Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the category “Independent Field”

In God’s Image

There’s a passage in the Christian bible that is typically translated from the original text as something like, “Man was created in God’s image”.

Christians have never really known what to make of this. Obviously, it doesn’t mean that God has two arms, two legs, two lungs and a beating heart. But if not that, what would it actually mean? Christians differ in their opinions, but for the most part they’re guessing, since on its surface, the Bible’s assertion doesn’t seem to make sense.

I’d like to advocate for the position that this section of the Bible should be taken literally.

What makes a god a god? Presumably, he can create universes. He can influence MEST, even to the point of creating and destroying it. He should even be able to create and destroy life, more or less. A god would have no specific location and could be anywhere or everywhere, at his option. Any characteristics beyond this mostly derive from the above.

While I don’t wish to be sacrilegious to Christians, let me assert that these are precisely the native characteristics of a thetan, as we understand them in Scientology. Over the nearly endless ages, we have plummeted in our capabilities and forgotten our history. Ron’s technology, as expressed in Scientology, seeks to rehabilitate the thetan’s capabilities. Once the thetan is fully rehabilitated, he is more or less what he originally was so long ago, with the exception that now he benefits from the experience gained over the almost endless eons.

In essence, there is no difference between a thetan and a god. And the above is what makes Scientology an “applied religious philosophy”. Used properly and precisely, it returns to the thetan that which he has lost, and gives him back all the characteristics which originally made him a being “in the image of God”.

Fortunately, none of this lessens the stature or role of the Christian god, and thus does not stand in opposition to his existence. In fact, from a Christian perspective, it should give one far more comprehension of one’s relationship to God and one’s ultimate role on this planet and in this
universe.

John Lennon’s Imagine

(Fair warning: this post may generate more static than any I’ve ever posted. Opinions tend to be quite polarized in this area. All I ask is that you objectively read what I have to say. If you still feel like [figuratively] punching me when you’re done, feel free.)

There was a time when I might have considered John Lennon’s song Imagine to be a pretty song. But I was young and dumb at the time. I recently saw a highly trained, highly audited, “with-LRH” Scientologist posit the beauty of this song and I had to shake my head.

First, let’s consider the context of this song. It came out in 1971. The Vietnam war was still on and the nation was skeptical and tired of wars being fought in far off places which didn’t seem to have anything to do with America. Americans were tired of young men dying for causes which didn’t seem to be important here in the States.

Second, the U.S. was in the midst of a drugged haze which still seems to grip the country. Drug use jumped drastically in the 1960s, and left many of its participants in permanently scarred states of mind about life, religion and politics. Drugs tend to do that to people. They prevent proper observation and leave the participant with peculiar, spectatorish and hostile attitudes towards the rest of the world. These attitudes are often well hidden, but erupt from time to time in inappropriate ways.

Third, the author of this song was not the saint or profound philosopher many have painted him to be. He wasn’t even particularly visionary. He was a musician and composer after all. And judging by his solo career, he wasn’t anywhere near the composer alone that he was when paired with Paul McCartney. He was also a major druggie, having consumed LSD and other lesser drugs numerous times in the years before. It should be remembered that LSD is a drug designed to produce psychosis. It worked so effectively that its use barred Scientologists from being allowed into the Sea Organization. Lennon was also strongly connected to, if not propitiative to his wife, Yoko Ono. Regardless of your stance on Yoko, it’s a fact that her advent into John Lennon’s life coincided with the beginning of the end of The Beatles. Lennon was also openly contemptuous not only of the press, but of the fans in general. They earned his contempt by idolizing him and his mates. In his favor, at least he did realize that the Beatles were just four musicians in a rock and roll band, not prophets or even the spokesmen for a generation of young people.

