The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ok, so let's say your ruin is that a person you loved got away. They went off and married someone else. You, that hypothetical person, never married, since you believed that person that got away was It for you.

All the auditing in the world will not fix that. You can run out similar losses. But in the end that person will go home at night alone and still not have the person they love. Also, they might also marry, but a substitute is not the same thing. So basically in Scientology they are good at substituting real feelings and situations with replacements, since heck, you are a being, you've had infinite partners on the whole track. This just totally makes it so that no one is unique and special. Everything is replaceable. One loss can be filled by something else. Charge is the basis of all sadness. Make it go right! Be upstat! Get uptone! NOW!

So let's say this person CHOOSES to be ruined in that way. Wants it. Well, I'd say, it has its beauty. Leave that person alone I'd say. And yes, I know someone whose husband died and she will never remarry. He was It for her and she's done. She's sad. if anyone removed that 'ruin' I think it would be a crime. I find it beautiful that she is so loyal and she she cared for someone that much that NO CHURCH could REMOVE her from that relationship (although she was never a Scilon).

I personally WANT to feel the entire range of emotions. Not just specific ones high on the scale. ALL human emotions have value and should not be REMOVED. What is valuable is fluidity in the entire range of notes, not to be stuck in a high tone that screams STATS STATS.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ok, so let's say your ruin is that a person you loved got away. They went off and married someone else. You, that hypothetical person, never married, since you believed that person that got away was It for you.

Well, Maria, something could be done to aid such a person. It doesn't have to be scientology auditing, though it could be that. It could be some other form of counseling, or perhaps just kicking the subject around with a friend who is concerned, willing to listen and able to get an other person to focus. The person who is stuck in his or her loss has several avenues to pursue. They could search to find the person who got away and see if they are still available. In the old days, that was a long shot but now, in the computer age, it is a viable alternative. If that person is unavailable, an effort should be undertaken to get rid of the idea that when they missed the boat with that person, that was it for them. If they can eventually see that such is not the case, then they would have a new goal to find someone else.

All the auditing in the world will not fix that. You can run out similar losses. But in the end that person will go home at night alone and still not have the person they love. Also, they might also marry, but a substitute is not the same thing. So basically in Scientology they are good at substituting real feelings and situations with replacements, since heck, you are a being, you've had infinite partners on the whole track. This just totally makes it so that no one is unique and special. Everything is replaceable. One loss can be filled by something else. Charge is the basis of all sadness. Make it go right! Be upstat! Get uptone! NOW!

Are you of the mind that a given person can love only one person romantically in the entire life? Of that is your belief, then no type of counseling is likely to help them. Just speaking for myself, I've had some enormous crushes on romantic partners in my life. When those affairs ended unsatisfactorily, I was devastated and felt strongly that I would never find anyone to take that person's place. Months go by, sometimes a year or two, but always someone new came along who was not a substitute. They were a different person but my feelings for them was just as strong as they were for the previous lover. Sooner or later, the first lover recedes one one's memory and all the attention shifts to the new lover.

So let's say this person CHOOSES to be ruined in that way. Wants it. Well, I'd say, it has its beauty. Leave that person alone I'd say. And yes, I know someone whose husband died and she will never remarry. He was It for her and she's done. She's sad. if anyone removed that 'ruin' I think it would be a crime. I find it beautiful that she is so loyal and she she cared for someone that much that NO CHURCH could REMOVE her from that relationship (although she was never a Scilon).

I personally WANT to feel the entire range of emotions. Not just specific ones high on the scale. ALL human emotions have value and should not be REMOVED. What is valuable is fluidity in the entire range of notes, not to be stuck in a high tone that screams STATS STATS.

Many of us experience tons of the negative ranges of emotions without even trying! After all, this is planet Earth; all down through history, most people experience a great deal of failure and losses along with the tremendous negative emotions which come from experiencing them. To me, in searching for meaning in experiencing heavy negative emotions, those can be of great value in building strength of character and resolve and the ability to endure but even more important that those, as I see it, the main gain in experiencing them comes when a person finally overcomes such lower emotions and is able to move up and experience the higher emotions

In fact, if one ONLY knows higher emotions all their lives, those emotions almost become meaningless and the person becomes shallow. It's almost as if the higher emotion, to be FULLY appreciated and enjoyed had to be preceded by a period of lower emotions. Without that happening, experiencing only high emotions indefinitely may lead to very little character development.

You make a good point about the fluidity of emotions being a desirable thing to experience. We do have a difference in that I strongly prefer the fluidity moving in a lower to upper direction. I don't value my fluidity going downhill unless I then reverse it. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems as if you are okay with fluidity of emotion in either direction.

