States of being are mutable

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Much has been made (by Scientologists and by others) of Scientology's emphasis on states. State of OT. Clear. Keyed out. Release. All those. This has backfired on the cult and on the ology itself by focusing other people's attention on what those people are alleged to be able to do. Exes and non Scn'ists call those "powers", Scientologists call them "abilities". Either way, the claims were inflated by Hubbard. And I say "inflated" rather than "made up" or "total bullshit" deliberately. But what most people in and out of Scn overlook is the mutability of those states.

A basic premise of and in Scn is that we were all once at "native state", became irresponsible, interiorized, collected an accretion of cosmic grief and bad karma (my wording-certainly not Hubbard's!) and ended up as meatballs, humanoids, homo sapiens, balls of fluff, etc. Hubbard's bridge is meant to address all that and make us all into homo novis, then, eventually, free of the whole mess. Now of course, it doesn't do that- though as you know, I personally think he makes a rather good beginning at it and was on to something, at any rate. This doesn't mean I'd advise anyone to drop half a million bux or a lifetime in a very nasty cult to achieve that, however- I wouldn't.

But take a look at the ideas and theories themselves.

Item: We were (the story goes) once at native state. Could do anything. It was awesome.

Item: Then we weren't. Over time, we fucked up enough to where we ended up at effect, subject to the whims of bodies, and not able to do much of anything other than move the body around.

Why? Because it's all mutable. It's all subject to change. So when I read or hear some Scn'ist saying "oh, once I hit OT, I'll be able to this and that and I'll be free." or I see some critic talking about the way Scn'ists think about that, it occurs to me that neither one of them is looking at the fact that if we got degraded and fell from Native State once, we can certainly do it again. So even if truly became free of one's case, able to move into and out of a body at will, that doesn't mean he or she will always be able to do that. Start fucking people over, making bad decisions, not confronting things, and that state won't last. It didn't before (according to Scn theory) so why would it NOW? So when people talk about how Hubbard acted like a whacko or what bad shape he was in when he died, I don't see ANY conflict there with Scn ideology. Because there isn't.

It's obvious to me, too, that all states and abilities and spiritual achievements are a matter of degree. (LOL! I almost wrote "decree"!) Some people are more capable than others. Or to use a non Scn example, some psychics are more psychic than others. Some saints or saddhus can perform more miracles than others or different types.

This is something that people tend to leave out when discussing how stupid THEY think trying to aim for the states of "OT" or "Clear" is. They try to make it all or nothing, it's all wowie zowie, it's all good, Scn'ists think that, they know they do because they did when THEY were Scn'ists. I think that's because the cult, and Hubbard, too, in his writing does too much carrot dangling. "Miserable now?" they say; "Well, you'll go OT and you'll do this and it will be fine." Sure, there are bulletins and taped lectures where Hubbard goes into the mechanics of how these things are won and lost and viewpoints and responsibility but when they're SELLING people their "packages", they don't ever mention this. They don't mention the mutability, they don't mention the matter of degree, they don't mention responsibility. Certainly, there's the OT preps but that doesn't do it either.

I think that anyone who's interested in doing Scn or is interesting in criticizing Scn is doing himself a disservice by not looking at the fact that states are mutable and a matter of degree and that this IS part of Scientology (though omitted by every reg when it comes time to sell the service).
 
Much has been made (by Scientologists and by others) of Scientology's emphasis on states. State of OT. Clear. Keyed out. Release. All those. This has backfired on the cult and on the ology itself by focusing other people's attention on what those people are alleged to be able to do. Exes and non Scn'ists call those "powers", Scientologists call them "abilities". Either way, the claims were inflated by Hubbard. And I say "inflated" rather than "made up" or "total bullshit" deliberately. But what most people in and out of Scn overlook is the mutability of those states.