Back to the song itself. Imagine advocates for a world without personal property, religions (including yours if you have one), government, national boundaries. Perhaps not coincidentally, these are the characteristics of one-world fascism which has been pushed by the power players on this planet for decades. Ostensibly, the song seeks to imagine the world coming together in peace once the above are eradicated. But this is the short-sighted vision of the drugged. These factors are not the reasons the world is at war and people fight amongst themselves. As we know from studying LRH, wars on this planet are fought because there are third parties behind the conflicts, actively promoting them and gaining profit as a result. The heavily divisive press (“Merchants of Chaos”) are part of this cabal as well, agitating people’s emotions and seeking to stir discontent among them by making the world appear far more dangerous than it is. Nationalism and patriotism never caused any wars. They are to be found anywhere people live, and are part of the loyalty and pride people feel for the places where they grew up and live. Personal property, similarly, does not particularly cause hostility among humans, either. Unless you happen to be a criminal who views all property as his or no one’s. Finally, while politics can be a divisive subject, government alone does not cause human suffering. It is merely a tool to be used for good or ill, depending on who wields it.

The anguish of humanity is rooted in far deeper causes than the fleeting wars, media, and activities of religions. The reasons for war, criminality and insanity rest in events which took place long long ago and are generally unknown to the average human. It takes a trained Scientologist to recognize the true causes lying in the psyches of humans.

All of which is just to say that John Lennon’s vision as expressed in this song is based on an almost complete lack or mastery of actual facts. It is based on a spectator’s view of the world, filtered through the unhandled drug mass and aberrations of its author. That he wished for a world at peace with itself is perhaps noble. But his ideas on why the world didn’t conform to his vision were and are demonstrably ludicrous. And the world he advocates is not one he would want to live in. It would be a fascist non-paradise, if anything. But that’s often the way with druggies and degraded beings.

On a final note, it can be observed that the aesthetics of a piece of art can be quite apart from form of the artwork itself. Artists infuse art with an aesthetic wavelength, more or less, and rely on the perception of the audience for the aesthetic to be perceivable. The form of the art is simply a carrier wave. Many pieces of art, nonsensical on the surface, still shine with an intensity of aesthetic which does not match the form itself. The artist adds that aesthetic component in greater or lesser quantity or volume as he creates the art. Only in this sense is Imagine a beautiful song. Lennon undoubtedly was sincere in his desire for this song to be a thing of beauty. It is considered so by many, and was the most successful composition of his solo career. But the actual message of the song is neither rational nor beautiful.

When Technology != Technology

(For those not familiar with the terminology, the expression “!=” means “is not equal to”. It’s programmer code.)

Technology has proceeded at a phenomenal rate in the last 100 years. In my lifetime alone, I can recall when microwave ovens and cell phones didn’t exist. When television was not in color. When there weren’t such things as iPads, iPods and personal computers. When integrated circuits hadn’t been invented. When asbestos was used virtually everywhere to insulate things. When Man had not yet landed on the moon. I could go on.

The pace of innovation in the last century has been staggering. Our lives have been endlessly improved (and sometimes become far more complicated) by technology. And there always seems to be a drive to “improve” and “refine” the technology of any given thing.

By way of example, consider the vacuum tube. At one time in the not-too-distant past, before transistors were invented (1947), vacuum tubes were in virtually every piece of reasonably complex electronics. They were the workhorses of most electronic circuits. But like the light bulbs to which they were kin, they were prone to burning out and needed to be periodically replaced. Thus there was a whole sector of industry devoted to manufacturing tubes, the sockets they fit in, etc. Then transistors were invented. Eventually, they replaced almost all applications where tubes had been in use before. They were more reliable, ran cooler, and didn’t require periodic replacement. But it still took a while before manufacturers changed their assembly lines to replace tubes with transistors.

Then came the integrated circuit (1958). Suddenly you could replace many transistors, resistors and other components with a single semiconductor package which would do the same job. And as time went on, it was found that you could make the individual components on an integrated circuit smaller and smaller, allowing for greater functionality in smaller and smaller packages. This made possible things like electronic calculators (1967), and personal computers (about 1977).

Some may recall the first cell phones, which were of enormous size by today’s standards. These were made possible by a variety of innovations, one of what was the integrated circuit. But how did manufacturers manage to squeeze all that functionality (the first cell phones made phone calls and that’s all) and more into the cell phones of today (true multi-purpose devices in a package that fits easily in your pocket)? The answer is “surface mount” technology. Prior to this invention, components like transistors and integrated circuits were built with wires sticking out of them. The circuit boards they fit on had holes in them. The wires on the components fit through the holes and were soldered to the boards underneath, then the excess wire was cut. That was referred to has “through hole” construction. Surface mount technology (1960), by contrast, required only “pads” on circuit boards, where very small components could be soldered on in seconds, with no excess wire to cut and no holes needed in circuit boards. This technology gained wide use in the 1980s and eventually was adopted universally for almost every application using electronics. Electronic components could be further downsized. Cell phones and other electronic gear could now be sized to fit on your wrist or in your pocket.

