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

[Helena Handbasket]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That fact is that there are no absolutes in our physical universe. Even Hitler was right on some things. They make a joke that under him the trains ran on time. No, its more than that, he quickly brought the German economy back to life and instituted full employment, prosperity and national pride in a country that was dying. He built the autobahns and gave us the VW, he loved his dog, "Blonde" and took good care of her, he was a vegetarian. The evil he did was thousands of times worse than the good he did but he did do a little good.

And let's not forget he received lots of ENCOURAGEMENT and SUPPORT from England, France, and the USA in the early days because HE WAS AGAINST MARXISM. Those who wish Hitler were stopped while he was still relatively powerless tend to convieniently forget that fact.

Helena

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I respect you for your opinion in a way. You are upholding your views against a lot of counter intention by many others, some very stupid people but also some well intended people. It is admirable to stand alone against group type thinking. It really takes courage and the willingness to stand alone against many others. I admire that trait in you.

All that being said, perhaps you are going too far in taking the stand which you are taking that every last word of Hubbard's is crap.

That fact is that there are no absolutes in our physical universe. Even Hitler was right on some things. They make a joke that under him the trains ran on time. No, its more than that, he quickly brought the German economy back to life and instituted full employment, prosperity and national pride in a country that was dying. He built the autobahns and gave us the VW, he loved his dog, "Blonde" and took good care of her, he was a vegetarian. The evil he did was thousands of times worse than the good he did but he did do a little good.

My point is that nothing or no one is totally 100% bad or evil. What if you conceded that someone cleaned up a misunderstood word by looking the word up in a dictionary and using it in a few sentences. Nothing would change for you. Your main thrust would still be that Hubbard's tech was extremely destructive. If you could just allow a small win like that to stand without going out of your way to negate it. What difference would it make? It is insignificant in the big picture of things. You should go after Hubbard on the big stuff; that is where you shine! Your blogs are very good and very convincing and are well written.

If Hitler did a handful of good things among all his evils, perhaps Hubbard did the same. If you don't believe that to be true, then you don't have to change your mind but if someone tells of a small win like looking up a word. maybe just let it slide without comment. That's my opinion on what you wrote above.
Lakey

Hubbard devised the concept of looking up words? Did Hubbard also invent philosophy, ethics or communication? So when is Harvard going to put up a plaque in his honor?

At most he took words, communication, ethics, philosophy, and reduced these to platitudes and therefore ruined the use of them as concepts.

Pick something unique that only Hubbard invented, discovered, and did and get back to me so as to properly credit him and/or continue the argument on a more solid footing with clear examples.
While we are at it, let's not forget to credit DM for decorating Flag and orgs and doing a great job choosing paint colors!!!

Hey, but don't those that were harmed get any credit : since it was off their backs that the leisure was acquired to care for said pet dog, make trains run on time, and decorate Ideal orgs?
It's hard to warm to your logic in other words.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't see why a person would enter into anything, a marriage, raising a child, a job, a class having a pet, taking on a study without wanting the thing to go forward successfully, which is what I mean by things working out. In nearly everything we do, there is another person involved.

Typically, we could consider a marriage, there are two people involved, if they don't want it to work out then why get married. If you don't want your job to work out why do it. It seems very basic to me, really, it almost has to be a given. If one doesn't want things to work out then it seems to me that all one is doing is wasting their time.

So people enter into agreements wanting things to work out and so as to best assure that things will work out, the two people involved establish a set of rules to follow so that their actions will dovetail and work harmoniously. Once the parameters are established, both parties shake hands on the agreement and each person handles their portion of the project.

Other points of view are very interesting to observe and study. Oftentimes one can learn something from another approach so believe in being open to other approaches.

However, unless both parties want the arrangement to work out and they can both agree to uphold a set of ground rules, there is no viable way in which they can possible work together. I thought both those two factors were total givens. I am really surprised to find out that you do not believe they are. Well, live and learn. I for one must have those two factors in place before I take on any kind of project with another person.

A project has to have some sort of predictability. You have to know that if you do such and such, the person who your are working with will respond with their such and such. You are spending your time hoping to gain new information. new skills, new wisdom, new understandings. IMHO, you can't just "fly blind" and not have some idea of how your associate is going to respond

Doing that is a waste of time and instead of learning things you will become less wise, feel uncomfortable and become immersed in disagreements and arguments. Instead of gaining wisdom and more understanding of life, you lose understanding and become less than you were before commencing such a study.

