Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 18, 2008 - 10:16am PT
I'm too lazy to research it. Only weird thing I've seen is some Tom Cruise interview where he said "if I see a car accident, I have to stop, because I know I'm the only one who can help" or something like that.
This famous article critical of Scientology has been awarded the Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business and financial journalism, the Worth Bingham Prize and the Conscience in Media Awards from the American Society of Journalists and Authors.
Just another group trying to tell us what and how to think. A very powerful group at that. Something like it's O.K. to be a rich, powerful prick, it doesn't matter how many little pricks you step on... When I research stuff like that , I look at money and motives, and membership.
I always loved that quote and it makes good ammo for debate. When I look at these public Scientologists I just see more not to like, than I care to stomach. They are way too far into mass media manipulation.
I'm not at all a religious person, but I find a "religion" founded by a Science Fiction writer that uses a contraption(lack of a better word)to determine one's happiness a bit... um... "F*#ked up". What's next a religion based on Star Trek...
Chaz asked, "Can anyone who has a beef with Scientology tell us what's wrong with it, in your own words.."
Here is my story. 1980- was 23. Flew up from LA to Davis to interview for a job at UC Davis. I was supposed to have a place to stay for the night B4 I bussed over to Yosemite for a few weeks. Did the interview, but the place to stay fell through. Did not know what to do, so I did some buildering on campus to kill time. Fellow student chatting me up while I scale walls. He says he thinks he’s got a couch I can stay on.
Turns out to be his Scientology mentor's house and couch.. .
...and before I get to lay my head to pillow, I had to sit through a 2 hour Intro-to-Scientology session that evening. Mildly stimulating at best. OK- I want to go catch some zzzzz’s. Except- they would NOT let me be until I dropped $15 for their intro book. Communication- the book is titled. This their first step towards an enlighted self. Communicate well with others. Uh-huh.
Except i was staying in Yosemite and Tuolumne for 2 weeks, and needed every cent I had. I fought hard to keep my greenbacks, but was no match for their relentless mental arm-twisting. I ponied up the $15, got a safe night’s sleep, plus a ride to the bus station.
I actually perused the book a little while in Tuolumne. I mentioned it (and Scientology) to Randy Vogel, and he snapped me back to reality. Told me in no uncertain terms that Scientology was absolute bullsh*t. I knew this, but was already mildly under the spell. Never looked back, but I sure remember that taste of relentless mental arm-twisting.
OK... So this thread got me to reading about Scientology, to see what the deal is. All I can say is what a f*#king fruit loop! Anyone who follows him/believes in this crap is a f*#king fruit loop too. Wow!
At least we can take solace in the fact that they are fruity enough that the handing out of the Koolaid should be soon and they'll all be dead.
Relaxation, sleep depravation, meditation creates a higher state of suggestibility.
Diet that has no protein, removes the ability to reason and use logic. (Self think.)
Isolation within cult
Removal from their former life; new name/location, status...
It never stops amazing me how people can make broad sweeping statements on topics they know absolutely nothing about.
Wait, thats ther definition of an internet forum, sorry.
There are volumes of good info there, can anybody explain one of the millions of concepts?
I did not think so.
But this is the norm, so don't worry.
No, I am not a Scientologist.
Just someone with an open mind.
" All I can say is what a f*#king fruit loop! Anyone who follows him/believes in this crap is a f*#king fruit loop too. Wow!"
amazing isn't it?
you gotta read Eric Hoffer/True Believer -
all about fanaticism and mass movements;
a tiny book it explains so much in language
For instance, I feel we are in the "middle"
of the biggest and most powerful mass movement
ever, it's called Consumerism; so omnipresent
and woven into the fabric of American culture as be
"For instance, I feel we are in the "middle"
of the biggest and most powerful mass movement
ever, it's called Consumerism; so omnipresent
and woven into the fabric of American culture as be
*almost* invisible... "
More than anything, it kind of reminds me of the Heaven's Gate kooks! Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll find Tom and clan in the hotel in Clearwater, "waiting for the aliens".... You can never have too many cult mass-suicides... hahaha
Yeah, we should put down people we don't understand and try to create a culture of intolerance toward them and to those who have sympathy for them.
Or... we could take it one step further and refuse to talk to their leaders until they concede that democracy (shoot, I mean our ideas whatever they are - no reference to Iran in here) is better. That'll build bridges and create a better world, hell yeah it will.
