Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the month “June, 2012”

What’s Wrong With The Independent Field, Part 6: Homosexuality

This could also go under the heading “What’s Wrong With the Church of Scientology”, but that’s a whole other story. I’m putting it under the current category because I’ve heard more about it now than I ever heard when I was in the Church 25 years ago. Also, I do not want to engage in a political discussion of this topic. I’ll leave the politics of homosexuality to the political blogs.

It has been widely said in the Independent Field that Ron’s statements on homosexuality are obviously based on the mentality of people in the 1950s, when LRH first wrote about it. This statement is not only disrespectful, it’s not true.

First, Ron didn’t write a significant amount about homosexuality. His statements on the subject appear primarily in Dianetics The Modern Science Of Mental Health and Science Of Survival. Why? Because it was not a big issue at the time. It still isn’t.

Second, Ron’s statements on the subject stem from actual research. When Ron put together the Chart of Human Evaluation from Science of Survival, he observed the behavior of humans and coordinated his observations with positions on the Tone Scale. At the particular spot on the chart where homosexuality occurs, you will also find other items, such as promiscuity and pedophilia. Not coincidentally, if you carefully observe all parts of the homosexual community, you will also find those activities more pronounced than they are in the remainder of humanity. This is not a matter of opinion or cultural bias. It is a matter of observation.

It should also be pointed out that placing someone at a given point on the Tone Scale involves not just one trait. There is an abundance of columns on the Chart of Human Evaluation. In order to place someone on the Tone Scale, it is necessary to use the whole chart, not just one column. So finding that someone is homosexual (one column) does not automatically place them at covert hostility (or below). One must see several or a majority of columns clustered at the same tone level.

Let’s be clear. Homosexuality is not normal. If it were, the majority of humans would be gay (the current acceptable euphamism for homosexuality). For that matter, neither is left-handedness. Keep that statement in mind.

Homosexuality could arise from two different places. First, gender confusion. A thetan spends lifetime after lifetime as one gender, and suddenly this lifetime, for whatever reason, ends up as a different gender. The thetan could potentially be confused by this situation, and dissatisfied with (or even under protest about) the gender he or she finds himself or herself in this lifetime. This could obviously cause its own set of problems, quite in addition to whatever other forces are at work in a case. Second, homosexuality can arise from aberration. Such aberration could be engramic, a result of service facsimiles, false purposes, or any of a number of other causes. I’ve personally seen homosexuality arise as a direct result of rape in more than one person. Additionally, you will find some homosexuals who express in their behavior extremes of the opposite of their biological sex. These would be the extremely effeminate man or the extremely masculine woman. This usually also accompanies an OCA where the person is “down on the left”. These people are out of valence, which is clearly an aberrated condition.

Now, have you ever heard of a “Homosexual Rundown” designed to “cure” homosexuality? No? Why not? Because in any given case, homosexuality may not stem from an auditable condition. And in any given case, if homosexuality does stem from some auditable aberration, it should yield to standard auditing.

Let me draw a sort of parallel. My daughter’s teen years were particularly troublesome for us as parents. And I often wondered, as troublesome as teens often are, why isn’t there some action or rundown particularly targeted at them? I finally concluded that the reason Ron had almost nothing to say about teens and no special rundown for them, had to be because their condition must yield to standard auditing actions. At that point, I started to try to categorize teen problems by what part of the tech might apply to them. My conclusion (with which you’re free to disagree) was that the most important piece of technology influencing teen bad behavior was O/W. Outside of drug use or other more pronounced phenomena, the behavior of wayward teens most closely resembles someone who has masses of overts and withholds stuck to them. One way I confirmed this for myself was that I never went through a troublesome period with my parents. Coincidentally, I took care as a teenager to follow my parents rules (with which I mainly agreed), even when they weren’t around.

My point here is that if there is anything to be audited for a homosexual, it should be covered by standard auditing actions. And if a given case of homosexuality doesn’t “yield” to standard auditing, perhaps there’s nothing there to audit.

The next question may be this: Say a person’s homosexuality does stem from some aberration, and they get standard auditing which resolves the original confusion or painful experience which triggered it. Yet they remain homosexual. Ron discusses this indirectly when he talks about the “cleared cannibal”. Someone who is educated as a cannibal or immersed in a cannibalistic culture, may still persist in cannibalism, despite auditing. This is not aberration. It is simply an environmental condition and part of the complexity of a being.

One last point: persecution of homosexuals. Ask yourself, from all your reading of LRH, can you imagine him condoning the persecution of homosexuals? Did Ron condone the harassment of drug addicts, southpaws, people with acne scars from their teen years, or those who preferred chocolate ice cream over vanilla? I never heard of it, if he did. From my knowledge of LRH, I don’t believe he would have encouraged the automatic harassment of anyone (except maybe psychs [joke]).

As I’ve done before, let me point out that I am not trying to set myself up as Source here. LRH is and always will be Source. Nothing I’ve said here involves “new” technology, a hidden data line or some other practice. It is simply what I consider a rational application of the Technology to a particular issue. Had Ron lived longer, perhaps he would have addressed this issue in more detail. But I suspect if he did, the above is approximately the approach he would have taken. You’re free to disagree.

