Category Archives: independents

Keeping Scientology Working Revisited

The following is an excerpt from the book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.  It covers my introduction to the Policy Letter entitled Keeping Scientology Working.  In the past, we have attempted to discuss  how far this central religious tenet of Scientology ought to be adhered to given its thought-stopping potential.  That discussion degenerated into recriminations, character assasinations, and other indicia of thought stoppping.  Perhaps presented in a fuller context we can consider the effects of this indoctrination without instigating a riot.

From Chapter Seven:

This particular policy (still in use today) was originally issued in 1965. It pronounces that Scientology had by that point achieved “uniformly workable technology.” It states that the only troubles the organization ever encountered were because of incorrect application of that uniformly workable technology.  Therefore, KSW called for zealous enforcement of the standard application of Scientology. By “standard” was meant precise, unquestioning adherence to all technical and administrative instructions from L. Ron Hubbard.  No interpretations or alterations allowed. Only L. Ron Hubbard’s words, followed to the letter. Quite a bit of attention was paid by the course supervisors to each student, on a one-to-one basis, seeking to elicit agreement that they would follow KSW to the letter.

My struggle was attempting to accept that level of certainty, and agreeing to that level of steadfast devotion to the idea that Scientology was it, to the utter exclusion of any other ideas or philosophies – all without the experience of finding out for myself whether Scientology was indeed it.  I could not progress in my studies without first agreeing that the following ideas of L. Ron Hubbard were incontrovertibly true, and that I vowed to adopt and adhere to them:

–          Any inability to agree to the tenets of KSW was due to the fact that “the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button ‘self-importance,” and that “the lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation,”

–          That “the [defense mechanisms] of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront, good or bad, and seek to make it wrong,” and that “the bank [reactive mind] seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.”

–          The idea that “a group [of people] could evolve truth” is inherently false.

–          That Hubbard relied on absolutely no major or basic ideas or suggestions from any other source in developing the world’s only workable mental/spiritual technology, which he called Scientology.

–          “Popular measures” and “democracy” have done nothing for humankind except “push him further into the mud.”

–          Humankind never before “evolved workable mental technology,” but instead only “vicious technology.” Scientology, therefore, must be “ruthlessly followed.”

–          The only common denominator among humans is the reactive mind. Therefore all agreements between humans who have not achieved the state of Clear can only be classified as “bank [reactive mind] agreement.”

–          “Bank agreement” can also be called “collective thought agreement.” Collective thought agreement is responsible for “war, famine, disease” and the development of “the means of frying every man, woman, and child on the planet.”

–          “The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea.”

–          “It’s the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing.  It’s the bank that says we must fail.”

–          “When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe – never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach…If they enrolled, they’re aboard; and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists.”

–          “The proper instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead than incapable.’”

–          “We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better.  The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. This is a deadly serious activity.  And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.”

The tract dramatically drove home some conflicting ideas.  On the one hand, Scientology is portrayed as the only technology for enhancing and preserving individuality.  On the other hand, by the end of the policy Hubbard is demanding that no one be allowed past the first bulletin in Scientology training courses without assuming the identity of hard-core Scientologist, and agreeing to abide by the rules on the same terms as everyone else. The conflicting concepts between the group and the individual were finally resolved by me with the mental computation that the only way to truly realize true individuality is to forfeit individuality in favor of the purposes and goals of the group.

In retrospect, had it not been for the fact that my life seemed so bleak and hopeless, given the circumstances of my brother, I never would have agreed to this indoctrination.  But the world and the state of mental health in my view were as bad as Hubbard described, and up to then I had not found anyone else who saw what I was seeing in such black-and-white terms.  And so I decided to agree and to abide, even though deep inside I did not fully agree.