Now if you'll excuse me some fat old guy, who invented the interweb, told me to buy a Prius or the world would end. I've also got to get my pressed organic Patagonia pants on so I look cool at the farmers market. After that I'm going to hang with my friends and laugh at people I don't care to understand because I've dismissed them based on one or two labels instead of trying to understand the whole picture. Hey it makes me feel better so don't be a hater about it.
I am a curious person, I love to explore altered states.
So anything like acid, shrooms, hasish, pot, liquor, vicodin, morophine, scientology, om, buhhda, heroin, qualudes, coke, unprotected sex with multiple partners, i am good for all of the above.
Don't get hung up on one thing, explore a little of each, then die.
if you want me to tell you what i gleaned from the scientology system for basically free, i will tell you.
the rest of the stuff you probably already have experience with.
I love the Moody Blues, they are Seizmologist with the L Ron Hubcap.
It is basically this.
Scientology and Dianetics are way f*#king cool if you actually take the time to read the books.
Whatever happened to the Moonies? Are they still around? Back around 1980 they had
a house on Bush St in SF. Someone said we could pop in for a free dinner, so we went
to check it out. They made us take our shoes off at the front door, and they collected
them all and put them in a closet. That made me a wee bit nervous. Then we listened to a
talk for a while before we were served dinner. After dinner, we were literally swarmed upon
by teams of three-on-one, each team including at least 1 very attractive young woman.
They were trying to get us to leave that evening to go to Booneville for the weekend, and
they were really pouring it on thick! It was like: "Come on, the bus is leaving in 30 minutes!
We'll have such a good time"... The girls were being very flirtatious. I was 19 at the time,
and yet this scared the living hell out of me, because by then I had already heard all
the stories that had already made the headlines, including families kidnapping their own
kids, and hiring "de-programmers" to try to undo the brainwashing. Anyway, we had a hard
time getting our shoes back so we could leave, and when we did, we were very glad to get outta there!
Was that the 3/8 inch space age aluminum bolt whose real diameter was reduced to 5/16 inch by way of the stress concentrating grooves?
Those Nasa enginners took one look at that thing and told me "Please do not call us again until you have a real problem. The design flaws are so gross and overwhelming, we are insulted that you would waste our time."
These are examples of Stress Concentrators.
Does the last one remind you of anything?
Why are scientologists more deserving of derision than anyone else? Yes, thier religion is made up...so what?
Think about ANY religion. Do you honestly expect me to believe that some supernatural being impregnated some young chick 2000 years ago? And, that the offspring from this supernatural trist was the savior of all mankind, who was to be nailed to a cross (and that this act somehow absolves me of a "sin" I have no recollection of?), die and be brought back to life three days later, AND now sits at the right hand of said being who impregnated his mother in the first place? AND said Being and Son are in fact the SAME GUY????
Sorry, but I'd almost rather hang out with Xenu...
oh well, as long as were here,
lets see if i can imitate a seizmologist rock climber with my limited knowledge of that deadly cult....
"i confronted the rock with full TR's, getting into comm with the surface friction, then constricting my anchor points to the summit and the deck, i then went exterior at the crux move, but became intoverted when the pink granite snake reminded me of a session that went bad, and L3r repair list was done but the past life engram was hung up on the secondary loss of the #4 camelot, in which an earlier similar incident could not be unlocked, due to symatic pain caused by a bad touch assist.
But I went clear and OT'd final dyno..."
thats about as much game as i got on that subject.
They say you can Go Clear just by reading the Scientology Dictionary all the way thru
So lets try it:
A=A=A=A: anything equals anything equals anything. This is the way the reactive mind thinks, irrationally identifying thoughts, people, objects, experiences, statements, etc., with one another where little or no similarity actually exists. Everything is everything else. Mr. X looks at a horse knows it’s a house knows it’s a schoolteacher. So when he sees a horse he is respectful.
aberration: a departure from rational thought or behavior. From the Latin, aberrare, to wander from; Latin, ab, away, errare, to wander. It means basically to err, to make mistakes, or more specifically to have fixed ideas which are not true. The word is also used in its scientific sense. It means departure from a straight line. If a line should go from A to B, then if it is aberrated it would go from A to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, and finally arrive at B. Taken in its scientific sense, it would also mean the lack of straightness or to see crookedly as, in example, a man sees a horse but thinks he sees an elephant. Aberrated conduct would be wrong conduct, or conduct not supported by reason. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite.
acceptance level: the degree of a person’s willingness to accept people or things freely, monitored and determined by his consideration of the state or condition that those people or things must be in for him to be able to do so.
