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

[FoTi]

Thank you!

would you be willing to say some particulars?

what exactly is it that we are doing right?

It's just a very interesting thread....lots of info and stories.....other people's experiences and knowledge....other than my own. I like to hear about other people's life experiences and knowledge. I guess I would say what you're doing right is just speaking out, expressing yourselves and sharing your life experiences and knowledge with others. I find this valuable. I don't know what else to say other than I'm enjoying reading this thread. :confused2:

 

[Blue Spirit]

Justifications

Something decent has to exist within a group to attract practioners of her calibur to join, train hard to learn the technologies of that group and work hard to apply those technologies to others for almost no pay. [/B]
Lakey
P.S. I wrote the above without first reading Carmelo's Ant Phillips' post. I agree with that post. You know, I have been condeming LRH for not applying the right formula to ensure that the best possible successor took over C of S after he dropped his body. Phil, from Blue Spirit's Party on Saturday claimed LRH was in full control all the way to the end.. I posed the above question and Phil, who says he was in the room with LRH's dead body, and was still able to communicate with LRH as a being, claims he asked LRH, the Spirit, the same question and LRH responded something like, "Why me?" Why is it always me who has to do the work? You guys find your own successor." I challenged this based on the concept that the road to Truth is the only road that must be walked all the way. You can not get off the road, right at the very end.

Phil countered that perhaps LRH thought it best that those in the Church pick their own successor, knowing full well that what has happened in fact might well happen. He posed the concept that if we have to live through a bad regime and then take the steps to reformat the Church and oust the bad regime, then we may end up further ahead than we would had he appointed the best possible successors for all his hats. I agreed that there was a lesson to be learned from living through the current debacle but posting the best possible successors would have been preferable in my opinion.

The severe problem with Phil is that he cannot LOOK at anything bad or evil or failed case items of LRH whatsoever, and knew him in his "heyday" of 1946-1954. He therefore cannot see that LRH made a monumental failure to do any sort of safe Power Change Formula to turn over the "Church" but simply desperately hung onto it until it it was rather easily ripped off from him because LRH let his physical and mental health deteriorate so badly.
The fact of him being in better shape mentally after dropping his body is not a
surprise and does not demonstrate no case, Phil.

Phil also has not and will not read the complete story of LRH now available, particularly for this discussion of his megalomaniac tendencies of getting rid of any beings bigger then himself in reactive fits of jealousy. Therefore who was left
to run the CO$ ? Certainly Pat Broeker was not of that caliber. He should have had Alan Walter running things from about 1970 onward, or Ray Kemp, or ? Really any of the Mission Chain holders would have been able to do a better job.

I have also seen directly that LRH still likes to leave the space of anyone who is negative even tangentially to him, leaving only those with a one-sided positive viewpoint to him, which to my mind is a little sycophantic of those so inclined.
My hope is that LRH will be brought to confronting his full case soon, even the grades level stuff, which I do not think is resolved.
He has a high theta endowment, so readily moves case aside, rather than addressing it.
This is also true of other big beings, for instance Alan Walter, who left some case blind spots.
It can be hard to see one's own case blind spots.
One of Alan's was that he could not grant fellow researchers their deserved beingness and credit when they contributed useful and adopted tech, although the large majority was Alan's, perhaps unlike LRH.

At the time Lakey was having this comm I was talking to someone else, otherwise I'd have jumped in.

Phil has been trying to figure out for many years why and what LRH did from a fixed idea that he was near-perfect and couldn't make any serious mistakes. This doesn't get at the truth in my opinion.

 

[cakemaker]

Lakey,

this was posted by a friend to a very small obscure list:

it obliquely answers whether to thank Ron for tech or be angry at him for the full battery of his actions:

Which LRH valence are you in?

I think I am in the iconoclastic LRH valence, that made a living by writing various types of fiction that fitted a public reality, that cocked a snook (thumbed his nose) at authority, that judged by results and not by whether a procedure fitted a theory, that said (as late as 1959) that Trs are a substitute for professionalism

Another LRH valence (or LRH) determined that a c/s should flunk a session with good results if the auditor was not following standard procedure, that HGC auditors should do daily TRs before auditing, regardless of their professionalism (perhaps auditors were glad for that little breathing space ), that used the term "squirrel" for any one not doing what he wanted them to do, that tended to rule with a rod of iron and overboarded people not towing his line.

There is a gradient scale of LRHs (or LRH valences) stretching from the friendly iconoclastic I favour, to the complete opterm (opposite) of that. It is a big gradient. Rather than sit back and judge where ____ is on that scale, why not assess where you are?