Only 30 years later did I fully appreciate how significant that moment of intellectual surrender would become. The realization occurred when I read Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, which described precisely what I had done with my fresh, sharply-honed intentional abilities:

 It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

A Little Perspective

Excerpted from “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”, a 1964 essay by Richard J. Hofstadter:

“The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization… he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

“The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman — sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed, he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often, the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

“It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is, on many counts, the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations, set up to combat secret organizations, give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.”

On Becoming A Person

To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – affords a person the opportunity and ability to safely view his life and mind and communicate his observations and conclusions with no hint or possibility of evaluation, invalidation or repercussion, it is a positive methodology for assisting a person to increase awareness and ability.

To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – departs from that formula it is a practice potentially destructive of awareness and ability.

Means by which Scientology adheres to and departs from this workable formula are covered in the books What Is Wrong With Scientology? Healing Through Understanding (Amazon Books, 2012) and Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (Amazon Books, 2013).

Other means by which Scientology routinely, and as a matter of policy, departs from its own workable formula:

  1. Requiring membership in Scientology accompanied by the label and assumption of the personality traits of Scientologist.
  2. Issuance and enforcement of codes of conduct for Scientologists to guide and control their behavior.
  3. The invalidation of gains that people assert they have attained through practices other than Scientology.
  4. Indoctrinating people in detail what incidents they should address and what events lie on their own experiential tracks.
  5. Appealing to fear in order to persuade or coerce people to engage in or continue Scientology practices.

To the extent any purported Scientology practitioner engages in any of these departures, I recommend people steer clear of them.  To the degree they do participate in them is the degree to which they will ultimately contribute to a decrease in your awareness and ability.   These departures may indicate either of the following in the practitioner: a) a lack of understanding of the mechanics of what makes witnessing (including Scientology auditing) a therapeutic activity, and/or b) their own unhandled subjugation to any or all of 1-5.

The fundamental two-way communication process that all Scientology processing derives its workability from existed before L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote a word on the subject of the mind.  It would behoove Scientology auditors to study of it.  A great place to start would be On Becoming a Person by Carl R. Rogers (Houghton Mifflin, 1961).  One of Ron Hubbard’s greatest contributions to the improvement of  mind and spirit was simplifying the codification of such principles thus opening the process of self-actualization to far more people.  Unfortunately, as his group evolved much of that contribution was lost as Scientology became more mass-production oriented, expensive, exclusive, and cult-like.  The training of practitioners became progressively more assembly-line like.  On the one hand that helped to thoroughly drive home some workable skills while on the other hand it omitted a more contemplative, intellectual appreciation for the mechanics at work and the responsibilities incident to such practice.

Many veteran auditors reacted with some surprise when I noted the vital importance of the First Act (the one paragraph contemplation exercise an auditor is advised to engage in so as to have his own head right in order to audit, from Advance Procedures and Axioms) in What Is Wrong With Scientology?  Some noted that there was next to no emphasis placed on that in their auditor training.  That may well be.  But, the book (AP & A) is part of the auditor training line up.  I would suggest that the fact that a single paragraph is devoted to the issue is a flaw in the Scientology line up.  On Becoming A Person is a four-hundred page treatise on the First Act – relating it to every aspect of the actual auditing (or generic, counseling) process.  I believe that an auditor ought to study the book so that he fully appreciates why and how auditing works; and why and how an auditor must become the being (not simply ‘assume the beingness’) that naturally (not mechanically) duplicates, understands, accepts, and fully acknowledges (not with a mere ‘good’, ‘thank you’, ‘I got that’), all while genuinely – and unreservedly – intending the client to regain his or her genuine self and his or her determinism.

It cannot be gainsaid that Scientology is rife with datums, dictates, rules, and policies that detract from this pure, undiluted intention and being.  It therefore would behoove anyone trained in that discipline to read and contemplate On Becoming a Person so as to orient himself to what actually creates gains for an individual, and how the slightest departure from it spoils the process, any process.

Even if you are not an auditor or training to become one, I recommend On Becoming A Person.  It is all about becoming a better person, more of who one really is.

