What's new

Personal confession and accusation

Many of us assume that there is a "spirit", and that the human being really is a combination of a "HUMAN body" and a "spiritual BEING".

While I agree with the idea, usually, and mostly, it is STILL fundamentally a theory - and yes Mark, a SUBJECTIVE theory as you so eloquently point out on this or some other recent thread.

It "might" be an objective truth that we are each a "composite being", as you described, but it is surely a "subjective truth" wehn you state it as if it were an undeniable "fact".

And, some other views (theosophy, Hindu) would say that you exist on at least seven differnt planes simultaneously, as corresponding to each of the seven Chakras. Where the "spiritual" and "physical" are only TWO of the seven.

Really, I look at almost all knowledge as "theories". :yes:

++++++++++++++

I'd agree that it is not an objective truth. However, nothing that we can know ever is. Nor does this thesis require the existence of 'spirit' although that is certainly one traditional interpretation. The point is, as the buddhists have indicated for centuries, that beings possess mind to varying degrees. Mind is observably different from the phenomena of the world. The degree of 'separation' that implies remains uncertain.


Mark A. Baker
 

Arthur Dent

Silver Meritorious Patron
Wow, Ethicsbait!
I didn't realize you were still in and working in an org!
Good on you for posting here!
I'm very curious if you're the "only one" or do you suspect others in your org of distancing themselves at this time? And what brings it on? Miscavige management? Anonymous? Protests? The internet? Press?
I know the reigns are held pretty close on org staff but they do go home to their computers at night!
 
I don't think it's required to be arrogant to be a scientologist, or to be an auditor.

However, "spiritual materialism", a variety of arrogance, is quite common. Spiritual materialism means having your self-esteem based on "how high up" in a religious order or in a spiritual system you are. When an OT V's opinion counts more than a "raw meat" opinion, that's spiritual materialism.

Even if you bought totally into the scientology worldview, OTs are just people whose intentions are supposed to be more powerful than they were before, though some "raw meat" might be inherently stronger in this capacity. A Clear should be rational, and thus their views might carry more weight, but they would still depend on the level of information the person had, and the discipline they had in ferreting out fallacious reasoning when they heard it or read it.

Within the cult, status is important. It's a very good clue that the "religion" is total bullshit.

I disagree with your first line. Arrogance is required to be an auditor/scientologist because KSW is required; the cult leaders agenda must be followed, and you cannot even do it passively, which would allow for non arrogance. It is required that a scientologist is active. The higher up, the moreso, with OTs perhaps expected to embody the most arrogance in regard to getting the cult enforced worldwide, as well as all sorts of lesser ways to be arrogant.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I could follow KSW without being arrogant about it. I did, for a while. KSW is just about referring a person to Hubbard's lectures, policies, etc., or following them to the best of your understanding. Of course, a person can be very arrogant and this can overshadow everything they do.

It was VERY arrogant of Hubbard to write the KSW stuff, but I don't think it's arrogant to carry it out: I think that is just being a robot.
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Many of us assume that there is a "spirit", and that the human being really is a combination of a "HUMAN body" and a "spiritual BEING".

While I agree with the idea, usually, and mostly, it is STILL fundamentally a theory - and yes Mark, a SUBJECTIVE theory as you so eloquently point out on this or some other recent thread.

It "might" be an objective truth that we are each a "composite being", as you described, but it is surely a "subjective truth" when you state it as if it were an undeniable "fact" (as you did above).

And, some other views (theosophy, Hindu) would say that you exist on at least seven differnt planes simultaneously, as corresponding to each of the seven Chakras. Where the "spiritual" and "physical" are only TWO of the seven. The "mind" would make up "three" of the seven. Hubbard delineated only three of the seven. :confused2:

Really, I look at almost all knowledge as "theories". :yes:

++++++++++++++

You are right Gotta. It seems arbitrary which part of man you want to most identify with. Whatever you say you ARE you are only assuming that perspective whether transiently or with super glue.

THE DOCTRINE OF ANATTA

A person might consider their body to be their self. But the self can be aware at a different location than the body, so the self is not the body.
A person might consider their personality to be their self. But the personality and its quirks can be quieted to silence so completely that the personality vanishes into nothingness, so the self is not the personality.