Talking about fluidity of motion moving both up and down does lead into the subject of stats. To me, stats can serve as a tool in leading a worthwhile life but they are merely indicators of direction. COS treats stats as an end in itself. Weekly stat pushes and crunches consume every worker in an org. every week, and infact every day of the week. The way that COS uses stats and celebrates stats is psychotic, especially when the stats that count the most have to do with MONEY! In my recent model of what a real Ideal Org would look like, one of the first things I would do is get rid of the weekly stat push!!!

One thing you wrote that really surprises me is something which I have never heard before and that concerns the concept that if someone has a ruin, it might be better to let them just keep it than to attempt to get them out of it. That is such a novel concept to me that I need to think about that and work with it for a bit of time before making any comments on it.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I guess I don't believe in counseling. LOL. Just never personally had a use for it, esp. after Scn and their version. I know that we can love more than one person, and love each person for different qualities and so on. I was just giving hypothetical examples, probably not good ones, for why the whole idea of getting rid of some emotions or getting rid of the loss, might not be healthy. For example, my grandmother died. While I agree it is not healthy to think of it all day, cry constantly, etc., and esp. since she died more than 20 years ago! I still think that feeling the sadness of her death is healthy for me. Sometimes I enjoy remembering how much I miss her, even though it hurts. I also enjoy other memories were she and I had fun. I don't want to erase any of the charge of my life. It all adds to the richness of my experience. I am the first to admit that I have probably avoided really terrible stuff, and maybe that explains why someone else would welcome the relief from some of their charge and why I don't really feel a compelling need to get rid of any. We can talk more about ruins later....I am thinking about it. And hey, I did post responses to your comments on my blog posts.

Many of us experience tons of the negative ranges of emotions without even trying! After all, this is planet Earth; all down through history, most people experience a great deal of failure and losses along with the tremendous negative emotions which come from experiencing them. To me, in searching for meaning in experiencing heavy negative emotions, those can be of great value in building strength of character and resolve and the ability to endure but even more important that those, as I see it, the main gain in experiencing them comes when a person finally overcomes such lower emotions and is able to move up and experience the higher emotions

In fact, if one ONLY knows higher emotions all their lives, those emotions almost become meaningless and the person becomes shallow. It's almost as if the higher emotion, to be FULLY appreciated and enjoyed had to be preceded by a period of lower emotions. Without that happening, experiencing only high emotions indefinitely may lead to very little character development.

You make a good point about the fluidity of emotions being a desirable thing to experience. We do have a difference in that I strongly prefer the fluidity moving in a lower to upper direction. I don't value my fluidity going downhill unless I then reverse it. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems as if you are okay with fluidity of emotion in either direction.

Talking about fluidity of motion moving both up and down does lead into the subject of stats. To me, stats can serve as a tool in leading a worthwhile life but they are merely indicators of direction. COS treats stats as an end in itself. Weekly stat pushes and crunches consume every worker in an org. every week, and infact every day of the week. The way that COS uses stats and celebrates stats is psychotic, especially when the stats that count the most have to do with MONEY! In my recent model of what a real Ideal Org would look like, one of the first things I would do is get rid of the weekly stat push!!!

One thing you wrote that really surprises me is something which I have never heard before and that concerns the concept that if someone has a ruin, it might be better to let them just keep it than to attempt to get them out of it. That is such a novel concept to me that I need to think about that and work with it for a bit of time before making any comments on it.
Lakey

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ok, so let's say your ruin is that a person you loved got away. They went off and married someone else. You, that hypothetical person, never married, since you believed that person that got away was It for you.

All the auditing in the world will not fix that. You can run out similar losses. But in the end that person will go home at night alone and still not have the person they love. Also, they might also marry, but a substitute is not the same thing. So basically in Scientology they are good at substituting real feelings and situations with replacements, since heck, you are a being, you've had infinite partners on the whole track. This just totally makes it so that no one is unique and special. Everything is replaceable. One loss can be filled by something else. Charge is the basis of all sadness. Make it go right! Be upstat! Get uptone! NOW!

So let's say this person CHOOSES to be ruined in that way. Wants it. Well, I'd say, it has its beauty. Leave that person alone I'd say. And yes, I know someone whose husband died and she will never remarry. He was It for her and she's done. She's sad. if anyone removed that 'ruin' I think it would be a crime. I find it beautiful that she is so loyal and she she cared for someone that much that NO CHURCH could REMOVE her from that relationship (although she was never a Scilon).

I personally WANT to feel the entire range of emotions. Not just specific ones high on the scale. ALL human emotions have value and should not be REMOVED. What is valuable is fluidity in the entire range of notes, not to be stuck in a high tone that screams STATS STATS.