Ripple In Still Water

We have been pretty much closed to folk visiting Casablanca over the past few months while I wrapped up Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.  Now that the book is done and available I am scheduling people again for consultation.

I am in progress on the follow up book to Memoirs which will spell out in some detail how it is that I believe certain principles codified by L. Ron Hubbard can be sensibly practiced; that is, how they can be integrated, how they can evolve, and how people can learn from that to transcend.  One of the purposes of Memoirs was to set the factual foundation for that presentation.  It is difficult to communicate to closed minds that are implanted and conditioned to not dare think along those lines.  I have been labeled by some Scientologists as being like a ‘Nazi War Criminal’, ‘Gestapo’, and worse for attempting to have that conversation.  The reasons for such a reaction are pretty well spelled out in Memoirs.  Rather than waste time attempting to debate with such a mindset, I decided it made more sense for me to spell out the facts that led me to consider that people need to graduate from that frame of mind in order to get anywhere meaningful.  Hopefully Memoirs will help to accomplish that.  Certainly, the follow up book will be all about how to do that.

I am no longer wasting time with the necessarily interminable argumentation on what constitutes ‘standard technology’, ‘standard admin’, and such . You might come to understand through Memoirs how it is that Scientology is hardwired to create that perpetual state of conflict and how it will continue to manifest  down through the ages (to no possible substantive conclusions) if anyone in the future continues to find that activity worthwhile.  In either event, I don’t find that rancorous debate productive.  Most of the people who want to argue (or disconnect) on that subject don’t have much of a production record anyway, so it is like fighting with a gossamer of theory based on a patchwork of quotations.

Based on my several years of Scientology training/practice and based on my several more years of outside-of-Scientology study and practice, I deal with people one on one to try to help them move on up a little higher.   My view is that certain Hubbard principles integrated into and used in such wise brings about lasting results. Conversely,  robotically-applied, wholesale reliance on those principles leads to capture, captivity and ultimately to anguish. Those principles that don’t lead one any higher, or worse lead him or her lower, don’t figure into a program seeking transcendence from frightened, delusory states.  Incidentally, I am convinced that such principles won’t become any more popular either, no matter how much marketing, commanding and fighting one wants to apply to them.

I suggest I can help with a) repair Reverse-Scientology application people may have experienced, b)  repair/rehab any grade or level that might be incomplete or ‘out’, c) put one’s Scientology experience into perspective from which growth is possible,  d) graduate people from the cult and any lingering cult think, or fixation with the cult experience people might be walking around with, e) guide people toward a meaningful transcendence from their Scientology-inflicted obsessions, and f) help OTs transcend the captive, glass ceiling dimension they’ve been led into.

By popular consensus among independent Scientologists, communicated in various ways, the core ideas I propose and what I do cannot be accepted under the title ‘Scientology.’  I accept that.  So, there is no more reason to discuss the chapter of trying to win folk over to my ideas to the contrary.  It is history.

I do not go by any labels and I am not a member of, nor am I affiliated with, any groups.

So as to avoid any conflict or possibility for misunderstanding, I ask anyone interested in my services to first read Memoirs and What Is Wrong With Scientology?   That will give you a good sense of my philosophy about the subject of Scientology and those subjects it overlaps with.  A number of people have told me that by simply reading and thinking with either or both of those books helped them to resolve that which they would have come to me for help to remedy.  So, you might save yourself time and cheddar by simply reading what I have already had to say.  On the other side of the spectrum, I want people to know what I am about in advance so that we don’t waste your time or mine scheduling you for an activity that will offend you by conflicting with your religious beliefs.

 

What Folks Are Saying about ‘Scientology Warrior’

The following are comments from a number of people of diverse Scientology-related demographic backgrounds who have read, or allegedly read, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (also available on Kindle):

Whistleblower:

It is an invaluable record of a remarkable history and contains many insights that were revelatory to me.