A person might consider their identity to be their self. But the self can love another so completely that the identity vanishes into the other, so the self is not the identity.

A person might consider their thoughts to be their self. But the self can exist without having a constant chatter of thoughts, so the self is not thoughts.

A person might consider their mind to be their self. But the self can exist without having any mind, so the self is not the mind.

A person might consider the universe to be their self. But the self can exist without being in a universe, so the self is not the universe.

A person might consider their creativity to be their self. But the self can exist without creating anything, so the self is not creativity.

A person might consider their being aware of things to be their self. But the self can exist without perception of anything, so the self is not perception.

A person might consider their being conscious to be their self. But the self can exist without being conscious, so the self is not consciousness.

A person might consider nothingness to be their self. But the self can exist as something too, so the self is not nothingness.

Anything you can be, you can not-be. Anything you can not-be, you can be. So all statements of being and not-being are rejected.

The self is not anything.
The self is not nothing.
The self is not both anything and nothing.
The self is not neither anything nor nothing.
None of these four statements can be applied.

This is an aspect of the doctrine of anatta which Gotama declared 2600 years ago.

Ouran
 

Outethicsofficer

Silver Meritorious Patron
Nice post 'ethicsbait' you'd better come see the 'outethicsofficer'...I am amazed you're still in the org and on post, why?

James
 
There may be two aspects to the arrogance of auditors, and for that matter, admin staff too:
Personal arrogance, where a persons own pre cult levels of arrogance are now functioning in his/her role inside the COS, and the arrogance that is reuired as part of his/her post. All staff are required to be arrogant. Their jobs require it, for all COS jobs.

I was not an auditor beyond HQS, but even I picked up on the arrogance that you're talking about with some auditors, and the overall pathway the "pc" took on the "bridge". That is a completely separate issue form the fact that auditors are really trying to help someone, and that some are really very very *not* arrogant personally. I guess it would be less evident where "pc's" go through with no problems, but if there are problems then the pc can be seen as a problem.
I'm not sure that arrogance is required but in most cases it becomes a byproduct of the certainty which is most definitely required, regardless how delusional the certainty is.
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm not sure that arrogance is required but in most cases it becomes a byproduct of the certainty which is most definitely required, regardless how delusional the certainty is.

Well said. Arrogance is not required, but it happens nonetheless. The idea that every Scnist is somehow party to some big secret that distinguishes them from (and makes them superior to) "wogs" (oh how I hate that word) can breed a sort of arrogance. When you're a penniless, raggedy-ass SO member at the bottom of the heap, you can still feel superior -- and arrogant.

Peggy
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
I have been reading PC folders for the past few weeks. Programs, auditor thinks and all that mumbo jumbo to help me piece together the truth and work through what has happened to me and others.

Auditors, myself included become quite arrogant. The more I read, the more I saw how the help was really not help, oh to the auditors and C/S's writing this crap, they were justified, but the snide remarks are just so blatant it is astounding and disgusting.

The eloquent ways you can say a PC is a piece of shit is amazing. It’s clear to see it’s about stats and money after a while, or the all important hours in the chair, F/N at exams and all the rest of it. Yea we say we care, but actions and what’s written in the folders tell a different story.

A common thread if you really look at the FES’s in this guy or gal’s folder, who has been on lines 10, 20, 30 years and has completed grade IV or NED or OT3 etc, it keeps coming up; OBJ not flat, still out ethics, still out 2D, still masturbates, still 1.1 on the tone scale and on and on. When does this shit get handled, OT 100.

It’s amazing it took me so long to see it.

My confession is that I was (and maybe still am) an arrogant, hypocritical, manipulative SOB. My accusation is that so are all, yes I said all, of the auditors past and present in my HGC. Any staff lurkers don’t believe me, go have a look, it will hit you like a ton of bricks.

If PC’s knew what their auditors really think of them!

Yea, I am still angry.

Thin line I am walking being in the org everyday and being here. Working toward freedom little by little.

Ethicsbait

P.S. Do I sound like American?

This post I may come to regret later I know, like I said I am angry.