I agree with the last, but; just take that woman whose husband died. Assuming that he loved her when he was alive (which he most likely did, bearing in mind her love for him), do you think he would have wanted his wife to be eternally sad now that he's no longer around? Or would he rather she found a new man to love and be loved by?

If I were in his shoes, I'd like to think my answer would be the latter.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am the first to admit that I have probably avoided really terrible stuff, and maybe that explains why someone else would welcome the relief from some of their charge and why I don't really feel a compelling need to get rid of any.

I've often commented that I have lived a charmed life. In Scn
since 1965 approx with the only downside my weird CCRD in
1991. I immediately walked away. I have no compulsion to
do further OT levels which I'm quite capable of doing solo,
but have no interest.

However still a scientologist , happy to do more Ls.

Interested in this:-

"I guess I don't believe in counseling. LOL. Just never personally had a use for it, esp. after Scn and their version."

However you were a senior C/S. Did others have a use for your skills?

Note that counceling exists in many forms and is widely used and considered of value.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I've often commented that I have lived a charmed life. In Scn
since 1965 approx with the only downside my weird CCRD in
1991. I immediately walked away. I have no compulsion to
do further OT levels which I'm quite capable of doing solo,
but have no interest.

However still a scientologist , happy to do more Ls.

Interested in this:-

"I guess I don't believe in counseling. LOL. Just never personally had a use for it, esp. after Scn and their version."

However you were a senior C/S. Did others have a use for your skills?

Note that counceling exists in many forms and is widely used and considered of value.

Out of interest Terril, why are you still interested in doing the Ls but not the OT levels?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I've often commented that I have lived a charmed life. In Scn
since 1965 approx with the only downside my weird CCRD in
1991. I immediately walked away. I have no compulsion to
do further OT levels which I'm quite capable of doing solo,
but have no interest.

However still a scientologist , happy to do more Ls.

Interested in this:-

"I guess I don't believe in counseling. LOL. Just never personally had a use for it, esp. after Scn and their version."

However you were a senior C/S. Did others have a use for your skills?

Note that counceling exists in many forms and is widely used and considered of value.

Terril,
There are two aspects to this for me, and two paths for reply. First, since I don't believe in the Scn tech, there seems little reason to apply it to others. I guess that was a fast reply on that. Sure, I remember everything, I could make a dollar or two auditing or C/Sing, but why would I if I consider those activities to be of no benefit to anyone? That of course, why I feel it is of no benefit, I covered in depth in my blog posts here on the forum in the blog section.

The other aspect, of counseling in general, touches on the history of 'counseling'. That history is heavily researched by a philosopher I don't love but who nevertheless is a meticulous researcher, Michel Foucault. The gist, without getting into a book, is that counseling, journaling, etc., are all confessional forms. Confession has a long history of being used for the purposes of power. The power dynamic of confession has never been such to admit that counseling serves a patient. The only case might be in clinical cases where the person is very bad off. I don't care for the psychological disciplines but apparently some want it and I'm not about to interfere in what others do with their lives. For me, it's a waste. It's been documented so extensively that the main purposes of counseling historically anyway was to produce conformity. To deal with the abnormal or neurotic. To normalize a person.

So, for me scientology technologies are basically non-existent and if anything, a form of control and confession. Other forms of counseling in varying degrees also follow the control and confession pattern, albeit these patterns not appearing in the same way as they do in Scn. I recognize that I have an idiosyncratic view and so I don't impose it on anyone. Just to say that counseling in any form is about as exciting a thought to me as overcooked pasta.

I really am an ex, I don't use the tech at all, I try to let even the terminology fade away. I am only remembering now a bit, because I am on this forum and see certain terms pop up. For example, yesterday I saw the word anaten. I had completely utterly forgotten that word existed. I find it a useless word since the concept already exists in plain english, in various shades and permutations. Anaten is not needed in my vocabulary.

What you won't hear me do is criticize a FZ scientologist since I try to avoid speaking for others and my views are only pertaining to how I want to live my life. I will criticize the concepts and the techs the church promotes but not the person.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I agree with the last, but; just take that woman whose husband died. Assuming that he loved her when he was alive (which he most likely did, bearing in mind her love for him), do you think he would have wanted his wife to be eternally sad now that he's no longer around? Or would he rather she found a new man to love and be loved by?

If I were in his shoes, I'd like to think my answer would be the latter.