A basic premise of and in Scn is that we were all once at "native state", became irresponsible, interiorized, collected an accretion of cosmic grief and bad karma (my wording-certainly not Hubbard's!) and ended up as meatballs, humanoids, homo sapiens, balls of fluff, etc. Hubbard's bridge is meant to address all that and make us all into homo novis, then, eventually, free of the whole mess. Now of course, it doesn't do that- though as you know, I personally think he makes a rather good beginning at it and was on to something, at any rate. This doesn't mean I'd advise anyone to drop half a million bux or a lifetime in a very nasty cult to achieve that, however- I wouldn't.

But take a look at the ideas and theories themselves.

Item: We were (the story goes) once at native state. Could do anything. It was awesome.

Item: Then we weren't. Over time, we fucked up enough to where we ended up at effect, subject to the whims of bodies, and not able to do much of anything other than move the body around.

Why? Because it's all mutable. It's all subject to change. So when I read or hear some Scn'ist saying "oh, once I hit OT, I'll be able to this and that and I'll be free." or I see some critic talking about the way Scn'ists think about that, it occurs to me that neither one of them is looking at the fact that if we got degraded and fell from Native State once, we can certainly do it again. So even if truly became free of one's case, able to move into and out of a body at will, that doesn't mean he or she will always be able to do that. Start fucking people over, making bad decisions, not confronting things, and that state won't last. It didn't before (according to Scn theory) so why would it NOW? So when people talk about how Hubbard acted like a whacko or what bad shape he was in when he died, I don't see ANY conflict there with Scn ideology. Because there isn't.

It's obvious to me, too, that all states and abilities and spiritual achievements are a matter of degree. (LOL! I almost wrote "decree"!) Some people are more capable than others. Or to use a non Scn example, some psychics are more psychic than others. Some saints or saddhus can perform more miracles than others or different types.

This is something that people tend to leave out when discussing how stupid THEY think trying to aim for the states of "OT" or "Clear" is. They try to make it all or nothing, it's all wowie zowie, it's all good, Scn'ists think that, they know they do because they did when THEY were Scn'ists. I think that's because the cult, and Hubbard, too, in his writing does too much carrot dangling. "Miserable now?" they say; "Well, you'll go OT and you'll do this and it will be fine." Sure, there are bulletins and taped lectures where Hubbard goes into the mechanics of how these things are won and lost and viewpoints and responsibility but when they're SELLING people their "packages", they don't ever mention this. They don't mention the mutability, they don't mention the matter of degree, they don't mention responsibility. Certainly, there's the OT preps but that doesn't do it either.

I think that anyone who's interested in doing Scn or is interesting in criticizing Scn is doing himself a disservice by not looking at the fact that states are mutable and a matter of degree and that this IS part of Scientology (though omitted by every reg when it comes time to sell the service).


I'm not into saying "atta girl" but .... :thumbsup:


Mark A. Baker
 

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Very nice post (thought out and written) Fluffy.

Three responses to date. All from pro-scientologists.

I doubt (given history) you would welcome a response from a critic of the theory of scientology? (of which you have so eloquently described).

Especially if that critic were me, Mojo.

Your silence will be sufficient.

I understand.

Mojo



Much has been made (by Scientologists and by others) of Scientology's emphasis on states. State of OT. Clear. Keyed out. Release. All those. This has backfired on the cult and on the ology itself by focusing other people's attention on what those people are alleged to be able to do. Exes and non Scn'ists call those "powers", Scientologists call them "abilities". Either way, the claims were inflated by Hubbard. And I say "inflated" rather than "made up" or "total bullshit" deliberately. But what most people in and out of Scn overlook is the mutability of those states.

A basic premise of and in Scn is that we were all once at "native state", became irresponsible, interiorized, collected an accretion of cosmic grief and bad karma (my wording-certainly not Hubbard's!) and ended up as meatballs, humanoids, homo sapiens, balls of fluff, etc. Hubbard's bridge is meant to address all that and make us all into homo novis, then, eventually, free of the whole mess. Now of course, it doesn't do that- though as you know, I personally think he makes a rather good beginning at it and was on to something, at any rate. This doesn't mean I'd advise anyone to drop half a million bux or a lifetime in a very nasty cult to achieve that, however- I wouldn't.

