What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gib

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for notifying us of the incident, Commander. Its good to hear that you are recovering and I am glad that you were able to apply dianetics and run the incident through a few times and get some relief.
Of course, your experience is just one single instance and it is anecdotal so, scientifically, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Anecdotal evidence does have a place in this world. If many people experience similar gains, it is a factor to consider.

To me, the most interesting anecdotal evidence is when someone goes to a big Jesus rally, such as those which were given by Billy Graham and they accept Jesus as their savior. There is no science there at all but more often then not, the person will shoot up to enthusiasm or exhilaration and often achieve some major healing and do much better in life, at least for a while. Billy's sermon worked like a charm and made the person happier. Here is a case where there is no scientific explanation but there are a very large number of anecdotal success stories. The gains have to be attributed to faith.

How can you blame someone for going this route? I never went for it because I have an obsession to seek out truths but even though I would not take that path myself, I have no bone to pick with those who do.

I believe in allowing a person to believe in and use whatever works for them as long as it doesn't hurt others. That's where I and a few others on ESMB differ with a large group of others. Many others, but far from all, demand compliance with their own personal beliefs. Hubbard might well be the poster boy for leaders demanding TOTAL compliance. I don't want to emulate Hubbard in this respect, however others who hate Hubbard and his tech are with him on this one important point, "Its my way or the highway!!!"

On last thing Commander, what is the prognosis for your recovery. Will you fully recover without any permanent injuries? I sure hope so! Keep us posted!
Lakey

There is one problem here Lakey,

CB didn't run the incident thru Dianetic procedure as CB said there were no words spoken thru the incident. And CB applied his technology and not Dianetic technology,

As CB says, no words were spoken.

Thus to run Dianetics means to get the words spoken during unconsciousness.

Have you ever recalled the exact words spoken to you while you were unconscious?

that would be hypnotic?

(which is the definition of an engram)
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

There is one problem here Lakey,

CB didn't run the incident thru Dianetic procedure as CB said there were no words spoken thru the incident. And CB applied his technology and not Dianetic technology,

As CB says, no words were spoken.

Thus to run Dianetics means to get the words spoken during unconsciousness.

The above statement was only true in Book One Dianetics from 1950. In subsequent versions it is not at all true, see my comments below for more details! Also, I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. In my post, I acknowledged CB for running the version of Dianetcs which he knows and is comfortable with and all my comments apply to him and his version of Dianetcs or to any person in general running the version that they know. My comments were not restricted to Book One Dianetics.

Gib, I did the 1970 version of the Dianetics Course at L.A. Org and CCLA and then NED (New Era Dianetics) and the NED Internship in 1971, and audited about 300 hours of Dianetics on others, mostly staff members. Those versions of standard Dianetics do not require that any words be spoken. You move a pc to an incident, tell him/her to scan through to the end of the incident and then tell you what happened. You take down what the pc says and acknowledge them. You take their data whether there are spoken words or not and keep going until certain end phenomena take place.

Your criticism is applicable only for Book One Dianetics. In that earliest version of Dianetics in 1950, words spoken in incidents were of major importance. Don't forget, that Book One Dianetic procedure functioned based on there being only one life. As going backtrack soon became part of Dianetics, the reliance on the spoken word was no longer plausible.

People were running incidents many eons ago, on other planets and in other galaxies. In a lot of those incidents people were often spirits without bodies so no spoken words were even possible. Also, few planets have a gaseous medium such as air for bodies to breathe and in a non gaseous or non liquid atmosphere, no sound is possible since sound waves require a medium for the waves to travel in.

I'm not saying that these types of things exist but Hubbard decreed that they did so people readily audited these types of incidents on Dianetics. In eons of years of incidents without bodies and/or without a planetary atmosphere, no sound was possible and yet spirits are said to have existed in these types of environments and played a game with both pleasure and pain. That is why when past lives entered into Dianetics, the subject had to be revised so that the emphasis was taken off of the spoken word.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, I did the 1970 version of the Dianetics Course at L.A. Org and CCLA and then NED (New Era Dianetics) and the NED Internship in 1971, and audited about 300 hours of Dianetics on others, mostly staff members. Those versions of standard Dianetics do not require that any words be spoken. You move a pc to an incident, tell him/her to scan through to the end of the incident and then tell you what happened. You take down what the pc says and acknowledge them. You take their data whether there are spoken words or not and keep going until certain end phenomena take place.

Your criticism is applicable only for Book One Dianetics.
In that earliest version of Dianetics in 1950, words spoken in incidents were of major importance. Don't forget, that Book One Dianetic procedure functioned based on there being only one life. As going backtrack soon became part of Dianetics, the reliance on the spoken word was no longer plausible.

People were running incidents many eons ago, on other planets and in other galaxies. In a lot of those incidents people were often spirits without bodies so no spoken words were even possible. Also, few planets have a gaseous medium such as air for bodies to breathe and in a non gaseous or non liquid atmosphere, no sound is possible since sound waves require a medium for the waves to travel in.

I'm not saying that these types of things exist but Hubbard decreed that they did so people readily audited these types of incidents on Dianetics. In eons of years of incidents without bodies and/or without a planetary atmosphere, no sound was possible and yet spirits are said to have existed in these types of environments and played a game with both pleasure and pain. That is why when past lives entered into Dianetics, the subject had to be revised so that the emphasis was taken off of the spoken word.
Lakey

yes, my criticism is to Book 1, for that is the book I read in 1986.

In that book, one could go "clear".

Why does they still sell the the book?
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

yes, my criticism is to Book 1, for that is the book I read in 1986.

In that book, one could go "clear".

Why does they still sell the the book?

Excellent question. My opinion, based on being S.O. for 2 years as well as attending book selling events after I went back to being public, is that Book 1 was a successful action. Hubbard called it a bolt out of the blue. For the better part of a year it led to a public boom. Hubbard would constantly bring up the subject of staffs selling Book 1 when stats were down BECAUSE Book 1 caused a boom in 1950 and Hubbard believed that it could cause some sort of boom each time a new edition was brought out.

Over the years there were many big promo pushes by COS to push Book #1. I remember around the mid 80's when COS was running Book #1 ads on the radio during the Angel's radio broadcasts. Of course, like everything they do, these book pushes were done unethically. COS management wanted to get back on top of the New York Times Best Seller List and so they did everything in their power to make that happen and they did succeed. Every once and a while, DMSMH got on the NY Times Top 10 list, making it to #1 a couple of times.

The problem was that the stat was not earned honestly. COS management forced their staff members and wealthy donors to buy thousands of books and those were what got them back onto the Top 10 List. Not enough new people were buying the books although, if you have a book on the N.Y. Times best seller list, you are going to pique the interest of the public and I'm sure that on that basis, many public did buy Book 1. One more point I want to make; every now and then, Book 1 auditing was pushed to the public. Mike Goldstein, the originator of the Idenics movement, just prior to doing Idenics, designed and put on a major Book 1 campaign, first at his Org in Denver and later, working in conjunction with Diana Hubbard, he put on a very successful Book 1 campaign at Flag. Some people still get gains from Book 1 auditng. BTW If you haven't done so you should read Mike's story of something like 19 chapters. It is really a great read. COS management highjacked his fantastic Book 1 course and watered it down to being stat driven instead of being driven by achieving gains for the people taking the course. After they did that, Book 1 has been pretty dormant. Lakey
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

< snip>. Mike Goldstein, the originator of the Idenics movement, just prior to doing Idenics, ......<snip> Lakey

Then there is this this...............by Mike Goldstein .............about John Galusha & Idenics: (Mote : I added the bold )

"On the morning of October 23, 1996, my best friend and partner for the last 16 years, John Galusha, passed on. In a life dedicated to helping others, John not only touched the lives of thousands of people but also had a profound effect on all who knew him, whether they knew him well or just briefly. I do not know of a single person encountering John whose existence was not bettered through their association.

John was born 77 years ago in Pueblo, Colorado. He was raised on a farm, in a time and community where life was simple. Where people were not sure where their next meal was coming from let alone have the comforts so many of us now enjoy. You either worked on a ranch or farm, or in the local steel mill. Life was hard, but nothing hardened or embittered John Galusha. He took pleasure in all things around him. With great interest he drank in everything. I know this by the way he would talk to me about things during that period of his life. I remember he once described the making of barbed wire at the steel mill, a subject I previously would have imagined to be boring beyond belief. Yet the way he talked about it I found myself not only interested, but actually fascinated. It was not so much the subject, but the enthusiasm with which John observed the world around him that intrigued me. The overpowering image I got from his stories was a strong, lean, tough young man who embraced life, whose attention was ever outward, not stuck in the introverted "head chewing" that so many of us occupy much of our lives doing. But the thing that fascinated John the most was people. John loved people, was deeply interested by them. He enjoyed watching them, listening to them and observing them, but not from some judgmental point of view. It was like a child watching a butterfly.

In the methodology of Idenics, a system that John developed many years later, the cornerstone of the subject is its nonjudgmental application, something that takes most practitioners some time to gain proficiency at doing. How John was able to do this so effortlessly has always amazed me. I think the application of Idenics is just an extension of the way John was naturally. He operated this way before Idenics, not only in the previous facilitations he delivered but also in how he dealt with people in life. He did not have to learn to be this way or really discover it, it was the way he always was. But it took time for him to recognize something that was as natural to him as breathing, and then learn to communicate it to others who exist in a world where such an application is so unnatural, even alien.

Having such an intense interest in people, John could not help noticing the misery and mental anguish that people were experiencing and he wanted to help them. But part of his unique character was that he did not consider he knew anything about people. This consideration, and his non-judging attitude, may be in part attributed to the fact that John did not have much personal reality on the mental difficulties that most of us experience. I remember once talking with John, and bringing up for discussion the difficulties people have with regard to how others think about them. He said that he was aware that people had such issues, but at the same time had trouble imagining it since he had never experienced such a condition himself. I recall being severely taken aback by his casual comment. I thought to myself, "What planet is this guy from who's never experienced feeling bad about what others thought of him!"

Wanting to help people but not considering he knew anything about them he looked to others for these answers. Perhaps someone else knew what "made people tick" and he could learn from them how to help others. John now embarked on a career that would span the next 45 years of his life.

In 1951 John ordered a book being advertised in a science fiction magazine. The book was "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health". His interest was not in resolving personal conditions, but in the possibility of helping others. He read the book once through, then again more thoroughly, and then started applying what he had learned with others and soon had his first auditing practice. In 1952 he went to Wichita to do the first Dianetics course being delivered by L. Ron Hubbard. After the course he stayed and began working with Hubbard and continued doing so as Hubbard moved to other cities such as Phoenix, Philadelphia, Camden and Washington DC. During these years John worked very closely with Hubbard in both technical delivery and research. John assisted in the training and processing areas of Hubbard's organizations as well as the supervision of technically specialized events such as the early Congresses, ACCs, and the first Philadelphia Doctorate Course which was delivered in Phoenix. Even though he was right in the middle of technical developments and delivery, John was content to be in the background and simply do his job. Being there, when the majority of the subject of Scientology was researched, he had no attention on being recognized for his contributions. It was as if part of him was in the center of an exciting time, yet another part of him was on the outside looking in, quietly observing. His interest was not in the politics, organization or finances, just in what he could use to help others. And as long as he felt he could do this according to his own integrity, he stayed. During his time on staff, John continued to deliver his own auditing on the side, a practice the Scientology organization frowned on. But Hubbard never interfered with John doing this. In fact, when Hubbard was too busy to audit his own clients he would send them to John.

In 1958 John married Hubbard's personal secretary, Mildred Louise Deen. Milly was not only a very beautiful woman but an extremely competent one. Having once been Lyndon Johnson's secretary while Johnson was the Senate Majority Leader, Hubbard had had himself a jewel of an assistant who helped him in the structuring of his early organization. But her employment with Hubbard only lasted until 1960, when she and John moved back to John's home state of Colorado where they proceeded to raise a family. But John never gave up working with people or learning how he could do more for his clients. He continued his own auditing practices, participated in the first two Saint Hill Special Briefing Courses delivered by Hubbard in England, and started the first Scientology mission in Denver. But as the organization of Scientology became more rigid, John backed off. He operated on the fringes helping people as he could according to his own ethical standards.

I met John in 1980. Like John, I had had my own career working closely with Hubbard in the upper echelons of the Church of Scientology in the 1970s. But unlike John, I had been quite embroiled in the politics, organization and management areas of that organization. My purpose was to help people, but for years the majority of my time was spent battling the insanities of the organization. My last effort in this uphill battle was in 1980. I had put together a project whose success depended on having a very special person with unique technical expertise. From all the research done, the only person who met these qualifications was a man I had only previously heard about. That man was John Galusha. I went to John and asked for his assistance. He agreed, and we began on a very special partnership and adventure that would continue for the next 16 years.

My father once told me that a partnership was the most difficult relationship to maintain, even harder than a marriage. I do not doubt this as I have seen the trials many people in partnerships have had to go through. But I feel I have been somewhat blessed in this regard. In the 16 years I worked with John there was never any real disagreement, argument, or upset. He did his job and I did mine. There was a complete trust on both sides. I always completely trusted John in the wearing of his hat. I cannot say that I always trusted myself in how I was wearing my own hat, but somehow, he trusted me. I cannot tell you the number of times I confide in John about doubts in my work, desperately wanting advice. But never did I get "feedback" or advice. That sort of help or opinion was not in the man. What I got was a question, a facilitation that encouraged me to take a look, and things got better. I realized early on in our relationship, that John was a very rare individual. I knew that it was not only a privilege to know him, but a great privilege to work with him. I knew that I might accomplish my purposes in helping others by connecting with this unique person. I believed that if I could create an environment where John could do his work, unabated, great things might be achieved. This proved to be a correct action. John blossomed and made astounding breakthroughs. Unfortunately, at the this time of his passing, the magnitude and results of his work have only begun to be realized in the world. But I will continue to do my utmost to communicate with, service and deliver to people only in a manner true to the integrity of John's work.

John Galusha was a simple man. He had his simple pleasures in life. He liked reading and read a lot, gobbling up nearly everything he could lay his hands on. He immensely enjoyed working with his hands on almost anything from fixing an engine to welding a several ton piece of machinery and was always interested in how the material things in this universe work. He did not strive for wealth and success or fame and recognition. He really did not care about any of these things. But what he did care about was his life's work which was helping others.

In all the years I knew John, he never had a vicious or bad thing to say about anyone. Sure there were things people said and did that he did not agree with, but not once did I hear him verbally attack any of these people. There was much that Hubbard did and said that John obviously had strong disagreement with but I never heard John speak ill of the man. Many people have asked John what he thought of Hubbard. John's response was always very simple. A comment like, "He did what he did. I liked him and considered him a friend." I recall many years ago a reporter who was writing a book on Hubbard came from England to interview John. After maybe 20 minutes the reporter came out of the interview very frustrated because he could not get John to spill any "dirt" on Hubbard that he could use in his book.

Looking back, I can see that John tried for many years to prepare me for his leaving. Eight months ago John became unexpectedly ill. Those close to him tried desperately to figure out what was wrong and help in his recovery. John accepted all assistance graciously and without question or resistance. Though, what may have been somewhat frustrating to those around him, he also accepted his illness in the same manner. He did not complain, he did not desperately seek to find an explanation or cure. This response had at times puzzled me, and trying so hard to "get him well" sometimes frustrated me. But I can see now that at the end of John's life his caring for others was as unwavering as it had been throughout his life. He let us scamper around doing what we did. But we were also allowed to prepare for his eventual passing as each of us had to do. It is never easy to except the loss of someone you are close to. A quick and unexpected passing can spare an individual the pain of an impending death but can also be quite a shock for those left behind. I once asked John for some advice on raising children. What he told me was one thing that he had done: "I tried to always take those actions that I thought they would best respond to." Perhaps he also tried to accomplish this with the people he was leaving.

Among all the people I have known in my life, I never met one as devoid of ego as John Galusha. But this is something John would have never said about himself. He was always looking. I happen to know that John had one personal desire in his life. It was not fame and fortune. It was something many have referred to as "enlightenment". It was never a subject he tried to cram down anyone else's throat, and only one that he was perfectly willing and excited to talk about if asked. John was the most "enlightened" person I have ever known but he did not consider himself to be "enlightened". But just before passing, I had greeted him by asking how he was doing. John said something to me that brought me great joy. He said that he had recently let go of any ego that he had still been clinging too.

From time to time over the past few days I would find myself weeping. Partly I cry out of loss of my friend. But most of all, I cry because of the deep and profound effect this wonderful man has had on my life. I will greatly miss you my dear friend, and I wish you the very best.
Mike Goldstein "

edited to close quote
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for notifying us of the incident, Commander. Its good to hear that you are recovering and I am glad that you were able to apply dianetics and run the incident through a few times and get some relief. Of course, your experience is just one single instance and it is anecdotal so, scientifically, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Anecdotal evidence does have a place in this world. If many people experience similar gains, it is a factor to consider.

To me, the most interesting anecdotal evidence is when someone goes to a big Jesus rally, such as those which were given by Billy Graham and they accept Jesus as their savior. There is no science there at all but more often then not, the person will shoot up to enthusiasm or exhilaration and often achieve some major healing and do much better in life, at least for a while. Billy's sermon worked like a charm and made the person happier. Here is a case where there is no scientific explanation but there are a very large number of anecdotal success stories. The gains have to be attributed to faith.

How can you blame someone for going this route? I never went for it because I have an obsession to seek out truths but even though I would not take that path myself, I have no bone to pick with those who do.

I believe in allowing a person to believe in and use whatever works for them as long as it doesn't hurt others. That's where I and a few others on ESMB differ with a large group of others. Many others, but far from all, demand compliance with their own personal beliefs. Hubbard might well be the poster boy for leaders demanding TOTAL compliance. I don't want to emulate Hubbard in this respect, however others who hate Hubbard and his tech are with him on this one important point, "Its my way or the highway!!!"

On last thing Commander, what is the prognosis for your recovery. Will you fully recover without any permanent injuries? I sure hope so! Keep us posted!
Lakey

i'm nearly fully recovered lakey, just a little soreness...

and i made the altar call at a jack wyrtzen revival that filled boston garden one night in '62 when i was twelve. and that summer i spent two weeks at a christian bible camp where something happened which more than twenty years later i recalled and thought to be a small miracle

i've never written it up. this thread lookslike a fitting place to get it archived after i get back from nevada...
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

yes, my criticism is to Book 1, for that is the book I read in 1986.

In that book, one could go "clear".

Why does they still sell the the book?

because as all optimistic gurus know "there's a seeker born every minute" gib...
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, I did the 1970 version of the Dianetics Course at L.A. Org and CCLA and then NED (New Era Dianetics) and the NED Internship in 1971, and audited about 300 hours of Dianetics on others, mostly staff members. Those versions of standard Dianetics do not require that any words be spoken. You move a pc to an incident, tell him/her to scan through to the end of the incident and then tell you what happened. You take down what the pc says and acknowledge them. You take their data whether there are spoken words or not and keep going until certain end phenomena take place.
<snip>
Lakey

From the Scientology Auditing webpage :

" New Era Dianetics (NED®) technology contains L. Ron Hubbard’s ultimate refinements of Dianetics auditing. He developed it following discoveries he made in 1978. Using New Era Dianetics technology, preclears can achieve the goals of Dianetics much, much faster than any early Dianeticist might have believed possible. "

Lakey the 1971 date for your having completed the NED internship , most likely a typo ?

I did mange to audit some hours of Dn & NED on PC's & found when they were asked " What do you see " ? their response was verbal. I first noticed that verbal; response by the PC when the course sup took over a co-audit in HSDC class with a bunch of us watching it.

Obviously, on solo auditing the answer were most likely pretty much always non-verbal.

But, I wonder how admin is done on a non-vebal audited PC. I guess I missed a lot - LOL ~!
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And when the discussion gets back around to "clear" & "OT" that this "tech" that "works" produces, uh, these might be a handy reference :


" Quote Originally Posted by Hubbard

OPERATING THETAN, 1. a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time. ( SH Spec 82, 6611C29) 2. willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 3 . an individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09) 4. a Clear who has been refamiliarized with his capabilities. (HCOB 12 Jul 65) 5. a being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from "able to operate without dependency on things" and thetan is the Greek letter theta (ø), which the Greeks used to represent "thought" or perhaps "spirit" to which an "n" is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (BCR, p. 10) 6. by operating thetan we mean theta clear plus ability to operate functionally against or with mest and other life forms. (SCP, p. 3) 7. this state of being is
attained by drills and familiarity after the state of Clear has been obtained. A real OT has no reactive bank, is cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought and is completely free. (HCOB 12 Jul 65)

Hubbard, L. R., (1975) Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California Publications Organization."

Of course, as noted above, all that comes AFTER "clear" which has a vertible multitude of "valid" definitions.

I have to keep wondering that after all these 60 years where is the stated on the " Grade Chart " results ?

Does something that 'works" have to produce a result or does a great big general " it works" cover for any & all auditing ?
 

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

yes, my criticism is to Book 1, for that is the book I read in 1986.

In that book, one could go "clear".

Why does they still sell the the book?

$$ Gib 25.00 for Dianetics

Hubbard then sells the idea of clear more money $$$

auditing more money $$$$

training more money $$$$

OT levels more money $$$$

IAS more money $$$$

Church tax empt more money $$$$

Sea Organisation works for penneys more money $$$$$
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, I did the 1970 version of the Dianetics Course at L.A. Org and CCLA and then NED (New Era Dianetics) and the NED Internship in 1971, and audited about 300 hours of Dianetics on others, mostly staff members. Those versions of standard Dianetics do not require that any words be spoken. You move a pc to an incident, tell him/her to scan through to the end of the incident and then tell you what happened. You take down what the pc says and acknowledge them. You take their data whether there are spoken words or not and keep going until certain end phenomena take place.

Your criticism is applicable only for Book One Dianetics. In that earliest version of Dianetics in 1950, words spoken in incidents were of major importance. Don't forget, that Book One Dianetic procedure functioned based on there being only one life. As going backtrack soon became part of Dianetics, the reliance on the spoken word was no longer plausible.

People were running incidents many eons ago, on other planets and in other galaxies. In a lot of those incidents people were often spirits without bodies so no spoken words were even possible. Also, few planets have a gaseous medium such as air for bodies to breathe and in a non gaseous or non liquid atmosphere, no sound is possible since sound waves require a medium for the waves to travel in.

I'm not saying that these types of things exist but Hubbard decreed that they did so people readily audited these types of incidents on Dianetics. In eons of years of incidents without bodies and/or without a planetary atmosphere, no sound was possible and yet spirits are said to have existed in these types of environments and played a game with both pleasure and pain. That is why when past lives entered into Dianetics, the subject had to be revised so that the emphasis was taken off of the spoken word.
Lakey

so if people were spirits, w/o a body, how could they experience pleasure and pain?

as you said, Hubbard decreed. Is that not evaluation (hypnosis) of what to think? or MOCK-UP?
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Excellent question. My opinion, based on being S.O. for 2 years as well as attending book selling events after I went back to being public, is that Book 1 was a successful action. Hubbard called it a bolt out of the blue. For the better part of a year it led to a public boom. Hubbard would constantly bring up the subject of staffs selling Book 1 when stats were down BECAUSE Book 1 caused a boom in 1950 and Hubbard believed that it could cause some sort of boom each time a new edition was brought out.

Over the years there were many big promo pushes by COS to push Book #1. I remember around the mid 80's when COS was running Book #1 ads on the radio during the Angel's radio broadcasts. Of course, like everything they do, these book pushes were done unethically. COS management wanted to get back on top of the New York Times Best Seller List and so they did everything in their power to make that happen and they did succeed. Every once and a while, DMSMH got on the NY Times Top 10 list, making it to #1 a couple of times.

The problem was that the stat was not earned honestly. COS management forced their staff members and wealthy donors to buy thousands of books and those were what got them back onto the Top 10 List. Not enough new people were buying the books although, if you have a book on the N.Y. Times best seller list, you are going to pique the interest of the public and I'm sure that on that basis, many public did buy Book 1. One more point I want to make; every now and then, Book 1 auditing was pushed to the public. Mike Goldstein, the originator of the Idenics movement, just prior to doing Idenics, designed and put on a major Book 1 campaign, first at his Org in Denver and later, working in conjunction with Diana Hubbard, he put on a very successful Book 1 campaign at Flag. Some people still get gains from Book 1 auditng. BTW If you haven't done so you should read Mike's story of something like 19 chapters. It is really a great read. COS management highjacked his fantastic Book 1 course and watered it down to being stat driven instead of being driven by achieving gains for the people taking the course. After they did that, Book 1 has been pretty dormant. Lakey

Thanks Lakey for your answer and opinion. I don't disagree. But........

lets look at some facts underneath what you wrote and maybe some missing data. And BTW, I have read Mike Goldstein's story, all 19 chapters and a few times. And I have read the Idenics book a few times, which you have not ( I did so as to compare, otherwise known as due diligence ).

But, never the less. Lets consider this from David Mayo, time frames are important to keep in mind.

My original question: Why does the COS still sell the book Dianetics?

Here is David Mayo response, and to think it was 30 years ago.

http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

"LRH correctly stated that absolutes are unattainable. And the notion of "clear" is an absolute. It's like the notion of "clean" or "pure". When is water pure? When it has only one part per million of arsenic and rat poop? Nowhere in the universe is there water which is 100% pure. To obtain complete Clarity would require a complete as-isness of any universe the thetan was in and a return to complete native state. Everyone does have a reactive mind - his own reac tive mind. That's why one flies ruds and goes E/S and gets off BPC on anyone regardless of their point on the grade chart. The mechanics of the reactive mind continue to exist all the way up."

""Clears" have always had trouble explaining why they still act reactively at times, or a lot of the time, and why they still have problems in life and in getting along with people. The amount of mileage you can get from the notion of a "cleared Cannibal" is very limited. Even a cleared cannibal, if he were really clear, would get along wonderfully in life, never manifest misemotion, and love all his fellow beings, even as he was having their bodies for dinner!"

"The idea of "harmonics of clear" is quite accurate. The main reason why LRH blew up at the idea of "harmonics of clear", as expressed in the HCOB I wrote, was, as he told me, that this idea tended to leave him open to the charge that the claims he had made in DMSMH and elsewhere concerning the "state of clear" were fraudulent."

Here are the elsewhere claims of Clear:

look at those constant changing definitions of "clear"

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...on-OSA-payroll&p=985074&viewfull=1#post985074

It's a hellvahoax.

David Mayo was being nice, at the time, when he spoke these words, so as not to invalidate any gains a person had in scientology. I give him kudos for that, he is a gentleman. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

so if people were spirits, w/o a body, how could they experience pleasure and pain?

as you said, Hubbard decreed. Is that not evaluation (hypnosis) of what to think? or MOCK-UP?

According to Hubbard, the spirit has not just the 5 standard perceptions attributed to the body, but has a total of 57 perceptions, most of which are also accessible to the body in varying degrees. Eastern and New Age religions generally agree that the spirit does not need the body to experience sensations. Take mediums, those who communicate with the deceased, they pretty much all believe that the spirit is able to experience all the sensations that it did when it was inhabiting a body.

Look at the Christian concept of Heaven. One's body is buried in the ground while the spirit has survived the body and is cavorting around in heaven feeling immense pleasure, far more than was available on Earth. For those spirits who didn't mate it to Heaven, they are experiencing immense pain, languishing their eternity away in Hell! Really, Gib, I'm surprised you asked such a fundamental question but I'm making an effort to communicate with you so I have answered it as best I can.
Lakey
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

According to Hubbard, the spirit has not just the 5 standard perceptions attributed to the body, but has a total of 57 perceptions, most of which are also accessible to the body in varying degrees. Eastern and New Age religions generally agree that the spirit does not need the body to experience sensations. Take mediums, those who communicate with the deceased, they pretty much all believe that the spirit is able to experience all the sensations that it did when it was inhabiting a body.

Look at the Christian concept of Heaven. One's body is buried in the ground while the spirit has survived the body and is cavorting around in heaven feeling immense pleasure, far more than was available on Earth. For those spirits who didn't mate it to Heaven, they are experiencing immense pain, languishing their eternity away in Hell! Really, Gib, I'm surprised you asked such a fundamental question but I'm making an effort to communicate with you so I have answered it as best I can.
Lakey

I don't go by "according to Hubbard" anymore



I'm not a religious person who has been learned (indocrinated) into other religions.

I only see what I see, and I see no clears or ot's. But I do see people who think they are clear or ot.
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks Lakey for your answer and opinion. I don't disagree. But........

lets look at some facts underneath what you wrote and maybe some missing data. And BTW, I have read Mike Goldstein's story, all 19 chapters and a few times. And I have read the Idenics book a few times, which you have not ( I did so as to compare, otherwise known as due diligence ).

But, never the less. Lets consider this from David Mayo, time frames are important to keep in mind.

My original question: Why does the COS still sell the book Dianetics?

Here is David Mayo response, and to think it was 30 years ago.

http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html







Here are the elsewhere claims of Clear:

look at those constant changing definitions of "clear"

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...on-OSA-payroll&p=985074&viewfull=1#post985074

It's a hellvahoax.

David Mayo was being nice, at the time, when he spoke these words, so as not to invalidate any gains a person had in scientology. I give him kudos for that, he is a gentleman. :thumbsup:

Gib, you amaze me with some of your questions. Case in point, in December of 2014 you ask me, "My original question: Why does the COS still sell the book Dianetics?. The key word in your question is "still". Therefore you are asking why do they still sell Book #1 in 2014. I answer you as best I can and qualify my answer as only my opinion.

Next you state that you disagree and cite as your reference something David Mayo wrote 30 years ago, around 1984. Actually, that makes no sense whatever. There is no way that Mayo's writings of 1984 can answer the question as to why the book is still being sold in 2014!!

Then, instead of giving your own opinion of why Book 1 is still being sold, you switch gears and challenge me on the constantly changing definitions of Clear as if I differ with you on that topic. However, one thing that we agreed on earlier was the fact is that Hubbard changed the definition of Clear continually over the years with each new definition being less strict than the previous one and despite that fact, no one in COS, including Hubbard, has ever reached any of his varying states of Clear.