I don't even see how your preferred way of operating could possibly work. You are saying that it is not necessary to want the activity to work out, you don't want to establish any ground rules nor agreements with other parties involved in your activity and you just want to do what you feel like doing at any given time. When two or more people participate in any such activity I simply can't envision anything but failure for such an activity. I don't think it wise to waste a lot of time and effort on something that must, by its very nature, result in failure.
Lakey

Ultimately, a being's decisions are his own. That is all I said.

 

[Leon-2]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

BTW, there is an excellent article on how CofS-type brainwashing is now pervading American society. Lots to be learned from this:



http://www.thedailybell.com/editori...ech/?uuid=6F80A314-5056-9627-3CD67C6DE2254E24

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

BTW, there is an excellent article on how CofS-type brainwashing is now pervading American society. Lots to be learned from this:



http://www.thedailybell.com/editori...ech/?uuid=6F80A314-5056-9627-3CD67C6DE2254E24

I quote from your link and highlight:

"In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history."


As far as I can tell, Hubbard's 'tech', every last bit of it, fits that quote quite tidily. I can't wait to hear of one unique thing that he discovered, designed, did. Because so far I have not heard it. What tech did he indeed originate? Where is it?

Oh yes, he took his 'discovery' and he put it into a 'program' or system to be applied a certain exact way : such is the modus of platitudes [newspeak].

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

In my blog postings and maybe 7 or so pages back (before the DM love-bomb) I did an explanation of the lower ethics conditions. My postings on the lower conditions begin on this page:
[http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10103-The-old-days-Aboard-the-Apollo-1973/page2318]

Now I'll move to an explanation of non-existence and slowly work my way up.

Non-Existence
"Every new appointee to a post begins in Non-Existence, whether obtained by new appointment, promotion or demotion.

He is normally under the delusion that now he is 'THE ________' (new title). He tries to start off in Power Condition as he is usually very aware of his new status or even a former status. But in actual fact he is the only one aware of it. All others, except perhaps the Personnel Officer, are utterly unaware of him as having his new status.
Therefore he begins in a state of Non-Existence. And if he does not begin with the Non-Existence Formula as his guide, he will be using the wrong condition and will have all kinds of trouble."

This generalizes that all persons start in non-existence and that non-existence is a given if based on former status, and assumes that a status is not really based on training and skill but on the awareness others have of us (how good we are at getting and receiving 'information'). A world class surgeon arrives to a hospital. Since there are medical standards, that surgeon can arrive, meet the staff briefly and after studying the patient's chart DO a surgery, the same standard things he did at his other post at some other location. His status is not based on some stupid concept of a title or of what others know or don't know about him. His status is based on actual credentials. The others there are there as his support team in the surgery. If THEY do not know who he is and that HE is the surgeon, than they not he should be fired pronto! They are the ones in non-existence!

But that is a technical example of why this condition is almost illegible and useless. Let's try a different example. If the job is a business executive, then in that case, yes, more politics and handshaking and slow adjustment periods are needed since the team has to come on board and decide to support the new executive. The executive has to learn the business model and his staff. Not as information, as the expanded condition wants to state, as if these were quantitative issues, but as a live concern, a qualitative connection to the enterprise for which he is responsible. On that account, the example of DM serves to illustrate. He never left non-existence since most of the Scn field did not accept him as the executive. Oh sure, he is an expert of gathering information, just as the formula requires, and of communicating, but he lacks the finesse to really understand the enterprise, to respond to the field, and to win the loyalty of others. He never won the loyalty of his team or of the field. And staff and publics departed in droves. It was not about having information as the condition wants to claim. It's about loyalty and expectations. It's about gaining respect.

So the condition as written is not clear about distinguishing what is meant by non-existence since it does not define status properly in the case of highly trained technical people and cannot seem to bridge the gap between information vs. team-building in the case of executives. And those are but two examples. A doctor, once trained, can only be in non-existence if he were to let his knowledge get out of date, and that lapse would have nothing to do with joining a new team. An executive on the other hand, needs to win the support and loyalty of a team, and not by enforcement means. And not that this means every single person will remain loyal.

Maybe Hubbard was confused writing this condition since he never really understood the first point, what status means. He viewed expertise or status as a piece of paper, information, a title or degree written on a diploma [and this is evident in that he has his own printed out by a diploma mill]. On the second point, existence (in the formula) is reduced to information. Maybe this was the case because Hubbard's view of loyalty had less to do with his own integrity and the respect of his team and more to do with enforcement of policies. Brute force. Thus, overboarding, RPF, and loyalty and respect were less important to him because the burden was always on the others below him to accept everything like it or not. He did not understand how to win respect or how to flow it down.