acknowledgment: something said or done to inform another that his statement or action has been noted, understood and received. “Very good,” “okay,” and other such phrases are intended to inform another who has spoken or acted that his statement or action has been accepted. An acknowledgment also tends to confirm that the statement has been made or the action has been done and so brings about a condition not only of communication but of reality between two or more people. Applause at a theater is an acknowledgment of the actor or act plus approval. Acknowledgment itself does not necessarily imply an approval or disapproval or any other thing beyond the knowledge that an action or a statement has been observed and is received.
action phrase: a word or phrase in an engram or lock which causes the individual to perform involuntary actions on the time track. See also command value.
affinity: degree of liking or affection or lack of it. Affinity is a tolerance of distance. A great affinity would be a tolerance of or liking of close proximity. A lack of affinity would be an intolerance of or dislike of close proximity. Affinity is one of the components of understanding. See also ARC.
ally: someone who protects a person who is in a weak state and becomes a very strong influence over the person. The weaker person, such as a child, even partakes the characteristics of the ally so that one may find that a person who has, for instance, a bad leg, has it because a protector or ally in his youth had a bad leg. The word is from French and Latin and means to bind together.
alter-isness: the consideration which introduces change, and therefore time and persistence, into an as-isness to obtain persistency. (One of the basic manifestations of alter-isness is a lie or deceit: when someone lies he changes the truth into a lie in order to maintain the existence of the lie.) See also as-isness.
analytical mind: the conscious, aware mind which thinks, observes data, remembers it and resolves problems. It would be essentially the conscious mind as opposed to the unconscious mind. In Dianetics and Scientology the analytical mind is the one which is alert and aware and the reactive mind simply reacts without analysis. See also reactive mind.
analyzer: the analytical mind.
anaten: an abbreviation of analytical attenuation, meaning diminution (lessening) or weakening of the analytical awareness of an individual for a brief or extensive period of time. If sufficiently great, it can result in unconsciousness. (It stems from the restimulation of an engram which contains pain and unconsciousness.) See also engram; restimulation.
anchor points: dimension points which demark (limit) the outermost boundaries of a space or its corners. Anchor points, along with the viewpoint, are responsible for space. An anchor point is a dimension point that stays rather still, to keep the space created. See also dimension; viewpoint.
apathy: a complete withdrawal from person or people. There is no real attempt to contact oneself and no attempt to contact others. A very docile and obedient, if sick, state of not-beingness. It is near death or an imitation of death. For example, a person in apathy would say, “What’s the use? All is lost.”
apparency: the way someone or something appears to be, where this is different from the way that they actually are.
arbitrary: something which is introduced into a situation without regard to the data of the situation.
ARC: a word made from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality and Communication, which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as, “He was in ARC with his friend.” One does not, however, fall out of ARC; he has an ARC break. See also ARC break.
ARC break: a sudden drop or cutting of one’s affinity, reality or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering (breaking apart) of affinity, reality or communication or understanding. It’s called an ARC break instead of an upset, because if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person’s state of mind. See also ARC.
ARC triangle: a triangle which is a symbol of the fact that affinity, reality and communication act together as a whole entity and that one of them cannot be considered unless the other two are also taken into account. Without affinity there is no reality or communication. Without reality or some agreement, affinity and communication are absent. Without communication there can be no affinity or reality. It is only necessary to improve one corner of this very valuable triangle in Scientology in order to improve the remaining two corners. See also ARC.
as-is: to view anything exactly as it is, without any distortions or lies, at which moment it vanishes and ceases to exist. See also as-isness.
as-isness: the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.
assist: a simple, easily done process that can be applied to anyone to help them recover more rapidly from accidents, mild illness or upsets; any process which assists the individual to heal himself or be healed by another agency by removing his reasons for precipitating (bringing on) and prolonging his condition and lessening his predisposition (inclination or tendency) to further injure himself or remain in an intolerable condition. See also Touch Assist.
attention: interest which has become fixed.
attention unit: a quantity of awareness existing in the mind. For example, when a person has a lot of attention on some incident, one could say he has a lot of attention units on that incident. See also attention.
auditing: the application of Dianetics or Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor. The exact definition of auditing is: The action of asking a person a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Auditors stick to the Auditor's Code.
auditor: a person trained and qualified in applying Dianetics and/or Scientology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment; called an auditor because auditor means one who listens.