We are a small minority in this world who understand and set a high value on some (perhaps many) of the things we have inherited from genius LRH. And we have different views, in my opinion, from the iconoclastic Ron to the authority Ron. My hope is that we can continue to grant beingness to each other, and be what a Ron condemned (did he have a misunderstood? ): open minded.

written by Ant Phillips

Along this line, I´ve often thought that LRH was able to observe his own case and then step back 3 feet behind to spot what was going on. Some of the valences blew and some didn´t.

I found this rather interesting reference in HCOB 11 May 65,

Up scale to a degree from the NO SOURCE case is the TOTAL SOURCE CASE, the case which is pretending to be total source when obviously the person is not. Here we have the megalomaniac, the self- assertive case, the pathological braggart, and the guilt case. Such cases think they cause everything or pretend to cause everything or think they have caused things they haven’t or pretend to cause things which they haven’t. Such cases are continuously making false assignments of cause. Such cases tend in two directions because they are “cause of everything,” they are guilty for all that has happened or is happening or because they are “cause of everything”, they are in a state of fighting everyone else in their environment as fancied threats to their own false cause. In the latter case falls the paranoid who is certain that he is being “done- in” because he is so important that the “FBI is after him.” Such a case, if he recognizes other source at all, recognizes it only as a threat to him or as a bad causation which only he can right.

Usually such cases as the TOTAL SOURCE case flip- flops between the two extremes in his considerations - “he is either a guilty, horrible, blameworthy creature” or “he is a genius, a fantastic being whom others are trying to get at.”

In auditing such a case as the TOTAL SOURCE case, the auditor for this preclear does not exist either, as such a preclear can admit of no other source or if the Auditor does exist, the Auditor is only to this preclear a source of distraction or a source of bad cause. If he is in propitiation to the Auditor, it will be those “above the Auditor” who are the source of bad cause.

What the Auditor must recognize and know about both the NO SOURCE case and the TOTAL SOURCE case, and the various harmonics of such as dramatized on various dynamics, is that neither case can as- is, either because there is no source at all or because source is mis- assigned. As- isness can only occur with the proper assignment of source or authorship. Since the ability to perceive source is the key to solving problems, such people have enormous numbers of problems, but never seem to describe the real problem; thus they seem quite baffling.¨

 

[lkwdblds]

To me, Blue, this is your best post ever.

The severe problem with Phil is that he cannot LOOK at anything bad or evil or failed case items of LRH whatsoever, and knew him in his "heyday" of 1946-1954. He therefore cannot see that LRH made a monumental failure to do any sort of safe Power Change Formula to turn over the "Church" but simply desperately hung onto it until it it was rather easily ripped off from him because LRH let his physical and mental health deteriorate so badly.
The fact of him being in better shape mentally after dropping his body is not a
surprise and does not demonstrate no case, Phil.

Phil also has not and will not read the complete story of LRH now available, particularly for this discussion of his megalomaniac tendencies of getting rid of any beings bigger then himself it reactive fits of jealousy. Therefore who was left
to run the CO$ ? Certainly Pat Broeker was not of that caliber. He should have had Alan Walter running things from about 1970 onward, or Ray Kemp, or ? Really any of the Mission Chain holders would have been able to do a better job.

I have also seen directly that LRH still likes to leave the space of anyone who is negative even tangentially to him, leaving only those with a one-sided positive viewpoint to him, which to my mind is a little sycophantic of those so inclined.
My hope is that LRH will be brought to confronting his full case soon, even the grades level stuff, which I do not think is resolved.
He has a high theta endowment, so readily moves case aside, rather than addressing it.
This is also true of other big beings, for instance Alan Walter, who left some
case blind spots. It can be hard to see one's own case blind spots.
One of Alan's was that he could not grant fellow researchers their deserved beingness and credit when they contributed useful and adopted tech.

At the time Lakey was having this comm I was talking to someone else, otherwise I'd have jumped in.

Phil has been trying to figure out for many years why and what LRH did from a fixed idea that he was near-perfect and couldn't make any serious mistakes. This doesn't get at the truth in my opinion.

Great post, Blue, your best ever as far as I am concerned. I picked up a lot of valuable data and incites reading this. Thanks! Perhaps you should have more dinner parties if these types of posts result right afterwards.

Just one little point to help others to understand Phil. Phil believes he is a returnee, having met LRH in his last life. He claims he was a wounded GI in Oak Knoll Naval Hospital whom LRH audited and they kept in touch and he was later processed in Hollywood when the turnaned Swami LRH ran some pretty advanced processes on him. Otherwise, Blue, people might figure we are talking about a very old man here, a guy well into his 80's and Phil is just middle aged, not that old.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

I am a cohost here and I am fine with what you say!