The condition is a recipe for destruction. If no one could do it or often failed to do it I offer the above as a possible reasons why. Given the analysis I just made, the formula below looks downright primitive and even destructive since it does not account for a) the real meaning of status: the skill and accomplishment of the person coming on board and b) that information alone cannot inspire leadership, that is, the quality of the relations, team, and production; everything is reduced to 'information.'


Non-Existence Formula
"The Non-Existence Formula is:

1. Find a communication line.

2. Make yourself known.
3. Discover what is needed or wanted.

4. Do, produce and/or present it."

I've heard on this forum so much about how people where thrown into jobs they were not qualified to do.

In a sense my entire post on non-existence had to do with qualifications.

A person is trained as as surgeon or auditor and that is what gives them existence in such a career, not merely that their body arrived.

An executive is trained in teamwork and other skills, either by hard knocks and experience or in some specialized training. That ability to lead, audit, c/s or to do surgery [or anything else] is what provides existence and true status.

Simply having a body arrive and get posted is irrelevant to the question of non-existence. Existence cannot be reduced to the skill of handling information or communication.

One has to have the ability to communicate in their field, the skill that is. And this is the true meaning of status. Status is never a title and not simply establishing good flows of information.

(Link to comments on the other conditions in the signature line below.)

 

[Enthetan]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All well and good Leon, I'm on board with your postl BTWk do you have any idea why the Muslim religion gets a free pass by Government by criminals? Why is it considered politically incorrect for any one in the West to attack Islam or anyone who is of Islam? Why would the Government by Criminals have to do that? I just don't grasp their intent.
Lakey

Aside from the tendency of some Muslims to try to assassinate people who speak badly of Islam, we should also factor in the probable impact of Middle Eastern money being used to buy influence.

I think the biggest thing is that Communism ("politically correct"s original meaning was "in alignment with the official position of the Party") and Islam are both totalitarian philosophies. You can implement a socialist Islamic regime. They are both very "group oriented".

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

These "EPs" as given on the Grade chart were derived from asking preclears what they got out of the auditing they had and then promoting that as being the "EP". But there is something recursive about doing this - it just holds up a generalised mirror telling the preclear what he probably got.

Behind the scene there is the task of getting someone genuinely "up the bridge" and developing in him the abilities that he would need (in relation to his bank and his dynamics) to do higher levels. So there are EPs for the preclear and EPs for the auditor/CS. These last ones are nowhere clearly written up but are gleaned from a more thorough understanding of the Tech. (or Tek, as someone calls it)



As regards the discussion re 'When in doubt, communicate. I always found it interesting to see how often Hubs violates his own writings. Read the Doubt formula in the ethics conditions and you'll find a totally different set of things you ought to do when you are in "doubt". But don't anyone please never waste your time trying to get anywhere by applying those formulas. Unless you do them right and do them under the guidance of a person familiar with (Yes, here it comes) Mary Freeman's work on the subject.

And no, I won't tell you what that is all about. The rundown is only shared with trained auditors who have have the actions run on them to a successful result. (Isn't it interesting - I have never seen these materials disclosed on the internet. Hmmm.)

Mary is still very successfully delivering her Integrity program, and has trained
Anita Warren to deliver it also. I've just posted 2 of their success stories on various
FZ forums.

You can see them here:-

https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientolipedia/permalink/1217561321592896/

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ultimately, a being's decisions are his own. That is all I said.

Yes and if you are working with another being, say in a teacher student relationship for example, the other being's decisions are his own as well. Beings have different responses! They are looking at things from different points of view and in the context of having different past experiences. Their childhoods, parents, family, friends geographical areas, schools, teachers are all different. The bottom line is that when two different beings examine the same materials or information, very likely they will not see eye to eye on a 100% basis.

Though they are trying hard to cooperate with each other, they are going to be viewing things from a different perspective and thus are going to be making different decisions. I think that this is good, it is God's plan not yours nor mine. The richness to be attained by two or more people from different backgrounds, different genders,, different ancestry, etc. working together on a project has the potential to be extremely enriching!!! This facet of life is Godly IMO.

To partake in the potential benefits of such an interaction between two or more human beings, all parties involved need to be aware that decisions will be made and not all decisions will align or even be in agreement with each other.

The decisions of each are are definitely their own, I agree! Sometimes people are going to be at loggerheads on certain issues. Some means of dealing with being at loggerheads must be agreed on when for the activity to move forward and continue. In a debate format, the opinions of both sides carry equal weight while in a student teacher activity, the teacher's opinion carries more weight than the student's.