Auditor’s Code: a collection of rules (do’s and don’ts) that an auditor follows while auditing someone, which ensures that the preclear will get the greatest possible gain out of the processing that he is having. It was evolved from years of observing processing.
automaticity: something set up automatically to run without further attention from yourself. There are three kinds of automaticities: those which create things, those which make things persist and those which destroy things.
awareness: the ability to perceive the existence of.
axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences.
bank: see engram bank.
banky: being influenced by bank and displaying bad temper, irritability, lack of cooperation and the signs of dramatization; irrational. See also dramatization; engram bank.
basic: the first experience recorded in mental image pictures of a particular type of pain, sensation, discomfort, etc. The first engram on any chain of similar engrams. Basic is simply earliest. See also chain; engram.
basic-basic: the first engram on the time track. See also engram; time track.
basic personality: the individual himself. The basic individual is not a buried unknown or a different person, but an intensity of all that is best and most able in the person.
beefing up: a phrase which describes the sensation of increasing solidity of masses in the mind. When this occurs, we say “the bank is beefing up.” See also mental mass.
beingness: the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself or is attained. Examples of beingness would be one’s own name, one’s profession, one’s physical characteristics, one’s role in a game-each and all of these could be called one’s beingness. See also conditions of existence.
between-lives area: the experiences of a thetan during the time between the loss of a body and the assumption of another.
black panther mechanism: one of the five ways in which a human being reacts toward a source of danger. The term derives its name from an example given in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health: A particularly black-tempered black panther is sitting on the stairs and a man named Gus is sitting in the living room. Gus wants to go to bed. But there is the black panther. The problem is to get upstairs. There are five things that Gus can do about this panther: (1) he can go attack the black panther; (2) he can run out of the house and flee the black panther; (3) he can use the back stairs and avoid the black panther; (4) he can neglect the black panther; and (5) he can succumb to the black panther. These are the five mechanisms: attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb. All actions can be seen to fall within these courses.
blow: a colloquialism (informal expression) for a sudden departure. It is usually used to describe either the sudden dissipation (vanishing) of mass in the mind with an accompanying feeling of relief, or someone leaving, ceasing to be where he should really be, or just ceasing to be audited. See also mental mass.
body: the organized physical composition or substance of an animal or man, whether living or dead. The body is the thetan’s communication center. It is a physical object. It is not the being himself. See also thetan.
boil-off: becoming groggy and seeming to sleep; some period of the person’s life wherein he was unconscious has been slightly restimulated. See also restimulation.
book auditor: someone who has successfully applied Dianetics and/or Scientology from a book to help someone else and who has been certified for doing so.
Book One: The first book published on Dianetics, titled: "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health".
bouncer: an engramic command (such as “Can’t stay here” or “Get out!”) which sends the preclear up the track toward present time. See also present time; time track.
Bridge, The: the route to Clear and OT, which we call the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. It is a term originating in early Dianetics days to symbolize travel from unknowingness to revelation. See also Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart.
bullbaiting: a method of drilling whereby a coach attempts to find certain actions, words, phrases, mannerisms or subjects that cause the student doing the drill to become distracted from the drill by reacting to the coach. As a bullfighter attempts to attract the bull’s attention and control the bull, so does the coach attempt to attract and control the student’s attention, however the coach flunks the student whenever he succeeds in distracting the student from the drill and then repeats the action until it no longer has any affect on the student.
button(s): items, words, phrases, subjects or areas that are easily restimulatable in an individual by the words or actions of other people, and which cause him discomfort, embarrassment or upset, or make him laugh uncontrollably. See also restimulation.
bypass circuit: see demon circuit.
bypassed charge: when one gets a lock, a lower, earlier incident restimulates. That is bypassed charge. It isn’t the auditor bypassing it. One handled later charge that restimulated earlier charge. The auditor touches on A, and B goes into restimulation out of the pc’s consciousness. This causes an irritated, ARC-breaky, upset feeling. The pc reacts very badly. He has been hit by a mystery. There is no apparent reason (to him) why he feels this way. This is what bypassed charge means. “Earlier charge restimulated and not seen” would be another name for it. See also ARC break; charge; restimulation.
can’t have: a depriving of self or others of a substance or action or things.
case: a general term for a person being treated or helped. It also refers to his condition, which is monitored by the content of his reactive mind. A person’s case is the way he responds to the world around him by reason of his aberrations.
case gain: the improvements and resurgences a person experiences from auditing; any case betterment according to the pc. See also case.
case supervision: referring to the actions of the Case Supervisor. The C/S is the auditor’s “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, keeps him corrected, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S directs what auditing actions are done for each individual preclear under his care. All case supervision is for the benefit of the preclear.
Case Supervisor: see case supervision.
cause: could be defined as emanation (something coming forth from a source). It could be defined also, for purposes of communication, as source-point. See also communication.
cause-distance-effect: see communication.
cave in: a state of mental and/or physical collapse to the extent that individuals cannot function causatively. The individuals are quite effect. A US Western term which symbolized mental or physical collapse as like being at the bottom of a mine shaft or in a tunnel when the supports collapsed and left persons under tons of debris.
