The final word on BTs
- Thread starter Tanstaafl
- Start date
beyond_horizons
Patron Meritorious
Actually I'm enjoying the contrast between Alan and Pierre's approach. Both have the same perspective about the importance of getting one's mindset unstuck through study outside the box.
Yet Pierre employes "standard tech" that really seems to communicate to the churchees and the already indoctrinated! Where as Alan has learned some valuable lessons, communicates to the man on the street, and has abandoned 'standard tech' in favor of progressive objective processes, aka: life skills that seems to have patched up a number of class 12s to go on and rebuild their lives!
The problem with using Hubbard, Church and Scientology in the same sentence is, it places the folks I care about at risk for becoming slaves of the so-called church!
Div6
Crusader
As Pierre mentioned in his earlier post, you have to treat each (Hubbard, Scientology, Church) as seperate subjects. LRH does not equal Scn does not equal the CoS(dmology).
LRH as a man has been discussed endlessly elsewhere. Those that had the opportunity to work with him on tech lines hold him in the highest regard. Those on admin lines vary.
Was he a good guy or a bad guy? Time will tell. Not everyone came away from him with a positive experience.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
While I think one should separate these things to some degree, I think that you can over-compartmentalize and over-separate.
You could also say that "The Tech" is one thing, but its results are something else. I think we can agree that would be going too far.
Because, after all, Scientology was supposed to be a practical subject that got results.
Sometimes, I think this over-compartmentalizing is an attempt to look away from the actual results of each of these three things.
Why wasn't Scientology, the tech and philosophy, able to produce the results it promised on its own founder?
Again, this is a legitimate question, even within the realm of the Scientology viewpoint. And so to try to separate out the results of these things from their rightful compartment is not legitimate, in my view. After all, it was Hubbard himself in 1950 who said that Dianetics cured him from being "blinded and crippled" at the end of world war two in "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology" a tape that is played to those people who are being introduced to Scientology. Results were always the thing with Scientology. Right? Even on the Founder.
I hope that Class12 takes the time to answer my questions thoughtfully.
I would think that many people are interested in what he has to say, and how he says it.
Last edited:
Veda
Sponsor
I know, and most who are interested know, that "Hubbard is a person, and Scientology is a subject, and the 'Church' of Scientology is an organization," etc.
Can't Pierre do his own PR?
Why are you stuck with the job?
namaste
Silver Meritorious Patron
Welcome Pierre.
Thank you for taking the time to post here.
I felt validated in a big way when I read this, though I have heard a couple of others suggest the same thing.
That was the main observation that I made shortly after I began reading scn-related message boards.
Though I do understand much of the criticizm and agree with it, I believe that there is a lot of valuable content to be culled from the subject and other subjects as well.
And I belive that that is the part to keep the focus on.
I'm for whatever works, that's all.
I am glad to see people like yourself, Alan, and others pick up the ball that CoS has dropped and run with it.
Good job.
Thank you for taking the time to post here.
I felt validated in a big way when I read this, though I have heard a couple of others suggest the same thing.
That was the main observation that I made shortly after I began reading scn-related message boards.
Though I do understand much of the criticizm and agree with it, I believe that there is a lot of valuable content to be culled from the subject and other subjects as well.
And I belive that that is the part to keep the focus on.
I'm for whatever works, that's all.
I am glad to see people like yourself, Alan, and others pick up the ball that CoS has dropped and run with it.
Good job.
Vinaire
Sponsor
I have just looked at the first Class VIII tape transcript briefly, and I can see that LRH was losing his patience with those who could not duplicate and apply his standard tech. I think that this was the period when "over boardings" on the ship took place.
This makes me conclude the following.
(1) LRH was becoming short on patience.
(2) LRH was in a hurry and felt that Study Tech was too slow a route.
(3) He believed that there was not enough necessity level among the Flag internees to want to duplicate and apply, and that the environment had to be made dangerous to bring up the necessity level.
So, LRH was always applying handlings other than what he had wrapped up in his research. He was continually experimenting (squirreling) while pitching the standard tech.
.
This makes me conclude the following.
(1) LRH was becoming short on patience.
(2) LRH was in a hurry and felt that Study Tech was too slow a route.
(3) He believed that there was not enough necessity level among the Flag internees to want to duplicate and apply, and that the environment had to be made dangerous to bring up the necessity level.
So, LRH was always applying handlings other than what he had wrapped up in his research. He was continually experimenting (squirreling) while pitching the standard tech.
.
Terril park
Sponsor
Hi Pierre and welcome. 