Maybe this leads back to Plato's, "the answer to a question is a question". I don't know, I am a total neophyte when it comes to Plato and you are an expert so you tell me. The only thing that I know which might apply here is that his decision was not to steamroller over his students and do whatever he wanted at any given moment of time. He developed a way of questioning which sought to bring his student to self enlightenment. His methods seem to me to not rely on unilateral action but on mutual action between teacher and student with the teacher leading the way and the student being forced to follow.

My point is simply that though each person's decisions are their own, a method must be agreed on to handle a situation where a student's and teachers's decisions are at loggerheads. One solution is for the teacher to unilaterally declare their decision and force the student to accept it. That system has been in use since the beginning of time and is referred to as the teacher being pedantic. I believe, just as my opinion developed through observation, that being pedantic is a very poor way to educate a student. When a teacher elicits a studen's agreement, either prior to or during an activity, much more learning occurs than via a pedantic system. An overly pedantic system will often cause good students to drop out of an activity. Essentially, they are being forced out by poor teaching practices. This is my opinion.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Mary is still very successfully delivering her Integrity program, and has trained
Anita Warren to deliver it also. I've just posted 2 of their success stories on various
FZ forums.

You can see them here:-

https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientolipedia/permalink/1217561321592896/

Thank you for responding, Terril. I was hoping you would show up and provide a piece of Hubbard's tech which might satisfy Maria's request. Yes, Maria, let's go with Hubbard's integrity program as something by him which he originate and has achieved good results.

For DM, all the glitzy buildings and furnishings as well as professionally done Magazines seem to represent his good points. As far as personal traits, when the leadership of CoS was up for grabs, he had the ability and cunning to easily win out over everyone else. His plan was thorough and was executed quickly and flawlessly. Within a short period of time, he had risen from almost nowhere and had taken over CoS. That shows leadership ability, ethics presence and staying power. As they say, "You've got tp give the devil his due.
Lakey

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thank you for responding, Terril. I was hoping you would show up and provide a piece of Hubbard's tech which might satisfy Maria's request. Yes, Maria, let's go with Hubbard's integrity program as something by him which he originate and has achieved good results.

For DM, all the glitzy buildings and furnishings as well as professionally done Magazines seem to represent his good points. As far as personal traits, when the leadership of CoS was up for grabs, he had the ability and cunning to easily win out over everyone else. His plan was thorough and was executed quickly and flawlessly. Within a short period of time, he had risen from almost nowhere and had taken over CoS. That shows leadership ability, ethics presence and staying power. As they say, "You've got tp give the devil his due.
Lakey

This is not Hubbards integrity program. It was concieved by Mary class VIII
and she was recovering more people to flag using it than anyone else. She asked
Hubbards permission to teach her method. Hubbard read it and gave his OK.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thank you for responding, Terril. I was hoping you would show up and provide a piece of Hubbard's tech which might satisfy Maria's request. Yes, Maria, let's go with Hubbard's integrity program as something by him which he originate and has achieved good results.

For DM, all the glitzy buildings and furnishings as well as professionally done Magazines seem to represent his good points. As far as personal traits, when the leadership of CoS was up for grabs, he had the ability and cunning to easily win out over everyone else. His plan was thorough and was executed quickly and flawlessly. Within a short period of time, he had risen from almost nowhere and had taken over CoS. That shows leadership ability, ethics presence and staying power. As they say, "You've got tp give the devil his due.
Lakey

I have never heard of the integrity program?

I think you misunderstood my criticism of DM.

 

[Free Being Me]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thank you for responding, Terril. I was hoping you would show up and provide a piece of Hubbard's tech which might satisfy Maria's request. Yes, Maria, let's go with [HIGHLIGHT]Hubbard's integrity program as something by him which he originate and has achieved good results.[/HIGHLIGHT]

For DM, all the glitzy buildings and furnishings as well as professionally done Magazines seem to represent his good points. As far as personal traits, when the leadership of CoS was up for grabs, he had the ability and cunning to easily win out over everyone else. His plan was thorough and was executed quickly and flawlessly. Within a short period of time, he had risen from almost nowhere and had taken over CoS. That shows leadership ability, ethics presence and staying power. As they say, "You've got tp give the devil his due.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

In my blog postings and maybe 7 or so pages back (before the DM love-bomb) I did an explanation of the lower ethics conditions. My postings on the lower conditions begin on this page:
[http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10103-The-old-days-Aboard-the-Apollo-1973/page2318]

Now I'll move to an explanation of non-existence and slowly work my way up.

