But for exemple, I think that Pain and Sex is quite weird. And the whole Psychs/FPRD business. It doesn’t add up with Not’s which seems to be from different author. For Not’s we believe it was co-authored with David Mayo. We also know that Hubbard was half dead when Mayo went to audit him in 1978. I would say that in 1982 he really was in a very bad shape. How could he write all those bulletins and lists? But who could have developped FPRD? Ray Mithoff? RTRC?
Mayo in one bulletin on Trs describe Mithoff as a not so bright.
Lot’s of outpoints.
Earlier you have some contrary fact between some bulletins, I could write… on the subject as well…
Like HCOB Time and the TA (from 63) and Ned which says a chain should be run with minimum TA to prevent restim…

ThetaClear, I am interested, which part of the tech did you disagree with? I find easly outpoints on later than 82 tech. But not really in earlier one. I was not aware of outpoints. So I’m very interested in your finding.

It is because of the internet that I have free and full access to the tech.

It is because of the internet that Hubbard’s deceptive system of pay-per-view knowledge has been laid bare.

It is because of the internet that we now know of Chug, Farsec and various other snippets from Hubbard’s super secret “advices”.

Not to mention the countless and courageous exs, activists and journalists who have spoken out.

Not Hubbard.

No other subject I know of is taught by withholding key discoveries and data right from the start. Medical students are not forced to learn how to administer leeches before being taught about disease, dissection, imaging, homeostasis, molecular biology, drug mechanisms, neurobiology and reproduction.

DMSMH, for example, has never been updated with the “discovery” that the bank is self created and that a clear is one who grasps this. Absolutely nothing about NED! It also doesn’t explain why there is a volcano on its front cover.

FOT, the last time I checked, does not mention anything about the parasitic ghosts of our gazillion year-old ancestors. Or how scientology provides the only path to recovery from the horrific abuses inflicted upon us by ancient slavers and evil space fascists.

The “data line” is indeed hidden. Hubbard did not intend for us to have all of his “knowledge” at our fingertips otherwise the books would have been updated, the courses rewritten and the entire bridge redesigned.

Thanks Hemi; always the gentleman! 🙂

Please, keep in touch!

“Please try to limit the length of your comments. Why don’t you start a blog so you can get all your thoughts out? I just don’t have time to read it all.”

My apologies Mike, and that’s actually a good idea. Thanks for your patience and for posting my replies.

“ThetaClear I will read the interview. Your idea that one only take in account while researching what makes him right. Well it rings a bell but there is somthing faulty on this idea, I can’t say really what…”

I got you, FG. Please, just watch those interviews and read those books. Then reevaluate everything in a new unit of time and decide for yourself what is what.

As regards to your other comment, that subject is called, “Confirmation Bias”. We all have them to some degree or another. Research the topic online. It is really very helpful to understand that concept.

As to DM, I don’t doubt that Scn got much, much worse after him. There is no denying that. But that is totally irrelevant to our original argument. My argument was, “Disconnection and Fair Game was never actually cancelled after RJ68”. And that’s a fact verified by numerous eyewitnesses testimonies. Now, whether or not you decide to believe in those testimonies, is totally up to you. In my case, I was 100% convinced.

As to whether or not I would still be practicing Scn if LRH was still alive and in charge, I had dozens and dozens of disagreements with LRH looooong before I even knew about DM’s stupidities. I was never the “KSW” type who blindly followed LRH, and that got me into more Ethics trouble that you can imagine. I always had my own mind about things, and my only error was in believing that LRH had been honest when he said that he had “researched” those things. He NEVER did. But I didn’t bother to check it out, even with an engineering background. It could be said that I never was really a Scientologist, only too trusting.

Absolutely wonderful, mature, wise!!!
I couldn’t agree and disagree more… 🙂 🙂 But much more agree.
Left me speechless!
And thanks Mike for all the patience and hard work!
Hemi ♥

Kind of hard to rise above something that doesn’t exist as such.

Please try to limit the length of your comments. Why don’t you start a blog so you can get all your thoughts out? I just don’t have time to read it all.

“Hi my dear Peter,”

“Always a pleasure to bask in your presence, wit and wisdom. Even as you flare up as a wild volcano, always in the end, the boiling lava and primal substances erupting are settling down to BE fertile soil for growth.”

🙂 Thanks Hemi; it never ceases to amaze me how much of a gentleman you are! And a poet as well! 🙂 No offense, but you look like everything except a Scientologist, haha.

“To relate to even 1/10 of your comments, needs a whole weekend, food, coffee, music and friends. When are you coming to visit? Seriously!”

Haha, I might actually surprise you one of these days. I am very much into history of religion and what better place than Israel for that, 🙂 They have the best scholars in the world!

“Just one ‘small issue’: The eastern paths, examples: the Tao and the Buddha (Gautama) path to enlightenment were not some nice wise sayings. They were complex paths laid down with many techniques, principles, study and a lifetime of guidance in order to reach Enlightenment, ending of suffering, of birth and death cycles, to name just a few CLAIMS AND EPS.”

I know what you mean, and that’s a great argument, btw. However, those spiritual practices were not called “Science” in any way by their founders, and the “EPs” sought for, were very general (or broad) in nature, and fell mostly under “philosophical goals” such as “The end of suffering”, “Enlightenment”, “The conquest of the Ego”, etc. In other words, their claims were mostly religious ones (there were never meant to be “scientific”), and they never claimed to be the “ONLY possible route to salvation or Enlightenment”. Buddha didn’t, and most Eastern teachers didn’t, either.

