Ditto! “Life is in session.”
LRH also wrote something along those lines possibly about the behaviour of Clears and The Auditor’s Code but I have forgotten the exact reference so be very aware that what I am writing constitutes ‘verbal tech’ and might be wrong.
The fictional character of Jettero Heller in ‘Mission Earth’ could be viewed as a model of a top auditor.
The original assertion here about evaluation is a very fallacious argument that plays on misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding both ‘evaluate’ and ‘invalidate’ and the contexts in which they are used. The Auditor’s Code does not forbid evaluation but evaluating FOR the preclear. Scientologists that invalidate people by telling them their personal evaluations of them only create antagonism against The Church of Scientology. Yeah, that’s right I’m a 1.1 and the King of Wishful Thinking.

I hear you Cindy. I was using the word ‘check’ in the financial sense.

I can’t stand Scientology and all its brainwashing. L Con Hubbard was only concerned with fame and fortune. He started a cult then made rules to ensure others were controlled and intimidated to stay by denouncing them or declaring them suppressive. What a degraded son of a bitch he was. What a prison, a mental prison. Fuck off Scientology! I’ll celebrate the day you close for good. You’re an evil cult driven by a sawed-off wannabe named David Miscavidge. Fuck you!!

Well then, what definition are you using? And I guess you don’t have an answer to my other question either?

I have an “MU”. Yes, that’s the ticket.

Roger: “The ‘group agreement’ hypothesis is not grounded in anybody’s experience and it has never been demonstrated that a person can ‘disagree’ with a natural law and render it null and void at will.”

Where does Hubbard say that “a person can ‘disagree’ with a natural law and render it null and void at will”?

You might have an MU on what he meant by agree and disagree. The word “agreement” is defined in the tech dictionary as “a mutual knowingness” or “a consideration shared in common.”

The same definition in a regular English dictionary: “the situation when people have the same opinion or have made the same decision about something”

Note that the word “or” in that definition gives a choice.

In response to Foolproof’s statement that Hubbard’s observations are born out of real life experiences “every time”. It should be noted that OBSERVATIONS can be born out of no other thing. But certainly his doctrines are not born out of observations EVERY TIME.

Hubbard asserts the thetan creates matter, energy, space and time by postulating them. What REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE leads to this hypothesis? My real life experience and that of everybody else I know is that we do NOT create MEST. That hypothesis is contrary to human experience collectively and historically as all cultures have ascribed the causation of the universe to an unseen “otherness”, God. I know of no culture that has ever claimed we created our own universe as a collaborative effort or through some kind of group agreement. That’s because it is not our experience that we did.

The “group agreement” hypothesis is not grounded in anybody’s experience and it has never been demonstrated that a person can ‘disagree’ with a natural law and render it null and void at will. Therefore at least some of Hubbard’s doctrines are NOT rooted in real life experiences. And this doctrine is his premier one.

Auditing a few people in that manner would make for a excellent case study,

“But picking the best and discarding wholesale the controversial parts of Scientology is the conundrum constant Catch 22, since one can’t be a full blown Hubbardite unless one utilizes the full blown Hubbard playbook, yet doing so is harmful and inhumane.”

That puts it very concisely! $cn is not an all-you-can eat buffet in which you’re completely free to choose what to swallow and what to pass up – you MUST swallow the entire Hubbardian cosmology with no caveats, exceptions, counter-arguments or alternative explanations allowed.

Like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims whose holy texts must be accepted as literally true and the actual Word of God, $cn’s holy scriptures are the Word of Elron which must taken as infallible and unquestionable.

FP, if that statement was true, then the Word of Elron would indeed deserve to be regarded as infallible and to be followed blindly. However, this is clearly NOT the case. Elron lied repeatedly and without remorse about his past in just so many different ways that he’s completely undermined his own credibility and authoritative status to pronounce on anything.

Putting aside the entirety of his false claims about his own personal past, none of the important claims concerning the abilities that $cn practitioners would standardly regain as clears and OaTys have ever been objectively demonstrated at any time by any person. No one can do what he claimed everyone who had attained these advance levels of processing should be able to do. If they could, then we’d certainly would have seen one by this very late date.

So, taken together, it would be much more accurate to say that almost none of the important claims that Elron made for the efficacy of The Tek are true and almost every one of his claims of personal accomplishment were false and consciously made up in order to con the gullible.

I understand that it is very, very hard to continue to hold The Holy Tek in high esteem as the ultimate salvation of mankind when the founder’s own thoroughly duplicitous and out-ethics life is being exposed, but I’d suggest that, hard as that might be, dwelling in such profound denial is worse.