Think about that. In the span of about 40 years, electronics changed radically, in massive jumps about every ten years or so. Now you can make phone calls, surf the Internet, play games, and a do a wide variety of other things on one device that fits in your pocket. And contains more computing power than was used to get a man to the moon. The motto here seems to be, “How can we make this faster, smaller, cooler and better?”

As with electronics, so have gone many other areas of technology. The automotive manufacturing industry, for example, has seen the influx of a tremendous about of automation in the last 60 or 70 years. But interestingly enough, some aspects of automobiles have not changed. For example, steering wheels haven’t changed much in over a 100 years. If you think about it, we could use controls like joysticks to steer our cars. But we don’t. The steering wheel is quite “intuitive”, and the general population is quite used to using them to steer things. It would take a bit of engineering to retrofit automobiles to use joysticks, and it’s not certain that the general public would buy joystick automobiles if you offered them. By contrast, consider motorcycles and similar conveyances, which instead carry forward the roots of their predecessors, bicycles. Instead of steering wheels, they have handlebars. But these are cases where technology stopped because it wasn’t clear that changing them would provide any benefits, and could profoundly impact sales in a negative way.

In any case, as I mentioned before, the tendency in technology is to always move forward. To “improve”, whatever that means in a given industry. And as a people, we’ve gotten used to this and consider it a normal thing. A few years from now, there will be children born who have never seen anything but a flat panel display. They will wonder what those boxy things (CRT or cathode ray tubes) were for. That’s technology as we normally define it.

In Scientology, we have another thing we call “technology”. It describes and defines the form of and interaction of people in an organization. It lays out practices and routines which, when followed, lead to improved intelligence and markedly clearer states of awareness. This technology (more precisely, these technologies) was developed and/or codified by L. Ron Hubbard and constitutes the main body of his life’s work. While he was alive, he continually improved it and made it so that it could be applied, to great benefit, to anyone by anyone. Note that it was not developed by a committee or an organization or a group. Ron had a lot of help, but the main development and codification was his.

As Ron researched these technologies, he worked toward one thing: “workability”. Notice, not “perfection”. But “workability”. This is an extremely key factor to keep in mind. Whatever it was, it had to work invariably to improve specified conditions of the thing or person it applied to, usually to some specified end result. It didn’t have to be the “best” or “perfect”. One could chase his tail forever trying to attain perfection, only to have someone else come along and do it better. No, “workable” was sufficient. If Scientology was the ability to improve conditions, workable technology was how you got there.

Unfortunately, there are those in the Field who make too close an association between technology (e.g. smart phones, the Internet, etc.) and Technology (e.g. ethics, tech and admin). They believe that, because technology continues to march on and continually “improve”, Technology must do the same. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Technology we have is more than adequate in the hands of an expert to handle what it’s designed to handle, without any “improvements”, thank you.

Our Technology was developed almost exclusively by LRH.

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. … [I]f in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future.

HCOPL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working

In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system [of Technology]. It is doubtful if, in some foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another.

HCOPL 14 February 1965 Safeguarding Technology

In the above two issues, Ron made it abundantly clear what he thought of “helpful suggestions” and “improvements” to our Technology.

Getting the correct technology applied consists of:

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.
Eight is not worked on hard enough.
Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright.
Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.
Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area.

The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.

HCOPL Keeping Scientology Working

So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route.

HCOPL Safeguarding Technology

And that is where we sit today, except for this: Ron is no longer around to be the last bastion of sanity in protecting our Technology from alteration and “better ideas”. And so it falls to us.

Our Technology is workable. It doesn’t need “improvements” or “better ideas”. It needs us to hold the line on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above. And when we see someone trying to pull people off the route, we need to take appropriate action to ensure they don’t infect our group with their bank-originated alterations.

It’s up to us. Please, for all our sakes, do your part.

Dynamics Out Of Balance

Let’s look at history.