It's just a very interesting thread....lots of info and stories.....other people's experiences and knowledge....other than my own. I like to hear about other people's life experiences and knowledge.

I guess I would say what you're doing right is just speaking out, expressing yourselves and sharing your life experiences and knowledge with others. I find this valuable. I don't know what else to say other than I'm enjoying reading this thread. :confused2:

I am a cohost here and what you are saying about our thread is just exactly the type of reaction which I am trying to produce on intelligent and well informed ESMB members such as yourself plus lurkers either from outside of Scn who are just studying it or from people still in C of S who are willing to look at other viewpoints. I feel no overt against C of S for putting up other points of view, I served in the Sea Org and wanted to make it my life's work but they offloaded me and told me I was insane, imcompetent and a degraded being plus I was accused falsely of embezzling furnds from my Org's Treasury. Part of my reason for writing here is to show them that I was a potentially valuabe asset to them who should have been coddled and enhanced and they were wrong in all 4 of their accusations against me. Actually, the time since I proved that to myself has long since past and proving anything to Ing Management is no longer of the slightest importance to me so that is no longer the reason why I post here.

I have some tech training but there are others much more highly trained than me in Scn and also other technologies, foremost of which is Knowledgism developed by ACW. I am handling the general type of stuff such as discussing events and personalities and telling stories and commenting on others stories. Then, I have recruited Sweetness and Light for various functions here as well such as thread hostess due to her bright and bubbly attitude towards life and her excellent people skills. Of course all 3 of us love to mix it up and comment on just about everything.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Cakemaker, you served up some delicious cake here!

Along this line, I´ve often thought that LRH was able to observe his own case and then step back 3 feet behind to spot what was going on. Some of the valences blew and some didn´t.

I found this rather interesting reference in HCOB 11 May 65,

Up scale to a degree from the NO SOURCE case is the TOTAL SOURCE CASE, the case which is pretending to be total source when obviously the person is not. Here we have the megalomaniac, the self- assertive case, the pathological braggart, and the guilt case. Such cases think they cause everything or pretend to cause everything or think they have caused things they haven’t or pretend to cause things which they haven’t. Such cases are continuously making false assignments of cause. Such cases tend in two directions because they are “cause of everything,” they are guilty for all that has happened or is happening or because they are “cause of everything”, they are in a state of fighting everyone else in their environment as fancied threats to their own false cause. In the latter case falls the paranoid who is certain that he is being “done- in” because he is so important that the “FBI is after him.” Such a case, if he recognizes other source at all, recognizes it only as a threat to him or as a bad causation which only he can right.

Usually such cases as the TOTAL SOURCE case flip- flops between the two extremes in his considerations - “he is either a guilty, horrible, blameworthy creature” or “he is a genius, a fantastic being whom others are trying to get at.”

In auditing such a case as the TOTAL SOURCE case, the auditor for this preclear does not exist either, as such a preclear can admit of no other source or if the Auditor does exist, the Auditor is only to this preclear a source of distraction or a source of bad cause. If he is in propitiation to the Auditor, it will be those “above the Auditor” who are the source of bad cause.

What the Auditor must recognize and know about both the NO SOURCE case and the TOTAL SOURCE case, and the various harmonics of such as dramatized on various dynamics, is that neither case can as- is, either because there is no source at all or because source is mis- assigned. As- isness can only occur with the proper assignment of source or authorship. Since the ability to perceive source is the key to solving problems, such people have enormous numbers of problems, but never seem to describe the real problem; thus they seem quite baffling.¨

Cakemaker, very refreshing and somewhat new points of view. You will have to share more of your "recipes" with us.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

50 Worst of the Worst (and Most Common) Job Interview Mistakes

50 Worst of the Worst (and Most Common) Job Interview Mistakes


From US News and World Report


Karen Burns, On Wednesday March 10, 2010, 11:56 am EST
You may have heard the horror stories--job hunters who take phone calls or text during an interview, or bring out a sandwich and start chomping, or brush their hair, or worse. You wouldn't do any of those things, would you? Of course not.

[See the best careers for 2010.]

But there are tons of other job interview no-no's you may not have thought of. Or that you've forgotten. The job hunting trail is long and arduous, and a little refresher course can't hurt. So for your edification and enjoyment, here are 50 (yes, 50!) of the worst and most common job interview mistakes:

[See how to answer 10 tricky interview questions.]

1. Arriving late.

2. Arriving too early.

3. Lighting up a cigarette, or smelling like a cigarette.

4. Bad-mouthing your last boss.

5. Lying about your skills/experience/knowledge.

6. Wearing the wrong (for this workplace!) clothes.

7. Forgetting the name of the person you're interviewing with.

8. Wearing a ton of perfume or aftershave.

9. Wearing sunglasses.

10. Wearing a Bluetooth earpiece.

11. Failing to research the employer in advance.

12. Failing to demonstrate enthusiasm.

13. Inquiring about benefits too soon.

14. Talking about salary requirements too soon.

15. Being unable to explain how your strengths and abilities apply to the job in question.

16. Failing to make a strong case for why you are the best person for this job.

17. Forgetting to bring a copy of your resume and/or portfolio.

18. Failing to remember what you wrote on your own resume.

19. Asking too many questions.

20. Asking no questions at all.

21. Being unprepared to answer the standard questions.

22. Failing to listen carefully to what the interviewer is saying.

23. Talking more than half the time.

24. Interrupting your interviewer.

25. Neglecting to match the communication style of your interviewer.

26. Yawning.

27. Slouching.

28. Bringing along a friend, or your mother.

29. Chewing gum, tobacco, your pen, your hair.

30. Laughing, giggling, whistling, humming, lip-smacking.

31. Saying "you know," "like," "I guess," and "um."

32. Name-dropping or bragging or sounding like a know-it-all.

33. Asking to use the bathroom.

34. Being falsely or exaggeratedly modest.

35. Shaking hands too weakly, or too firmly.

36. Failing to make eye contact (or making continuous eye contact).

37. Taking a seat before your interviewer does.

38. Becoming angry or defensive.

39. Complaining that you were kept waiting.

40. Complaining about anything!

41. Speaking rudely to the receptionist.

42. Letting your nervousness show.

43. Overexplaining why you lost your last job.

44. Being too familiar and jokey.

45. Sounding desperate.

46. Checking the time.

47. Oversharing.

48. Sounding rehearsed.

49. Leaving your cell phone on.

50. Failing to ask for the job.

Karen Burns is the author of the illustrated career advice book The Amazing Adventures of Working Girl: Real-Life Career Advice You Can Actually Use, recently released by Running Press. She blogs at www.karenburnsworkinggirl.com.

 

[Blue Spirit]

An Added Early Observation

Great post, Blue, your best ever as far as I am concerned. I picked up a lot of valuable data and incites reading this. Thanks! Perhaps you should have more dinner parties if these types of posts result right afterwards.

Just one little point to help others to understand Phil. Phil believes he is a returnee, having met LRH in his last life. He claims he was a wounded GI in Oak Knoll Naval Hospital whom LRH audited and they kept in touch and he was later processed in Hollywood when the turnaned Swami LRH ran some pretty advanced processes on him. Otherwise, Blue, people might figure we are talking about a very old man here, a guy well into his 80's and Phil is just middle aged, not that old.
Lakey

Thanks Lakey. I didn't realize that the Corned Beef was that good to bribe you so well !

An added note is from a recent newbie whose nick I forget. He said he was in
Hollywood too with LRH and was rather upset that LRH took away his mechanism for making mental pictures totally and it made life hard, and seemed to me to be out-gradient. He still is not happy.

Speaking of out-gradients, there are a lot of early comrades of LRH who died shortly following their out-gradient early OT processes. It comes up over and over. Phil is one and he specializes in finding others and is good at it.

He has a seminar coming up to repair past-life clears of which he is the most skilled. There has been a long period where this was suppressed in the CO$.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

The Secret to Having Happy Employees
by Jay Goltz
Thursday, March 11, 2010

About 10 years ago I was having my annual holiday party, and my niece had come with her newly minted M.B.A. boyfriend. As he looked around the room, he noted that my employees seemed happy. I told him that I thought they were.

Then, figuring I would take his new degree for a test drive, I asked him how he thought I did that. "I'm sure you treat them well," he replied.

"That's half of it," I said. "Do you know what the other half is?"

He didn't have the answer, and neither have the many other people that I have told this story. So what is the answer? I fired the unhappy people. People usually laugh at this point. I wish I were kidding.
I'm not. I have learned the long, hard and frustrating way that as a manager you cannot make everyone happy. You can try, you can listen, you can solve some problems, you can try some more. Good management requires training, counseling and patience, but there comes a point when you are robbing the business of precious time and energy.

Don't get me wrong. This doesn't happen a lot. There's no joy in the act of firing someone. And it's not always the employee's fault — there are many bad bosses out there. Bad management can make a good employee dysfunctional. On the other hand, good management will not always make a dysfunctional employee good. And sometimes people who would be great employees somewhere else just don't fit your company, whether it is the type of business or the company culture.

In the worst cases, the problem of a bad fit can have a bigger impact than just one employee's performance. Being in charge does not necessarily mean you are in control, and being in control does not necessarily mean being in charge. Have you ever seen a company or department paralyzed by someone who is unhappy and wants to take hostages? It is remarkable how much damage one person can do. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you watch "The Caine Mutiny." Basically, one guy takes apart the ship. He was unhappy. It only takes one.

This is only my opinion. I don't have a Ph.D., an M.B.A., or even an economics degree. What I do have is a happy company. And that makes me happy. Now I know some people argue that business is about making money, and not everyone has to be happy. That is also an opinion. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion. When you own a company, you also have the right to surround yourself with the people you choose.

I have spent the last year and a half focusing on cutting costs, figuring out how the market has changed, and worrying about the economy. Things seem to be getting better, or perhaps I am just getting used to it.

Either way, I had a good day today. Not because I got a big order, great financial reports or even an employee stopping by to tell me what an awesome boss I am. (That generally doesn't happen. You have to tell yourself. It's a boss thing.) I had a great day because I spent most of it walking around the company and appreciating the fact that even after a year and a half of soft sales and cutbacks and furloughs, I have wonderful people working for me. They care. They are committed. They understand the whole customer–staff–company triangle, where all of the legs support each other.

If you read books on great companies, they usually leave out a dirty little secret. It doesn't make for good public relations — like talking about how you "empower people" or how your "greatest assets" are your people. Both of these well–worn clichés are true. What is also true is that it's hard to build a great company with the wrong people.

When you have the right people, business is much easier. I know because I have tried it both ways.

Jay Goltz owns five small businesses in Chicago.

Just saying for all of those grumpy guts out there (you know who you are), I've never been fired yet!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Howdy! Fo Tiddely!

I L O V E this thread!

Reallly interesting.

Thanks, Fo Ti, we love it too! Welcome, always glad to have another viewpoint on things!

 

[Leon]

Along this line, I´ve often thought that LRH was able to observe his own case and then step back 3 feet behind to spot what was going on. Some of the valences blew and some didn´t.

I found this rather interesting reference in HCOB 11 May 65,

Up scale to a degree from the NO SOURCE case is the TOTAL SOURCE CASE, the case which is pretending to be total source when obviously the person is not. Here we have the megalomaniac, the self- assertive case, the pathological braggart, and the guilt case. Such cases think they cause everything or pretend to cause everything or think they have caused things they haven’t or pretend to cause things which they haven’t. Such cases are continuously making false assignments of cause. Such cases tend in two directions because they are “cause of everything,” they are guilty for all that has happened or is happening or because they are “cause of everything”, they are in a state of fighting everyone else in their environment as fancied threats to their own false cause. In the latter case falls the paranoid who is certain that he is being “done- in” because he is so important that the “FBI is after him.” Such a case, if he recognizes other source at all, recognizes it only as a threat to him or as a bad causation which only he can right.

Usually such cases as the TOTAL SOURCE case flip- flops between the two extremes in his considerations - “he is either a guilty, horrible, blameworthy creature” or “he is a genius, a fantastic being whom others are trying to get at.”

In auditing such a case as the TOTAL SOURCE case, the auditor for this preclear does not exist either, as such a preclear can admit of no other source or if the Auditor does exist, the Auditor is only to this preclear a source of distraction or a source of bad cause. If he is in propitiation to the Auditor, it will be those “above the Auditor” who are the source of bad cause.

What the Auditor must recognize and know about both the NO SOURCE case and the TOTAL SOURCE case, and the various harmonics of such as dramatized on various dynamics, is that neither case can as- is, either because there is no source at all or because source is mis- assigned. As- isness can only occur with the proper assignment of source or authorship. Since the ability to perceive source is the key to solving problems, such people have enormous numbers of problems, but never seem to describe the real problem; thus they seem quite baffling.¨

Actually I was quite shattered when I first read it. That he could write such an accurate description of himself and yet not spot that it was his own case . . . !

My jaw still drops at the thought of it.

 

[cakemaker]

Actually I was quite shattered when I first read it. That he could write such an accurate description of himself and yet not spot that it was his own case . . . !

My jaw still drops at the thought of it.

My thoughts exactly!

I would be interested in hearing from a trained tech viewpoint why it wouldn't have blown.

It seems clear that he knew he was writing an exact description of himself. The choice of words is telling.

