I can't collect the beans from him


What would put him into a condition of Enemy?

Donating $$ to Just Say No to Drugs Campaign


Liability?

Didn't undercut enough the grade of smoke delivered to last wholesaler. Profit went through the basement.


Emergency

Cops on tail - change operating basis -buy a bigger gun and faster car.


Rd00
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
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! :duh::duh:

R

Also the part about paying every bill under the stars etc could violate cash flow testing and could cause a problem with something that investors call "Duration Risk".

So that step is too naive and short sighted.

The part about service facilities, granted there are some thigns that one could consider buying even before they apply the discovery part but I agree with you that there are some things that should be purchased after careful consideration of what caused the affluence.

Again he was too simplistic. And the over simplification could cause problems.

Light bulbs now there is a service facility that every foudnation org needs to keep a eye on.

Rd00
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
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. :)

Using your own words "Not necessarily" -

Sometimes or even oftiems tis better to hire contractors to help through the heavy workload.

Hiring more "employed workers" might actually put one in a position where they have too much future obligations on their hands.

Rd00
 

Aiki

Patron with Honors
I don't see anything wrong with Terrils analogy. I think it's down to the person who wants to look at something from a conditions point of view to understand what's written and see if it fits, when it fits, how it fits. Then they can see if it's useful or not. But it does have that little word involved called understand.

I don't think the conditions are even complete myself but are a guideline basic on a basic concept of conditions. Then extrapolated from that that there is therefor a solution to each or principles to validate and keep to.

Peace.Aiki.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The subject, if you mean scientology,

the only reason it has survived to date is because of certain poilicy's, hcob's, and other fine print installed in hubbard's lectures and books.

and that is KSW, hard sell, technical degrades. no comparing notes. no talking about the tech or trying to improve it, and so on.

And yet the whole subject called scientology is really about communicating, but yet one can't, when in the church, and it also creates confusions outside the church.

Without hubbards PR and sales talk in his books and lectures, would the subject still survive?
Without the hype, there is nothing. There are no Releases, no Clears, no OTs, no "miracles". Without the hype, they'd have to survive on actual results and, compared to other therapies, Scientology just doesn't compare well at all.

The only way Scientology survives now is with their well-oiled hype and by hiding their lack of promised results.

Bill
 

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
The only way Scientology survives now is with their well-oiled hype and by hiding their lack of promised results.

Bill

And, well, the reality of the concept of ignorance and pain necessarily preceding wisdom and pleasure in regard to all things spiritual. Or, in a bit more of a crude form, a fool and his money are soon to be parted (and something about at least 'one'....being born every day?).

This biggest difference between Scientology and nearly every preceding spiritual scam is Scientology actually is based on some pretty hefty spiritual realities. Selling snake oil that heals. So to speak.

Mojo
 

Gib

Crusader
Without the hype, there is nothing. There are no Releases, no Clears, no OTs, no "miracles". Without the hype, they'd have to survive on actual results and, compared to other therapies, Scientology just doesn't compare well at all.

The only way Scientology survives now is with their well-oiled hype and by hiding their lack of promised results.

Bill

As David Mayo said, the change in the definition of "clear" was for Marketing considerations. As also absolutes are unobtainable.

I contest the same for all the lower level grades. Each EP would be absolute thus not obtainable, but those definitions were not changed.

Any grade EP would in fact produce a really great person who would not go PTS to anything. If it were true, but still based on hubbard's tech. I have no doubt I benefited from the ARC straightwire grade, and the grade 0 auditing I received. But can I honestly state those EP's now that I look back? Answer is no.

My conclusion is the whole bridge is but a big marketing, sales, PR, hype program. That is a con, a fraud. Without hard sell policy, would anybody have continued? Without hubbards great ability to sell and position himself, would anybody have continued from day one?

And hubbard admitted it a few times. Once in that video that HH would always post, and then again telling Sarge he failed in the Lawrence Wright book.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Without the hype, there is nothing. There are no Releases, no Clears, no OTs, no "miracles". Without the hype, they'd have to survive on actual results and, compared to other therapies, Scientology just doesn't compare well at all.

The only way Scientology survives now is with their well-oiled hype and by hiding their lack of promised results.

Bill

Clears and OTs may be debatable.

Releases and miracles are plenty.

See the FZ Success stories thread here on ESMB.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't see anything wrong with Terrils analogy. I think it's down to the person who wants to look at something from a conditions point of view to understand what's written and see if it fits, when it fits, how it fits. Then they can see if it's useful or not. But it does have that little word involved called understand.

I don't think the conditions are even complete myself but are a guideline basic on a basic concept of conditions. Then extrapolated from that that there is therefor a solution to each or principles to validate and keep to.

Peace.Aiki.

I don't think that anybody speaking to Terril is going to deny that there may well be some things right in the conditions, however they are also likely to point out the wrong things. I guess Roger and I fall into that category of finding some things wrong.

I am sure the conditions will work fantastically when one is operating a lemonade stand.

But large organizations, and perhaps Roger will concur with me on this, tend to use much more due diligence on matters as they arise whether that matter consists of fixing something, or developing something.

Myself personally, I do not see a place for Hubabrd HCOPLs in a large organization. I don't see the benefits of having WISE hook up with a large organization. By large I mean something along hte lines of Coke, Pepsi, Universal, Shell, if you catch my drift.

I notice that you disagree with two of my posts and I am curious as to your reasoning on this. Fine with me to disagree but I am one who likes to even contest my own views on things from time to time so if you want to elaborate on the reasoning behind your "disagrees" I would greatly appreciate it.

Rd00
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Clears and OTs may be debatable.
Nope. Clears and OTs are not "debatable". They don't exist.

Yes, I understand that Scientologists like to redefine the promised, vast benefits of "getting rid of your Reactive Mind" from what Hubbard originally promised down to "I felt really good for a while". (Which means the Reactive Mind has gone from this huge, evil monster down to a minor annoyance which you might not even notice when it's gone).

And I understand that Scientologists like to redefine "OT" from the incredible abilities and powers promised by Hubbard down to "I'm calling a few coincidences 'OT Phenomena' so I can pretend I'm 'OT'."

But if we accept these redefinitions, then Scientology doesn't actually provide any benefit. If we go with the original claims of Hubbard's, then Scientology doesn't actually produce those promised results. Either way, it's a complete failure.

Releases and miracles are plenty.

See the FZ Success stories thread here on ESMB.
Nope. "Success stories" are not proof. If anecdotal stories were proof, then there really is a Nigerian prince who is giving millions away. If anecdotal stories were proof, then aliens really are speaking to people through their appliances. If anecdotal stories were proof, then lizard people are running this country.

So, what do you have besides "stories"?

Here's what I have from 30+ years of knowing and observing thousands and thousands of Scientologists (inside and outside the church). These observations are consistent for all Scientologists I've observed. In talking with others, my observations match theirs:
"Grade 0 Releases" have trouble communicating.
"Grade 1 Releases" have problems.
"Grade 2 Releases" are still struggling with "hostilities and suffering".
"Grade 3 Releases" are still hung up on past upsets.
"Grade 4 Releases" work very hard to make others wrong and self right -- in fact, Scientology seems to make this much worse.

While, in general, I like Scientologists and admire all those who got into Scientology wanting to help others, they are just ordinary people with no more powers and abilities than the rest of the inhabitants of this world.

I have no doubt that some people get some benefits from Scientology processing, even if only temporary.

But to actually, publicly claim and insist that Scientology produces "Releases", "Clears" and "OTs" is a lie and actual FRAUD.

And that is just wrong.

Bill
 

Aiki

Patron with Honors
I don't think that anybody speaking to Terril is going to deny that there may well be some things right in the conditions, however they are also likely to point out the wrong things. I guess Roger and I fall into that category of finding some things wrong.

I am sure the conditions will work fantastically when one is operating a lemonade stand.

But large organizations, and perhaps Roger will concur with me on this, tend to use much more due diligence on matters as they arise whether that matter consists of fixing something, or developing something.

Myself personally, I do not see a place for Hubabrd HCOPLs in a large organization. I don't see the benefits of having WISE hook up with a large organization. By large I mean something along hte lines of Coke, Pepsi, Universal, Shell, if you catch my drift.

I notice that you disagree with two of my posts and I am curious as to your reasoning on this. Fine with me to disagree but I am one who likes to even contest my own views on things from time to time so if you want to elaborate on the reasoning behind your "disagrees" I would greatly appreciate it.

Rd00

I take it 'wise' is some group. HCOPLS probably o.k. for big, stupid, robotic, selfish, greedy, out ethics organizations so they probably would fit them quite well. Those kinds of places use "due dilligence" which is basically fear. Politicians love that word too.

Peace.Aiki.
 

Aiki

Patron with Honors
Also the part about paying every bill under the stars etc could violate cash flow testing and could cause a problem with something that investors call "Duration Risk".

So that step is too naive and short sighted.

The part about service facilities, granted there are some thigns that one could consider buying even before they apply the discovery part but I agree with you that there are some things that should be purchased after careful consideration of what caused the affluence.

Again he was too simplistic. And the over simplification could cause problems.

Light bulbs now there is a service facility that every foudnation org needs to keep a eye on.

Rd00

As you asked, I disagree with your example of could violate cash flow testing and 'duration risk'

These are ethics conditions not big business out ethics conditions so course they would say it may interfere with this and that. Fear.

In fact if you applied the conditions to big business or cos then you wouldn't have them existing anymore. They would have to realize just how crazy they are. So using them as examples of where ethics don't work is nuts for they never use ethics.

Now where would they be as a guess if I were to assign ethics conditions to big conglomerates or the cos itself, of course using the tech given for this exercise. Mmmmmm, not too hard to do is it. They're all in treason.:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
As you asked, I disagree with your example of could violate cash flow testing and 'duration risk'

These are ethics conditions not big business out ethics conditions so course they would say it may interfere with this and that. Fear.

In fact if you applied the conditions to big business or cos then you wouldn't have them existing anymore. They would have to realize just how crazy they are. So using them as examples of where ethics don't work is nuts for they never use ethics.

Now where would they be as a guess if I were to assign ethics conditions to big conglomerates or the cos itself, of course using the tech given for this exercise. Mmmmmm, not too hard to do is it. They're all in treason.:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.
Its this kind of simplistic certainty that just annoys the hell out of me.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
According to the affluence formula one is to pay off every penny owed under the stars moon and sun

So accordingly if one follows this literally one would pay off their mortgage.

I will not deny that there are some situations where one should pay off their mortgage.

However the affluence formula, dare I say it, is quite one dimensional when it comes to finance.

So Johnnie Scientologist has $100,000 and can pay the mortgage off which just happens to be slightly less than 100,000. THe interest rate on the mortgage is 5 1/2 %

I bet he feels so good about having applied the Afluence formula to the tee and I am sure he gave this as a win at muster.

Johnnie no longer has to make the mortgage payments and now has the mortgage payments to keep and spend in any shape manner and form. He is still in affluence by the Ethics standards and now he can invest the this money in a service facility such as his bridge to total nowhere and if he needs to skip a bridge payment for somethign important or an emergency he can do so.

But Sammy Squirell, who has the exact same typeo of mortgage and $100,000, does some research and notices that he can buy a 30 year $100,000 bond which pays 8% and that he will get $4,000 coupons every 6 months.

So Sammy does this. He uses some of the money to cover any shortcomings he has in his monthly payments of his mortgage has leftover money to set aside for retirment in an IRA.

Plus he gets to put his mortgage interest on his Schedule A so he gets back perhaps anotehr 15 % of the mortgatge interest he paid last year.

Both of them have houses that can go up or down in value.

Sammy has a $100,000 that remains stable.

According to Hubbard's Affluence formula Johnnie is doing better than Sammy because he applied his 100% workable Ethics Technology.

The sad thing I see is that if Johnnie tried to do what Sammy did he would be sent to cramming at his own cost because he did not apply standard Scientology L Ron Hubbard Etthcis Tech.

Not to worry.

Johnnie is sure to write a nice meaty beefy big and bouncy Success Story.

Rd00
 
Re: CONDITIONS
Affluence formula (see also 'Action Affluence' - Admin Dictionary) - not a perfect formula, but the general idea of consolidating the excess of energy released by successful actions, is a good one.

Original Lecture on the 5 Conditions not spectacular, but pretty workable, in my opinion.

It is the lower conditions, in my opinion, which are incredibly destructive to sanity. Add to that the insanity given out as a version of the 'Power' formula after the riveting tale of Simon Bolivar's rise and fall.

Here is my analytical 'work-out' of the 'lower' conditions. To hell with the 'formulas.' Name the condition and you can easily work your way up.

NON-EXISTENCE
SAFE POINT (See PR Series - "there is a condition just a hair below Non-E...")
DOUBT (there is no Liability to being in Doubt, except if you are running a cult)
CONFUSION (that's right - it takes a confusion to flip into attacking others - per early, basic tech)
FAILURE (this is a condition - formula = (see Expanded Confusion) - get re-oriented and try, try again)
LIABILITY (those who do not repair their failures diminish their contributions to the group accordingly - LRH especially, beginning 1964)
TREASON (won't fix failures, won't fix self, must be right, must make group wrong - LRH 1965 - KSW#1)
ENEMY (harmful intentions and actions directed at group - LRH 1967 - Sea Org)
DISASTER (whether for self or on group you are enemy to - depends on how evil you are capable of being - LRH 1977 on - this is actually a lower harmonic of the FAILURE condition - followed by inventing a way to audit 'other-determinisms' [NOTs] since your self-determinism is long gone)

Note that only the lowest condition requires extensive amends. The others require self-correction. Forget about self-determined correction in a collectivist group steeped in cult-think.

(my first post on ESMB, by the way - still trying to hack my way in to getting an actual identity here - some reason still blocked)

WATCHFUL NAVIGATOR
Scott Gordon
ex-DSA CCDallas
 
Back On-topic to LEON's Tech Posts

Leon,

I have the happy condition of having a brilliant co-audit twin handy and we have a living laboratory of auditing going between us, with a total re-evaluation of the tech in progress.

The test of a bad (reverse) process is not whether it cuts Havingness.

If a process cuts Havingness it may just be out-gradient, and/or an awesome process. The test is if the pc easily comes back up to comfortable Havingness, given some Havingness processing. Even if you don't give him/her Havingness, they will get it in life after session and experience 'gains' in living.

A reverse process almost has to have an external environmental suppression to make it stick. Flag excels at this. The authoritariansm of the tech and the environment clobbers the pc with altitude, and the slightest evaluation cuts the pc to ribbons.

So having done more good with HELP processing than any other, I have to say this:

1) if you run the church line-up (Grade I or South African Rundown) you are working with a very wrong gradient. One of those first processes is specified in the HCOBs to be high-gradient and LAST - yet it is run near the beginning.
2) there are 'negative' but effective processes (FAILED HELP) that do require Havingness because they cut so deep. The gains are potentially tremendous

I am developing a HELP Rundown that will have 3 phases/stages:
1) Coffee-shop/Skype/intro training level that anyone can run, on a sensible gradient
2) Slightly advanced (finding terminals required) but still able to be done off the meter (including distance auditing)
3) Professional Advanced-metered (finding hidden terminals using what the meter works best for)

The vast majority of people will release in stage 1 and stage II. Yet the Standard Techies will scream and howl if I take away their clients and their control of 'Standard Tech.' But although Stage III takes this into account, it is also true that finding buried terminals through skilled metering can lead to desirable results for the client.

Outside an authoritarian environment, processing that requires Havingness repair just might be high-powered gain processing that should be placed at the end of auditing line-ups for best results. You can either continue to run those and boost Havingness as you go, or you can do a better job of a gradient approach.

You are right that good processing (on the right gradient) requires little attention to Havingness.

These are my opinions formed from experience and study of this phenomena. I have found a lot of this backed by 1957-1961 research, but mostly by running it on each other and on my clients.

HELP is the core of the FreeScientology approach.

Hope this helps.

Scott Gordon
WATCHFUL NAVIGATOR (Flying with The Pilot)
ex-DSA CCDALLAS
watchfulnavigator.wordpress.com
freescientology.us
 
Top