Well I think he would want her to decide for herself what she wanted to do with her life. If she prefers to meet up with him later, after this life, that is for her to decide. Love for her is perhaps not avoiding loneliness or being loved but maybe she has viewed love as only relating to him. I know cases like this. My mother for example would never remarry. She would find it a gross thought and that's her choice. On the other hand her cousin did remarry and is perfectly happy now. My main point was that losses, emotions, experiences, are all treasures and valuable in some sense. To a shaman for example, a traumatic incident could be the most fantastic thing to happen, because it illustrates or gives the person a lesson, that in some cases will cause them to have a huge change which opens up all sorts of possibilities. What is negative and what is not varies from person to person. There is not a 'standard' tech regarding experience, that's all i was saying. But Scientology claims there is.

So for them, separating family members via disconnection is positive, prevents enturbulation. For me such a thing would itself be the terrible event. it would be terrible to have wins on a 'bridge' only in consequence of having lost my family. But from their perspective, they define what is survival differently than the lady whose husband died in the example. And differently than I would.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is just my opinion, so take it however you wish but here is today's riddle.
What do we get when we combine what Scientology claims as "science" with its religious beliefs (incident 1? BTs? GPMs?)

My answer: a non-existent being. A unicorn.

And I do apologize in advance for my feelings about this, to those who do feel they get gains from Scientology. I can see how others think certain processes helped.
My problem is that I have bad vision and just haven't been able to see the dang unicorn!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I guess I don't believe in counseling. LOL. Just never personally had a use for it, esp. after Scn and their version. I know that we can love more than one person, and love each person for different qualities and so on. I was just giving hypothetical examples, probably not good ones, for why the whole idea of getting rid of some emotions or getting rid of the loss, might not be healthy. For example, my grandmother died. While I agree it is not healthy to think of it all day, cry constantly, etc., and esp. since she died more than 20 years ago! I still think that feeling the sadness of her death is healthy for me. Sometimes I enjoy remembering how much I miss her, even though it hurts. I also enjoy other memories were she and I had fun. I don't want to erase any of the charge of my life. It all adds to the richness of my experience. I am the first to admit that I have probably avoided really terrible stuff, and maybe that explains why someone else would welcome the relief from some of their charge and why I don't really feel a compelling need to get rid of any. We can talk more about ruins later....I am thinking about it. And hey, I did post responses to your comments on my blog posts.

Everything you say above makes sense. Even so, I believe that Hubbard tech does not automatically run everything out of your memory banks. My interpretation of what Hubbard was saying was that he wanted to run out incidents which caused UNWANTED harmful pains and/or emotions from one's past. In Hubbard tech, whether an incident or an item was to be run, was determined by checking the item on the pc while the pc was holding the cans connected to the e-meter. Only if the item read on the meter was it run. Furthermore, if something did read, the largest read was taken up first and the pc was first checked for interest before actually running any particular item.

Also, if some huge win occurred while running a particular reading item, the session was ended off. Also, if a list was checked for reads and the needle just floated the whole time during the check, the entire area was considered to be a Floating Needle and that area was completed, at least for the time being and was not run.

From what you wrote, Maria, it sounds as if the topic of your grandmother would not have read as an UNWANTED NEGATIVE ITEM and if, by chance, it did read then before your auditor would have you run that topic, he would have to first check with you if you are interested in running it. If you said, "No." then it would not be run.

You know, I am no longer a booster for Hubbard in general and much of his tech in particular but I attempt to be as objective as possible and when appropriate, I will "give the Devil his due."

Hubbard's theory was that after running an unwanted incident which was causing a person somatics or unwanted emotions, the unwanted harmful data would be refiled from the reactive portion of a person's mind into the analytical portion of his or her mind. A lot of people do not accept that minds have those subdivisions. The thing is that the way Hubbard put that concept was that it was part of a workable system. Per his own words, it wasn't necessarily a perfect system but it was a workable system. So even if you did run out something to do with your grandmother, it should still exist for you in the analytical portion of your mind and you could now think about grandma, reminisce about her all you like, etc., the only change being that thinking about her would no longer give you unwanted "somatics" if that had previously been the case.

I guess, Maria, this is one of the few times where I don't see eye to eye with you on Hubbard tech. If you or anyone else sees errors in my reasoning please let me know (in a nice way) where I am going wrong.
Lakey

 

[ILove2Lurk]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If you or anyone else sees errors in my reasoning please let me know (in a nice way) where I am going wrong.

If you could possibly explain how this could be, I'd be relived.

I know a person who's a serial "home wrecker" . . . a person who causes the breakup of a marriage, takes a spouse away from the marriage, thus "wrecking" the marital home.

Person got previous spouse in this fashion 15 years ago (wrecking two marriages in the process) and then more recently breaking up another marriage with children involved to steal away the next spouse 30 days after previous spouse died. Secret sexual infidelity involved in both . . . then the breakups.