Non-Existence
"Every new appointee to a post begins in Non-Existence, whether obtained by new appointment, promotion or demotion.

He is normally under the delusion that now he is 'THE ________' (new title). He tries to start off in Power Condition as he is usually very aware of his new status or even a former status. But in actual fact he is the only one aware of it. All others, except perhaps the Personnel Officer, are utterly unaware of him as having his new status.
Therefore he begins in a state of Non-Existence. And if he does not begin with the Non-Existence Formula as his guide, he will be using the wrong condition and will have all kinds of trouble."

This generalizes that all persons start in non-existence and that non-existence is a given if based on former status, and assumes that a status is not really based on training and skill but on the awareness others have of us (how good we are at getting and receiving 'information'). A world class surgeon arrives to a hospital. Since there are medical standards, that surgeon can arrive, meet the staff briefly and after studying the patient's chart DO a surgery, the same standard things he did at his other post at some other location. His status is not based on some stupid concept of a title or of what others know or don't know about him. His status is based on actual credentials. The others there are there as his support team in the surgery. If THEY do not know who he is and that HE is the surgeon, than they not he should be fired pronto! They are the ones in non-existence!

But that is a technical example of why this condition is almost illegible and useless. Let's try a different example. If the job is a business executive, then in that case, yes, more politics and handshaking and slow adjustment periods are needed since the team has to come on board and decide to support the new executive. The executive has to learn the business model and his staff. Not as information, as the expanded condition wants to state, as if these were quantitative issues, but as a live concern, a qualitative connection to the enterprise for which he is responsible. On that account, the example of DM serves to illustrate. He never left non-existence since most of the Scn field did not accept him as the executive. Oh sure, he is an expert of gathering information, just as the formula requires, and of communicating, but he lacks the finesse to really understand the enterprise, to respond to the field, and to win the loyalty of others. He never won the loyalty of his team or of the field. And staff and publics departed in droves. It was not about having information as the condition wants to claim. It's about loyalty and expectations. It's about gaining respect.

So the condition as written is not clear about distinguishing what is meant by non-existence since it does not define status properly in the case of highly trained technical people and cannot seem to bridge the gap between information vs. team-building in the case of executives. And those are but two examples. A doctor, once trained, can only be in non-existence if he were to let his knowledge get out of date, and that lapse would have nothing to do with joining a new team. An executive on the other hand, needs to win the support and loyalty of a team, and not by enforcement means. And not that this means every single person will remain loyal.

Maybe Hubbard was confused writing this condition since he never really understood the first point, what status means. He viewed expertise or status as a piece of paper, information, a title or degree written on a diploma [and this is evident in that he has his own printed out by a diploma mill]. On the second point, existence (in the formula) is reduced to information. Maybe this was the case because Hubbard's view of loyalty had less to do with his own integrity and the respect of his team and more to do with enforcement of policies. Brute force. Thus, overboarding, RPF, and loyalty and respect were less important to him because the burden was always on the others below him to accept everything like it or not. He did not understand how to win respect or how to flow it down.

The condition is a recipe for destruction. If no one could do it or often failed to do it I offer the above as a possible reasons why. Given the analysis I just made, the formula below looks downright primitive and even destructive since it does not account for a) the real meaning of status: the skill and accomplishment of the person coming on board and b) that information alone cannot inspire leadership, that is, the quality of the relations, team, and production; everything is reduced to 'information.'


Non-Existence Formula
"The Non-Existence Formula is:

1. Find a communication line.

2. Make yourself known.
3. Discover what is needed or wanted.

4. Do, produce and/or present it."

I've heard on this forum so much about how people where thrown into jobs they were not qualified to do.

In a sense my entire post on non-existence had to do with qualifications.

A person is trained as as surgeon or auditor and that is what gives them existence in such a career, not merely that their body arrived.

An executive is trained in teamwork and other skills, either by hard knocks and experience or in some specialized training. That ability to lead, audit, c/s or to do surgery [or anything else] is what provides existence and true status.

Simply having a body arrive and get posted is irrelevant to the question of non-existence. Existence cannot be reduced to the skill of handling information or communication.

One has to have the ability to communicate in their field, the skill that is. And this is the true meaning of status. Status is never a title and not simply establishing good flows of information.

(Link to comments on the other conditions in the signature line below.)

This is a very fine post with lots of excellent materials and examples!