To me, there are three possibilities:
- he didn't consider it described him
- some other tech reason kept him from realizing he was in that valence and thus blowing charge
- he was consciously and knowingly mocking up that valence for his own game.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

It's just a very interesting thread....lots of info and stories.....other people's experiences and knowledge....other than my own. I like to hear about other people's life experiences and knowledge. I guess I would say what you're doing right is just speaking out, expressing yourselves and sharing your life experiences and knowledge with others. I find this valuable. I don't know what else to say other than I'm enjoying reading this thread. :confused2:

Thank you. Several hundred people read this thread nearly every day. They don't post , send PMs. It's hard to know what is drawing all that much consistent attention.

 

[Ted]

My thoughts exactly!

I would be interested in hearing from a trained tech viewpoint why it wouldn't have blown.

It seems clear that he knew he was writing an exact description of himself. The choice of words is telling.

To me, there are three possibilities:
- he didn't consider it described him
- some other tech reason kept him from realizing he was in that valence and thus blowing charge
- he was consciously and knowingly mocking up that valence for his own game.

The answers you seek are not to be found in scientology.

I suggest you make a study of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Here is an excellent reference: <http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html>

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

The answers you seek are not to be found in scientology.

I suggest you make a study of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Here is an excellent reference: <http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html>

It's 4 AM, your time. Do you know where your thetan is?

 

[lkwdblds]

The May 11, 1965 HCOB

Along this line, I´ve often thought that LRH was able to observe his own case and then step back 3 feet behind to spot what was going on. Some of the valences blew and some didn´t.

I found this rather interesting reference in HCOB 11 May 65,

Up scale to a degree from the NO SOURCE case is the TOTAL SOURCE CASE, the case which is pretending to be total source when obviously the person is not. Here we have the megalomaniac, the self- assertive case, the pathological braggart, and the guilt case. Such cases think they cause everything or pretend to cause everything or think they have caused things they haven’t or pretend to cause things which they haven’t. Such cases are continuously making false assignments of cause. Such cases tend in two directions because they are “cause of everything,” they are guilty for all that has happened or is happening or because they are “cause of everything”, they are in a state of fighting everyone else in their environment as fancied threats to their own false cause. In the latter case falls the paranoid who is certain that he is being “done- in” because he is so important that the “FBI is after him.” Such a case, if he recognizes other source at all, recognizes it only as a threat to him or as a bad causation which only he can right.

Usually such cases as the TOTAL SOURCE case flip- flops between the two extremes in his considerations - “he is either a guilty, horrible, blameworthy creature” or “he is a genius, a fantastic being whom others are trying to get at.”

In auditing such a case as the TOTAL SOURCE case, the auditor for this preclear does not exist either, as such a preclear can admit of no other source or if the Auditor does exist, the Auditor is only to this preclear a source of distraction or a source of bad cause. If he is in propitiation to the Auditor, it will be those “above the Auditor” who are the source of bad cause.

What the Auditor must recognize and know about both the NO SOURCE case and the TOTAL SOURCE case, and the various harmonics of such as dramatized on various dynamics, is that neither case can as- is, either because there is no source at all or because source is mis- assigned. As- isness can only occur with the proper assignment of source or authorship. Since the ability to perceive source is the key to solving problems, such people have enormous numbers of problems, but never seem to describe the real problem; thus they seem quite baffling.¨

I reread this remarkable HCOB, 11 May 1965, in a new unit of time. It is almost akin to Ron saying, Okay, this is who I am and the highlights of my method of operation. I'm only going to say these things once but by saying them just once, it lets me off the hook for enslaving you all and messing up your minds. Consider yourselves forewarned!

Ron only distributed this data to a few well trained people so paragraph one, above, is not valid. He did not forewarn us.


Ron is saying, "For those of you who don't want to further take this journey with me, this is your opportunity to opt out, so if you choose to stay in, consider yourself forewarned. If you stay with me, after properly being informed of where I am taking you, you do so at your own risk and will have no cause to complain when things go wrong. "

Paragraph two is no longer valid.

He emphasis is that as-isness can only occur with the proper assignment of source or authorship. He says flat out that the TOTAL SOURCE CASE can not as-is because of its mis-assignment of authorship. He says these things flat out PLAIN AND SIMPLE. He is admitting that can not make case gain for himself through auditing because he is claiming to be TOTAL SOURCE and he is not.

WHAT HE DOES NOT SAY AND MOST PEOPLE OVERLOOK IS A COROLLARY TO HIS MISASSIGNMENT OF HIMSELF AS SOURCE. This corollary is that if you agree that HUBBARD is SOURCE then you are also misassgning ownership and you will not be able to as-is anything either. ONLY BY NOT AGREEING THAT HUBBARD IS SOURCE CAN YOU EVEN POSSIBLY HOPE TO MAKE GAINS IN SCIENTOLOGY OR ANY OTHER FORM OF THERAPY OR WISDOM! However, if you do not agree that Hubbard is Source and make that known, you will be kicked out of Scientology as an SP.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 can remain just as technical facts but do not tie in to any other story.