Person has been on the bridge for about 45 years: career Class 8 field auditor; older OT levels completed; thousands of hours on OT 7; multiple sec checks of course; and on and on. The whole nine yards.

This person's behavior made it very clear to me that a person can spend a lifetime auditing and training and still not even touch or diminish a rather serious and obvious "human flaw." Just despicable and unpardonable behavior, IMO.

Wish it wasn't so. But it's so. And I can't un-see it. Can't un-know it.

What a waste of an entire lifetime. No better off than this person was 45 years ago.

Was a case study for me about the non-efficacy of the tech. Really shattered me for a few days after seeing this.

Lost my faith entirely.
If anybody can defend . . . well, I think there's just no way to defend.


Disclaimer: I've had a little wine tonight.

PS: I know of a second person that's almost the same behavior, except this person is only a Class 6 but is OT 8. This person didn't even wait 30 days after death of spouse, but was already promiscuous a week after the funeral. This is not normal or "cleared" behavior. Also 45 years of training and processing. Can't un-see these examples of non-efficacy of tech.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well I think he would want her to decide for herself what she wanted to do with her life. If she prefers to meet up with him later, after this life, that is for her to decide. Love for her is perhaps not avoiding loneliness or being loved but maybe she has viewed love as only relating to him. I know cases like this. My mother for example would never remarry. She would find it a gross thought and that's her choice. On the other hand her cousin did remarry and is perfectly happy now. My main point was that losses, emotions, experiences, are all treasures and valuable in some sense. To a shaman for example, a traumatic incident could be the most fantastic thing to happen, because it illustrates or gives the person a lesson, that in some cases will cause them to have a huge change which opens up all sorts of possibilities. What is negative and what is not varies from person to person. There is not a 'standard' tech regarding experience, that's all i was saying. But Scientology claims there is.

So for them, separating family members via disconnection is positive, prevents enturbulation. For me such a thing would itself be the terrible event. it would be terrible to have wins on a 'bridge' only in consequence of having lost my family. But from their perspective, they define what is survival differently than the lady whose husband died in the example. And differently than I would.

Good post, and I certainly know of examples which support your case. My godparents had a very good marriage until my godfather's death from a brain tumour 20 years ago, and my godmother has never remarried since; I think she's open to the possibility if she meets the right man (most likely through her church as she's a committed Christian), but it hasn't happened. My nan did remarry after being widowed and lived to regret it.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril,
There are two aspects to this for me, and two paths for reply. First, since I don't believe in the Scn tech, there seems little reason to apply it to others. I guess that was a fast reply on that. Sure, I remember everything, I could make a dollar or two auditing or C/Sing, but why would I if I consider those activities to be of no benefit to anyone? That of course, why I feel it is of no benefit, I covered in depth in my blog posts here on the forum in the blog section.

The other aspect, of counseling in general, touches on the history of 'counseling'. That history is heavily researched by a philosopher I don't love but who nevertheless is a meticulous researcher, Michel Foucault. The gist, without getting into a book, is that counseling, journaling, etc., are all confessional forms. Confession has a long history of being used for the purposes of power. The power dynamic of confession has never been such to admit that counseling serves a patient. The only case might be in clinical cases where the person is very bad off. I don't care for the psychological disciplines but apparently some want it and I'm not about to interfere in what others do with their lives. For me, it's a waste. It's been documented so extensively that the main purposes of counseling historically anyway was to produce conformity. To deal with the abnormal or neurotic. To normalize a person.

So, for me scientology technologies are basically non-existent and if anything, a form of control and confession. Other forms of counseling in varying degrees also follow the control and confession pattern, albeit these patterns not appearing in the same way as they do in Scn. I recognize that I have an idiosyncratic view and so I don't impose it on anyone. Just to say that counseling in any form is about as exciting a thought to me as overcooked pasta.

I really am an ex, I don't use the tech at all, I try to let even the terminology fade away. I am only remembering now a bit, because I am on this forum and see certain terms pop up. For example, yesterday I saw the word anaten. I had completely utterly forgotten that word existed. I find it a useless word since the concept already exists in plain english, in various shades and permutations. Anaten is not needed in my vocabulary.

What you won't hear me do is criticize a FZ scientologist since I try to avoid speaking for others and my views are only pertaining to how I want to live my life. I will criticize the concepts and the techs the church promotes but not the person.

I think you'll find these days that most counsellors are well aware of the issues you raise here and try to compensate for them. Scn (in the CofS at least) is unusual to the extent that it not only refuses to acknowledge the ramifications of such power imbalances between "client and counsellor" but actively tries to encourage them, almost to the point of exalting in them.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If you could possibly explain how this could be, I'd be relived.