In the non scientology world, on the surgeon example, I would submit that a qualified surgeon with experience would have a resume. He sends his resume out to various hospitals and that complete's steps one and two. The personal director reads his resume and calls him in for an interview during which step three is partially completed. The personal director then calls him back and tells him that he is under consideration to be hired and to come back in to tour the facility. He goes back, tours the facility and meets various co workers who he will be working with and establishes a rapport with them. He asks them what they need and want from him and when they tell him, he tells then that he can provide that. That completes step 3. He is hired and is assigned to do his first operation and successfully performs it. That completes step 4. All four steps are thus properly completed.

As regards the scientology world, contracted staff positions were handled terribly and Sea Org recruiting is totally insane and irresponsible!!! They don't look at anyone's resume from a previous job or career and no scientologist creates a resume for any of the various posts which he has held in scientology. A recruiter is often an uneducated teenager just told to bring bodies into the shop and to keep their stats rising. Scientology has the worst hiring practices on any organization ever to exist on Earth!!!!

Hubbard was a total idiot on his hiring and firing practices. The whole procedure was just total insanity from A to Z. No credence was given whatsoever to any past experience outside of scientology with the possible exceptions of being a lawyer or CPA. All WOG (non scientology) experience was ruled by Hubbard to be irrelevant if not actually harmful. Hubbard did not care one hoot what a person was trained in or where he fit into an Org Board. he cared not if one had any training or prerequisites for a job. HE WAS VERY WILLING TO WASTE PEOPLE OF ALL TYPES, JUST THROW THEM INTO A SLOT ON HIS ORG BOARD WHICH NEED FILLING AND LET THEM SINK OR SWIM. IF THEY SANK, HE USED TO QUICKLY OFF LOAD THEM, SEND THEM THEIR FREELOADER BILL AND STICK THE NEXT UNQUALIFIED PERSON ONTO A POST WHICH HE/SHE WAS NOT TRAINED FOR. He did make an exception for technical posts in the Tech and Qualifications divisions. Those people had to have CoS training and had to have completed an internship before they were posted.

On the Non Existence Formula itself, I believe that it is good formula, very workable, especially in the non scientology world. The lower steps are handled by a resume plus an interview with a company's Personal Director. If they like you, you tour the facility and meet the staff and that completes step 3. Step 4 is done by demonstrating your competence. Oftentimes, during Step 3, you can distinguish yourself from other applicants by asking specifically what is needed and wanted by the potential new employer as well as individual employees who you meet on your tour..

Too many applicants ask about what is in it for them, medical benefits, stock options, retirement plans etc. That is proper to ask about but when you ask an employer what he needs and wants and then tell him that you can provide that and that you have references and testimonials to back up your claim, that sets you apart from other applicants. That is part of step 3, as is presenting a good and professional appearance and being well spoken. Most candidates will present a good and professional appearance, some are also well spoken but few will ask the company what is needed and wanted from them. By using that technique and doing just that, often you will get the job over other qualified candidates. I've used that technique myself. Few if any applicants ever ask a company or its personal what is needed and wanted from them and if you do, it sets you apart.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is a very fine post with lots of excellent materials and examples!

In the non scientology world, on the surgeon example, I would submit that a qualified surgeon with experience would have a resume in the real world. He sends his resume out to various hospitals and that complete's steps one and two. The personal director reads his resume and calls him in for an interview during which step three is partially completed. The personal director then calls him back and tells him that he is under consideration to be hired and to come back in to tour the facility. He goes back, tours the facility and meets various co workers who he will be working with and establishes a rapport with them. He asks them what they need and want from him and when they tell him, he tells then that he can provide that. That completes step 3. He is hired and is assigned to do his first operation and successfully performs it. That completes step 4. All four steps are thus properly completed.

As regards tge scientology world, contracted staff positions were handled terribly and Sea Org recruiting is totally insane and irresponsible!!! They don't look at anyone's resume from a previous job or career and no scientologist creates a resume for of the various posts which he has held in scientology. A recruiter is often an uneducated teenager just told to bring bodies into the shop and to keep their stats rising. Scientology has the worst hiring practices on any organization ever to exist on Earth!!!!