Anti Scientologist:

Your lies, whether you know it or not (and I do not consider that you are unaware), serve the Scientology cult head’s command intention.

Former Scientology insider:

I’ve read a lot of books and there are some writers that I struggle reading. They don’t flow or keep you interested. This book is not just interesting but it flows and is easy to read… Marty answers just about everything in this book. It is much more accurate and interesting than the Wright book. Nothing is taken out of context.

Critical analyst of Scientology:

It’s a fascinating book, and there is a lot there that will contribute to the growing archive.

Former Scientologist:

Buy and read if you are an expert, or just curious, and you’re in the ex Scientologist community and know who Marty is.

Independent Scientologist:

Overall, Marty, your book was both a vindication of the workability of the subject of Scientology and also a poignant and honest representation of the failed organization and the brilliant imperfect man who started it all. And you’re right — the extremists in both camps will hate it. But I reckon that those who can hew to the middle path will love it.

Scientology Hater:

As in his first book, Rathbun once again feels compelled to tell us that the genius of L. Ron Hubbard’s notion of a “clear” is a human being who simply knows his or her “basic personality.” Rathbun is supremely satisfied that this is what Hubbard gave him all along. Rathbun knows himself, and that is enough. But after getting through this book’s 326 pages, it’s even clearer to us that Marty Rathbun hasn’t even begun to understand himself or what he did in the name of Scientology.

Church of Scientology blogger Vince Fletcher:

Marty Rathbun was electric shocked – he says so.

One Good Reason To Read ‘Scientology Warrior’

Now for one reason you might want to read Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. Tony Ortega hates the book, characterizing it as a love letter to the cult:  Ortega’s take.

Rattling both ends of the extreme is an indicia of hitting the sweet spot.  Reference:  The Great Middle Path Revisited.

Book_cover_front_back_spine21.5

Scientology in Germany

Please read about and see the New Germany Independent Scientology Center (click link)- translation of text below:

On April 27 our opening party was an overwhelming success. 36 guests filled our new courseroom with a tremendous amount of theta, much more than I have ever witnessed during a comparable event. Scientologists – some had not met in 15 years – were in a real extasy of communication.

We had guests from one half of Germany. A few friends from Ron’s Org attended, too. Although we are completely separate groups we were not at all competition minded. Our center delivers auditing up to Clear and auditor training including the solo course. We use course materials produced before the alleged “golden age of tech”.

Our staff – Rita, Maria, Georg and I (Klaus) – would like to say a big thank you to all friends who had been present, whether physically or spiritually. Your huge amount of positive postulates and theta will be with our new group! We hope we will be able to go on with further renovations quickly. The rooms areavailable and as soon as they are needed we will start !

ARC

Klaus Weigel

PS.: The people on the photos have all agreed to be shown here. But there were some more guests on our party.

The Quest: Quixotian or Gandhian?

On his ‘Dean of Technology’ course titled Class VIII, L. Ron Hubbard advises that the ultimate state of consciousness attainable in Scientology (dubbed OT, for Operating Thetan) is simple.  The state is attained when the individual no longer carries any lies with him.  An individual is as OT as he doesn’t walk about with lies.

So it is with Scientology itself.  As a subject it contains a wonderful body of technology for helping to strip a person of the lies through which he filters the universe around him.  The biggest problem with broad dissemination and application of that technology is its self-imposed prohibition on differentiating that technology from the broader body of Scientology work that is chock-full of lies.

Because of the religious cloak with which L. Ron Hubbard chose to enwrap Scientology, the discernment of truth from lies within Scientology is not an easy task.  L. Ron Hubbard wrote a large body of doctrine satanizing anyone who attempts to look at his body of work in a critical fashion.  In fact, the very term ‘criticism’ – at least when directed toward Hubbard or Scientology – has been solidly re-defined in Scientology to be the activity of only sociopaths and criminals.