I know a person who's a serial "home wrecker" . . . a person who causes the breakup of a marriage, takes a spouse away from the marriage, thus "wrecking" the marital home.

Person got previous spouse in this fashion 15 years ago (wrecking two marriages in the process) and then more recently breaking up another marriage with children involved to steal away the next spouse 30 days after previous spouse died. Secret sexual infidelity involved in both . . . then the breakups.

Person has been on the bridge for about 45 years: career Class 8 field auditor; older OT levels completed; thousands of hours on OT 7; multiple sec checks of course; and on and on. The whole nine yards.

This person's behavior made it very clear to me that a person can spend a lifetime auditing and training and still not even touch or diminish a rather serious and obvious "human flaw." Just despicable and unpardonable behavior, IMO.

Wish it wasn't so. But it's so. And I can't un-see it. Can't un-know it.

What a waste of an entire lifetime. No better off than this person was 45 years ago.

Was a case study for me about the non-efficacy of the tech. Really shattered me for a few days after seeing this.

Lost my faith entirely.
If anybody can defend . . . well, I think there's just no way to defend.


Disclaimer: I've had a little wine tonight.

PS: I know of a second person that's almost the same behavior, except this person is only a Class 6 but is OT 8. This person didn't even wait 30 days after death of spouse, but was already promiscuous a week after the funeral. This is not normal or "cleared" behavior. Also 45 years of training and processing. Can't un-see these examples of non-efficacy of tech.

I saw a movie called "The Step Father" which came out in 1987 which covered the type of thing you are speaking of. In 2009, another movie appeared which was a more modern twist on the same theme. I think there was another Step Father movie issued between those two movies called "Step Father II", which I also saw. These movies have nothing to do with scientology but they cover the modus operandi of such home breakers in what seems to me a realistic manner. In these movies, the Step Father is a nice looking man usually in his 40's who is very handsome and very charming and he goes out of his way to check the obituary columns of newspapers to find a woman of his age, with children, whose husband just recently died. Here is a trailer of the most recent movie from 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0nEwmkrGs0

Now to address your comments about how even after 45 years of upper level scientology auditing, a person can still be a compulsive homebreaker, move in on a family where a husband just died and cause further destruction of the family for the wife and kids and perhaps other relatives.

All I can do is give you my opinion. Here again, I have to draw on what Hubbard said because what he said made sense to me when I studied it. Hubbard stated that his tech had 3 prongs, Admin, Ethics and Technology. He claimed that Ethics would not go in unless proper admin was being performed and then that if ethics was not in, tech would not go in.

In addressing the 2nd dynamic in COS, that dynamic has been pretty much relegated to the scrap heap of life inside the "church". They order a couple to marry before they can even kiss or make out, they then allow hardly any family time for a couple to be together to bond. They often separate a husband and wife to two separate parts of the world when sending people out on missions and then their crowning slap against the second dynamic is that women in the S.O. are not allowed to have children; instead they are ordered to abort their babies.

The alleged hierarchy in Scientology is that the 3rd dynamic, one's group comes first. One's 1st dynamic, self, and 2nd dynamic, sex and family, are seen as nuisances which only impeded a staff member from contributing to the group called the Sea Org.

In today's COS, it is even worse than that because their leader, DM, is placed before the S.O. in order of importance. That is not admitted by COS nor does it appear in written policy but nevertheless, the entire movement is being run to serve DM. Therefore, ETHICS ARE OUT right from the start when you get involved with auditing in today's COS. With OUT ETHICS, TECH GOES OUT. Because of this,any major auditing you get inside COS will probably not give you any real benefits. Maybe, at some distant outpost of COS, which hasn't yet been corrupted, somebody might get an auditing assist or receive some dianetics or lower level process that might do them some good.

In the case of the upper levels being audited at Flag and the large continental Orgs, there are two problems to contend with. First is the ethics issue which I just described and second would be whether or not the upper level tech actually has any efficacy. However, why debate whether or not the upper levels have any efficacy? Since ethics is out all throughout the organization, we know right away, through Hubbard's own policies, that tech cannot go in.

An analogy might be studying Philosophy at a University in Nazi Germany during the heyday of that short lived regime. The students are given false tech, that one's race determines one's abilities and value in the world and that the Aryan race has been proven, through genetic studies, to be the Master race. The national policy is to subjugate all non Aryans to serve the Nazi master race, plus not just subjugating but actually killing all Jews. Studying at a university with ethics so completely out, no matter how hard or how long one studies, no student will ever graduate who can actually apply what he has learned in Philosophy to help make a better world. It ain't going to happen, not under those conditions.
Lakey

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

One example of what I mean; the CofS tries to get people to sign up for another course or block of auditing just after they've finished with the last one, even sometimes when they're still in a dissociated state. This would (rightly) be considered grossly unethical by any orthodox school of counselling or therapy.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If you could possibly explain how this could be, I'd be relived.