What’s Wrong With The Independent Field, Part 5: Psychs

There appears to be a thread in the Independent Field which is at least somewhat sympathetic to “psychs” (psychiatrists/psychologists). Again, I would advise caution.

There are those in the Field who reject or would soften LRH’s sweeping pronouncements regarding psychs in the present society and on the whole track. Let’s take these two subjects separately.

LRH said a fair number of things that I was unsure about. But then again, Ron grew up and was educated in a different era than I was, and had far more real world experience than I have. Not to mention, he was more observant and pragmatic than I am. Plus, he’d audited and C/Sed thousands of hours more than I (I’m not tech trained). So I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt before I simply reject one of his claims.

For example, Ron held psychs down the track responsible for a great many bad things then and now. But it should be remembered, Ron spent considerable time and effort researching the whole track, more than most auditors or PCs/Pre-OTs have spent looking there. Is it possible that perhaps that search turned up some things you and I don’t know about the “psychs” on the whole track? It seems pretty clear that people on the whole track who implanted others could be considered the “psychs” of their societies, at least. (This doesn’t mean they were psychs lifetime after lifetime. Maybe some were and some weren’t.) I imagine that any group of “experts” which proclaimed to be able to control a population, and did so at the behest of that society’s rulers, could be considered the “psychs” of their societies as well. Whether they used machines, drugs, or propaganda to do so.

Psychs in this day and age still perform some incredibly damaging practices in the name of “help”. For example, Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) regularly gets electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). If you’ve ever watched a recent interview with her, you realize that, if she wasn’t loony before, she sure is now. She has a memory about as long as your index finger because of all the ECT. And is blithely happy about the whole thing. She’s a complete spectator in her own life.

Are all psychs guilty of the above? Of course not. But the fact is that psychiatrists and psychologists carry forward a group of methodologies which do more harm than good. About the only “good” thing a psych might do is listen to “itsa” from the patient. Unfortunately, they don’t even do this without evaluating and invalidating. Psychs, factually, have no idea what they’re really dealing with or tampering with. A Dianetic auditor probably understands an order of magnitude more about the mind than the average psych, and Dianetics is just a mere fraction of the whole subject of the mind. And yet psychs are vested as the people in this society who are the “experts” in the mind. I imagine most of them know better, but they certainly, as a group, don’t disavow the power and faith bestowed upon them by being given this title. At best, this could be classified as “dishonest”.

Here’s another problem. You meet someone who’s a psych and find them to be friendly, intelligent, thoughtful, or whatever traits you consider “good”. And thus you conclude that perhaps there are some good psychs or somesuch. While I don’t want to invalidate anyone’s perceptions or condemn all those connected with the field under the same umbrella, it might be wise to consider that the best SPs are the ones who appear to be normal, sane, “good” people. They’re the ones who slip in under everyone’s rader and create the most havoc (often by getting other people to create the havoc). It’s always wisest to look at the associates and environment of people to determine whether they are “good” or not. Look at their products. Then decide whether they are worthwhile or not.

Early on, Ron tried to convince the psychs and medicos that Dianetics could assist them in resolving many of the problems they faced. While some individuals agreed with Ron, as a group they rejected Ron’s entreaties. Ron had researched both the medical and psychiatric/psychological approaches to the problems of Man and the mind. And had concluded that these fields really had no clue. At the same time, from his researches, he knew factually that Dianetics did resolve a number, if not a majority of these problems. So it stood to reason that if the motives of the medical and psych establishments were pure, they should embrace any proven solutions. And yet they didn’t. Instead, they began to attack Dianetics and Ron. This proved that their motives weren’t pure, and that they believed Dianetics was indeed workable (otherwise, why fight it?). Ron came to hold these people in particular contempt because they pretended to have the answers but were in fact lying, and couldn’t produce the products they claimed.

The answer? Ron attacked back. But the attacks against Dianetics, Scientology and Ron became more plentiful and vicious over time. Ultimately, in 1966, Ron instituted a full scale investigation into these attacks. The result was detailed in Ron’s Journal 1967: There were a dozen or so main SPs involved, they were intimately connected with governmnts, large newspaper chains and psych front groups.

Fast forward to today. The pharmaceutical industry has entered the fray with psychoactive SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs prescribed for acne, quitting smoking, weight reduction and any of a number of other run-of-the-mill complaints. The use of amphetamine drugs like Ritalin has increased significantly in the treatment of psychological conditions such a Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

(The current Church of Scientology may consider many of these drugs “psych drugs”, thus preventing people who have unwittingly consumed them from obtaining further Church services. These drugs really don’t compare with other vastly stronger, earlier psych drugs like Thorazine. So this is likely a mis-characterization.)