CCHs: (stands for Control, Communication, Havingness) processes which bring a person into better control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication with his surroundings and other people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.
chain: a succession of incidents, occurring at various intervals along the time track, that are related to one another by some similarity of either subject, general location, people or perception. Such a succession of similar incidents may span a brief period or a very long period of time. See also incident; time track.
charge: harmful energy or force accumulated and stored within the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had. Auditing discharges this charge so that it is no longer there to affect the individual. See also reactive mind.
circuit: a part of an individual’s bank that behaves as though it were someone or something separate from him and that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord, and may even, if severe enough, take control of him while it operates. See also engram bank.
classification: an award earned by an auditor that entitles him to audit certain levels of processes, and that shows that he has attained the ability and skill to do so by actual test.
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart: the route to Clear and the OT states beyond, also called The Bridge to Total Freedom, or The Bridge. Classification means that there are certain actions required to be done or conditions to be attained before an individual is classified for a particular training level and allowed to progress up. Gradation means a gradual grade up, just as there are grades to a road or there are grades to steps. Awareness refers to one’s own awareness, which improves as one progresses up. On the right side of this chart there are various steps called the States of Release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the Grades of Release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. Scientology contains the entire map for getting the individual through all the various points on this gradation scale and for getting him across the Bridge to higher states of existence. See also Bridge, The; Grades of Release.
cleaning a clean: attempting to clean up or deal with something that has already been cleaned up or dealt with or that wasn’t troublesome to the person in the first place.
Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual who has achieved this state. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. A Clear is an unaberrated person and is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data.
coach: (verb and noun) to train intensively by instruction, demonstration and practice. In training drills, one twin (a student’s study partner) is made the coach and the other the student. The coach, in his coaching actions, coaches the student to achieve the purpose of the drill. He coaches with reality and intention, following exactly the materials pertaining to the drill to get the student through it. When this is achieved the roles are then reversed-the student becoming the coach and the coach becoming the student.
co-audit: an abbreviation for cooperative auditing. It means a team of any two people who are helping each other reach a better life with Dianetics or Scientology processing.
Code of a Scientologist: a code which governs the activity of a Scientologist in general. It was evolved from many years of observation and experience and is subscribed to by leading Scientologists.
cognition: a new realization of life. Cognitions result in higher degrees of awareness and consequently greater abilities to succeed with one’s endeavors in life.
command value: a degree of authority, power or control over something. For example, a statement in an engram can exercise a command value over the analytical mind of an individual. See also action phrase; analytical mind; engram.
communication: the interchange of ideas across space. Its fullest definition is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point. The formula of communication is cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention and duplication with understanding. See also cause; effect.
communication bridge: an auditing procedure which closes off the process one is running, maintains ARC, and opens up the new process on which one is about to embark. It is used so that a pc will not be startled by change, for if one changes too rapidly in a session, one sticks the preclear in the session every time. He is given some warning, and that is what a communication bridge is for.
Communication Course: a Scientology course in which one gains the ability to effectively communicate with others.
communication lag: the length of time intervening between the asking of the question by the auditor and the reply to that specific question by the preclear. The question must be precise; the reply must be precisely to that question. It does not matter what intervenes in the time between the asking of the question and the receipt of the answer. The preclear may outflow, jabber, discuss, pause, hedge, disperse, dither or be silent; no matter what he does or how he does it, between the asking of the question and the giving of the answer, the time is the communication lag.
communication line: the route along which a communication travels from one person to another; the line on which particles flow; any sequences through which a message of any character may go.
conditions of existence: there are three conditions of existence. These three conditions comprise life. They are Be, Do and Have. The condition of being is defined as the assumption (choosing) of a category of identity. An example of beingness could be one’s own name. Another example would be one’s profession. The second condition of existence is doingness. By doingness is meant action, function, accomplishment, the attainment of goals, the fulfillment of purpose or any change of position in space. The third condition is havingness. By havingness is meant owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, positioning, taking charge of objects, energies or spaces. These three conditions are given in an order of seniority (importance) where life is concerned.
confront: to face without flinching or avoiding. Confront is actually the ability to be there comfortably and perceive.
confusion: any jumble of things, communications, actions, thoughts, etc., that don’t apparently make sense. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.
consideration: thinking, believing, supposing, postulating. Consideration is the highest capability of life, taking rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time.