Something yoy may not know, the poster " Mate" is David Graham who was your C/S or one of them, probably in the flag case cracking unit.
He was extremely complimentary on your results there in his " Story"
on another thread on this board.
Something yoy may not know, the poster " Mate" is David Graham who was your C/S or one of them, probably in the flag case cracking unit.
He was extremely complimentary on your results there in his " Story"
on another thread on this board.
No offense taken because I follow neither.
The bridge, the way you seem to describe it (or as other using your characterization have done), violates the fundamental tenets of Scientology. In Scientologese it is called call it A=A=A. In non-scientologese it is called Primitive associative reasoning.
It is necessary to read beyond propaganda to get a true insight of things.
It is clear that not everyone wants to do that. If it were, we would already be living in a perfect world.
Pierre
Alan
Gold Meritorious Patron
BS Vinnaire; LRH was psychotic at that time as were most of the Commodore Staff.
The transcripts cannot possibly project the force, rage and fury that was being emanated by Ron towards his environment and the people in it.
I was there.
The abuses, barbarisms and cruelties were being done weeks before we arrived for the Class VIII course.
The issuance of OT III and the subsequent months of 1968 was a very insane period in Scio's history. This was when the daggers in the notice boards, whimsical declares by SO Missionaires came into being. I was there when Ron briefed the Missionaires.
It set the future course for brutal Scio behavior.
There was something definitely out - it is time that people stop trying to make it right - but observing what the consequences were of this period.
Alan
No offense taken because I follow neither.
The bridge, the way you seem to describe it (or as other using your characterization have done), violates the fundamental tenets of Scientology. In Scientologese it is called call it A=A=A. In non-scientologese it is called Primitive associative reasoning.
It is necessary to read beyond propaganda to get a true insight of things.
It is clear that not everyone wants to do that. If it were, we would already be living in a perfect world.
Pierre
Hmm. So, maybe this is something that could be cleared up.
No propaganda
What fundamental tenets of Scientology does the 'Xenu Bridge' violate? (beyond secrecy)
Is 'Incident II/Xenu' factual or allegorical? Or, is there a third choice?
If I understand this right, 'Xenu' is important in Scientology because 'It reads'. Does auditing with an e-meter 'locate' actual, factual pieces of the 'Whole Track', or is it allegorical? Something else?
Zinj
Div6
Crusader
Hmm. So, maybe this is something that could be cleared up.
No propaganda
What fundamental tenets of Scientology does the 'Xenu Bridge' violate? (beyond secrecy)
Is 'Incident II/Xenu' factual or allegorical? Or, is there a third choice?
If I understand this right, 'Xenu' is important in Scientology because 'It reads'. Does auditing with an e-meter 'locate' actual, factual pieces of the 'Whole Track', or is it allegorical? Something else?
Zinj
As a guess I would say "xenu" probably doesn't read on the majority of people on this planet. It's an example of altered importance. What is of significance to some is that the Incident "reads"....the whole point of the exercise being to reduce the "charge" on the "case". Is it factual/allegorical or maybe just dub-in? Who cares? From a C/S viewpoint reality is proportional to the amount of charge removed.
When I was on that level, I had an entity give me the date "Dec 29 1890".
I had no idea what the significance of that date was. But the incident ran to a nice EP. Only later did is discover "the factualness" of the incident.
There is a saying: "Those that can't do teach\preach"
I find the greater value in Scn has been the training, and learning that help is possible and how to help others. I highly recommend it to others.
Your comment seem to indicate you are not reading my posts at all, but have already set your mind that I am a robotized Zombie, incapable of judgment or reason and that I am likely drooling at the mouth repeating mindlessly a preset of Hubbard Mantras, like someone who has recently been lobotomized.
Sanity starts with the ability to recognize that difference between things that are identical, similar or different.
It starts by refraining from making uninformed judgments because they are by definition the root of prejudice and/or ignorance. Perhaps as the result of maturity, I have reached at least that ability. Unfortunately not everyone has.
Standard Tech is akin to the concept of best Practice and proper Quality control such as those found in Six Sigma. So you say it is wrong. 95% of succesful businessmen will disagree with that including the 5 Fortune 500 companies I have worked for in the last 10 years, as succesful professional...
Standard tech (aka Best practice) appeals to professionals, successful businesmen, millionaires and succesful accomplishers. A significant part of people I counsel or are on my lines have never been in a Church. Some of them have never heard of Scientology, yet your prejudice make you already call them zombified Churchies...