But take a look at the ideas and theories themselves.

Item: We were (the story goes) once at native state. Could do anything. It was awesome.

Item: Then we weren't. Over time, we fucked up enough to where we ended up at effect, subject to the whims of bodies, and not able to do much of anything other than move the body around.

Why? Because it's all mutable. It's all subject to change. So when I read or hear some Scn'ist saying "oh, once I hit OT, I'll be able to this and that and I'll be free." or I see some critic talking about the way Scn'ists think about that, it occurs to me that neither one of them is looking at the fact that if we got degraded and fell from Native State once, we can certainly do it again. So even if truly became free of one's case, able to move into and out of a body at will, that doesn't mean he or she will always be able to do that. Start fucking people over, making bad decisions, not confronting things, and that state won't last. It didn't before (according to Scn theory) so why would it NOW? So when people talk about how Hubbard acted like a whacko or what bad shape he was in when he died, I don't see ANY conflict there with Scn ideology. Because there isn't.

It's obvious to me, too, that all states and abilities and spiritual achievements are a matter of degree. (LOL! I almost wrote "decree"!) Some people are more capable than others. Or to use a non Scn example, some psychics are more psychic than others. Some saints or saddhus can perform more miracles than others or different types.

This is something that people tend to leave out when discussing how stupid THEY think trying to aim for the states of "OT" or "Clear" is. They try to make it all or nothing, it's all wowie zowie, it's all good, Scn'ists think that, they know they do because they did when THEY were Scn'ists. I think that's because the cult, and Hubbard, too, in his writing does too much carrot dangling. "Miserable now?" they say; "Well, you'll go OT and you'll do this and it will be fine." Sure, there are bulletins and taped lectures where Hubbard goes into the mechanics of how these things are won and lost and viewpoints and responsibility but when they're SELLING people their "packages", they don't ever mention this. They don't mention the mutability, they don't mention the matter of degree, they don't mention responsibility. Certainly, there's the OT preps but that doesn't do it either.

I think that anyone who's interested in doing Scn or is interesting in criticizing Scn is doing himself a disservice by not looking at the fact that states are mutable and a matter of degree and that this IS part of Scientology (though omitted by every reg when it comes time to sell the service).
 
Much has been made (by Scientologists and by others) of Scientology's emphasis on states. State of OT. Clear. Keyed out. Release. All those. This has backfired on the cult and on the ology itself by focusing other people's attention on what those people are alleged to be able to do. Exes and non Scn'ists call those "powers", Scientologists call them "abilities". Either way, the claims were inflated by Hubbard. And I say "inflated" rather than "made up" or "total bullshit" deliberately. But what most people in and out of Scn overlook is the mutability of those states.

A basic premise of and in Scn is that we were all once at "native state", became irresponsible, interiorized, collected an accretion of cosmic grief and bad karma (my wording-certainly not Hubbard's!) and ended up as meatballs, humanoids, homo sapiens, balls of fluff, etc. Hubbard's bridge is meant to address all that and make us all into homo novis, then, eventually, free of the whole mess. Now of course, it doesn't do that- though as you know, I personally think he makes a rather good beginning at it and was on to something, at any rate. This doesn't mean I'd advise anyone to drop half a million bux or a lifetime in a very nasty cult to achieve that, however- I wouldn't.

But take a look at the ideas and theories themselves.

Item: We were (the story goes) once at native state. Could do anything. It was awesome.

Item: Then we weren't. Over time, we fucked up enough to where we ended up at effect, subject to the whims of bodies, and not able to do much of anything other than move the body around.

Why? Because it's all mutable. It's all subject to change. So when I read or hear some Scn'ist saying "oh, once I hit OT, I'll be able to this and that and I'll be free." or I see some critic talking about the way Scn'ists think about that, it occurs to me that neither one of them is looking at the fact that if we got degraded and fell from Native State once, we can certainly do it again. So even if truly became free of one's case, able to move into and out of a body at will, that doesn't mean he or she will always be able to do that. Start fucking people over, making bad decisions, not confronting things, and that state won't last. It didn't before (according to Scn theory) so why would it NOW? So when people talk about how Hubbard acted like a whacko or what bad shape he was in when he died, I don't see ANY conflict there with Scn ideology. Because there isn't.

It's obvious to me, too, that all states and abilities and spiritual achievements are a matter of degree. (LOL! I almost wrote "decree"!) Some people are more capable than others. Or to use a non Scn example, some psychics are more psychic than others. Some saints or saddhus can perform more miracles than others or different types.

This is something that people tend to leave out when discussing how stupid THEY think trying to aim for the states of "OT" or "Clear" is. They try to make it all or nothing, it's all wowie zowie, it's all good, Scn'ists think that, they know they do because they did when THEY were Scn'ists. I think that's because the cult, and Hubbard, too, in his writing does too much carrot dangling. "Miserable now?" they say; "Well, you'll go OT and you'll do this and it will be fine." Sure, there are bulletins and taped lectures where Hubbard goes into the mechanics of how these things are won and lost and viewpoints and responsibility but when they're SELLING people their "packages", they don't ever mention this. They don't mention the mutability, they don't mention the matter of degree, they don't mention responsibility. Certainly, there's the OT preps but that doesn't do it either.

I think that anyone who's interested in doing Scn or is interesting in criticizing Scn is doing himself a disservice by not looking at the fact that states are mutable and a matter of degree and that this IS part of Scientology (though omitted by every reg when it comes time to sell the service).

Yes. So if you finish yer OT 8 and you are a basket case, then don't complain?
 

Neo

Silver Meritorious Patron
If states are mutable then why does one need Scientology?

Secondly, Scientology sells itself as the Science of knowing how to know. Does that include knowing how to handle said mutability?

I would agree that life is mutable. Scientology, however, sells itself as being senior to life (which of course it isn't). It is my experience that Scientology, ultimately, does nothing. Which is why the states created through Scientology are mutable. But to agree with this is an admission that Scientology does not work.

Neo
 

HappyGirl

Gold Meritorious Patron
Excellent post, fluffy! I have come to think of "Scientology states" as just who we are and have always been.
If states are mutable then why does one need Scientology?
One doesn't.
Secondly, Scientology sells itself as the Science of knowing how to know. Does that include knowing how to handle said mutability?
Yep!

I would agree that life is mutable. Scientology, however, sells itself as being senior to life (which of course it isn't).
Life is senior to everything else. Who is life? Us.

It is my experience that Scientology, ultimately, does nothing...
Now we know! :duh:
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Good post Fluff. I think there's a lot Ron didn't know (or maybe just a few key things) and those factors stay unhandled even after you attest to a state of Clear or OT III or whatever and serve to drag you back down again.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yes. So if you finish yer OT 8 and you are a basket case, then don't complain?


No, that's not what I'm saying. For one thing, CofS exaggerates (as did Hubbard) the achievements and "abilities", goals, etc, of the states of Clear and OT. The real story- that it's all a matter of degree and is mutable is certainly to be found in Hubbard's writings but you have to dig for it- so anxious was he to really sell people on Scn. Personally, I think that's irresponsible.

This is just something I've been thinking about when I see people- both Scn'ists and critics- go on and on about how the OT levels cure what ails ya. Nothing cures anything a person has except that person him or herself and nothing's etched in stone.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
If states are mutable then why does one need Scientology?

Secondly, Scientology sells itself as the Science of knowing how to know. Does that include knowing how to handle said mutability?

I would agree that life is mutable. Scientology, however, sells itself as being senior to life (which of course it isn't). It is my experience that Scientology, ultimately, does nothing. Which is why the states created through Scientology are mutable. But to agree with this is an admission that Scientology does not work.

Neo

Speaking for myself, if no one else, I'd say no one "needs" Scn or, for that matter, anything else like Buddhism, Yoga, etc. These are paths one would reach out to in order to achieve or attempt to achieve certain spiritual goals.