I know a person who's a serial "home wrecker" . . . a person who causes the breakup of a marriage, takes a spouse away from the marriage, thus "wrecking" the marital home.

Person got previous spouse in this fashion 15 years ago (wrecking two marriages in the process) and then more recently breaking up another marriage with children involved to steal away the next spouse 30 days after previous spouse died. Secret sexual infidelity involved in both . . . then the breakups.

Person has been on the bridge for about 45 years: career Class 8 field auditor; older OT levels completed; thousands of hours on OT 7; multiple sec checks of course; and on and on. The whole nine yards.

This person's behavior made it very clear to me that a person can spend a lifetime auditing and training and still not even touch or diminish a rather serious and obvious "human flaw." Just despicable and unpardonable behavior, IMO.

Wish it wasn't so. But it's so. And I can't un-see it. Can't un-know it.

What a waste of an entire lifetime. No better off than this person was 45 years ago.

Was a case study for me about the non-efficacy of the tech. Really shattered me for a few days after seeing this.

Lost my faith entirely.
If anybody can defend . . . well, I think there's just no way to defend.


Disclaimer: I've had a little wine tonight.

PS: I know of a second person that's almost the same behavior, except this person is only a Class 6 but is OT 8. This person didn't even wait 30 days after death of spouse, but was already promiscuous a week after the funeral. This is not normal or "cleared" behavior. Also 45 years of training and processing. Can't un-see these examples of non-efficacy of tech.

Time after time I saw no one cared about a situation like you describe. By the time the person disrupted the first 2D (both families) they would have already started a new one and be 'upstat' again within that new family. Stats are the basis of ethics, not intrinsic values about family. Nothing is really sacred. The first 2D might be upset but this would be construed as causing trouble now that stats were up again. Especially if the person's new 2D had money and was flowing it to the 3D. All very arbitrary.

The reason that I was the one sent to ethics after my "2D" bashed my leg with his fist when I told him I didn't want to be with him is that it caused me to be in pain, which prevented me from going on post, also because I caused trouble by complaining. So I got to write withholds for being downstat not him. I have seen similar scenarios play numerous times. The definition of PTS is so vague that it can be construed such that the troublemaker is rewarded. I was the troublemaker, since my husband was troubled by my honest opinion of our difficulty and then he hit me. To him, I was being antagonistic. His hitting me was not a problem, since I was obviously causing the trouble and since because I caused the trouble stats went down as a result. He went back to his post as if nothing happened. Think about how messed up this view of ethics is.

Here is a hypothetical extreme example of how stats affect how people are viewed (but I can see how what I am describing could be reminiscent of WWII Germany). Let's say we are in a imaginary place, a factory producing very well using practically slave labor. Any time someone becomes ineffectual they are sent to the hole or killed and replaced. Stats are up and the managers are quite proud of their efficiency. One day some of the workers disrupt production by attempting to leave the premises, finally sick of being abused, thus causing trouble from a management point of view. Stats go down since there are fewer workers. The workers that blew are retrieved. Turns out a family member of the instigator happened to be a a guard who provided a key to the factory so the workers could leave. That guard is now put in the hole along with the blown workers. Meanwhile, new workers are added to the line, and finally after a week of downstats and disorder factory production is restored.

No mention here of how evil it is to force people to work as slaves since their very slavery is the source of upstats! What's viewed as downstat is the halt to production.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Out of interest Terril, why are you still interested in doing the Ls but not the OT levels?

I got a good result on L-11. L12 and L10 are even more powerful.

I have done OT 2&3 twice and touched on NOTs. I have no
interest in further dealings with BTs.

 

[ILove2Lurk]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip> . . . if ethics was not in, tech would not go in. <snip>

Time after time I saw no one cared about a situation like you describe. <snip>

Thank you both for taking time to respond thoughtfully.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I got a good result on L-11. L12 and L10 are even more powerful.

I have done OT 2&3 twice and touched on NOTs. I have no
interest in further dealings with BTs.

IMO, your last sentence seems like a smart plan of action or perhaps I should say, inaction. Also, congratulations on getting a good result on L11. I don't remember what gains I got from it but at the time(s) I did that level, I remember being pleased with the results. Like you, I only did the one L, L11 and also I share your sentiments as regards dealing with BT's.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thank you both for taking time to respond thoughtfully.