Thus in 1967 Hubbard published an article in a Scientology journal for all Scientologists to heed and adhere to.  Entitled Critics of Scientology it pronounced the following:

Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea.  Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts…

…If you, the criticized, are savage enough and insistent in your demand for the crime, you’ll get the text, meter or no meter.  Never discuss Scientology with the critic.  Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.  And act completely confident that those crimes exist.  Because they do.

Hubbard issued dozens of pages of directives to his church to investigate  – with the aim of destruction of – critics of Scientology.  When the ‘technical fact’ he preached above proved to be utterly false (as determined by the intelligence agency he created to prove it – called the Guardian’s Office), Hubbard advised the agency to skip the investigations, create and plant and then ‘discover’ and expose the evidence of crime.  He was particularly vicious and ruthless in his directives to destroy those who attempted to clarify, refine, or simplify Scientology technology so as to reach more people effectively.

In a 1955 Professional Auditor’s Bulletin Hubbard directed Scientologists on how to deal with Scientologists not toeing the line with the religious cult of Scientology as follows:

Personally, if I were an auditor and found my area being muddied up to that extent, I would have a definite feeling, if I permitted it to go on, that I was not doing all I could do to spread Scientology in my area.  I would have taken such a screwball out of the running so fast he would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck, and I don’t mean thought-wise.  But then the difference between me and an apathetic auditor is that I fight, and I get things done.

Hubbard advised that such screwballs be sued in the following manner:

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

Hubbard dealt with what he called ‘squirrels’ (defined as those who alter Scientology) in such wise to the very end of his life.  In fact, the last person who served as his own auditor in the late seventies and who was the Hubbard-appointed senior-most Scientology technical  supervisor in the world, one David Mayo, was the final target of such Hubbard scorn.  When Mayo started practicing Scientology outside of the control of the cult in the early nineteen-eighties Hubbard directed that the church ‘squash him like a bug.’  Notwithstanding that Mayo’s essential ‘clarification’ concerning Scientology was that the violent, combative aspects were not true L. Ron Hubbard technology.

It is because of the above that the Office of Special Affairs continues to attempt to destroy my wife and me – and anyone else who does stand for truth when it comes to Scientology.  It is not because David Miscavige tells them to.  It is because they are religiously bound to attempt to destroy us by any means necessary.

The violent, reactive attitude toward ‘squirrels’ is so deeply implanted in Scientologists that even the latest ‘independent Scientology’ movement – which the church of Scientology dubs ‘squirrel’ – facily accuses people attempting to differentiate workable Scientology technology from its ample supply of lies as being ‘gestapo’, ‘war criminals’, and ‘Nazis.’

Ironically, this firmly implanted, combative attitude is one-hundred and eighty degrees, diametrically opposed to the attitudes, states of mind, and states of consciousness that sane, understanding application of Scientology processes are capable of bringing about.

My views and aims have not much changed in the past four years.  In sum, to the extent that that which works in Scientology can be differentiated from that which disables, by – among other things – radicalization, L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas have a future.  To the degree that differentiation process is killed, Hubbard’s ideas die.

I am letting it be known that in spite of the ample back stabbing, cur dog yapping, and undermining and severing of all of our sources of support that we’ve encountered in the past four years, we continue to pursue our course.  Whether the quest turns out to be more Quixotian or more Gandhian will likely be apparent by the end of this year in my estimation.

“Too much sanity may be madness.  And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be.”  – Dale Wasserman, playwright, attributed to Don Quixote author Miguel Cervantes in the play, The Man From La Mancha

“A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Becoming Clear

The communication training routines in Scientology are very much downplayed in my opinion.  Supervised with the requisite attention and emphasis, in and of themselves they are a tremendous advance toward the state of Clear.  Ron Hubbard at one time made that point rather plain.

