Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the month “June, 2014”

The OT Club

There’s a lecture in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course which tends to stand out among the rest (and there are other lectures of this caliber in the PDC). It pinpoints the reasons why a thetan stays in a body, what keeps him there, and what it takes to bring him from that state into a state where he can operate as a thetan without a body (theta clear). In fact, the processes needed to produce a theta clear are all explained in this lecture series, and in lecture 54, Ron even says you could theoretically run all this on yourself. From that lecture:

… But if you were to sit down and do this [yourself], theoretically you could then attain theta clear….”

But I’m getting ahead of myself. I want to concentrate on lecture 50. Normally, because I’m lazy and I remember the important points of this lecture like they were carved in titanium, I would simply tell you what LRH says without quoting. You could go confirm whether I had distorted LRH’s meaning or not for yourself and publicly whack me if I did (in which case, I’d go back and apologize). But in this case, I think it’s important to quote Ron directly (and I had the PDCs close at hand). I’m going to quote Ron as though all these paragraphs appear together, but they don’t in the lecture. I’ve quoted them directly, but eliminated a lot of explanatory material in between them. They are in time order from the lecture. Editorial additions are in square brackets.

From PDC #50 SOP: Spacation Step III, Flow Processing

Now, because you as a thetan are educated into the principles you need to know in order to remain stable, it’d be perfectly legitimate to call an educated thetan who had been treated just to a point where he didn’t enter the body if the body was hurt– to treat him as a Theta Clear. Stable.

But you just spring somebody and you don’t do anything else about it, they’re going to be back in their heads.

And that is, a Theta Clear is in a state where his memory does not immediately confirm to him any duration of beingness as a thetan. And so he is in a state which does not evaluate himself as a personality. He sees
himself as an identity with the body.

Outside his head he’s a mechanical object, he thinks, or something. Or he’s a spark. And he kind of regards himself as the body had regarded fire– useful but not very and so on.

Now there– what’s your thetan’s orientation? God help us– the Saturday Evening Post. Blow your brains out! I mean, the Post, the Gazette, the– bodies, bodies, bodies, bodies. Limited sphere of action.

So you’re walking into a dearth [lack] of culture for the thetan. The culture is designed for Homo Sapiens.

I quoted all the information above just so you get an idea of the profundity of that last sentence. Ron goes on to expand on the notion of a “dearth of culture for the thetan” in the lecture. But when I first heard that sentence, I stopped the recording right there and just pondered for a moment. The idea is so earth-shattering when you fully consider it that you almost have to sit back and catch your breath.

I won’t go into the ramifications of this. It’s either a stunning realization to you or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter either way. The point is that there is no real culture for free thetans. There are no books, no plays, no real art of any kind devoted to thetans without bodies.

But what if we could begin to resolve that situation?

As you probably know, there have been “OT Committees” set up by the Church in orgs. These were set up to utilize the power and abilities of OTs to forward “command intention”. In other words, they are money-making engines in an org’s field. If “command intention” wasn’t so twisted and perverted at this point, these would be a good idea.

But the existence of these committees could serve as the germ of another idea, the idea of an “OT Club”. This club would consist of OTs and only OTs. (Sorry all you Clears and preclears out there, including me.) And it would afford OTs a place where they could share OT experiences. With today’s technology, such a club could be international and centered on a website, perhaps known only to OTs. It could be a hang-out for OTs to share OT experiences. One could have local chapters where OTs would meet in person to share experiences.

As I’m the one suggesting the formation of such clubs (and as I tend to be an organizational geek), let me forward some suggestions for guidelines with regard to these activities:

  1. There must be no sharing of “case data”. From HCOPL 8 Jan 1981 Advance Course Regulations and Security

    16. advance course students are not to discuss their cases with anyone except, (1) the case supervisor (and then only by written comm put into the auditing folder), (2) the examiner by way of a metered origination, (3) a review auditor in session or (4) the solo case consultant.

  2. The club would have no business doing anything for or against the Church or the Field. Or the world at large, for that matter.
  3. It would have no other function than as a social activity benefiting its members.
  4. All activities or discussion within the club would be confidential, just like the advance course materials.
  5. Members of the club are not there to impress one another or engage in one-up-manship with each other, or enhance their reputations. This would be a social club, not an anti-social club. It could perhaps be likened to an evening out with friends at a local pub (and indeed might take that form in some instances). Members would be encouraged to bone up on social and anti-social person characteristics, and be alert to their appearance among members of the club.
  6. Members would by no means be limited to meeting in bodies. Meetings could take place without bodies, among members, assuming those meeting were capable of doing so.

Let me make one more recommendation. As we all know from HCOPL Technical Degrades, it’s a crime to indicate on a checksheet that materials called for are “old” or “not used anymore”, etc. However, it is also true that some materials (particularly materials before the Briefing Course) are not part of the current Bridge. This in no way diminishes their workability. And until you’re all the way up the Bridge on both sides, you can’t say definitively what is and isn’t part of the current Bridge.

I believe, though, that I’m safe in saying that the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures are not part of the current Bridge. But this material is some of the first (and most complete) to deal with OT phenomena, perceptions and abilities.

I also believe that the vast majority of potential abilities of an OT are not included as part of what the current OT levels are supposed to produce. There are a limited number of OT levels, and the abilities they are meant to produce are very precisely defined. OTs may find that they gain additional abilities not mentioned on the levels as they proceed upward, but these depend heavily on the person and their case. So, for example, one OT may gain the ability to know who’s on the phone before they pick it up. Another may not, or may not gain that ability until a later level. This is more or less “normal”.

However, the failure to gain any given ability (other than those specifically defined on the levels) does not mean that such an ability is forever lost to the thetan. It may be possible to acquire a given ability through education and practice. This is part of the message of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Thus, a study of this lecture series is worthwhile if you’re a pre-OT. It might be possible to regain some or many
abilities simply by practice. (Caution: engaging in such activities should be cleared by your C/S if you’re in the middle of other auditing.)

Obviously, none of this fully resolves the problem of a lack of culture for free thetans. But I think it begins to take baby steps in that direction. The more abilities OTs can gain, and the more they can comfortably share with one another, the closer we get to building a culture for free thetans.

Lastly, the need for discretion in all this should be obvious. Governments and others would love to “weaponize” anyone they thought could give them an advantage over their enemies (including enemies they fought long ago and still think they’re fighting).


Post Navigation