I'd forgotten how many times in the early 80s I'd overheard such evaluations such as:

'So and so won't go OT because they don't think their other dynamics are important enough...they're stuck on their first and their second.'

Or' this particular person is out ethics because she is marrying this fellow who is 20 yrs older because he is affluent and will help purchase their levels. It must be handled.'

Or 'that person has overts because he is a musician in a nightclub and half the customers are drunk or doing drugs.'

Or 'this person is rollercoastering because they have overts by not honoring the hours they were supposed to be on course when they got their student discount. The fact that they are pregnant is not an excuse'...etc.

To place such things in a person's folder to be 'the reason why' when the FES is done or the D of P at another org is...sheeesh. Some of the people I heard making these judgements were not qualified to make any such determinations. In more than a few instances, the pc was made to look bad out of jealousy or fixed considerations or plain false data. I have to say though the the 'auditors' were the least critical in general. That's in general cause one or two were over the top. I should never have known the stigmas being shelled out. But I have big ears. :D

On one unfortunate occasion I was at the FSO. I was waiting for my auditor to pick up my folder so we could go back into session. They had a huge white cardboard scheduling board on a stand written on with colored markers. Two or three young ladies were marking the time slots and the rooms and the hours and PC to auditor ratios. Well done auditing hours and attests were being precisely accounted for. I heard one young woman say to another, this person is in review because she has overts, there is going to be no finishing of this cycle before the auditor can go back home to Australia with her complete on her program. I could just see my auditor's feet visible from across the room on the opposite side of the large board standing next to the women. I could hear his voice as he defended the PC (ME) saying the overts were on ME. :p Then he took me and bought me 4 shots of warm Cal Mag at the Hour Glass juice bar and acknowledged me wholeheartedly when I told him I no longer needed an auditor...I needed an EXORCIST. :bigcry:

He was from Australia, and in 1981 and he was a veterinarian. He may have been from Queensland. I don't remember his name. A very down to earth pragmatic fellow going for his Class IX course. I begged Jeff Walker to let him go home instead of making him stay until my program was complete. He did. :thumbsup:

:grouch:
Once when I was at the FSO in 1982 for a review I had the Qual Sec take me aside for an interview. It was Franky Freeman. He did not have to do this but wanted to feel out the results I was getting before I got back on the plane to go home. He did not really believe the evalutions about my case. He was trying to figure things out for himself as I had been doing just fine the previous years and nothing in my life was very different. He was curious. And then...he read to me something someone had put in my folders at my Class IV mission. Someone had brought forward an item to be noted for Expanded Dianetics. It was placed in my folder up front that I had been a prostitute. :omg: :no:
This I found out there at Flag sitting in Franky's little office on the second floor above the garden alcove. He said "There's reasons why some PCs get better case gains than others. There's reasons whey some people don't get ahead in processing as fast. Not that they won't eventually get there, but__for one reason, you've been a prostitute." :hattip: :ohmy: My mouth dropped. He said it's what was written down in your folders. :angry: He said "No?" I said :unsure: "No". "OK" he says, "well that's one more wrong indication that you don't need here. And I'm sorry if I stirred up any more bypassed charge by pointing that out". He then let me know who made the point and that it was wrong for the auditor involved to have had sex with some of his PCs.

Well, I don't have to tell you, I racked my mind to figure out which of those SOBs at the Class IV mission screwed up my folders before mailing them to the Flag Service Org.. somebody had a grudge and it affected "WHO" I was regarded as and what I was worth and what potential I had. But Franky was doing his own investigation. :happydance: (The Secret of Flag Results films were in the air) He did not trust the critical attitude of those who wrote the synopsis of Who I was. He had seen the many normal folders before the PTSness.
 
Last edited:

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
Jesus Christ on a stick, Hats! What a story. Glad you're out of all that now. What a pile of shit.

Peggy
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Gee, reading Ethicsbait and Hatshepsut I just go :puke:

Other people judging what is wrong with you, adding their own juicy input at times..:duh: Sadly your PC folders reflect how you are viewed, and you may never know what is in them.



Lurkers - the way out is the front door!
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Gee, reading Ethicsbait and Hatshepsut I just go :puke:

Other people judging what is wrong with you, adding their own juicy input at times..:duh: Sadly your PC folders reflect how you are viewed, and you may never know what is in them.


Lurkers - the way out is the front door!

Thanks :yes:
 
I'd forgotten how many times in the early 80s I'd overheard such evaluations such as:

'So and so won't go OT because they don't think their other dynamics are important enough...they're stuck on their first and their second.'

Or' this particular person is out ethics because she is marrying this fellow who is 20 yrs older because he is affluent and will help purchase their levels. It must be handled.'

Or 'that person has overts because he is a musician in a nightclub and half the customers are drunk or doing drugs.'

Or 'this person is rollercoastering because they have overts by not honoring the hours they were supposed to be on course when they got their student discount. The fact that they are pregnant is not an excuse'...etc.
It makes little sense to waste the expense of even having auditors, they should just install slot machines and have the PC pull the handle, whatever ends up on the dial gets written in their folder. The results would be the same, maybe even more accurate.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
You are right Gotta. It seems arbitrary which part of man you want to most identify with. Whatever you say you ARE you are only assuming that perspective whether transiently or with super glue.

THE DOCTRINE OF ANATTA

A person might consider their body to be their self. But the self can be aware at a different location than the body, so the self is not the body.
A person might consider their personality to be their self. But the personality and its quirks can be quieted to silence so completely that the personality vanishes into nothingness, so the self is not the personality.

A person might consider their identity to be their self. But the self can love another so completely that the identity vanishes into the other, so the self is not the identity.

A person might consider their thoughts to be their self. But the self can exist without having a constant chatter of thoughts, so the self is not thoughts.

A person might consider their mind to be their self. But the self can exist without having any mind, so the self is not the mind.

A person might consider the universe to be their self. But the self can exist without being in a universe, so the self is not the universe.

A person might consider their creativity to be their self. But the self can exist without creating anything, so the self is not creativity.

A person might consider their being aware of things to be their self. But the self can exist without perception of anything, so the self is not perception.

A person might consider their being conscious to be their self. But the self can exist without being conscious, so the self is not consciousness.

A person might consider nothingness to be their self. But the self can exist as something too, so the self is not nothingness.

Anything you can be, you can not-be. Anything you can not-be, you can be. So all statements of being and not-being are rejected.

The self is not anything.
The self is not nothing.
The self is not both anything and nothing.
The self is not neither anything nor nothing.
None of these four statements can be applied.

This is an aspect of the doctrine of anatta which Gotama declared 2600 years ago.

Ouran

Beautiful little write-up! :thumbsup:

Hats, I can always count on you to put up something that just fires up my appreciation and total AGREEMENT. I resonate with that whole thing! It does it for me. I GROK it!

:woohoo:

:thankyou:

Oh, I am a "Gaddy", and not a "Gotta" . . . . . . :confused2:

Mmm? According to the above ideas on "self", I can be a "Gaddy", but then, I can also NOT be a "Gaddy". And, my "Gaddy" can be mistook to be a "Gotta"? Then what do I become? :confused2:

But, the big and deep question is this.

Is it an In-A-Gotta-Da-Vida type "Gotta"? :dizzy: Or, a "Gotta Brain" type "Gotta"? :dizzy:

Oh, now I am totally lost . . . . . . :blink:

+++++++
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Originally posted by Gadfly

< snipped>

Oh, I am a "Gaddy", and not a "Gotta" . . . . . .

Sorry 'bout that.
Thanks for the appreciation 'Gaddy'. :bighug:

The mistake was on the 'Gotta' brain type.....

Or jus maybe da hybrid coulda be like a da Dapper Don type :melodramatic:

images
 
Last edited:

FoTi

Crusader
I'd forgotten how many times in the early 80s I'd overheard such evaluations such as:

'So and so won't go OT because they don't think their other dynamics are important enough...they're stuck on their first and their second.'

Or' this particular person is out ethics because she is marrying this fellow who is 20 yrs older because he is affluent and will help purchase their levels. It must be handled.'

Or 'that person has overts because he is a musician in a nightclub and half the customers are drunk or doing drugs.'