control: the ability to start, change and stop things at one’s own choice. (With processing, a person is capable of controlling a wider and wider sphere of things.) See also cycle of action.
counseling: see pastoral counseling.
counter-effort: the effort of the environment (physical) against the individual. The individual’s own effort is simply called effort. The efforts of the environment are called counter-efforts.
create: make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness.
create-counter-create: to create something against a creation; to create one thing and then create something else against it, bringing about the destruction of the first creation.
create-create-create: create again continuously one moment after the next. This is survival. See also create.
cut comm: cut (stop, halt) communication.
cycle: from the beginning to the conclusion of an intended action. See also cycle of action.
cycle of action: the sequence that an action goes through, wherein the action is started, is continued for as long as is required and then is completed as planned. See also control.
datum: anything of which one could become aware, whether the thing existed or whether he created it.
deaberrate: to remove aberration. See also aberration.
delusion: what one person thinks is, but others don’t necessarily; a reality for one person out of agreement with others.
demon: a mechanical mechanism set up by an engram which takes over a portion of the analyzer and acts as an individual being. A bona fide demon is one who gives thoughts voice or echoes the spoken word interiorly or who gives all sorts of complicated advice like a real, live voice exteriorly. See also analyzer; circuit; demon circuit.
demon circuit: part of an engram which is set up and has a specific command. “You’ve got to control yourself” is typical of one of these circuits. See also circuit; demon.
denyer: an engramic command which, literally translated, means that the engram doesn’t exist. “I’m not here,” “This is getting nowhere,” “I must not talk about it,” “I can’t remember,” etc. A command which makes the preclear feel there is no incident present. See also incident.
destimulate: to settle out; to take away restimulation. See also restimulation.
Dianetics: Dianetics spiritual healing technology. It addresses and handles the effects of the spirit on the body and can alleviate such things as unwanted sensations and emotions, accidents, injuries and psychosomatic illnesses (ones that are caused or aggravated by mental stress). Dianetics means “through the soul” (from Greek dia, through, and nous, soul). It is further defined as “what the soul is doing to the body.”
differentiation: the ability to “tell the difference” between one person and another, one object and another. It indicates a person is sane. As soon as he begins to confuse his wife with his mother, or his coat with his father’s coat, he is on the road toward insanity.
dimension: the distance from the point of view to the anchor point that is in space; a measure of spatial extent, especially width, height or length. See also anchor points.
dissemination: spreading or scattering broadly. It comes from the Latin word disseminatus, which means “to scatter seed.” When we talk about the dissemination of Dianetics and Scientology, we mean spreading information on Dianetics and Scientology broadly, using books, tapes and other works by L. Ron Hubbard.
DMSMH: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
doing(ness): the action of creating an effect. An effect in creation is action. See also conditions of existence.
downscale: down the Tone Scale; in a state of decreased awareness; into the lower-level emotions, such as apathy, anger, etc. See also apathy; Tone Scale.
dramatization: the duplication of engramic content, entire or in part, by an aberree (aberrated person) in his present-time environment. Aberrated conduct is entirely dramatization. The degree of dramatization is in direct ratio to the degree of restimulation of the engrams causing it. When dramatizing, the individual is like an actor playing his dictated part and going through a whole series of irrational actions. See also aberration; engram; restimulation.
dub-in: any unknowingly created mental picture that appears to have been a record of the physical universe but is, in fact, only an altered copy of the time track. It is a phrase taken from the motion picture industry meaning to record dialogue and various sounds and then integrate them into the film after it has been shot.
dwindling spiral: a phenomenon of the ARC triangle whereby when one breaks some affinity, a little bit of the reality goes down, and then communication goes down, which makes it impossible to get affinity as high as before; so a little bit more gets knocked off affinity, and then reality goes down, and then communication. This is the dwindling spiral in progress, until it hits the bottom-death-which is no affinity, no communication and no reality. See also ARC triangle.
dynamic(s): there could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics. These are urges for survival as or through (1) self, (2) sex and family, (3) groups, (4) all mankind, (5) living things (plants and animals), (6) the material universe, (7) spirits, and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being.
effect: receipt-point and what is received at the receipt-point. See also cause; communication.
