Ron was a genius. OK, brilliant. Ok, above average intelligence.

[I told you I was trouble]

In my opinion he was a total genius, actually I've thought sometimes that he was in telepathic commununication with beings that "blew" him the facts he would announce as his discoveries, but that is not a very solid hyphotesis given that his theories were changing over time and that, he contradicted himself many many times. Geoffrey C. Filbert, he claims to have perfected the bridge, but the basis of Scientology, axioms, logics, pre-logics, factors, dynamics, Reactive Mind and many other concepts, are pure genius, and Science of Survival is in my opinion an amazing piece of work.

Yes pet, quite right.

Hubbard was a total genius and it was everybody else's fault (including the beings you mention) that scientology became such a vicious, pointless, spiteful, criminal cult (that never produced a single "clear") ... a few years after it all began.

 

[Free Being Me]

I am an indie, never been in the Church, I don't know what is gui, yes, it seems very reasonable, but just remember the daily-bread abuses in the Church are FORBIDDEN by Ron's policies, who can deny that the indies learnt the lesson, learnt even from Ron's mistakes and now the Ron's Orgs. are safe places? Who had his life ruined by skype auditing? Or by enjoying the beauty of the axioms? What a beautiful thing the internet is.

And I guess the lesson is the same as always, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL >snip<

The irony.

 

[ThetanExterior]

Edugui, it would be helpful if you tell us what training and processing level you have reached.

There are many highly-trained auditors here and also people who have gone to the top of the processing side of the Bridge.

I am sure that many people here will confirm that Scientology never made a Clear or an OT as defined by Hubbard. After 60 years of trying, I'd say that was a pretty damning indictment.

From the comments you've made so far, it seems like you don't know much about the subject.

 

[degraded being]

.
.
Boy whistles
Kid whistles back and joins
Boy whistles
Another kid whistles and joins
Group whistles together
Mom whistles.
Kool-Aid, Kool Aid, a five cent package makes two quart tubs.
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, nine great flavors, the drink you love
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, Oh the very best drink you ever made
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, be sure that the envelope says – whistle – Kool-Aid!
You can give your youngsters a lot of pleasure with Kool-Aid. You know it’s pure and good – it has the Parents Magazine seal.
And it’s so thrifty! A five cent package makes two full quarts.
Just add Kool-Aid to water with ice, add some sugar, and stir.
For the very best drink you ever made.
Be sure that the envelope says – whistle – Kool-Aid!

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I am having fun, you want me to go? Give the order, make the rules.

If you want to see a Clear, many indie auditors are. It is funny how you pick up the subject in which Ron failed the most to obtain an absolut conclusion. That is a fallacy, and what a fallacy is, is a mistake in reasoning.

Per the definition, auditors in the FZ aren't clear and nor is anyone else. The state has never been successfully demonstrated - if it had been, you can be sure the CofS would publicise the fact.

A personal anecdote might help; I did most of my Bridge (or at least as far as I got on it) in the FZ. I attested to clear in the middle of May 1987 and was disappointed to find, on going to London at the end of that month, that I was still agoraphobic (a condition I'd suffered from before I ever entered Scn) and didn't cope well with the city. (I still don't, but that's by the by). I asked for my state to be tested and I found that according to the meter I was still clear.

I cannot accept that it is possible to be clear - if the state means anything at all in Scn - and still suffer from a phobia.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

If you want to see a Clear, many indie auditors are.

I see you are highly trained in Scientology. When did you graduate from the HTWCS course? (Hubbard Trolling & WordClown Specialist)

You have made so many hilarious comments, it's hard to pick my favorite. But, let's go with your posts expressing great certainty that Dr. Hubbard's supernatural state of Clear has been attained. Perhaps quite surprisingly, I have to agree with you that Scientology produces Clears.

EXPLANATION: Clears, by definition, have extraordinarily advanced powers of creativity & imagination. It is light years beyond that of homo sapiens! Thus, their "abilities attained" include the ability to creatively author an entirely different definition of "Clear" than the one Hubbard wrote in DMSMH. And, their supernatural imagination allows them to convince themselves that they have not done so.

 

[George Layton]

Yes, the Church began becoming a terrorist organization somewhere near the end of 60's-

Did you know that when a hater of Scientology says this or that tech. was borrowed or plagiarized it feels like a confession of -that thing is wonderful, and is a more powerful endorsement than those of the churchies or the indies?

For one, it's the face they put on it, hubbard/scientology, and it follows that some is valuable and so more is valuable. For two, it's the implication that a "certain" experience must come of it, these ideas are being used as an experience funnel, all should have the exact same experience. It takes a persons innate abilities and attempts to direct them to a "certain" end. Why do "brilliant" people believe that everyone is supposed to, or even can, have the same experiences in their lives?

 

[SPsince83]

I am having fun, you want me to go? Give the order, make the rules.

If you want to see a Clear, many indie auditors are. It is funny how you pick up the subject in which Ron failed the most to obtain an absolut conclusion. That is a fallacy, and what a fallacy is, is a mistake in reasoning.

You are delusional. Get help. For real.