The first principle worked out by LRH in Dianetics and Scientology was that life was attempting to SURVIVE! Right along behind this came the four dynamics of Dianetics and the eight dynamics of Scientology. These were the paths along with Man was seeking to survive. Throughout the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s, there was apparently room for all eight dynamics in Scientology. At some point between that time and the time I got into Scientology (the mid 1970s), several of the dynamics got lost and it all became about the third dynamic.

Before I go any further, let me make a point here about ethics and administration. There are those (quite a few) in the Field currently, who would have us all believe that there were fundamental flaws in ethics and admin which forced the virtual exclusion of all but the third dynamic in considering the optimum solution to any problem. While this assertion may seem credible depending on the argument made, it is, in point of fact, not true.

Someone recently made an analogy, and my apologies to that person, because I don’t recall who it was. But it was a very clever assertion. It was more or less along these lines: you can take an Ethics Book and stick it up at the North Pole, and it will have no influence whatsoever on anyone. It will be completely inert. On the other hand, that same book (and the tech within) can have a good or bad influence, depending on who is using it and for what purpose. This indicates that the flaws which cause the total worship of the third dynamic don’t spring from the techs of ethics and admin, but in their application by those who do not have the best of intentions.

When I came on staff in 1976, straight off the HAS Course, no one told me I’d be getting $10 or less a week, and have to have a “day job” in order to survive. Once I found that out, I hoped against hope that it would only be a little while before we’d all be making good money at the Org and we could abandon our day jobs. It never happened. And I found out later that this was the case at almost every Org across the planet.

When I came on staff in 1976, straight off the HAS Course, no one told me I’d be getting $10 or less a week, and have to have a “day job” in order to survive. Once I found that out, I hoped against hope that it would only be a little while before we’d all be making good money at the Org and we could abandon our day jobs. It never happened. And I found out later that this was the case at almost every Org across the planet.

When I joined staff, it was made clear to me that I would need to make time to get my hatting in. I’m not sure how I was supposed to do that. Maybe at 2am in the morning? No, between a day job and my post time, there really was no time for me to get trained in the tech for any post I might hold. And the furthest you could go up the Bridge in a Class IV Org (as they were designated at the time) was Grade IV completion (at the time, the Grades were run after Dianetics). And that was if you could be sessionable (um… right), if you could carve out the time (sure, no problem), and if your student auditor made no significant mistakes on your case. Guess how often someone on staff for 2-1/2 or 5 years made it all the way to Grade IV. (By the way, there is policy that says various posts in the Org must have periodic ruds flown because of what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. How often do you think that happened?) And once you were done with your contract as a staff member, it was up to you to work out how you were going to pay for your Grades V, VI, Clearing Course and OT levels. (This was long before the idea of the Universe Corps which, when finally implemented in a very limited way, was subsequently sabotaged.)

Oddly enough, you would think that those in the Sea Org would have an easier time of it. In the Sea Org, there was no moonlighting. Moonlighting was obviated by the fact that you couldn’t even get into the Sea Org if you had heavy or ongoing debts which might pull you off post. You were expected to devote full time to the Sea Org. And since Org policy also applied to Sea Org orgs, you would expect that the edict to get your 2-1/2 hours of hatting/training/enhancement in every day would be an easy one to fulfill. You’d expect highly trained and processed Sea Org personnel everywhere you went. Not so. Why? Because Sea Org personnel enhancement was regularly cross-ordered and sabotaged. In fact, about the only way you might guarantee getting good solid enhancement time was to screw up royally and be placed in the RPF. And then at some point, the RPF became mainly a pool of people management could practice “Fair Game” on (contrary to LRH policy
on the RPF).

I remember asking a Sea Org recruiter one time, if I wanted to join the Sea Org, but I also wanted to write the Great American Novel, could I do it? “Oh sure. Why, so-and-so SO member just finished writing a novel!” Or learn to paint. “Yep, so-and-so SO member just finished two paintings.” Or practice a musical instrument. “Oh definitely. So-and-so….” Right. I had my doubts, and now that I know a lot more about Sea Org life, I can pretty much guarantee you’d never get to do those things in the Sea Org unless you worked at Gold or you could manage to do some some of that stuff on a vacation (if you could manage one of those).