Psychs have infiltrated our school systems, the entertainment industry, government, advertising and a variety of other fields. And I think it’s fair to say that where they have gone, they’ve left damage in their wake. Examine current trends and practices in education. “Self-esteem” is among the most important things that must be preserved in our education system these days. Leading to games where there are no winners. Grading papers with something other than *red* ink, etc. There are plenty of books and news stories about the weird practices that are being pushed these days in education. Where do you think all this stuff comes from? Not from chemical engineers. Not from ballet dancers or the guys who assemble your car in Detroit.

Consider this relatively recent change in the approach of “Alcoholics Anonymous” (AA): addiction is now considered a “disease”. This opens the door to medicos and the pharmaceutical industry (and a subset of the psychs) treating alcoholism. But more importantly, it also means that you are no longer responsible for your addiction. After all, it’s a disease. (One has to wonder, how does one contract such a disease? Infected toilet seats? Inadequately disinfected cutting boards?) It’s not your fault that you drank yourself into a blind stupor time after time until you finally ran over that teenager by the side of the road. After all, you have a disease. Of course, no one has yet identified the vector (proximate agent) which causes this “disease”.

We now have PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) (formerly “battle stress”), stemming from perhaps one of the most restimulative activities one could be involved in: war. It is supposedly amenable to a wide variety of drug treatments, etc. Of course, a few sessions of Dianetic auditing could save taxpayers millions in continuing treatments of victims.

Again, these conditions, approaches and treatments were not fostered by architects, mathematicians, chefs or musicians.

As LRH correctly points out, psychs have been given all the money, power and latitude you could imagine to resolve the problems of the mind, and yet they are no closer today to that goal than Wilhelm Wundt (the “father” of modern psychiatry) was. In fact, it could be effectively argued that they’ve created more problems than they’ve solved. In that light, it’s worth questioning whether any further search for “truth” within the field is worth it at all. Particularly when the answers to one’s search for truth are vastly more likely to be found in Dianetics and Scientology.

There’s a point where you have to consider whether the misconduct of a person (or profession) is due to simple ignorance/stupidity, or purposefully based on a desire to harm. At some point, when actions are repeated despite the obvious indications that they are harmful, you have to conclude that they no longer stem from ignorance.

At what point, in what kind of auditing, do we not hold the PC or Pre-OT responsible for what they’ve done?

If you’re interested, a delightful detailing of the origins of Dianetics and Scientology, including Ron’s early dealings with the medical and psych establishment, is the lecture The Story of Dianetics and Scientology. It’s Ron at his story-telling and candid best. A truly fun and funny talk from LRH.

Terminology

I just finished reading all the posts on Marty’s blog. His blog is probably the most read blog in the Independent Field. It is apparently widely read by the press as well as Scientologists. And I’ve noticed a trend– probably as a result of it’s being so widely read by the press, Marty has begun to prefer more “conventional” terms over Scientology terms in many cases.

I presume the main reason for Marty’s doing this is that it makes the content more understandable for people who are not Scientologists. I can’t disagree with Marty on this point. Also, Marty’s reading list includes works from sociologists and psychologists, whose terms he uses most resemble some of our terms in Scientology.

But I would like to point something out to Scientologists. The terms used in the wog world to substitute for our own are not directly interchangeable with ours. Ron was usually quite precise in his use of words. Where a Scientology word was invented to substitute for a word from the wog world, there was a good reason.

One example used by Marty is the substitution of the word sociopath for suppressive person (SP). While on the surface, it might appear that a sociopath and an SP are the same thing, they are not, for several reasons. First, Ron very precisely defines the characteristics of an SP. The definition of sociopath can vary widely, depending on which sociologist you talk to and what period of time you talk to them. This is because sociology itself is not a science. Second, sociologists do not know the precise origins of sociopaths. We know the exact reasons why an SP becomes one. Ron has written and spoken about this in a great many places. Third, sociologists do not know what to do to resolve the condition of being a sociopath. On the other hand, we have the technology to handle SPs. Fourth, sociologists are most likely unaware that what they are calling sociopaths comprise between 2-1/2 to 20 percent of any given population, a fact established early on by Ron. Particularly when you consider the looseness of the definition as accepted by sociologists. (The current definition used by the Church of Scientology of the term “SP”, particularly as applied to many in the Independent Field, is false and perverted.)

Perhaps a better example of a non-identical word substitution is that of soul or spirit for thetan. The concept of a “soul” comes down to us through almost every culture on this planet. Every society understands the concept and has a word for it in their preferred language. The problem is that the concept is generally fuzzy at best. Which is precisely why we use the word thetan in Scientology. It is defined in a very precise way, with an exact set of characteristics, history and even future. There really is nothing vague when it comes to this term. Everything about the term has been extensively researched by Ron and verified by the experiences of countless Scientologists down through the decades.

These are just two examples of popular word substitutions. Please understand, I’m not condemning the use of “wog” terms in dealing with the public in general. They cannot hope to understand the full definitions of all the technical terms we use in preference of wog terms, without a full study of Scientology. My only point is that we should not become too comfortable with such substitutions when talking to each other. We should, like LRH, be precise about what we mean. And more importantly, we should ensure we don’t perform too close an identification between our terms and those more prevalent in the wog world. They are similar, not identical.

Post Navigation