From L. Ron Hubbard’s lecture Scientology and Effective Knowledge (15 July 1957):

I woke up eventually to discover that these training drills (communication training routines) all by themself, practiced with sufficient rigor and coached well enough and instructed well enough, were steps on the road to Clear, all by themselves, without any further processing…

…And where training and processing processes are successful, they lead toward a straighter communication.  And therefore, the road out is marked by simplicity and direct observation….

…The whole subject opens up at its inception with just this: that the simplicity of observation, the simplicity of communication itself and only itself, is functional and will take Man from the bottom to the top.  And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.

Provided one approached the training routines with the above in mind, and not as a bait and switch toward dependence on years and years of costly and complex psychotherapy or membership in some true-believer group, one might avoid the pitfalls Ron warned of in the same lecture:

Now, that’s the first thing we must know about Scientology is that by the attainment of a simplicity we accomplish a benefit. By the attainment of a simplicity, we accomplish a benefit.  By the invitation of or involvement in a complexity, we accomplish the unfathomable and create a mystery.  We sink Man into a priesthood, we sink him into a cult.

It is interesting to note that Taoists had a similar philosophical view about becoming clear more than two millenia ago.   From Lieh-Tzu: A Taoist Guide to Practical Living (translations of ancient Taoist texts) by Eva Wong:

Those who are involved are muddled; those who watch are clear.

There was a man who was so intent on avenging his father’s death that he could think of nothing else.  He was so engrossed in making plans for his revenge that he forgot he was holding his walking stick upside down.  He leaned on his staff and the sharp point punctured his cheek.  One of his friends said, ‘He is so deep in his own thoughts that everything around him is a blur.’

There was another man who was obsessed with getting rich.  One day he went into the bank and tried to walk off with several bags of gold.  The guards caught him immediately.  A passerby said, ‘only a fool would think of robbing a bank in the presence of armed guards.’  The man said, ‘my mind was so set on the gold I didn’t see the guards.’

You often see people stumbling into walls or stepping into holes because they are so occupied by their thoughts that they don’t see what’s in front of them.  When we are too involved in a situation, we can’t see straight, and things that are obvious and clear to bystanders are a blur to us.  This is very dangerous.

The training routines that Ron devised, well supervised by those not caught in the rapture/delusion of complex scripture, go a long way in attaining that ability to be clear.  A handy stable datum to help steer one clear of the ‘priesthood’ and ‘cult’ aspects of Scientology is to question anything you encounter that doesn’t seem to contribute to this:  And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.

Total Certainty – Really?

Reference: What We Are Doing Here

Some people get mixed up in Scientology with its sometimes obsessive attempted attainment toward and assertion of  ‘total certainty.’   It would seem such folk may have jettisoned some basic Scientology axioms and laws in pursuit of later claims and emphases.  Consequently, I find a lot of former and independent Scientologists are mixed up on the Know-to-Mystery scale.  They can’t seem to understand why it is that ‘Not Know’ is the second highest rung on the scale.  This conundrum was addressed in an earlier post, What We Are Doing Here.   Of late, we have been examining the subject of judgmentalism on this blog – most recently its relationship to sociopathy, The Psychopath Test.   In reviewing one of the texts from the recommended reading section of this blog, The Sociopath Next Door, I came across a passage that sheds a little light on this subject of ‘total certainty’ particularly as it relates to judgmentalism.  It gives some idea why it can seem untoward or uncomfortable or even anti-survival to obsess with attainment of  total certainty.

From Chapter Five, why conscience is partially blind:

One of the more striking characteristics of good people is that they are almost never completely sure that they are right.  Good people question themselves constantly, reflexively, and subject their decisions and actions to the exacting scrutiny of an intervening sense of obligation rooted in their attachments to other people.  The self-questioning of conscience seldom admits absolute certainty into the mind, and even when it does, certainty feels treacherous to us, as if it may trick us into punishing someone unjustly, or performing some other unconscionable act.  Even legally, we speak of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ rather than of complete certainty.