E-meter: the Hubbard Electrometer is a religious artifact used in the Church confessional. It, in itself does nothing, and is used by ministers only, to assist parishioners in locating areas of spiritual distress or travail. The E-meter is not intended or effective for diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It passes a tiny current through the preclear's body. This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pre-clear thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter.
emotional tone: the general condition of an individual. See also Tone Scale.
end phenomena: those indicators in the pc and the meter which show that a chain or a process is ended. See also chain; indicators.
engram: a mental image picture which is a recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of which are recorded in the mental image picture called an engram. It must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. See also mental image picture.
engram bank: the reactive mind, that portion of the mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus it will automatically give a certain response) which is not under a person’s volitional control and which exerts force and power over a person’s awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of locks, secondaries, engrams and chains of them and is the single source of human aberration and psychosomatic ills. See also aberration.
entheta: enturbulated theta (thought or life): it especially refers to communications which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. See also enturbulated; theta.
enturbulated: turbulent or agitated and disturbed.
environment: one’s surroundings; the material things around one; the area one lives in; the living things, objects, spaces and forces with which one lives whether close to or far away.
EP: end phenomena.
erase: to cause an engram to “vanish” entirely by recounting, at which time it is filed as memory and experience and ceases to be part of the reactive mind. See also engram; reactive mind.
ethical code: a code of certain restrictions indulged in to better the manner of conduct of life. A person conducts himself according to such a code because he wants to or because he feels he is proud enough or decent enough or civilized enough to so conduct himself. See also ethics.
ethics: the study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others. Ethics is a personal thing. It is the actions the person takes on himself. See also morals.
evaluation: the imposing of data or knowledge upon another. An example would be to tell another why he is the way he is instead of permitting or guiding him to discover it for himself.
exteriorization, exterior: the state of the thetan being outside his body. When this is attained, the person achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body.
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. See also memory; mental image picture; picture.
Factors, the: a summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between 1923 and 1953, by L. Ron Hubbard. The Factors can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.
flat: said of a process or question that has been discharged of all bad reactions to the preclear. No longer producing change or a reaction.
flatten: to carry on with (a process or question) until it no longer produces a reaction.
flow: a progress of energy between two points; an impulse or direction of energy particles or thought or masses between terminals; the progress of particles or impulses or waves from Point A to Point B. The four flows used in processing are flow one, something happened to self; flow two, doing something to another; flow three, others doing things to others; flow zero, self doing something to self.
game: a contest of person against person or team against team. A game consists of freedoms, barriers and purposes, and there is a necessity in a game to have an opponent or an enemy. Also there is a necessity to have problems, and enough individuality to cope with a situation. To live life fully, then, one must have in addition to "something to do," a higher purpose, and this purpose, to be a purpose at all, must have counter-purposes or purposes which prevent it from occurring.
games condition: a condition which consists of fixated attention, an inability to escape coupled with an inability to attack, to the exclusion of other games. See also game.
generality: a general or nonspecific statement which is applicable to all. Used in Scientology to mean a statement made in an effort either to hide cause or to overwhelm another person. A generality would be a statement such as “Everybody thinks . . .”
genetic entity: that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan that has carried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on Earth and which, through experience, necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited only by the abilities of the genetic entity. The goal of the genetic entity is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality (concerning the material or physical). Abbreviation: GE. See also counter-effort; thetan.
genetic line: the protoplasm (essential living matter of cells) line. It consists of the total of incidents which have occurred during the evolution of the body itself. See also genetic entity.
Goals Problem Mass: the problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It's a mental energy mass.
Grade(s): a series of processes which are run on a preclear with the purpose of bringing him to a particular state of Release. See also Grades of Release; Release.
Grades of Release:
1. Expanded ARC Straightwire: Recall Release; Freedom from deterioration; has hope; knows he/she won't get any worse.
2. Grade 0: Communications Release; Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject.
3. Grade I: Problems Release; Ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish.
4. Grade II: Relief Release; Relief from hostilities and the sufferings of life.
5. Grade III: Freedom Release; Freedom from the upsets of the past and ability to face the future.
6. Grade IV: Ability Release; Moving out of fixed conditions and gaining abilities to do new things.
7. Grade V: Power Release; Ability to handle power.
8. Grade VA: Power Plus Release; Recovery of knowledge.
9. Grade VI: Whole Track Release; Return of powers to act on own determinism.
10. Grade VII: a Grade VII is not a Release Grade. It is a Clear, a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. A complete list of the abilities gained for each of these Grades of Release can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics. See also Clear; Release.
gradient: a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, level by level, each step or level being, of itself, easily surmountable-so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult activities or high states of being can be achieved with relative ease. This principle is applied to both Scientology processing and training.
gradient scale: (also called a graduated scale) a scale of condition graduated from zero to infinity. On a scale of survival, everything above zero or center would be more and more survival, approaching an infinite survival (immortality), and everything below zero or center would be more and more nonsurvival, approaching an infinite nonsurvival (death). Absolutes are considered to be unobtainable.