Or 'this person is rollercoastering because they have overts by not honoring the hours they were supposed to be on course when they got their student discount. The fact that they are pregnant is not an excuse'...etc.

To place such things in a person's folder to be 'the reason why' when the FES is done or the D of P at another org is...sheeesh. Some of the people I heard making these judgements were not qualified to make any such determinations. In more than a few instances, the pc was made to look bad out of jealousy or fixed considerations or plain false data. I have to say though the the 'auditors' were the least critical in general. That's in general cause one or two were over the top. I should never have known the stigmas being shelled out. But I have big ears. :D

On one unfortunate occasion I was at the FSO. I was waiting for my auditor to pick up my folder so we could go back into session. They had a huge white cardboard scheduling board on a stand written on with colored markers. Two or three young ladies were marking the time slots and the rooms and the hours and PC to auditor ratios. Well done auditing hours and attests were being precisely accounted for. I heard one young woman say to another, this person is in review because she has overts, there is going to be no finishing of this cycle before the auditor can go back home to Australia with her complete on her program. I could just see my auditor's feet visible from across the room on the opposite side of the large board standing next to the women. I could hear his voice as he defended the PC (ME) saying the overts were on ME. :p Then he took me and bought me 4 shots of warm Cal Mag at the Hour Glass juice bar and acknowledged me wholeheartedly when I told him I no longer needed an auditor...I needed an EXORCIST. :bigcry:

He was from Australia, and in 1981 and he was a veterinarian. He may have been from Queensland. I don't remember his name. A very down to earth pragmatic fellow going for his Class IX course. I begged Jeff Walker to let him go home instead of making him stay until my program was complete. He did. :thumbsup:

:grouch:
Once when I was at the FSO in 1982 for a review I had the Qual Sec take me aside for an interview. It was Franky Freeman. He did not have to do this but wanted to feel out the results I was getting before I got back on the plane to go home. He did not really believe the evalutions about my case. He was trying to figure things out for himself as I had been doing just fine the previous years and nothing in my life was very different. He was curious. And then...he read to me something someone had put in my folders at my Class IV mission. Someone had brought forward an item to be noted for Expanded Dianetics. It was placed in my folder up front that I had been a prostitute. :omg: :no:
This I found out there at Flag sitting in Franky's little office on the second floor above the garden alcove. He said "There's reasons why some PCs get better case gains than others. There's reasons whey some people don't get ahead in processing as fast. Not that they won't eventually get there, but__for one reason, you've been a prostitute." :hattip: :ohmy: My mouth dropped. He said it's what was written down in your folders. :angry: He said "No?" I said :unsure: "No". "OK" he says, "well that's one more wrong indication that you don't need here. And I'm sorry if I stirred up any more bypassed charge by pointing that out". He then let me know who made the point and that it was wrong for the auditor involved to have had sex with some of his PCs.

Well, I don't have to tell you, I racked my mind to figure out which of those SOBs at the Class IV mission screwed up my folders before mailing them to the Flag Service Org.. somebody had a grudge and it affected "WHO" I was regarded as and what I was worth and what potential I had. But Franky was doing his own investigation. :happydance: (The Secret of Flag Results films were in the air) He did not trust the critical attitude of those who wrote the synopsis of Who I was. He had seen the many normal folders before the PTSness.

Thanks for this post, Hat. Reminds me of the time the MAA informed me that I had been institutionalized. :omg: Shocked the hell out of me and no one would ever believe me that nothing like that had ever happened in my life. The MAA even went so far as to tell me that maybe I just didn't remember it. :angry: The rule that a PC is never allowed to look inside their own folder is what allows this kind of sh*t to continue. And then even if by some chance one happens to find out what false data is in their folder, then the org wants another $10,000 - $20,000 for sec checking so that they can verify that what you are telling them is the truth. :grouch: That's were I drew the lilne and refused to cooperate with them any further. :no: They sure managed to throw a lot of confusion into my universe, though, along the way. I was naive and I trusted them until they went too far. Then I began to notice how they were screwing other people over as well. It is a dangerous organization to one's sanity as well as one's pocket book. :yes:
 
Top