Hubbard was a total idiot on his hiring and firing practices. The whole procedure was just total insanity from A to Z. No credence was given whatsoever to any past experience outside of scientology with the possible exceptions of being a lawyer or CPA. All WOG (non scientology) experience was ruled by Hubbard to be irrelevant if not actually harmful. Hubbard did not care one hoot what a person was trained in or where he fit into an Org Board. he cared not if one had any training or prerequisites for a job. HE WAS VERY WILLING TO WASTE PEOPLE OF ALL TYPES, JUST THROW THEM INTO A SLOT ON HIS ORG BOARD WHICH NEED FILLING AND LET THEM SINK OR SWIM. IF THEY SANK, HE USED TO QUICKLY OFF LOAD THEM, SEND THEM THEIR FREELOADER BILL AND STICK THE NEXT UNQUALIFIED PERSON ONTO A POST WHICH HE/SHE WAS NOT TRAINED FOR. He did make an exception for technical posts in the Tech and Qualifications divisions. Those people had to have CoS training and had to have completed an internship before they were posted.

On the Non Existence Formula itself, I believe that it is good formula, very workable, especially in the non scientology world. The lower steps are handled by a resume plus an interview with a company's Personal Director. If they like you, you tour the facility and meet the staff and that completes step 3. Step 4 is done by demonstrating your competence. Oftentimes, during Step 3, you can distinguish yourself from other applicants by asking specifically what is need and wanted by the potential new employer as well as individual employees who you meet on your tour..

Too many applicants ask about what is in it for them, medical benefits, stock options, retirement plans etc. That is proper to ask about but when you ask an employer what he needs and wants and then tell him that you can provide that and that you have references and testimonials to back up your claim, that sets you apart from other applicants. That is part of step 3, as is presenting a good and professional appearance and being well spoken. Most candidates will present a good and professional appearance, some are also well spoken but few will ask the company what is needed and wanted from them. By using that technique and doing just that, often you will get the job over other qualified candidates. If used that technique myself. Few if any applicants ever ask a company or its personal what is needed and wanted from them and if you do, it set's you apart.
Lakey

I see where you tried to 'fit' the steps into the typical wog training process. The problem is that that is not what the formula says. The formula is used by CoS the way Hubbard intended and that you criticized above. The formula is a hatting formula for a new person. Since it misunderstands the persons true skills, status, and abilities, then the formula is a reductive one which lacks what is needed to succeed. The only way to fit it is to add things to it which are not in the formula or its description. Assumptions must be made.

I saw what you saw too but the formula itself does not account for those things at all and, to the contrary as you said, throws people into positions who are not qualified and throws them away willy nilly.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hubbard devised the concept of looking up words? Did Hubbard also invent philosophy, ethics or communication? So when is Harvard going to put up a plaque in his honor?

At most he took words, communication, ethics, philosophy, and reduced these to platitudes and therefore ruined the use of them as concepts.

Pick something unique that only Hubbard invented, discovered, and did and get back to me so as to properly credit him and/or continue the argument on a more solid footing with clear examples.
While we are at it, let's not forget to credit DM for decorating Flag and orgs and doing a great job choosing paint colors!!!

Hey, but don't those that were harmed get any credit : since it was off their backs that the leisure was acquired to care for said pet dog, make trains run on time, and decorate Ideal orgs?
It's hard to warm to your logic in other words.

It seems my comments on DM were misunderstood, so let's review. Since the only way DM was able to enjoy decorating orgs and doing pointless things to make Ideal Orgs 'ideal' was on the back of the suffering of staff and public then any of his 'successes' are actually not at all successful but disgusting.

Sure, Hitler could be a good pet owner in the luxury of his villa, one he was afforded by ruling a country through tyranny. That very fact obviates his good little qualities...oh say...taking out the neighbor's trash or some other BS.

DM has no redeeming qualities until such day as he repents of all the harm he has done and actually makes up for it in spades. This will NEVER happen since I suspect a) he knows such a gesture would not cause anyone to forgive or accept him anyway b) he'd end up in jail upon admitting what he has done and no one wants to admit such things and have such a severe lifestyle change - going from head decorator of the orgs to prison toilet cleaner. And c) power corrupts absolutely and since he has it he'll hold onto it until he dies or loses it. Finally d) delusional = doesn't realize what he is.

I am trying to think of a time in history when a tyrant had a change of heart...but so far no example comes to me?? I can hardly feel comforted that Hitler was a wonderful pet owner for Blonde. In fact, I feel sorry for Blonde to have such a terrible owner.

But of course we do admire tyrants...they are sexy in a weird sado-masochistic way befitting this world of 'entertainment'. So I do understand the admiration for DM or Hitler and their successes, admiration that some here on the thread might have....


In the end it doesn't matter. CoS would suck anyway, just because of its 'source' so the fact DM is now the leader is predictable....

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am certainly not against that FZ folks come up with unique things that work. In fact, so far the only things I do hear about that are unique and work come from FZ or indie. But I have yet to hear of a Hubbard procedure that is not flawed.