 

[DagwoodGum]

Per the definition, auditors in the FZ aren't clear and nor is anyone else. The state has never been successfully demonstrated - if it had been, you can be sure the CofS would publicise the fact.

A personal anecdote might help; I did most of my Bridge (or at least as far as I got on it) in the FZ. I attested to clear in the middle of May 1987 and was disappointed to find, on going to London at the end of that month, that I was still agoraphobic (a condition I'd suffered from before I ever entered Scn) and didn't cope well with the city. (I still don't, but that's by the by). I asked for my state to be tested and I found that according to the meter I was still clear.

I cannot accept that it is possible to be clear - if the state means anything at all in Scn - and still suffer from a phobia.

Well, I received the evaluation that I was "natural clear" because the idea of it was so nice that I F/N ed on it from some list.
Not to throw myself under the bus but I knew at the time that the mere thought of being clear made my needle float, but it was from a futuristic perspective!!!
I just "knew" that it WOULD feel so great, not that it did, or that I would know anything about it from a PT perspective.
Throw in the word "natural" and I felt cozy, comfy & right at home!
So many fatal flaws in this "tech" of Flubbard.
I don't think he was such a genius either.
He was good at hitching his cart to genius's though!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

I think the lad (edugui) has been scared away.

Or maybe you fell asleep edugui?

Tell me what sort of indie stuff you do?

Why do you think the tone scale is a great thing? Or the axioms? To me they read like huge unproven generalities.

I wrote a paragraph here on the forum as to why the tone scale concept is ass backwards. I will find it and post it here.

There are some big problems with the axioms too. First of all, you do realized that by definition an axiom is unproved and cannot be proved?
Feel free to check the word axiom in any dictionary and verify I am speaking the truth.

Just randomly, I see that the axioms are messed up and unscientific.
"Axiom 7 Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist."

Axiom 7 has huge problems when read in the context of what modern physics knows.
For more than 100 years physics has proved, to a high degree of accuracy, that there is no separate 'time' and 'space'.
Even though for ease of communication and in practical terms we 'experience' time as if it was by itself.

Basically the axioms are romantic and poetic things a fiction writer Hubbard said. In order for an axiom to go further
than just axiom science tests these things. Unfortunately the test results concerning time and space disagree with Hubbard's axioms.

Another big problem is this 'static' that science can't find and this supposition in the axioms that the static considered and when it did that space and time came into being.
Science can't find the static edugui. Oops.

The big problem though is that science is kind of stuck with the first law of thermodynamics edugui. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
We learned that in grade school, even in Mexico. Matter CAN be transformed but as-ising or creating space or time would violate the laws of physics.

The axioms sound pretty though on paper. And of course anyone can believe or have opinions on anything they want.
Some folks believe the earth is flat, even today for example. (Check on youtube if you don't believe me!)
And they are vehement that the earth is flat. I assume they would argue themselves into a psychotic
rage if anyone disagreed with them and said that the world was round.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

edugui, if you are still here, basically what I said is that the tone scale assumes that all moods that are negative are reactive and should be avoided or gotten rid of (and this further assumes we even have a ‘reactive’ mind).

This is wrong because all moods have a place and are part of being human. An angry or fearful mood is good in some situations. If someone told you tomorrow that they killed someone and as they spoke they smiled happily, it would make sense for you to be horrified. If there is a fire, one feels fear and other emotions as one spurs into action to save a child.

Worse about the ‘tone scale’, it pigeon-holes the emotions into an arbitrary sliding scale hierarchy where some emotions are higher than others. We know the low keys on a piano scale are not ‘evil’ or bad. They exist and they are played when appropriate. They appear in a pattern but NOT a moral hierarchy. If one played ANY key over and over no symphony would result. Emotions express the full range of human being. A very positive person can express anger and this doesn't mean anything. The tone scale misses the entire purpose and meaning and development in history of human emotions.

Basically, the tone scale is completely wrong.

I am curious how you can respond to what I said about tone scale and axioms.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I raised this subject when I was in the FZ and the answer I got (from Steve, the C/S of the centre I was at) was that it wasn't the negative emotion that was wrong but the getting stuck in it.

As Steve said at the time, he'd be upset if his mother died suddenly - there'd have been something wrong with him if he wasn't. But if someone's chronically fearful, apathetic or grief-stricken, then maybe there's something there that needs addressing.

Have to say that makes sense to me. If you're being chased by a hungry lion, you'll be in fear sure enough, even if you're emotionally healthy, but should be able to recover quickly.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

I raised this subject when I was in the FZ and the answer I got (from Steve, the C/S of the centre I was at) was that it wasn't the negative emotion that was wrong but the getting stuck in it.

As Steve said at the time, he'd be upset if his mother died suddenly - there'd have been something wrong with him if he wasn't. But if someone's chronically fearful, apathetic or grief-stricken, then maybe there's something there that needs addressing.

Have to say that makes sense to me. If you're being chased by a hungry lion, you'll be in fear sure enough, even if you're emotionally healthy, but should be able to recover quickly.

Whaaaa? You mean Hubbard didn't invent any of this? Is just common sense??

