Mike: Another Disconnection Tragedy

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Mike: Another Disconnection Tragedy
http://www.mikerindersblog.org/another-disconnection-tragedy/

Excerpts:
So many responses to yesterday’s post about disconnection. Gayle Smith just posted a comment that I feel deserves not to be overlooked.

I am making it it’s own post.
What if you disconnected from a son you felt was a part of you like your smile or heartbeat was? What if you didn’t know what he knew, because you didn’t listen to what he was telling you through his distancing from the Scientology movement he once loved and believed in? What if you didn’t give your son the same listening to that an auditor gives on a daily basis to people who tell you all manner of harm they’ve done in the world in order to overcome it through auditing?
Too late? Too late.

Too late because there is the chance that you will NEVER get to hold them again, kiss them again or tell them how proud you are of them because they died before you had that chance. What if?

You don’t want to live with that. You don’t want to be that person. You don’t want to fail to apply the very tech to your life that you feel so strongly about. You don’t want to be the one who turned out to be wrong. You don’t want to discover it when it’s too late.

I know because it happened to me.

My son Collin’s life that was lost before I had this chance to make things right with him, to apply the tech I’d devoted my adult life to learning so as to achieve the goals of truth being truth and not someone else’s idea of what it was without inspection.
I cannot ignore what auditing CAN do for a person. The Bridge is standardly delivered outside of the shell of the church of scientology all the way up the OT levels. I know because I did them and know that the checksheets outside the church of scientology from Student Hat through Class IX auditor exist because I’ve seen them. Beyond holding my son again and looking him in the eyes to tell him that I love him I would like him to know that it wasn’t all in vain, that the torch for helping others improve their conditions in life with a proven tool continues. That it continues without blind devotion, without the lies and without the suppression within the church and more that it is being used to help those whose lives have been torn apart like ours was; with the goal of exposing the truth to those still inside the mind raping machine that has been manipulated by David Micasvige to allegedly undo such trappings.
Gayle also asked me to add two links to media articles, the first reporting on Collin’s death and the second on an award given in his name.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
That story is heartbreaking. I have no doubt the author's own heart was broken by her disconnection from her son (which she initiated). As she says, her son (a very sharp college-age young man) was trying to get her to see the truth about the church and how he felt about it all, but she refused to look. She caved to the church's insistence that she disconnect from him.

And then, before they could be reunited, he was killed in an automobile accident.

I really do feel for her. I hope she continues to find peace.

Some of you will not like the story because she's still enamored of the tech. However, that's neither the point of her story nor her goal in writing it. She's trying to get churchies to stop caving to the terrific social pressure they're put under to disconnect from family and friends who've had the guts to say the emperor has no clothes and they aren't buying it anymore.

As she says, the discomfort of losing friends and social position in the Scientology community is NOTHING compared to the pain of losing permanently a child you disconnected from and ran out of time to reconnect with.

God bless her.

TG1
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Comment posted on Mike's blog and Mike's response:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/another-disconnection-tragedy/#comment-14070
CommunicatorIC says:
August 28, 2013 at 6:15 pm


I feel bad for saying the following, and more than bit like an asshole, but I think it needs to be said. If I have to play the role of the asshole to convey the following, so be it.

On the one hand, Gayle seemingly celebrates the delivery of “Standard Tech” outside the corporate Church of Scientology: “The Bridge is standardly
delivered outside of the shell of the church of scientology all the way up the OT levels.”

On the other hand, there seems to be no recognition that Disconnection is and always has been “Standard Tech.” As Mike noted in his prior post “Disconnection And Segregation” –

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/disconnection-and-segregation/


– “Mr. and Mrs. Smith report back to HCO. The Ethics Officer opens Introduction to Scientology Ethics to page 312 and reads them the following “High Crime”: Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO. The Ethics Officer informs them that Frank is now officially designated a Suppressive Person by HCO for committing this High Crime and asks them whether they plan to disconnect from him and their daughter-in-law and two of their grandchildren. They know the consequence of NOT disconnecting will be for them to be declared and thus lose their jobs and their other two children and 4 other grandchildren. This IS the “choice” they are given. And yes, technically, they DO have a choice — they can walk out and tell the Ethics Officer they will not disconnect from one son and lose the other two and their jobs. So, they call Frank and tell them they will no longer be communicating with him until he “handles himself with HCO.” –

The thing is, that has ALWAYS been the case. The book Introduction to Scientology Ethics says what it says, and always has. For a very long time “Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO” has been a High Crime.’ These references did not first come into existence under DM. And whatever other alterations DM has made to the Tech, DM did not alter the relevant section of the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics or the references on High Crimes. I know because I have looked.

I applaud all those who resist, fight and do not comply with Disconnection Orders. I do, however, think there should be some recognition that one cannot do so while adhering 100% to KSW “Standard Tech.” Again, the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics says what it says, and always has. The reference on High Crimes, and other references, say what they say, and always have.

Reply
c57adb08dcbd5e5e50d9160072e8a657
Mike Rinder says:


August 28, 2013 at 6:34 pm

Hmmm, I think that High Crime first appeared in 1982. I dont think it is much of an argument to claim that idiocy from HCO enforcing disconnection is “standard tech”. It’s not. It may be “standard admin” but it for sure is not standard tech which is all addressed to the individual. The fundamental concept of disconnection is not unsound. Martha Stout in the Sociopath Next Door gives exactly the same advice — the best way to deal with a sociopath is NOT to deal with them at all.

On the other hand, I think anyone who uncritically accepts anything written as true simply because it was written by L. Ron Hubbard — whether it be tech or admin — is a few sandwiches short of a full picnic. But that doesnt describe the Gayle that I know.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
More in the discussion:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/another-disconnection-tragedy/#comment-14089
CommunicatorIC says:

August 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm

Mike – Thanks for posting my comment and the reply. Several quick responses.

First, it is interesting that Cat daddy cites the year 1978 as when things “went astray.” A very quick and dirty Google search finds a 1978 version of Introduction to Scientology Ethics with the following, similar, High Crime: “Continued adherence to a group pronounced a Suppressive Group by the Hubbard Communications Office.”
http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientol...o/1968 INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS.pdf

I don’t have earlier editions handy, but will have to take a look.

Secondly, your distinction between “Standard Tech” and “Standard Admin” is interesting, but I don’t think it holds up. As you yourself earlier noted:

” I do not believe policy/admin is in the same ballpark as tech. The admin, after all, only came about as a means to an end — enabling the delivery of tech. But I do not think anyone can seriously contend that LRH and the church don’t hold policy/admin tech to the same standard of “Keeping Scientology Working.” It is considered a High Crime to alter policy or misapply it or fail to apply it. Just as it is with tech. In the minds of Corporate Scientologists, if its written by LRH it is to be FOLLOWED to the letter.”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/keeping-scientology-working/#comment-251461

While you personally saw a distinction between Auditing Tech and “policy/admin tech,” you recognized that LRH did not when it came to KSW and whether it MUST be applied.

Also, I honestly don’t mean to play “gotcha” by citing your own words back to you. Please take it that I’ve been carefully reading everything you and Marty have written for a long time (probably since the beginning), and have been taking you both seriously.

Finally, you cite Martha Stout and the book Sociopath Next Door, and note that the fundamental concept of disconnection is not unsound. I agree. One should disconnect from a sociopath, a spouse beater, etc. The issues have always been: (1) what is sufficient to trigger disconnection; (2) what happens to one’s other relationships if one refuses to disconnect; and (3) who decides whether one should, or indeed must, disconnect from another, and the consequences of refusing to do so. My understanding is that in Scientology those decisions have for a very long time, and certainly prior to the rise of DM, been made per scripture by the group, and more specifically by the hierarchy of the COS.

Reply
c57adb08dcbd5e5e50d9160072e8a657
Mike Rinder says:



August 28, 2013 at 7:45 pm


I dont want to get into a lengthy debate about this. I don’t consider it a “gotcha”. Mostly this is indistinct definitions and usage of terms that have a number of meanings.

I think Fundamentalist Scientologists — whether in the church or “independent” consider everything ever written by Hubbard, whether “tech” or “admin” to be gospel truth and to be followed to the letter. I disagree with that concept and I have also stated that I do not believe admin tech has any track record of proven success. It is not in my mind a “workable technology” though there are plenty of sound ideas contained in it and I consider the Data Series to be a philosophical masterpiece. But often, the fundamentalist makes no distinction between “tech” and “admin”, it is all “tech” as in “the tech of Scientology.” Even the “Third Dynamic Tech.”

I consider “the tech” to be the address of the individual in Scientology — as in auditing tech. And I think this is how Gayle was using it too.

I therefore don’t see an inconsistency with her statement about the value of the application of the tech and the assertion that the enforcement of “Ethics Policy” by HCO is wrong. Maybe I am misreading her and she thinks ALL written material by Hubbard is gospel truth and that it is simply “misapplication” that is the problem. I do not share that view. I believe there are many things that are unconscionable and wrong in writings concerning the administration of Scientology. I don’t find the same thing in the “tech” of auditing. People may not agree that it benefits people or deride it as foolish or deluded, but no matter whether you agree or disagree, you don’t tend to find things that are clearly a violation of individual rights for the good of the organization in “the tech.”

Hope this clarifies.

I appreciate that you read so carefully….
 
Top