PM: “It sounds to me like you are describing an approach that is highly subjective and variable, not a ‘technology’ in any normal sense of the word, and certainly not a science or a scientific approach…”

What self-improvement system do you know of that is not “an approach that is highly subjective and variable”? And what system can you name – whether spiritual or a psychotherapy – that has been validated as science or a scientific approach?

The Middle Path post I mentioned was entirely unrelated to a middle path regarding scn. I took it as something Marty came up with, probably from studying eastern philosophies such as the Tao which he has promoted. There were six contemplative suggestions. I found them beneficial and here they are:

Seek balance of intellect and intuition

Harmonize reason and compassion

Make concert of heart and mind

Modulate the need to do or say with the abilities to observe, to share and to let be

Spice the syntheses with rhythm

Recognize the oft-intruding, peculiar notion that you have arrived and let it pass

marilidi, thanks for taking a stab at my question.

I don’t see that you’ve provided any sort of consistent guideline, as I asked about. Instead, your answer seems something along the lines of throw it against the wall, and see what sticks.

It sounds to me like you are describing an approach that is highly subjective and variable, not a “technology” in any normal sense of the word, and certainly not a science or a scientific approach (which is fundamental to the basic definition of technology). I get the impression that you have taken Hubbard’s claims of standardness and certainty out of it, but that wouldn’t seem to leave you with much of a coherent system.

Exactly, Mike. SOS and the Chart of Human Evaluation was written 6 decades ago and still remains exactly as it was from day one. Why is that? There is a reason.

If Hubbard had lived another twenty years in good health and state of mind, if he lived interacting with society in a meaningful way, not as a recluse, would he have changed his writings? We don’t know the answer to that. The CoS has kept Hubbard’s so called scientific research on homosexuality intact. This has affected people, whether the ‘scene’ within the church seemed okay for gays or not. I have heard plenty of discriminatory talk when I was in the church by Scientologists. Staff and public alike, and it was exclusively based on Hubbard’s proclamations regarding 1.1’s and what should be done with low toned people in society.

Marilidi, I’m sorry but you are trying to gild a turd.

I had a great Chiropractor for my bad hip,back,I could see a reg Dr who prob give me muscle relaxers which don’t help the problem least mine so I’d go see my chryo & a week of visits for most part & I was back but when U have pinched nerves a chyro can help wish had one now sciatica stinks.neck,back but ones body needs to be aligned,some of us who’ve done it & it helped we know it can work yet I’m sure some it can’t but I’m a believer in it..

“Great gains” from OTIII? I’m afraid in these smarter days where we’re hip to how people can work themselves up into the most sublime states of ecstasy through the power of suggestion, saying that somebody had “wins” or “gains” etc carries no weight. It doesn’t mean anything other than they had a meaningful subjective experience.

There are no shortage of meaningful subjective experiences whether they’re from Tony Robbins’ self help seminars or from being ‘born again’ into the love of Jesus. “Meaningful” experiences are really just ordinary experiences for people who are bored and discontent. That goes for “gains” and “wins”. In truth, EVERYTHING is extraordinary and there is no need whatsoever to make a fuss about “gains”, and “wins” (unless maybe you’re one of those unfortunate few whose suffering is all-consuming).

COMPLETELY FALSE MARILDI.

LRH directed which types of releases are the unalterable Tech of scientology and it is NOT only HCOBs that is covered by KSW. It covers all his books on the subject, all tech videos produced by Gold, all tapes lectures, official auditor training material.

So once again you are either intentionally lying or, you are again showing that your knowledge of the subject is HIGHLY flawed to say the least.

YOU can inform people which of those two it is.

PM: “What is the clear guideline for which of Hubbard’s writings to accept as the path to sanity and freedom, and which get rejected as totalitarian madness?”

The “path” consists of the application of tech, not necessarily belief in the theory. For example, I’ve read or heard of people who did not believe the OT III narrative was litterally true, but they applied the procedures and had great gains.

Regarding HCOBs, see my last reply to Mike regarding the relationship of HCOBs to other materials.

Sorry, Mike. I didn’t say it quite right. Here’s what I had in mind (from HCO PL “Seniority of Orders):

“HCOBs are senior to all other orders in tech.”

But my main point has to do with application – and the application of Book One auditing (or any other tech) to a homosexual is no different than to anybody else.