SUMMARY - TO THIS POINT
1. Hubbard has revealed the true highlights of his "game book" No longer true on a broad scale.
2. Hubbard has thereby given astute readers an opportunity to opt out. No longer true.
3. Hubbard has revealed that he is not TOTAL SOURCE, that is only a valence of his. Still true but limited distribution
4. A corollary of misassignment of source is that one loses the ability to as-is. Still true.
5. Hubbard admits that he is in the condition of item #4 and is moving forward with his game in spite of this. Okay.
The discerning reader of 11 May 1965 should be able to see that if they go along with Hubbard as a False Source, they too will not be able to as-is. No longer valid

HUBBARD'S SUMMARY - Hubbard reaches this conclusion, "I have upheld my integrity by informing others who I am and that I can not as-is my case. Further, the worthy and discerning of my followers should now be able to figure out that if they stay with me, they will also lose their ability to as-is their cases." Those not at least up to that level of awareness are not going to be coddled by me, thus preventing me from pursuing my game. If they are dumb enought to stay signed on with me, after I revealed my Game Plan, then the Hell with them. They are fit for nothing better than being my slaves. I will move forward and play my game and they will assist me, do my dirty work and will contribute funds and defense towards defending my game.

Since Hubbard did not broadly release this data, the above paragraph is not valid.

MY SUMMARY - I never read 11 May 65 but even if I had, I would not have duplicated it fully and would have stayed in. When things blew up for me on the Apollo, had I known this data, I would have left the Apollo and the Sea Org even earlier than I did and would not have been as messed up mentally as I was when I left nor would I have stayed in Scn for nearly 30 more years.

A few people were astute enough to reach the proper conclusions here and opt out. This might include McMaster, Horner, perhaps Urquhart, perhaps the Kemps, Alan finally opted out, probably Roger, apparently Carmelo, probably Gadfly and Vinaire. Look who stayed in, Mary Sue Hubbard, she remained loyal to the end and Hubbard trashed her for it, allowing her to serve in jail for something he instigated. Mayo was true to Hubbard for years and Hubbard abondoned and trashed him instead of giving him protection when he was attacked by RTC. Yvonne Jentzsch was totally dedicated until the end and LRH's reward was to pull power away from her and demote her. Rank and File Sea Org were trashed, and RPF members who totally submitted to Hubbard's will as SOURCE were trashed worse than anyone else. Brand new Cognition right now! I believe that the more one slavishly devoted oneself to LRH, the more he despised you. He could not show it openly for Promo reasons but behind the grinning face of Hubbard, the most loyal loyalists were looked upon by him as the weakest of beings who he had duped into selling out their beingness to serve his game as FALSE SOURCE. He hated weak beings and treated them as if they were chattle. He did with them whatever he liked, Governmental Laws be damned, and he felt they deserved no better. The last two paragraphs can still stand as is.
Lakey

 

[RogerB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
Actually I was quite shattered when I first read it. That he could write such an accurate description of himself and yet not spot that it was his own case . . . !

My jaw still drops at the thought of it.

My thoughts exactly!

I would be interested in hearing from a trained tech viewpoint why it wouldn't have blown.

It seems clear that he knew he was writing an exact description of himself. The choice of words is telling.

To me, there are three possibilities:
- he didn't consider it described him
- some other tech reason kept him from realizing he was in that valence and thus blowing charge
- he was consciously and knowingly mocking up that valence for his own game.

Well, Cakemaker . . . .

I would say it is because LRH never got a glimpse of the prior, higher level positive position of truth on the subject . . . a position from which he could have viewed as-is, resolved and blown the insanity.

What he describes in that HCOB is all the negativity . . . the aberrated condition of existence . . . the conflicts between "compulsive and/or delusional all source" and "inability to be source"; and the resultant conflicts between opposed sources, etc., etc.

And what is the higher level, earlier positive truth on the subject?

How about mutual cause; cooperative cause, co-creative cause carried out by Beings acting as one?

Any of you guys who've enjoyed magical love, or been in musical groups, or in brilliant winning sports teams will have on occasion enjoyed the beauty and thrill of honored and appreciated co-creation . . . . a co-creation that honors the co-contribution of the other source(s) to the goings on.

There is an early universe and state of Being where this magic was the "real deal."

Our loss of and departure from it was rather catastrophic and painful . . . and the dramatization of it, the negative scenario of having departed from it, is the mess of the aberrated conflictive existence LRH describes.