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Whaaaa? You mean Hubbard didn't invent any of this? Is just common sense??

He quite likely twisted it to suit his purposes, but what he said lines up IMO with what I've read elsewhere.

*Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the Swiss doctor who worked a lot with terminally ill people, outlined five stages which people go through when they face the prospect of their own mortality which line up pretty well with what Ron Hubbard said. I'll see if I can find a link.

* I should say also that my source for this was Ruth Minshull's "How To Choose Your People", which you used to be able to buy in the org but can't any more.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Here's an expanded version of the Kubler-Ross scale which has some new information and ideas. EKR died a few years ago and other people have expanded on her work.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

One difference is that "acceptance," as both EKR and Changing Minds define it, appears to be a more positive state than Ron Hubbard's "Apathy" in that it permits the possibility of examining ways forward.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/acceptance_stage.htm

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Hey edugui, this article by Jon Atack seems to clarify some of what we have been arguing about concerning Hubbard's genius.
http://tonyortega.org/2015/05/23/jo...for-l-ron-hubbard-and-the-snow-white-program/

"Jon Atack notices that the indies are still pretending that Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, had nothing to do with the organization's massive infiltration of the US federal government in the 1970s [Bolding added]. He [Atack] sets that record straight like no one but him can." - Tony Ortega

 

[Maria Cuervo]

He quite likely twisted it to suit his purposes, but what he said lines up IMO with what I've read elsewhere.

*Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the Swiss doctor who worked a lot with terminally ill people, outlined five stages which people go through when they face the prospect of their own mortality which line up pretty well with what Ron Hubbard said. I'll see if I can find a link.

* I should say also that my source for this was Ruth Minshull's "How To Choose Your People", which you used to be able to buy in the org but can't any more.

Well no doubt Hubbard borrowed from Ruth. Just like he borrowed concerning sales. That sales book [don't recall title] was also taken off the shelves.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Here's an expanded version of the Kubler-Ross scale which has some new information and ideas. EKR died a few years ago and other people have expanded on her work.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

One difference is that "acceptance," as both EKR and Changing Minds define it, appears to be a more positive state than Ron Hubbard's "Apathy" in that it permits the possibility of examining ways forward.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/acceptance_stage.htm

I'd still argue that the hierarchy of moods is really arbitrary. A mood is only as good as the intention behind it. A person can be completely brainwashed as a Sea Org member and seem to be 4.0. But are they? A person can seem quiet or down and yet be deeply satisfied with life. Only that something in their genetic demeanor always seems a bit hesitant. How do we interpret the underlying truth of the appearance of a mood. It's too easy for me that we could simply look at these moods at all and say that they represent what they say they do.

So the question for me is really, is the mood that displays representative of reality? A manic depressive could appear quite uptone on the upside of a cycle. Yet the entire series of emotions are chemically expressive of an imbalance.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I'd still argue that the hierarchy of moods is really arbitrary. A mood is only as good as the intention behind it. A person can be completely brainwashed as a Sea Org member and seem to be 4.0. But are they? A person can seem quiet or down and yet be deeply satisfied with life. Only that something in their genetic demeanor always seems a bit hesitant. How do we interpret the underlying truth of the appearance of a mood. It's too easy for me that we could simply look at these moods at all and say that they represent what they say they do.

So the question for me is really, is the mood that displays representative of reality? A manic depressive could appear quite uptone on the upside of a cycle. Yet the entire series of emotions are chemically expressive of an imbalance.

Good point Maria. I've got a book called "Breakdown" by a British psychology professor called Stuart Sutherland, in which he described his own psychological problems - he was what we would now call bipolar.

He had a depressive and then a hypomanic episode in the same year (1973). From what he said, he felt great during the "manic" bit but caused a lot of problems for other people with his overspending and unwise sexual behaviour, so being hypomanic can't really be recommended as a solution to life's ills.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Good point Maria. I've got a book called "Breakdown" by a British psychology professor called Stuart Sutherland, in which he described his own psychological problems - he was what we would now call bipolar.

He had a depressive and then a hypomanic episode in the same year (1973). From what he said, he felt great during the "manic" bit but caused a lot of problems for other people with his overspending and unwise sexual behaviour, so being hypomanic can't really be recommended as a solution to life's ills.

True. And often the high tone is interpreted as exuberance and as positive but is entirely fake. Also, a person controlling their depression on drugs is not really in the higher tone now facilitated by the drug. They are chemically stabilized.

I find that diagnosis of an emotional state of a person is problematic at least. I was thinking of the TV show rectify. In it there is a woman who does not respond to her husband's aggressive style of sexual interaction. She needs a different 'pace' and seems to get along better with a different fellow in the story, one who is a lot less 'exuberant.' I find her and the less exuberant one more 'uptone' even though they really never smile. They appear as more serious and troubled yet they are really trying to grapple with what's right. Whereas the husband already 'knows' what is right. So all his tones reflect that 'decision.' Whereas their tones, expressive of a sort of doubt, are yet more authentic and sincere and healthier. Might actually lead to something positive.

Thanks for mentioning the book!