But remember my friend, LRH positioned Scn against the “exactness” of a science such as physics, and even allegedly “more accurate” than it. I have no beef with Scn’s philosophical concepts – not with most of them, at least; actually I like the majority of them – but I DO have a big issue with things being presented as “facts” or “scientific truths” when they are actually opinions or just personal experiences unsupported with enough evidence and testing.

Also Hemi, those philosophies didn’t charge others in order for them to have “Truth” available for them, buth their teachings were FREE. As I mentioned before, Scn is sold as a “workable psychotherapy” with VERY specific EPs which are VERY clearly defined, and for which one HAS to pay to achieve it; only problem being that people DON’T achieve them at all, as advertised. Again, my friend, “Similars are no similar”, to keep with my “volcanic flare-ups”, 😉

“I know, I have close friends who practice these paths and we share wins happily. Many, many people, in old times, dedicated their lives, neglecting other dynamics (mistake!) to try and reach those claims, from sunrise to sunset through most humble way of life. Hardly anyone reached those Eps and no proof was presented for anything”.

I am well aware of that having been a student myself of original Theravada Buddhism, and of Non-dualism with excellent teachers such as Mooji, Adyashanti, etc. I am extremely familiar with all those practices, ending up dismissing most of them, as I don’t agree with their basic goals like, “Ending Suffering” (which is actually a non-confront of life), or achieving “Oneness with everything, while ‘dissolving” the Ego”, etc. IMHO, those goals are misguidedly aimed at “detachment from Life” and a denial of understanding and recognizing the existence of an ACTUAL ”Self”.

That having been said, those “EPs” or “Goals” were mostly “religious” and “philosophical” in nature, and it should be obvious to you, my dear friend, that any religion presupposes a specific goal to achieve. If not, what would be the point of it, you know? But again, Hemi, one wasn’t expected to pay for anything, and nobody was pushing their teachings down people’s throats. And most of them never asserted to be the “only way”. And one doesn’t expect any “proof” from any religions as they are based on the concept of “Faith”, whatever that meant for different religions.

“But our world is better off for these efforts, no? (not always, not automatically).”

I agree with that.

“And many people do believe that this stupid, unproven, unsubstantiated, un-measurable, totally un-scientific THING called the spirit or Thetan or whatever, is valid and can be related to, even as a dream.”

You can include me in that club!! But even though that I believe in that due to past personal experiences (even BEFORE Scn, when I was still a kid), I don’t claim that my belief is based on “scientific evidence” or on any “proof”. It could be said that it falls under the heading of “Faith”, for me.

“Just one more thing: Spiritual work IS NOT EASY. Sometimes very hard and at other times extremely ‘don’t feel like doing it’ activity!”

Tell me about it!!

“Masters used to TRICK their disciples to get on with it, with whatever bullshit the particular guy wanted to hear. Don Juan (in the Carlos Castaneda series) used to do it a lot, to push Carlos to the next stage, for which he was very thankful later. The Buddha directed millions to achieve what HE DAMN WELL KNEW hardly anyone will!!”

I know, Hemi. I’ve been there myself.

“so, a con man, or a great teacher giving mankind a hope and a glimpse of getting out of the mud. Food for thought.”

Well, there exist good criteria to answer that apparent “dilemma”.Do those “spiritual teachers” were honest and non-authoritative in their approaches to knowledge and wisdom, not getting rich with their teachings (most of them were actually very poor); or did they use incredible claims to lure others into paying thousands of dollars to “buy” the ticket to “Truth”? And your (or anyone’s) answer to that, determine Undue Influence or lack of, and whether it is a con or “hope”.

“I never cared much about Eps of moving objects or being all (physically) powerful or any other magic tricks. What for?? Boring!!! I have more to say on that, but… no time.”

Unfortunately, my dear friend, there were many, many (like me) whose main purpose was to achieve the advertised results, and who felt betrayed by LRH after decades of trying to naively achieve such states that we later found out, that not even LRH himself had achieved them while he pretended that he did. And I am not even referring here to “moving objects”, nor “taking the atmosphere off of planets”, etc. I am referring to things like “Exteriorization with full perception”, “Total whole track recall”, “The ability to handle life with postulates instead of with effort”, “The certainty of Self as a spiritual being”, etc, etc.

But I see now SO many Scientologists settling for much, much, less than what was ACTUALLY promised, while “handling” the pressure of their “cognitive dissonance” of it all, with things like, “Well….you know, I never really wanted to become a ‘superhuman’; I only wanted to have good wins, and blah, blah, blah……”. Oh come on, Hemi; it is with me that you are talking. I KNOW what most of us wanted from the Bridge. Don’t tone it down now, please. Don’t act like those guys from MS2; you don’t belong to that crew, haha.

“Peter my friend, are you still on the yahoo.com address? Love to be in touch when convenient.”

Sure Hemi; anytime my friend! Yes, I still have that address, but in any case, you can ask Mike for it.

It is always VERY refreshing to talk with Scientologists such as yourself. I don’t mind at all whose arguments are more “right” than the other’s, so much as I like to show to others here the two sides of the coin, with good, sensible and emotionally detached arguments, such as what we are doing. IMHO, it is this kind of discussion that brings about positive and useful conclusions where the “winner” is Truth itself and wisdom, and the fact of having shared our viewpoints.