Had he spotted and correctly processed the prior, higher level positive scenario correctly, he would have risen out of the aberration of the "sole source," "all source," "can't be source" conflict with existence.

Roger

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

This came as a couple of e mails today. You might call them a non provable success story or a talk about standard tech versus newer thinking.

it is from Ant Phillips to a Standard Tech adherent.


Dear ______,

I am not sure whether you are interested in anything other than making non standard tech wrong. However, if you are concerned about my cancer, and have time, I'd invite you to look at the fuller story of the growth and vanquishment of an aberration the video, or the mp3 files at
http://www.antology.info/video.html

You need only listen to the five mp3 files (the two videos just duplicate the first two). The funny thing is that when I made them, I was concerned about describing the growth and handling of an aberration, and I completely forgot the cancer, until a few months afterwards, so

http://www.antology.info/mp3/Ant5.mp3

is an afterthought, when I realised I had left the cancer bit out

Hope you are interested, and find it of some value, perhaps only to the degree of ability to grant beingness to a viewpoint other than your own, the viewpoint of others who share with you a big respect for LRH and his work..

WWW.antology.info , is not yet announced to FrezoneAlliance - I will do that in about a week.

At 22:11 15-03-2010, _______. wrote [re my cancer]:
One other thing Ant, were you medically diagnosed?


Dear ______, I wonder why you ask? I have no evidence that "distant auditing" handled cancer, just that the two things happened at the same time - might have been co-incidence.

What happened was that while I was under full anaesthetic for removing the first cancer, the removed cancer was taken to the hospital laboratory, where it was found that it was malignant, so they took an extra layer away to make sure, while I was still under anaesthetic. The doctor told me this when I came to. Later a second cancer grew, was removed, under local anaesthetic, and I got to hear later that it was also malignant. In neither cases was it in writing, and we all know that Policy states "If it is not written it is not true" or something like that. I had an appointment later for a third growth to be removed, during the waiting period it slowly vanished so I cancelled the operation (but still had an examination of my penis). Since it was gone, no one could examine it and say if it was or was not cancer. So I guess you have made your point, if that was what you wanted, there is no evidence that distant auditing removed/healed a cancer.

My thoughts on cancer are that stress and charge can predispose one to a medical condition, they can precipitate a medical condition, and they can prolong the healing process of a medical condition. If some one has his or her attention on his or her case, and is willing to talk to an auditor, who, for example might ask if anything had been suppressed, part of the prepcheck procedure, then stress or charge can be released.

If it occurs over a distance, if precise model session has been used, if a meter is used, if session records are kept acording to recognised practice and if the auditors chair is placed nearer the door than the preclears, is of far less importance than the person being interested in case, and willing to talk to the other person (perhaps a friend, not regarded as an "auditor"). I am concerned to see that fellow human beings are relieved of charge, whatever way it happens.

Briefly, concentration on standard tech can obscure the importance of basic auditing principles.

 

[Leon]

Lakey -

That HCOB is from the Power Processing pack and so was available only to guys doing the Class 7 Course. So the idea of LRH "making a statement" here doesn't work. Also this is why you would not have seen it before. It was well hidden. I don't know who brought it out of the closet. I first saw it in about 1987 or 8.

 

[cakemaker]

Well, Cakemaker . . . .

I would say it is because LRH never got a glimpse of the prior, higher level positive position of truth on the subject . . . a position from which he could have viewed as-is, resolved and blown the insanity.

What he describes in that HCOB is all the negativity . . . the aberrated condition of existence . . . the conflicts between "compulsive and/or delusional all source" and "inability to be source"; and the resultant conflicts between opposed sources, etc., etc.

And what is the higher level, earlier positive truth on the subject?

How about mutual cause; cooperative cause, co-creative cause carried out by Beings acting as one?

Any of you guys who've enjoyed magical love, or been in musical groups, or in brilliant winning sports teams will have on occasion enjoyed the beauty and thrill of honored and appreciated co-creation . . . . a co-creation that honors the co-contribution of the other source(s) to the goings on.

There is an early universe and state of Being where this magic was the "real deal."

Our loss of and departure from it was rather catastrophic and painful . . . and the dramatization of it, the negative scenario of having departed from it, is the mess of the aberrated conflictive existence LRH describes.

Had he spotted and correctly processed the prior, higher level positive scenario correctly, he would have risen out of the aberration of the "sole source," "all source," "can't be source" conflict with existence.

Roger

I see what you mean, but one's viewpoint doesn't have to be at that level to blow charge otherwise auditing would never work at the lower levels of awareness.
Cooperative cause is a very interesting "prior"!

Lakey,
Thanks for your great input! Must ruminate.