You are quite welcome. It was an interesting topic to give an opinion on. I think that Maria made an excellent point about the part statistics play in dispensing ethics in COS. She gives an honest reply to a request asked of her by her husband and he is extremely angry and slugs his wife in her leg. Then the husband gets no ethics handling while she is assigned a lower condition. The flimsy excuse for this extreme criminality displayed by the COS Ethics personnel is her husband is an upstat and as such he has ethics protection while she is a downstat so she is not entitled to such. The judgement of who was the upstat was very arbitrary and had no basis in actual fact!

As with almost all the normal outpoints in scio management I have one tale to tell about how up stats protected a criminal who was deemed to have high statistics. I told this story in the early pages of the thread but will tell it again.

I was in CCLA Treasury, I owned a car and had a Chevron Credit Card. Pocket calculators had just come one the market. They were expensive at first, $100 in 1973 money, maybe $550 in today's money. Chevron offered an early version of a calculator for $100, if I charged it using my Chevron Credit card. I bought it and began using it in Treasury. We had a new person in Treasury, Mark A., who had been on the job about 3 months. He handled people who had freeloader debts and collected from them. He was good at doing that and began making a name for himself. The execs were hyping Mark as the best Cashier on the planet!

Anyway, Mark saw me using my calculator down in Treasury and he loved it. They were not yet offered in the stores so he asked me if I would buy one for him on my Chevron Card. He promised to immediately repay me the $100 as soon as his calculator arrived.

LRH had recently come up with a cash bonus system for the registrars and cashiers. These bonuses began to become huge, based on the formula which LRH provided. Early on, Hector, our head registrar earned $350 in bonus money one week. Not to be outdone, Mark topped that with a $500 bonus. Keep in mind this was in 1973 money. $500 then is probably about $2,750 today. Finally, Mark hit over $750 one week. Keep in mind that the base pay for the rest of the staff was only $10 a week at the time.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Mark's hand calculator arrived and I gave it to him and asked him for my $100 reimbursement. He told me that he would have it on Friday, when we would all be paid. When Friday came around, he had some sleazy excuse why he could not pay me. This went on for about 5 weeks and since he sat in treasury just a few yards from me, I started to get threatening and beliigerant. He told me that he was an upstat and to back off or else. I then demanded my money. He said once more that he would pay me on Friday.

When Friday rolled around, that was the week his pay reached $ $760 or some such, 76 times my pay. I counted out $660 and put it in an envelope for him and inside the envelope I left a note that I took the other $100 in payment for my debt. When he got his money, he was outraged and came to my desk yelling a bunch of obscenities and demanding his other $100. I told him that I was now over 30 days past due on my Chevron credit card and they are threatening to cancel my card. He didn't care, he demanded his money but I wouldn't give it to him.

He went screaming, off to Yvonne's office where she supported him fully and stated that I was off policy, taking his $100 bonus money. She sent me a very stern letter ordering me to pay him immediately. She stressed that he was an upstat, the best Cashier on the planet. She asked that I go and talk to the Ethics officer and get straightened out as to my ethics. I went over and talked to Margaret George, our Sargeant at Arms.

She said that my position made sense but it was out ethics for me, a Treasury staff to attempt to use force to collect from him. She stressed that he was extremely upstat and the best Cashier on the planet and with those accolades he got ethics protection. I countered that I was extremely upstat too and had been super upstat for 2 years while he had been there for only 3 months. Furthermore, I said that he was earning 50 times more than I was so why couldn't he just keep his word and pay this bill. Margaret agreed that I was also upstat for so she was not going to assign me any lower condition but just allow me to return to work.

About 3 months later, I was CCLA Programs Chief on the Apollo. From my position of altitude, I wrote a note to senior management World Wide, that there was a criminal operating inside CCLA's treasury division. The letter was returned to me with a note that it was not part of my hat involve Senior Management in a debt collection cycle.

It's so ironic, LRH was very concerned about the morals of the people in treasury that he wrote an edict that said that no PTS people were allowed to work in Treasury. Here, in this case, Yvonne and senior management both were willing to have a thief (theft is a high crime in the COS Justice System) working in Treasury because his stats were high and allow him to get away with stealing $100 from a fellow staff member. I did approach him right before I was due to leave CCLA for the Apollo. I said for him to please settle the debt now because we probably would never see each other again. He response to me was, and I paraphrase, "Sorry, I can't help you, this was a bad week and I don't have the money."

Here is another example of COS's supposedly fabulous Green on White Management Tech System in operation. Right in Treasury division. which handles the Org's money, a criminal is allowed to serve and to cheat his fellow Treasury staff member based on some sort of ethics protection which Hubbard decreed must be granted to upstats.
Lakey