Since I have no idea what the Integrity program thing is, I can't evaluate it. Anyway, why would I since the topic was Hubbard and his own reduction of reality to a bunch of trite platitudes, not the topic of FZ, where I know that nice people like Terril are doing stuff.

If anything, my tearing apart of the 'tech' or 'ethics' or whatever is useful for the FZ and others [if they think so or even care] since it suggests other, alternate paths to take which are not messed up in those ways.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Very, very cute little bullshit meter. That is really very very funny!!

I know that no matter what Hubbard creation I write down, you will speak negatively of it.

I liked the KRC triangle. Knowledge, Responsibility and Control. The theory was that the 3 corners were interrelated. Por ejemplo (for example) If you raised your knowledge in an area that would help one to control the area better. If you raised your responsibility over an area that would also contribute to better control.

If a person took control of an area and was having trouble, this little triangle told him that he either had to increase his knowledge in the area or if his knowledge was adequate he needed to assume more responsibility over the area.

I used this triangle repeatedly while I was there and it always worked for me. Even right know, the simplicity of the triangle and its ease of use is cheering me up.

Look at the Obama administration, they are seeking more and more control over our lives but the knowledge which they are using, Progressive and Marxist like theologies, are not true knowledge but just political clap trap.

That want to control poverty and reduce the number of people in the US under the poverty level of income. Their knowledge is all wrong. Redistribute the wealth, put 55 million people on food stamps, raise minimum wage to $15 an hour, do sit ins on Wall Street. All the knowledge which they are using is incorrect knowledge and so poverty becomes even more rampant during such an administration. That is an example of how the KRC triangle works in reverse.

A correct approach would be to relax regulations and reduce taxes for small businesses so that they will have more money to start hiring low and middle range wage earners. Applying that true knowledge would enable the government to reduce poverty by creating more jobs for poor people.

Probably you are going to mow me down and pour water on my parade. If and when you do, would you please be specific and illustrate specifically how a judicious use of this triangle could lead to less control in an area.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Very, very cute little bullshit meter. That is really very very funny!!

I know that no matter what Hubbard creation I write down, you will speak negatively of it.

I liked the KRC triangle. Knowledge, Responsibility and Control. The theory was that the 3 corners were interrelated. Por ejemplo (for example) If you raised your knowledge in an area that would help one to control the area better. If you raised your responsibility over an area that would also contribute to better control.

If a person took control of an area and was having trouble, this little triangle told him that he either had to increase his knowledge in the area or if his knowledge was adequate he needed to assume more responsibility over the area.

I used this triangle repeatedly while I was there and it always worked for me. Even right know, the simplicity of the triangle and its ease of use is cheering me up.

Look at the Obama administration, they are seeking more and more control over our lives but the knowledge which they are using, Progressive and Marxist like theologies, are not true knowledge but just political clap trap.

That want to control poverty and reduce the number of people in the US under the poverty level of income. Their knowledge is all wrong. Redistribute the wealth, put 55 million people on food stamps, raise minimum wage to $15 an hour, do sit ins on Wall Street. All the knowledge which they are using is incorrect knowledge and so poverty becomes even more rampant during such an administration. That is an example of how the KRC triangle works in reverse.

A correct approach would be to relax regulations and reduce taxes for small businesses so that they will have more money to start hiring low and middle range wage earners. Applying that true knowledge would enable the government to reduce poverty by creating more jobs for poor people.

Probably you are going to mow me down and pour water on my parade. If and when you do, would you please be specific and illustrate specifically how a judicious use of this triangle could lead to less control in an area.
Lakey

Those triangles come from Crowley....and I've written my opinion on that in a blog post somewhere....

"Do as thou wilt" is all I can say.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am certainly not against that FZ folks come up with unique things that work. In fact, so far the only things I do hear about that are unique and work come from FZ or indie. But I have yet to hear of a Hubbard procedure that is not flawed.

Since I have no idea what the Integrity program thing is, I can't evaluate it. Anyway, why would I since the topic was Hubbard and his own reduction of reality to a bunch of trite platitudes, not the topic of FZ, where I know that nice people like Terril are doing stuff.

If anything, my tearing apart of the 'tech' or 'ethics' or whatever is useful for the FZ and others [if they think so or even care] since it suggests other, alternate paths to take which are not messed up in those ways.

I believe the Mary being referred to is Mary Freeman, and if so, it is a kind of ethics rundown. I've seen someone here say she knew someone who'd done it and liked it.