Standard Engineering Tech is what make cars win at Indy 500 and F-18s fly at supersonic speed. Those who do not believe in Standard Engineering, just like those who deny Newton laws or Archimedes principles hack away in their home building disfunctional Anti-gravity machines and flying saucers who never get off the ground.
Pierre Ethier
P.S. to be sure my post is not misunderstood. I am not familiar with what Alan has been doing, and therefore not in any position to comment about it at the moment but as an original Class VIII he is someone I would definitely listen to.
None of the comments in my post are addressed to what he has been doing
Veda
Sponsor
Hmm. So, maybe this is something that could be cleared up.
No propaganda
What fundamental tenets of Scientology does the 'Xenu Bridge' violate? (beyond secrecy)
Is 'Incident II/Xenu' factual or allegorical? Or, is there a third choice?
If I understand this right, 'Xenu' is important in Scientology because 'It reads'. Does auditing with an e-meter 'locate' actual, factual pieces of the 'Whole Track', or is it allegorical? Something else?
Zinj
And I would like to know, when the Commodore was having students of the Class 8 course tossed overboard (a long dangerous drop on a large ship), and filming it, was that "tech" or was that "admin"?
Scientology, the subject, can be separated from Hubbard, the man - that's not a new idea - but Hubbard is also co-mingled with the subject.
His Intentions, his motives, his "case," are relevant.
The idea that the subject is somehow pure, and completely separate from Hubbard, its founder, is incorrect.
And I'm sorry if that makes the study of Scientology a bit messy, but that's the way it is.
Why not face it?
It can be worked through. It can be sorted out.
And for the better, for those who have been touched by Scientology.
Div6
Crusader
The philosophy of Scn (axioms, etc) can be, and has been successfully transmitted to others, who have and are using it in positve ways. Your above assertion is not supported by facts in evidence. I would encourage you to make a case otherwise, if you can.
Standard tech is possibly the most misunderstood concept in Scientology.
I have always viewed Standard Tech as Best practice or "Proper Methodology"
If you build an new car Engine and wants it to win a race, you better understand very well the concepts and laws of thermodynamics, metal fatigue and inertia.
The one with the better grasp of Engineering would be the most likely to produce the best engine.
It sure beats denying the existence of the laws of Physics and living in a cave eating raw meat..
But as with anything the proof is in the pudding... and I have plenty of pudding to serve...
----------------
To answer your questions;
in more than 30 000 hours of counselling I have done on about 5000 individuals, only a handful (less than a dozen) has ever mentioned "DC-8" in a context other than a plane build this century by Douglas-McDonnell.
Same for the mention of the word Markab. I cant recall my ever uttering the word Markab in my own auditing.
Ron's org tech is the product of Bill Robertson and is entirely based on his personal case fantasies: see my article on the subject of "The difference between Telepathy and Mental telegraphy" at http://www.upperbridge.org/telegraphy.html
Having studied the entirety (but not done any of it because I view it as non-sense) of Robertson's "OT Levels", I can assure anyone that from OT 12 onward they are arguably more distant from Scientology and Hubbard than either EST or Eckanckar.
Pierre Ethier
Dear Ralph, I am pleased to hear about your abilities. I look forward to hearing more wins from you.
Pierre
Dear Zinj, You describe yourself as a Master of Inval and Eval, and everywhere I see you posting you are literally foaming at the mouth about Scientology.
Isn't that asserting being right and making others wrong?
You must have a tremendous failed purpose, otherwise I am sure you would have been able to turn over the leaf and enjoy activities where you do not need to vent your hatred.
All you have succeeded in demonstrating in your post is that "Hell hath no Fury like a Being scorned by Scientology".
Pierre Ethier
Veda
Sponsor
Now you have trimmed down the subject of Scientology to the Axioms, etc. only.
This type of self-deception accomplishes little.
So much has been learned and now you and Pierre and encouraging others to go backwards.
Well, speaking only for myself, I'm not going backwards.
You and he have much to learn.
Preach less and listen more.
What is there about the statement: "the 'Emperor Xenu/Commodore Hubbard Bridge' has been discredited" don't you understand?
And I noticed the statement about the meaning of "Standard tech" (above), and, IMO, it's used, there, mainly as PR.
More PR is not needed.
Last edited:
Div6
Crusader
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say 'Emperor Xenu/Commodore Hubbard Bridge"? It comes across to me as a pejorative. It invites no further understanding. You have alluded to finding something better several times. Please tell us, what is it? Suing RTC for fun and profit? Playing victim? Why are you withholding your story from here, despite your numerous postings? In other words are you capable of coming off the inval flow and sharing something positive?
Last edited:
