Once a close-knit ideological group initiate has bought into the proposition that it behooves him to be a member he is indoctrinated into what a member does. He then gets busy doing what a good member does in the pursuit of having the benefits of membership.
It seems that all cults have one vital type of ‘to do’ indoctrination in common. That is, the member learns to a high level of certitude who the perceived or designated enemies of that group are and he accepts a share of responsibility for taking action against those enemies. The less rational the group the greater the importance is given to the enemy and the more overwhelmingly destructive the enemy is portrayed as. The less the group’s principles and objectives stand on their own merit the more emphasis is put on remaining ever vigilant for signs of enemy encroachment and upon destroying perceived enemies. Conquering the enemy can become the group’s raison d’etre. Sometimes the highest level of ‘reason’ you will hear from some cult members is a rant about the evils of this or that nemesis as the answer to virtually any tough question. That is a particular strain of denialism.
Irrespective of the degree of apparent effectiveness of a cult’s teachings in isolation, this enemy indoctrination feature begins a mental reversal that wipes out any potential positive and makes the member a mental prisoner and potentially dangerous. Some groups preach that ultimate enlightenment or salvation cannot be reached absent elimination of the enemy. Some extreme cults even talk in terms of the need to ‘obliterate’ or ‘annihilate’ entire classes of people in order for themselves or humankind to survive. Such groups clearly are of concern to family and friends of members and to society at large for obvious reasons. It is not hard to see the negative social effects that a band of such self-righteous zealots marching to the beat of the same paranoid drum could cause. But, ultimately the adverse effect on the cult soldier individually is more predictably certain.
Inevitably such adopted mindsets lead to the view that the individual is not in fact responsible for his own condition and its worsening or bettering. Compare this to the simple generic principles of awareness and consciousness discussed in the previous two posts (Basics and Identification and Membership) to see how plain that fact is. In order to become motivated to dedicatedly pursue perceived enemies the group member must become convinced that those enemies are worsening conditions that adversely affect him somehow.
Indoctrination of this mindset serves as a convenient deflection or justification for many of a group’s own failures or lack of results. More perniciously, it is the inculcation of a disease that ultimately destroys the individual member’s own determinism. If one buys into the indoctrination that the causes of his problems of consciousness or awareness are ‘over there’ one is in for a long, painful and wheel-spinning haul. Unfortunately, many former cult members simply continue to abide by the enemy-assignment mental machinery. They just change the target of their wrath. They spend years with their wheels in the mud ruminating on how their erstwhile cult and its leaders are responsible for their current travails.
On the positive side, to come to grips with these facts and how they might have poisoned one’s thinking and viewpoints opens one to an infinity of possibilities.
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
Awesome post, Marty. The broad – and fair – perspective of the last part of your post are a testament to your integrity.
“…If one buys into the indoctrination that the causes of his problems of consciousness or awareness are ‘over there’ one is in for a long, painful and wheel-spinning haul. Unfortunately, many former cult members simply continue to abide by the enemy-assignment mental machinery. They just change the target of their wrath. They spend years with their wheels in the mud ruminating on how their erstwhile cult and its leaders are responsible for their current travails.
“On the positive side, to come to grips with these facts and how they might have poisoned one’s thinking and viewpoints opens one to an infinity of possibilities.”
“There’s safety in numbers, when you learn to divide
How can we be ‘in’ if there’s no-one outside?”
From the Peter Gabriel song ‘Not One of Us’
“… to come to grips with these facts and how they might have poisoned one’s thinking and viewpoints opens one to an infinity of possibilities.”
Indeed, and though free at long last, on some occasions I’m still dealing with “fixed ideas” of decades past.
Marty: “Once a close-knit ideological group initiate has bought into the proposition that it behooves him to be a member he is indoctrinated into what a member does. He then gets busy doing what a good member does in the pursuit of having the benefits of membership.”
The initiate has his own belief system at first. But his belief system gets gradually replaced by the ideology insisted upon by the group. There has to be a carrot. The initiate goes for that carrot. He absorbs the group ideology in the belief that it would get him to that carrot. This belief is strengthed by apparent observation that other members are moving towards the carrot. (Therefore success stories are very important.) So any indoctrination must also make the member believe that if he is not moving toward the carrot he is not following the group ideology. Thus, such a system is self-reinforcing.
Just a damn good, spot-on post!
I once had a realization, after my second divorce, which were amicable divorces whose marital issues were virtually identical: maybe this has something to do with me.
I believe it was that one singular realization, that started me on my road to total responsibility, my road to being fully human and a man who developed the habit of looking within for answers.
Recently I posted on Milestone 2 (howdy Jim and Lana) on a post that, to me, was exactly what you are discussing Marty. The post was categorizing those critical of LRH and Scientology as natterers, people with OWs etc.
Instead of criticism being a threshold to forming understanding, through the real art of communication with critics; there was a feeding frenzy of agreement that these natterers have witholds and overts.
This sentiment is 180 degree opposite from “maybe this has something to do with me.”
It is possible, that people who somehow psycholocally need enemies to justify their lives, will gravitate to a teacher that has a similar psychological profile.
Ron had that profile. His teaching has that profile, (not in all areas but enough to cause cognitive dissonance).
I suggested to them that maybe kindness would work better than using their religious dogmas, SPs and criticism=overts to characterize criticism.
Someone once said,”when you blame others for your condition you surrender your power to change.”
Regarding Milestone 2, I have compassion for those guys. They have a long haul to gain acceptance within this present condition. I honor their right to their religion. But I equally honor my right to call some of Ron’s dogma dangerous, cruel and disempowering to the individual.
Maybe the failure of Scientology had something to do with Ron. After all, he was the one who convinced us he knew how to run things and be responsible for our products.
Scientology is his product. He was the king of the enemy creator; the grand weaver of the cosmic straw man.
Marty: “It seems that all cults have one vital type of ‘to do’ indoctrination in common. That is, the member learns to a high level of certitude who the perceived or designated enemies of that group are and he accepts a share of responsibility for taking action against those enemies. The less rational the group the greater the importance is given to the enemy and the more overwhelmingly destructive the enemy is portrayed as. The less the group’s principles and objectives stand on their own merit the more emphasis is put on remaining ever vigilant for signs of enemy encroachment and upon destroying perceived enemies. Conquering the enemy can become the group’s raison d’etre. Sometimes the highest level of ‘reason’ you will hear from some cult members is a rant about the evils of this or that nemesis as the answer to virtually any tough question. That is a particular strain of denialism.”
Attaining the carrot through the group ideology is made alluring but difficult; because once the carrot is attained the member shall have no reason to continue in the group. One solution to this problem is to have a series of carrots, and make the carrots near the end of the series more difficult to attain.
Difficulties may be dreamed up in the form of accusation that one is not following the group ideology because one’s ethics are out. All kinds of violations of group ideology are dreamed up. One is required to show how ethical one is by crushing the enemies of the group. This requires continually dreaming up enemies of the group. The longer lasting enemy there is the better it is.
Having enemies can serve the purpose of the group in other ways too. It can provide an alternate purpose to generate cohesiveness if the original purpose was falsely promised to be attainable. Enemies can also be used to blame when things are falling apart due to the ineptness of management. Having enemies is part of a complex manipulation.
The basic reason is to make the carrot alluring but difficult to attain along with enough believable justifications.
There are real enemies, and manufactured ones, called scapegoats.
Failure to differentiate between them can lead one to great moral crisis.
Cults, whether National Socialist, or Scientologist invariably create scapegoats (authors, Jews, psychs, etc).
I confess to not understanding your previous two posts, but here you have
written a profound truth, Marty, and I thank you.
Marty: “Irrespective of the degree of apparent effectiveness of a cult’s teachings in isolation, this enemy indoctrination feature begins a mental reversal that wipes out any potential positive and makes the member a mental prisoner and potentially dangerous. Some groups preach that ultimate enlightenment or salvation cannot be reached absent elimination of the enemy. Some extreme cults even talk in terms of the need to ‘obliterate’ or ‘annihilate’ entire classes of people in order for themselves or humankind to survive. Such groups clearly are of concern to family and friends of members and to society at large for obvious reasons. It is not hard to see the negative social effects that a band of such self-righteous zealots marching to the beat of the same paranoid drum could cause. But, ultimately the adverse effect on the cult soldier individually is more predictably certain.”
Part of the manipulation is to show the dreadfulness attached to becoming the enemy of the group. There is great amount of fear factor generated of adverse consequences if one steps out of the line too far. This adds further difficulties to the attainment of the carrot. The member finds that he has to walk a very tight and narrow line. His lack of progress is blamed on him. This makes him very prone to indoctrination. He can then be unleashed against perceived enemies of the group.
So the real and imagined enemies serve many purposes for the group. The member may also feel the adrenalin in overcoming the “enemy,” and that may make him blind to how he himself is being harmed through manipulation and indoctrination.
Of course, such groups are harmful to the member, his family members and to the society at large. They are even harmful to those running the group as they are designed to serve their egos. Such a group is a cancerous system run amuck. If society is the larger body, such a group forms the cancer in that body.
Such a cancerous system cannot develop in isolation. Therefore, one also needs to look at the broader society to see where things are going wrong.
Lets say you join a group based on the concept of its good merits and purposes as they may align with your own intentions. True, the indoctrination sooner or later may encroach your original purpose and you may find yourself ‘fighting the enemy shoulder to shoulder with your group members”.
However, if your original intention was other than the falsehoods used to indoctrinate you, you may be able to see the light and leave.
In other words, to remain or keep acting on an enemy based principle, even if indoctrinated, presumes you must have an agreement to follow that route, live it and act on it. The resultant backlash is already noted by you, but it stands that you yourself have those characteristics that the group in itself manifests.
Marty: “Inevitably such adopted mindsets lead to the view that the individual is not in fact responsible for his own condition and its worsening or bettering. Compare this to the simple generic principles of awareness and consciousness discussed in the previous two posts (Basics and Identification and Membership) to see how plain that fact is. In order to become motivated to dedicatedly pursue perceived enemies the group member must become convinced that those enemies are worsening conditions that adversely affect him somehow.”
This is one of those cognitive dissonances where one is told that one is totally responsible for one’s condition, but then one is convinced somehow that the group is in that condition because it is being suppressed by its enemies. And the group member buys it. This shows where the group member really is on the awareness scale.
Marty: “Indoctrination of this mindset serves as a convenient deflection or justification for many of a group’s own failures or lack of results. More perniciously, it is the inculcation of a disease that ultimately destroys the individual member’s own determinism. If one buys into the indoctrination that the causes of his problems of consciousness or awareness are ‘over there’ one is in for a long, painful and wheel-spinning haul. Unfortunately, many former cult members simply continue to abide by the enemy-assignment mental machinery. They just change the target of their wrath. They spend years with their wheels in the mud ruminating on how their erstwhile cult and its leaders are responsible for their current travails.”
Here is a cancerous system that harms all its members alike, including the leaders. It installs itself into the mind of each member. It stops the progress of the member while creating the illusion that the progress is just around the corner. It makes the member believe that he can make it if he simply overcome certain enemies. All lack of results are justified or deflected toward real or imaginary enemies. The sense of true responsibility is compromised and the person ends up blaming enemies for his condition. This mindset continues long after he has left the cult. He just finds somebody to blame for his condition.
I think Marty has expressed this very well.
Marty: “On the positive side, to come to grips with these facts and how they might have poisoned one’s thinking and viewpoints opens one to an infinity of possibilities.”
True.
If a person finds himself blaming somebody or something for his condition, even the slightest bit, he should look again at that somebody or something with the following in mind.
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
7. Experience fully what is there.
8. Do not suppress anything.
9. Associate data freely.
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
12. Let it all be effortless.
.
I am sure Buddha had many critics. I believe he dealt with them with compassion.
Excellent observation. That shows that Scientology in some ways must be empowered by the current culture in America.
It is not the black culture because there are very few blacks in Scientology, except for the Nation of Islam. But then the Nation of Islam may have its own culture.
Brian, did you actually read the whole of Tom’s post? He seemed to me to be speaking of a very specific segment of the critic population. He does not lump all “critics” together in a mass but says he is speaking of specifically “nattering Ex-Sea Org” and has a very specific idea in mind of what he means by “natter”. Subsequently Logan posted a post titled “Natter or criticism?”, and last year there was a post specifically about what the term “natter” meant when they used it. And perhaps the way they use it, does specifically refer to someone who has withholds. After all, there is such a thing, isn’t there?
Great post and comments. At this stage of my de-Scientologization, I am not certain Hubbard had any original insights into the nature of life or consciousness — at least not any that withstand scientific scrutiny.
On the other hand, I am quite convinced that he was a master at using the psychological vulnerabilities of humans to lead them into a quest for an imaginary carrot while entrapping them in a clever system of thought-stopping, behavioral control mechanisms.
Someone above commented that such a system as Hubbard’s cannot grow in isolation — that maybe something is wrong with society. I agree, and would say something is wrong with the human psyche. We are smart enough to create science but still crippled enough in our intelligence to fall for inane belief systems (I suppose there are some good belief systems too).
Once a cult has taken root, it tends to self-isolate and this is done in part by identifying the purported enemy as the post describes — the Jew, the infidel, the wog, the conservative, the liberal, the communist, and so on. By the time the cult has become a social isolate — by its own conscious or unconscious design — it also becomes a loose and dangerous cannon, no longer feeling it is accountable to laws and the rules that affect lesser mortals (or immortals).
Social isolate theory would explain parts of many conflicts as having arisen from social isolates. Germany was a social isolate after WW I. North Korea is a social isolate. Cut off from ties, interdependencies, information, and accountability, a social isolate can go rogue, as Germany did in triggering WW II, and as Islamic fundamentalists are doing in the Middle East. Cults in general are social isolates, and Scientology is increasingly so. Its inner core definitely qualifies as a social isolate. So when that core cracks, which it almost certainly will, what will the rogue social isolate of Scientology do? There is danger there that I hope will be avoided.
Brilliant post Marty.
The Battlecry is not to reach a higher state of consciousness of wisdom, perception or insight, but to annihilate Psychiatry…
Good points!
________________________________
I always found it absurd that in the Church the condition of “enemy” was considered a lower condition, but you were ordered as to who your enemies should be. Literally expected to go down into an enemy condition on certain terminals who “didn’t tow the line”.
If the condition of enemy is a lower condition, why are you expected to drop there to remain “in good standing”? Is the condition of enemy “good standing” or is it wallowing in lower conditions?
Anyone assigning another team mate to the RPF is in an enemy condition. Yet, he assigns someone to the RPF, announces it at a staff meeting, all of the rest of the staff are expected to drop along in an enemy condition, and then go back on post an suddenly go into affluence. Go figure!
Then you get someone that comes across your lines and really does some major major damage on your life, this person is way below enemy. But, if it be a person considered to be “in a good standing” with the group, you can lay the cards on the table until you are blue in the face and people think you are being entheta.
Part of the hidden “membership” of any group, is that you get friends (other members) as a perk. Along with these new “friends”, you have just inherited, you are then expected in return to inherit the groups “enemies”. That is the price you pay for the “friends”. I can only say this, anyone who encourages you to go out of ARC with others or the world, really is not a friend.
I guess with the group enemies, I needed to ask myself what is the purpose of a group to begin with? Why do people group up? What is the purpose behind “grouping”?
There are a few different reasons. There are a lot of people who feel more secure in a group than standing alone. In fact, standing alone they back slid. Standing as one they backslid. Then the group is formed to gain traction and prevent personal overwhelm.
Or, surprise, to have more capability to overwhelm others. Large groups become more threatening than just a single voice.
When you become dependent on the group you become the effect of it. As in, what you depend upon, you become the effect of. So, how do you find a leader in that? Someone who depends on a group is really not capable of being a leader. And history shows that “leaders” become very very dependent upon groups. After all, without a group to lead, one can not fulfill their purpose to be a leader.
It is one of those horrific purposes based in hell such as, the purpose to “put order into chaos”. Sounds beautiful, but, then you always have to be seeking out chaos, you have to have some chaos, to put in the order. You are always standing in the middle of some conflict and confusion in order to carry out your beautiful purpose to make “it all right”.
If the Sea Org couldn’t view the entire planet as a bunch of out ethics morons, how valuable would they be to put ethics in on the planet? There must always be some out ethics for them to have purpose. And what is “in ethics” to them right now has become a night mare.
In this wise, people need enemies. If your purpose is to “survive”, you need something to survive right? What else could that be except enemies?
The truth is, you go out in the world, most people are very friendly and caring. And would find the social brutality and abuse Scientologists put upon one another, totally unacceptable.
You can’t fix yourself by breaking someone else. Wasn’t the personal promise and stated purpose of Scientology to fix yourself? Well then if you did have a win and go find something else to do.
Then you see people who think they need to fix everyone else. Not sure how these purposes get formed and I don’t want to know. I only run across it in Scientology or former Scientology or Anti Scientology communities, that people need to “fix me” . Scientology and Psychiatry align with one another in this way. If you are not DGFSJUT, you need “adjustment”. If that isn’t a ser fac I don’t know what is.
Yes Val, I did read the whole post. And I gave my view on the post also. It was the post Idee……..
Actually, Lana and Jim responded favorably towards the end of the blog to my posts.
The main reason I did post, was to support:
Mike Hobsen
Independent Scientologist
He was dealt with in a disrespectful fashion. And I wanted to weigh in.
Indeed Vinaire, what a difference between destroying enemies and loving enemies.
The result of which is that one teacher’s legacy is a mythic hero of unparreleled greatness and the other teacher’s legacy is world wide scorn and infamy.
I believe LRH fashioned that legacy with inculcating the doctrine of SPs and evil beings as part of his church practice.
The harming of critics, the violent retribution against them, is the foundation stone of his self created infamy.
But those who still believe in Ron, only see the good he has done, and somehow make themselves feel good about the bad he has done to people by saying,” geeze guys, he was only human.”
In Scientology parlance I’d call that “not is”
The desire and effort to control others.
Several of you have read my article on this vital matter.
The ability and willingness to direct the operations of an environment and the actions of individuals or groups is normal and necessary in living. But the effort to control others as a primary purpose has a specific source that can be recognized. This applies to friends and enemies alike.
“Follow me and I will lead you to righteousness.” Or, “Kill all the evil bastards.”
We all have this (everyone I have met so far) but some are working with this as a primary operating purpose in life.
For complete data, write me at marknr@hushmail.com.
Mark
“Love is the answer” has many layers of meaning.
Karen,
Great reporting. I was a witness to this poor guy insanity.
I wonder how Valkov and Alanzo this this!
Students open up their minds, emotions and get instructions on how to think and act. That is why word clearing and clay demo was important.
There is truth to overt motivator sequence, there is truth that crimes against something causes individuation from that thing.
But the cognitive dissonance, the source of Scientology insanity, the reason Ron is seen in a negative light, the reason guys at Milestone 2 find it easy to label critics is because of this pathological statement from the man who installs ideas and philosophies into his students.
This, is an implanted idea, that is the death of rational dialog, the death of civil relations, the justification of violent retribution and a diabolical fixed idea that changes normal people into psychopaths.
“Show me ANY (my caps) person who is critical of us and I’ll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate’s hair on end.” – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965
This is the philosophy of tyrany.
Being a member of any organized religion makes one smaller is size and perception….No organized religion on the planet will be here long.
it’s not who we are to subscribe to a certain ideology, but it DOES seem to be part of our path to the ultimate destination…We are evolving and every single thing we do or believe is all part of The Journey 🙂
This is a very well presented argument.
>
And let’s put it in simple terms:
How would you cognize the psychological state of a spouse who considered ANY criticism of them as your crimes?
Would there be any resolution to any problems? Never
My name is spelled ‘Hobson’. Thanks for the support, by the way.
Michael A. Hobson
Independent Scientologist
(only one of many identities I put on and off like hats as I deem appropriate)
The Oracle, excellent comment. Thank you.
You are welcome Mike. I thought you made a very benign statement. And you were treated unfairly.
I will spell your name correctly from now on:-)
Yes, I noticed that “firefight”. I think Tom’s post was good and heartfelt. He is a working auditor and was sticking up for auditors and people who are using what scientology they know, constructively. That’s how I took it in the end. Tom Martiniano’s book about Vietnam – “Teenage Wasteland” – is horrific. That he survived is remarkable. It’s a difficult read but worth it. It gives gives a background to where he’s coming from, I think.
Brian, it’s not tht I diasgree with this, but…. having been married for over 40 years I must say it has been my experience that sometimes my wife gets very angry and fights back against my criticism, and that this is usually because of my own overt, such as not consistently granting her beingness and acknowledging her.
To me it is a fact that LRH did not always use the tech to resolve problems in the forward progress of building and growing the CoS; he instead seemed to act on the basis that there was an “emergency” happening, and the group engrams resulting from his authoritarian actions would be resolved “later”. There is actually a post about this on Milestone Two.
Well, LRH is gone and “later” is a long time coming……. in the meantime of course the unhandled group engrams or whatever you want to call them, are wreaking havoc with the world of Scientology.
Mike, I did not post over there, but I am glad Brian did, and that you did. It is the kind of “bridge-building” we need to have going on, as opportunity presents itself.
So which group engram needs to be unwound first, in the world of “Knowing how to know”?
________________________________
the problem is the dwarf. I have yet to reject any source tools or data. The issues I had were all put there by the dwarf. Many execs saw my communications back in 1998 and I was left alone. those same execs stayed another decade. Power of Choice (over the datum) was stricken from the Student Hat (along with 3 tapes on education) in 1998. I was the last person to star-rate that at Flag. The demise of the church happened because we allowed the degrades. The dwarf called us blind, and the church still is. Ron’s tech was supposed to be protected. We let the dwarf have at it. If he dies what then?
Your videos are really laying the cards on the table Karen. I am always excited when I see a new one has been published.
The purposes of the Church in sequence:
1. Clear the planet. (boom period) 🙂
changed to,
2. Police the planet. ( mass exodus period) :{l
changed to,
3. We can only fix ourselves by destroying someone else. (Final spasms of death) :/\…/\…/\………………………
The key word Val is ANY. That absolute sentiment is insane. If Ron said, some, a few, that would be reasonable and cause for a debate between Ron and his critics.
But Ron branded ALL, ALL, ALL with the word ANY.
So now you have junk yard dogs in the field yapping and whinning about criticism.
Why? Because LRH did not know how to deal with criticism like an adult. So that trait, the inability to deal with criticism civilly , is absent from many X and independent Scientologists.
Notice I said “many”.
If I were to use the word “All”, all X Scientologists don’t know how to deal with criticism, that would put me at odds with those that can experience and deal criticism. And for the followers that think “Brian is Buddha” a whole segment of the population would be misunderstood and branded with my approved and authorized way of looking at “all” x Scientologists.
Generalization and demonization are the supportive foundation for the creation of……………..enemies.
LRH caused a 3rd and 4th dynamic engram by labeling critics as criminals.
That is what Mao, Hitler and Stalin did. Created the critic as an evil entity.
I hope the spirit of my words are clear.
Ron created enemies by demonizing critics. Any many exes ( not all) have learned well.
It is not the group engram Vinay, it is the doctrines that created hate and the institutionalization of violent retribution against critics.
The third dynamic engram is all the pain of destroyed families, lost jobs, betrayal of trust that the doctrine of the SP has inflicted on its members.
The problem is not TRs, the grades or good auditing. The problem is in the written word. The written words of a man who considered every, not some, every psychiatrist a pedophile. And every critic a criminal.
To not see this as insane is evidence of brainwashing. Sorry to be blunt. But it is true.
Enemies, I think Ron actually loved the game of fighting them. Persecution complexes gives one a feeling of importance.
It is ok to experience criticism of Ron without popping a vein. Actually criticism is nothing. Just words and ideas. If you can’t experience words and ideas that differ from you comfortably and civilly, I would suggest you are not as good at communication you think you are.
Civility, love and kindness.
I have learned a lot from Scientology, both from its good aspects as well as from the not so good aspects. The best thing I have learned is the organization of knowledge from Study Tech and the Data Series.
________________________________
Hubbard did not want his tech to be discussed among his followers. This was another aspect of his phobia against criticism.
That’s great Vinay, but those aspects are not in question. If you go to a doctor for lung problems, he doesn’t say,”look here! why the complaining, the rest of your organs are fine.
It’s not the good stuff needing to be directly criticized, it’s the bad lung if the patient is to be saved.
Some can’t see the negative because of the positive. I believe Scientology has both. But the good stuff does not need fixing.
It’s the doctrines of hate the SPs and creation of enemies.
Suppression of looking is evidence of hiding.
Thanks for the informative and important video Karen.
Isn’t it interesting that LRH says the greatest test of all is to love your enemies, yet Scientology has perfected the art of destroying one’s enemies, and encouraging this activity amongst its members?
And Scientologists will tell you that just because they destroy their enemies doesn’t mean they don’t also love them.
So even this fundamental datum has been completely warped to serve the purpose of the mind trap.
I was never in close proximity to LRH, so in, say, 1972, I was not aware of these “doctrines” as such. I think to the extent they were “doctrines”, they were just starting to pervade out into the field. emanating from the Sea Org. That was my impression, never having been in the SO myself.
In the field, there were no such doctrines I was aware of. Most counterintentions were viewed as resulting from misunderstandings. There were no “enemies” except reactivity – ie compulsive behavior. The goals of Scientologists included reducing the compulsions and increasing rationality.
The “enemy” mindset crept in; many people rejected it and left organized Scientology even then. It was authoritarian behavior from the top that drove them away. That is the kind of “group engram” I am talking about. It impacted those who stayed as well as those who left. I am not talking about root causes, doctrines, etc. Those will eventually come to light as more light is shed. I am talking about the fact of damage “emegency authoritarianism” causes, no matter the reason for the authoritarianism. Any override of the self-determinism of the individuals involved is an “engram”, a traumatic incident. Any such incident needs to be resolved. It is best if it never happened, but they did and do happen, and they must be identified as such, because the comjpulsive behavior tends to become institutionalized if it is not identified as such and resolved.
Doctrines can be ignored. Compulsive behavior instilled under duress tends to persist, as mistakenly rationalized to be “correct”. This is why “dating” is important – as in TIME, place, form, and event.
LRH evidently conveniently forgot that he himself had admitted in lectures a few years earlier, that he had elected “psychs” as “THE Enemy” somewhat arbitrarily, having been one himself in the past. That’s not to say that Psychiatry in the 1950s and before, wasn’t a rather gruesome business well worth reforming.
I recall discussions along these lines back in the 70s – about how you might have to execute someone, but that didn’t mean you had to hate and be abusive towards them…… Well…….. If you had to kill someone to prevent him from hijacking a plane full of passengers…… I think I might experience a quick flash of hatred there…… It’s not that easy to do the Bruce Willis movie thing under that kind of duress……
My point is, when one considers something very dear to be seriously threatened, one can react in a ridgy way. We are only human, after all.
Not all criticism comes from overts. The statement that all criticism comes from overts can easily shown to be false.
David Miscavige: “We booby trapped the whole psychiatric eco system.”
Audience: WILD with Applause! Applause! Kill! Kill! Destroy! Destroy! Harm attack suppress! We celebrate your enemy condition!
He is up there dramatizing evil purposes on a DED-DEDEX dramitization with videos of bombs and the crowd goes wild!
…………. No wonder those public do not notice it that he booby trapped the whole Scientology system.
His purpose is right there, he announces it at the event. “To booby trap systems. Or to “booby trap”. A stark raving lunatic standing right there in front of them re stimulating “purpose to harm” and they go just wild.
Any “WOG” watching this film clip would probably have the hair stand up on the back of their neck.
You can watch the video clips of him in front of this audience over and over and you see there plain as day, his power to restimulate.
I see it the same way. It is suppression of free thought. It is saying that I am right and you are not allowed to criticize me.
Absolutes are unobtainable.
What is important is the knowledge. If the Church has gone rouge, just ditch it. The knowledge is still available.
It is the A=A=A that knowledge = Church authority, which keeps many people trapped.
After ditching the Church, take a good look at knowledge. Compare it to other knowledge in the world. Then ditch all assumptions, distortions, and curves built into the knowledge.
Here is a solution:
http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/
________________________________
Lest any reader so concludes, I have never said “all criticism comes from overts”, nor do I think so. I do think there exists a special defintion of “criticism”, which LRH used. From lectures, I got that distinct impression. And there is more than one English definition of the word and related words.
They can refer to a more or less chronic fault-finding attitude which looks fo rand finds wrongnesses whereever it looks, kinda like the “glass is always half-empty” kind of person. The opposite is, of course, the “Polyanna it’s all good always seeing the world through rose-colored glasses” kind of person.
The Church of Scientolgy is not in present time.
Hubbard’s behavior didn’t adhere to that special definition of criticism that you are talking about, nor does the current Church oif Scientology.
Hubbard didn’t even want any discussion of his subject, and word clearing adhered strictly to his rules and definitions.
“Ditching” anything and anyone who has had a rough time runs right across the ethical problem of “Am I my brother’s keeper?” For example, Marty could have “ditched” us all instead of speaking out and providing us with a safe haven for developing a multiple viewpoint system by which we could begin to run out whatever group and individual engrams we may have suffered as a result of our contact with or involvement with, Scientology. He likely could have ditched us all and lived a quiet life relatively free of CoS/Miscavige harassment.
Just realizing the absurdity of the idea that Whole Track High Priest Psychs are the most malevolent force in the universe is an application of scientology’s own “making the environment less dangerous.”
The contradictions in the subject are astounding.
Are they absolutely unobtainable? 🙂
Ditching alter-is is not the same thing as ditching is-ness.
>
One is ditching “inconsistencies” or alter-is only.
One usually comes across a datum and compares it to one’s already held beliefs in order to decide upon the truth of this new datum. The truth is decided by the consistency, or coherency, of the new datum with what one already knows.
The truth of what one already knows lies in the degree of consistency among all that one knows. This is because knowledge happens to be relative.There is no datum that is absolutely true.
The immediate level of truth is established by seeing a datum for what it is without using known filters of assumptions, bias, prejudice and fixed ideas.
The next level of truth is obtained by evaluating the datum against what one knows. This level of truth can then be improved upon by discovering inconsistencies associated with the datum and resolving them. In the process of this resolution one may discover filters that one was using unknowingly.
The degree of truth improves as filters are discovered and made inactive.
My view of Hubbard’s work is as follows.
Dianetics is at best a hypothesis.
Auditing is a process based on looking.
Unwanted condition is a lack of harmony in the system.
Charge is the amount of disharmony or inconsistency in the system.
Restimulation is a disharmonious response to stimuli
Engram is an inconsistency held down in place.
Bank is a reference to all inconsistencies collectively.
Unconsciousness is the inability to respond to stimuli.
Preclear is a person unable to handle personal unwanted conditions.
Case is a system of inconsistencies peculiar to the preclear.
Aberration is an obvous inconsistency.
Clear is a person able to handle personal unwanted conditions.
A clear may not display a case but that does mean he cannot develop a case.
Hubbard had a case that he was trying to handle all his life.
And considered quite loopy as far as reason and sanity is concerned.
Hubbard made it his mission to clear the planet. He developed the Church of Scientology as a means to accomplish that, but something seems to have gone terribly wrong.
Apparently Hubbard assumed that to handle individual cases completely the overall case of this planet needed to be handled. He saw the clandestine suppressive powers on this planet to be the reactive mind to be addressed. Thus, to him the group approach became more important than the individual approach.
He stopped looking from the individual’s viewpoint.
The only absolute that I know is that one cannot be aware of one’s non-awareness when it occurs, simply because one is non-aware.
Since Hubbard moved on from addressing the individual case to addressing the group case, he created Sea Org as an extension of his arm and his will (ego). Therefore, Sea Org was the the first group to be conditioned to his will (ego).
I was considered unfit for Sea Org and was fitness boarded out in 1983 after being a Sea Org member for 12 years. I guess they finally figured out that I could not be conditioned. They did a favor to themselves as well as to me.
Hubbard assumption seems to be that by handling the group case one could automatically handle the cases of all individual members.
Looks like that assumption is being proved wrong right now. A group and individual aresimply fractals because the individual, in his turn is a group of cells.
So, one needs to handle the fractal. Hubbard went the wrong way. The fractal is composed of Factor, Axioms and Logics. These elements of fractal needs to be worked out more precisely.
To me the first element of this fractal is:
KHTK Postulate M-1: Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state.
Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.
This element is more basic than the concept of Uncaused Cause or Static.
.
KHTK Postulate M-2: It is a desire to know, which disturbs the ground state into awareness.
The ground state is disturbed because of some desire. It is the desire to know that desires awareness. As awareness arises from the ground state it becomes aware of this desire.
.
KHTK Postulate M-3: The ground state is absolute but unknowable.
The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is the absolute zero. It is an absence of desire and awareness.
In the numbering system, zero is the absence of counting numbers. It then becomes the reference point of all numbers whether positive or negative, rational or irrational, real or imaginary. Similarly, the ground state is an absence of awareness. It then becomes the reference point of anything that one can be aware of, whether potential or actual, real or imaginary, etc.
All awareness, therefore, is relative. No awareness is absolute. It is the ground state that is absolute. But the ground state shall forever remain unknown because awareness of an “absence of awareness” is not possible.
The focus on “enemy” in Scientology comes from Hubbard’s assumption that to handle individual cases completely the overall case of this planet needs to be handled.
There are no absolutes as far as I know. It may be different for you.
>
To John Doe and others.
Here is the source of ‘High Priest Psyches’ as I recall it.
Marty, with your permission.
The Builders and Large Common Universes
Take a closer look at the games universes era. An explosion of creativity and diversity lasting for, well, almost forever. Interaction and activity galore. Every kind of existence you and the rest of us could imagine. An interactive carnival of varying systems of existence the likes of which make the large common universes of late seem mundane in the extreme.
But like an oppressive teacher in a 19th century British classroom, a few decided that what was needed, what was correct, was a completely controlled, extremely ordered, nice and quiet environment. The thought that anyone or any group could build their own universe with whatever rules they wished, and invite friends or even passersby to come and play or even add to the creativity, just wouldn’t do. We can’t have that.
So they built ever larger and more orderly spaces with ever stricter rules. They told us it was more “fair” for everyone. No more confusion. No more having to learn new rules as you went from one space to the next. Made sense at the time. And you were coerced and tricked, and eventually punished into believing that this was the way to go, the right thing to do. Armed with a knowledge of considerations, opinions, desires, fears that most of us had built up and forgotten during our past, they carefully guided us into these traps, convinced this was the best way to go.
The large common universes, like this one.
But that wasn’t their only intent, to make life better for us all. They “knew” they were smarter and superior to the rest of us and it was up to them to decide how things were going to be. And they should be in charge. The average guy wasn’t worthy. Only they had the wisdom and ability to control everything. And as a bonus, they would be respected, revered, feared and looked upon as, dare we say it, Gods. The Masters of the Universe. Total communism on a scale difficult to even comprehend.
Not only that, we were carefully and cleverly dumbed down to a point where this all seemed acceptable to us. We would squabble and argue over the nature of a photon while they would laugh and pass judgment over our activities, for our own (and especially their own) good.
And to really clinch the inescapable nature of this prison, we have all played the role of Master. Want to get ahead, become more than you are, become the boss, be a king yourself? “Yes, that’s right, I’ll be in charge. I’ll fix everyone.” That is the strongest door in the entire prison. (MNR 2013)
We have all played all sides of the game. There are many more details to this than can be posted on a blog, but this is the basic principle of the very solid, tightly controlled environment we are currently occupying.
Mark
Hello John.
High priest psyches are a fact of our past, the effects of which I see every day in my normal dealings with people. But it is just one thing. So are hunting accidents and war memories.
If it is an issue for an individual, it is looked at and handled and they move on to something else. If it is not an issue, other things are handled and so on and so on. Like BTs, whether real of imagined. If it is a problem, handle it. If not, move on.
That, in my opinion, is one of the outpoints of the strictly regimented OT Levels.
Certainly not all members of the psychiatric community are operating on these superiority purposes right now. Some are. Not all construction workers are working on these superiority purposes. Some are. Hamburger flippers, computer programmers, etc.
Mark
PS: Psycho-active drugs are a real and widespread problem in this world. It is not by accident. Please look over my last comment, “The Builders and Large Common Universes”.
Psychoactive drugs were commonly used by the priests who wrote the Vedas. They referred to the drug as Soma. These drugs were not a problem at all. They led to the knowledge of the Vedas.
We seem to be looking at the drugs from the current epidemic of misuse. I doubt if this was the case on the track.
________________________________
These the the KHTK postulates derived so far with the help of Subject Clearing.
KHTK Postulate M-0: The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without. KHTK Postulate M-1: Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state. KHTK Postulate M-2: It is desire to know that disturbs the ground state. KHTK Postulate M-3: The ground state is absolute but unknowable. KHTK Postulate M-4: The ultimate Self of Vedas is this very ground state. KHTK Postulate M-5: The concepts of God and Static are relative to this ground state. KHTK Postulate M-6: The fundamental self-awareness is consciousness. KHTK Postulate M-7: Consciousness is the fundamental property of all existence. KHTK Postulate M-8: Consciousness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing. KHTK Postulate M-9: Consciousness has a frequency, wave-length and period. KHTK Postulate M-10: The physical form of Consciousness is light, and its spiritual essence is awareness. KHTK Postulate M-11: Consciousness has a large range based on frequencies. KHTK Postulate M-12: The primary form is defined by the dimensions of space and time. KHTK Postulate M-14: Space and time are inherently finite. KHTK Postulate M-15: The primary form defined by space and time is spherical. KHTK Postulate M-16: The primary viewpoint is consciousness of all space and time.
________________________________
I know this is off topic, but it is important to post.
The right way to implant you child:
Give them a blessing.
Search: “How to bless your child.”
Read several websites.
With a good blessing, a good implant, it is unlikely he or she will have hard time in life, never mind land up in a place like the COS.
So if any of you still have children at home, or even not at home, consider doing this.
Dio
Well sir, my question is this: Is the statement “Absolutes are unobtainable” itself and absolute statement? If so, where does that leave you? 🙂
Debatable. According to dianetic theory, there must be some awareness of some kind, for any recording to take place. Also, by analogy with a sighted person who is blinded, that person could still be aware that he was able to see, but now cannot see.
That would seem to be why the phrase “awareness of awareness” exists – to describe the apparently paradoxical situation of “awareness of unawareness”.
Your argument basically comes down to logic, and logic is not absolute. 🙂
________________________________
If you would like to have some KHTK sessions based on mindfulness you may contact me. 🙂
Regards, Vinaire
________________________________
There cannot be any recording of non-awareness, because there is no awareness to make the recording. So this area is unknowable.
________________________________
Great non-answer! And what do your arguments come down to, if not “logic”? What is it Geir used to say a lot, about a system can be consistent or complete, but not both? Yeah, Godel’s “Incompleteness Theorems”.
You see, the problem here is not that “logic is not absolute”, because that’s not necessrily true. I could ask the same of this statement you just made – “Is the non-absoluteness of logic an absolute?”
The actual problem is you misquoted LRH in the first place. He did not say “Absolutes are unobtainable” – he said “Absolutes are unobtainable IN THIS UNIVERSE.” He stated the context which modifies the statement, you didn’t, which made the statement incomplete because it did not provide any Where, Why, When or any other context or limitation, which of course made it an absolute and thus meaningless statement.
A piece of hyperbole, if you will.
It should be obvious that if there is an “awareness(awareness a) of awareness(awareness b)” then that awareness could be aware of an unawareness on the part of the awareness that it is aware of. If both awarenesses are part of the same beingness, then there is no problem at all. You seem to keep thinking of “awareness” as singular. Yet you have been posting of each thing, from atoms on up, as having its own consciousness or awareness. That’s inconsistent of you! 🙂
Mark,
Your extensive write up describing the source of high priest psychs is as you recall it.
That is fine, if that is what you want to believe. But please recognize that this is your belief, and even if it still seems really really real to you and explains things to you, your subjective certainty does not make your narrative an objective fact.
I maintain my original position that the rambling assertion by Hubbard toward the end of his life that the only reason this universe is “bad” is because whole track evil psychs/high priests are deliberately and conspiratorially making it bad is absurd and not supported by any convincing evidence.
Could it nevertheless still be a fact? In a word, yes.
But I now choose to believe things are true that are supported by other evidence and observations that they are true.
The “whole-track-psychs-are-the-source-of-all-bad” theory is extremely weak, and debilitating to hold in ones mind as a fact.
Blame, blame, blame!
IMHO, there is a root awareness.
.
________________________________
To me the only absolute is the ground state of awareness.
Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state.
The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is the absolute zero. It is an absence of desire and awareness.
In the numbering system, zero is the absence of counting numbers. It then becomes the reference point of all numbers whether positive or negative, rational or irrational, real or imaginary. Similarly, the ground state is an absence of awareness. It then becomes the reference point of anything that one can be aware of, whether potential or actual, real or imaginary, etc.
All awareness, therefore, is relative. No awareness is absolute. It is the ground state that is absolute. But the ground state shall forever remain unknown because awareness of an “absence of awareness” is not possible.
________________________________
I don’t subscribe to your “monotheistic” view.
This is not a monotheistic view.
Theism = self-centrism.
Monotheism = One self underlying all reality
Self is a product of awareness. There is neither self nor awareness on the ground state, which is known as Mahamudra in Tantra.
“Mahamudra” appears to be a “portmaneau” word, a ‘multivalent’ term. This article is heavy going, but worth rading all the way through. Lots of potentially not understood words to note for future reference, but the essential concepts are pretty clearly stated.
I prefer the simplicity of Scientology, actually.
I have responded to this in another post. Please see
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/clear-and-beyond/#comment-308969
.
John Doe
Thank you much for your reply. I enjoyed your post.
I wrote that article shortly after seeing those occurrences and was excited a bit about putting it together. I decided not to edit it since it was spontaneous and, I thought, more enjoyable and entertaining.
I do realize that whole track memories being put forth as fact for everyone does not exactly fit this site, but it’s a good story.
In my opinion, it is ONE of the constructs among many, of some universes. As I said in another post, you look at it, smile, and move on to something else, then something else. Also, I pretty much agree with Ken Ogger’s view of individuals changing basic operating purposes every few lifetimes. One day, a self righteous preacher, the next time a free thinking philosopher. Next time a contrarian anarchist.
Each aspect of ‘case’ loses it’s significance once it is understood IMHO. LRH did seem to get stuck on that one aspect. (Evil psyches) I believe there are many evils in this world and many wonders to be experienced.
Your thoughts and opinions are valuable and desired.
Mark
Vin.
The KHTK postulates as written, for the most part, don’t fit with my experience. You read my paper ‘From the Beginning’ laying out my recall on the origin of individuality. That we are all 100% one with all and the universe. We are also 100% ourselves, separate individuals, immortal and aware. We are both, simultaneously.
But in the future, I may see something and suddenly say “You know, that’s what Vinay said years ago”.
I go over all your thoughts and conclusions and keep them for future reference. Your work is appreciated.
Mark