Look, Gib, I have my own opinions on the subject of Dianetcs and you have yours. I have made every possible effort to present my beliefs and opinions to you as best as I can. I agree with you on several areas and in other areas it appears that we disagree. Let's leave it at that. If you still disagree and want to keep challenging me, I am going to give you the last word and end off our discussion at this time. For me to say any more on this topic doesn't make any sense. Going forward would be like whipping a dead horse, it's just a waste of time and energy.

I do appreciate all the contributions you have made on this topic. Perhaps we can engage again on some new topic.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, you amaze me with some of your questions. Case in point, in December of 2014 you ask me, "My original question: Why does the COS still sell the book Dianetics?. The key word in your question is "still". Therefore you are asking why do they still sell Book #1 in 2014. I answer you as best I can and qualifyi my answer as only my opinion.

Next you state that you disagree and cite as your reference something David Mayo wrote 30 years ago, around 1984. Actually, that makes no sense whatever. There is no way that Mayo's writings of 1984 can answer the question as to why the book is still being sold in 2014!!

Then, instead of giving your own opinion of why Book 1 is still being sold, you switch gears and challenge me on the constantly changing definitions of Clear as if I differ with you on that topic. However, one thing that we agreed on earlier was the fact is that Hubbard changed the definition of Clear is continually over the years with each new definition being less strict than the previous one and despite that fact, no one in COS, including Hubbard, has ever reached any of his varying states of Clear.

Look, Gib, I have my own opinions on the subject of Dianetcs and you have yours. I have made every possible effort to present my beliefs and opinions to you as best as I can. I agree with you on several areas and in other areas it appears that we disagree. Let's leave it at that. If you still disagree and want to keep challenging me, I am going to give you the last word and end off our discussion at this time. For me to say any more on this topic doesn't make any sense to me. Going forward would be like whipping a dead horse, it's just a waste of time and energy.

I do appreciate all the contributions you have made on this topic. Perhaps we can engage again on some new topic.
Lakey

Well,

I still don't understand.

Let me be blunt.

Do you think the state of "clear" exists?

And do you know of anybody who has achieved this state?

simple yes or no will suffice, but I want proof.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well,

I still don't understand.

Let me be blunt.

Do you think the state of "clear" exists? See my write up below for the answer which is just my opinion.

And do you know of anybody who has achieved this state? NO.

simple yes or no will suffice, but I want proof. I give a theoretical proof below of why it is possible but so far, it has not been achieved.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE STATE OF "CLEAR" AND WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE WORD "EXISTS" There is nothing to stop someone from coming forward and stating that theoretically a state called "CLEAR" exists in this Universe. The person could create a list of attributes which HE DEFINES as constituting the state of CLEAR and by doing this he can then assert that he proved that the state of CLEAR is THEORETICALLY possible.

Probably part of the definition would contain an example along the lines which Hubbard used when he talked about a calculator which had a "held down seven". The number seven was always added to all computations without the operator knowing it and hitting the clear key on the keyboard would not unstick the seven key due to a hidden mechanical error which existed in the machine. When someone figured out that the calculator had an error built into its hardware and the error was fixed, the calculator would then always give the correct answer based on the data being fed into it. By using this example, Hubbard postulated that a CLEAR would work like a calculator with no held down keys and would always return the correct answer based on the data which was fed in.

Hubbard compared the mind of a CLEAR to the mechanics of a calculator with no held down keys HE OR ANYONE ELSE CAN ASSERT THAT THE HUMAN MIND CAN BE CLEARED IN THIS WAY AND AS A RESULT, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THEORETICALLY A STATE OF CLEAR IS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, SOMEONE ELSE MAY INSIST THAT BECAUSE NO SUCH PERSON HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED, THE STATE OF CLEAR DOES NOT EXIST, AT LEAST NOT ON EARTH. We here on Earth can't speak for the whole Universe so my final answer to your last question above would be as follows:

WHILE IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF CLEAR TO EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE, TO DATE NO ACTUAL CLEAR HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON EARTH SO THE STATE OF CLEAR DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST ON EARTH AT THIS TIME. IT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE BUT TO DATE NO ONE KNOWS IF IT DOES OR NOT.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip>
WHILE IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF CLEAR TO EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE, TO DATE NO ACTUAL CLEAR HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON EARTH SO THE STATE OF CLEAR DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST ON EARTH AT THIS TIME. IT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE BUT TO DATE NO ONE KNOWS IF IT DOES OR NOT.
Lakey

I'm confused :

no clear actually exist on earth at this time

BUT

may or may not exist in this universe - not one knows if it does or not.


Here is what confuses me : I thought earth was in this universe. :duh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top