The point of the above is that, if you were involved in third dynamic activities under contract to the Church of Scientology, (from at least the mid-1970s on) you might as well kiss your other dynamics good bye, at least for a while. Currently, the Church is known to sabotage the first dynamic of staff, shred the second, demand total ascendency of the third, and has attempted to do everything it can to ensure that the fourth dynamic is never salvaged. The other dynamics? What other dynamics?

And none of this is particularly the fault of ethics itself or LRH policy. It is, sadly, the result of just the opposite:

  1. Failure to know LRH policy.
  2. Failure to follow LRH policy.
  3. Failure to insist on LRH policy being followed.
  4. Deliberate mis-use or misapplication of LRH policy.
  5. Substituting something else for policy (like “Command Intention”) and insisting that is policy.

So much for history.

Now let’s look at something else:

Optimum Solution: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

That’s from the HCO Manual of Justice and before that from Notes On The Lectures.

In a number of places, Ron expands on this idea. The optimum solution doesn’t mean there will be no destruction on one dynamic or another. Some destruction may be necessary for the optimum solution. It doesn’t mean no one gets hurt. Causing harm to one or more people may be necessary for the optimum solution. It just means what it says: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

Note that Ron does not refer to this as the “perfect” solution. It is, instead, the “optimum” solution. There are no absolutes here. And conditions on the dynamics may change from minute to minute, year to year.

But here’s what the “Optimum Solution” doesn’t mean: The greatest good for the third dynamic. The third dynamic is just one of many.

Now before I go on, I’ve also heard people say that no one dynamic is more important than any other, and that they all must, in that sense be in balance. This is questionable. Honor and personal integrity enter in here, and there may well be times where one dynamic must take precedence over others.

Imagine yourself on the deck of a ship in rough seas. You’re secured to the deck, so you you won’t get far from the ship, even though you may drown if the ship goes down. But not far from you is a ship mate, not secured to the deck. The waves are starting to come over the deck and your ship mate is in real danger of slipping overboard and drowning. At this point, there are two dynamics involved, the first and the third. The rest are completely irrelevant. You either do something quickly to save your ship mate, or you let him drown. You don’t have time to take out your Ethics Book or your iPad and calculate which dynamics might be affected and how. You have to make an instant decision based on two dynamics.

Similar situations abound, mostly in the midst of emergencies. The point is that there are often cases where the importance of the individual dynamics cannot be equal, and some may be positively excluded from your calculations.

If you want to gain a greater mastery of the scope and relation of all the dynamics to you, I suggest you have someone assist you in running “Conditions and Exchange By Dynamics”. So far as I know this action can be done off a meter, but the potential increase in ARC (and KRC) for all the dynamics is profound. Honestly done, you are likely to have numerous cognitions. I know I did.

In addition, it might be instructive to study the operation of the old time missions (franchises) of Scientology (pre-1982). My understanding is that many of them did not suffer from the same monomania of the third dynamic that Orgs did. They were more pleasant places to work and staff got paid better. At least that’s my understanding. No one has done a full and exhaustive study of the subject. I do know that Orgs were excessively managed by CLOs and FOLOs and missions weren’t. (One of many facts which might turn up in an eval of the subject. I am not forwarding this as the only factor or as a “why”.)

In any case, my point is that, in going forward we would be wise not to repeat the mistakes of the Church in our own affairs. Unfortunately, we’ve been given the chance to start over, to form groups and our own organizations in the Field. As we do so, we must keep in mind how Orgs and Sea Org orgs managed to get things wrong. (And a more thorough, searching evaluation than I’ve done is called for.)

Each dynamic is part of the impulse to survive. And in general, each must be given a reasonable weight, given the circumstances of any anticipated action. That doesn’t mean that the third dynamic wins all the time. It means that the third dynamic may or may not be the most important dynamic to consider in any given circumstances, and that the other dynamics should be considered as well. And it is your duty to be vigilant about your dynamics. Don’t let them be abandoned, sabotaged, or not-ised by others when operating as a group member. Give the third dynamic its due. But don’t let it constantly overshadow every other consideration. If your third dynamic is constantly being paraded as the most important, and your other dynamics are suffering, do something about it and give the reason why.

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