Life is all about change. It can't be any other way. One wouldn't or shouldn't want it to be any other way since that would mean we'd not have the capacity to do better. Well, the flip side of being able to do better/improve is to do worse and devolve. The last time I was involved in an ology or ism that perpetuated the idea that one can be stuck at a spiritual state was when I was Christian, their idea being that after death one goes to Heaven or Hell and is stuck there forever.

It's not an admission that Scn does not work. It's an admission that people always change, that they have free will, if they screwed up once and devolved from native state, they can do it again and that conversely, one can achieve those states again along with many many wonderful stages in between. This is something that I'm very sure a Buddhist or Vedic cleric or holy man would agree with, too. If we wander over to non spiritual type modes of thought, I'll bet any psychologist would say the same thing about a person's emotional progress.

And, as I say, Scn has built right into it the premise that it's mutable- I've proved that. It's just that reges and other staff tend to irresponsibly downplay that so that they can sell more stuff.
 
No, that's not what I'm saying. For one thing, CofS exaggerates (as did Hubbard) the achievements and "abilities", goals, etc, of the states of Clear and OT. The real story- that it's all a matter of degree and is mutable is certainly to be found in Hubbard's writings but you have to dig for it- so anxious was he to really sell people on Scn. Personally, I think that's irresponsible.



I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here Fluffy.l
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
A hypothetical conversation:

A: 'I have a unicorn!'
B: 'Really! Wow. Where?'
A: 'Right here!'
B: 'But, that's not a unicorn!'
A: 'Sure it is! I call it Unicorn.'
B: 'But, it's a goat!'
A: 'No it isn't. Maybe you think it's a goat, but I call it Unicorn.'

Zinj
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
No, that's not what I'm saying. For one thing, CofS exaggerates (as did Hubbard) the achievements and "abilities", goals, etc, of the states of Clear and OT. The real story- that it's all a matter of degree and is mutable is certainly to be found in Hubbard's writings but you have to dig for it- so anxious was he to really sell people on Scn. Personally, I think that's irresponsible.



I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here Fluffy.l

Well, maybe I'm not saying it right. I can try again, though.

I think that all spiritual achievements are a matter of degree and that it's all subject to change. Change upward. Change downward. It's all the same. Nothing's set in concrete because people do what they do. I believe that's a key part of the reach to OT or Clear or anything else. I think LRH knew that and that you can find this in his writings and lectures but that CofS reges avoid that. They tend to peddle the idea that you "Go OT This Year!" and bam! All your problems are solved and you're fixed up forever. Of course the person wouldn't be and this is something any tech staffer would admit, IMO.
It doesn't fix everything forever because it can't. Because we are constantly making decisions and doing things and this causes us to constantly change.

A person could achieve "Nirvana", say, and then lose it by doing bad things and becoming a bad or at least less good person. Then he could get it back.

Hubbard knew that. But it's hard to get people to fork over their life savings and all their free time (and then some!) if you tell them their "wins" aren't etched in stone.

We're responsible for what we do and what we fail to do that we should have done and that causes us to change, as people. It's just that I, personally, hate the idea of saying it's a blame/fault thing. There's too much blame in CofS and other places already. It's just that we have free will, we do things, and then that can make us improve or degrade and that's just how it is. If someone fouls up and ends up taking a nosedive from "saint" "Saddhu" "OT" or "holy man/woman", we could BLAME him or her but playing the blame game only confers heartache on everyone. So I prefer to just say that sometimes we do things that cause us to change and that we can always change again and fix what we did and became. Where there's life there's hope.

Ok, I probably bolluxed this up worse than ever. I know I'm awfully wordy. Sorry 'bout that.

I guess I should just boil it down to saying that recognizing that a person changed or made a mistake is not the same thing as blaming the person for changing or making a mistake, that fault-finding is counterproductive, it's mean and it sucks. It won't teach anybody anything even if the observation was correct.
 
Top