grief charge: an outburst of tears that may continue for a considerable time, in a session, after which the preclear feels greatly relieved. This is occasioned by the discharge of grief or painful emotion from a secondary. See also secondary.
grind: go over and over and over and over a lock, secondary or engram without obtaining an actual erasure. A Dianetics auditor who puts a pc through an incident four or five times without erasure or appreciable reduction is encountering “grinding.” See also engram; erase; lock; secondary.
group processes: auditing techniques administered to groups of children or adults by a Group Auditor.
handle: finish off, complete, end cycle on.
happiness: the overcoming of not unknown obstacles toward a known goal and, transiently (passing quickly or soon), the contemplation of, or indulgence in, pleasure.
havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness is meant owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects, energies and spaces. See also conditions of existence.
hidden standard: a problem a person thinks must be resolved before auditing can be seen to have worked. It is a standard by which a person judges Scientology or auditing or auditors.
high-toned beings: individuals who are high on the Tone Scale. They think wholly into the future. They are extroverted toward their environment. They clearly observe the environment with full perception unclouded by undistinguished fears about the environment. They think very little about themselves but operate automatically in their own interests. They enjoy existence. Their calculations are swift and accurate. They are very self-confident. They know they know and do not even bother to assert that they know. They control their environment. See also Tone Scale.
holder: any engram command which makes an individual remain in an engram knowingly or unknowingly. These include such things as “Stay here,” “Sit right there and think about it,” “Come back and sit down,” “I can’t go,” “I mustn’t leave,” etc. See also engram.
identification: the inability to evaluate differences in time, location, form, composition or importance.
implant: an enforced command or series of commands installed in an individual’s reactive mind below his awareness level to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his “knowing it.” See also reactive mind.
incident: an experience, simple or complex, related by the same subject, location, perception or people that takes place in a short and finite time period such as minutes, hours or days; also, mental image pictures of such experiences. See also mental image picture.
indicators: those manifestations in a person or group that indicate whether it is doing well or poorly, signal an approaching change, or show that the auditing process has reached the desired end point.
individuation: a withdrawal out of groups and into only self. The mechanics of individuation are first, communication into, and then, refusal to communicate into.
intelligence: the ability to perceive, pose and resolve problems.
intensive: a specific number of hours of auditing given to a preclear over a short period of time, as a series of successive sessions at regularly scheduled intervals. As an example, modern auditing is sold and delivered in 121/2-hour intensives.
intention: something that one wishes to do or intends to do. Intention is an impulse toward something; an idea that one is going to accomplish something. It’s intentional, which means one means to do it.
introversion: a looking in too closely; having one’s attention and interest directed upon oneself.
invalidation: refuting or degrading or discrediting or denying something someone else considers to be fact.
isness: an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an as-isness. This is called, when agreed upon, reality. See also as-isness.
justification: explaining away wrongnesses. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.
key-in: a moment when the environment around the awake but fatigued or distressed individual is itself similar to the dormant (inactive) engram. At that moment the engram becomes active. See also engram.
key-out: a release or separation from the reactive mind or some portion of it. See also reactive mind.
KRC triangle: the upper triangle in the Scientology symbol. The points are K for knowledge, R for responsibility, and C for control. It is difficult to be responsible for something or control something unless you have knowledge of it. It is folly to try to control something or even know something without responsibility. It is hard to fully know something or be responsible for something over which you have no control, otherwise the result can be overwhelm. Little by little one can make anything go right by increasing Knowledge on all dynamics, increasing Responsibility on all dynamics, increasing Control on all dynamics. See also dynamic(s).
level: a training step on the Grade Chart which one does for classification. He is then eligible to deliver the auditing grade represented by that level. See also Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart.
level of awareness: that of which a being is aware. (This can be established by finding which general condition of existence he is most aware of, as shown and plotted in the Awareness Characteristics column of the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart.) See also Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart.
Life Repair: a series of auditing actions run on a preclear who is starting out in auditing for the first time. Life Repair would address such things as rough spots in life, periods which the preclear may feel bad about, areas of overwhelm, etc.
line charge: a period of sudden laughter, often uncontrollable, that a preclear experiences in a session and that results from the relief of painful emotion. See also charge.
lines: communication lines, the routes along which communications travel from one person to another; the lines on which particles flow.
livingness: the activity of going along a certain course, impelled (driven) by a purpose and with some place to arrive.
lock: a mental image picture of a nonpainful but disturbing experience the person has had, which depends for its force on earlier secondaries and engrams which the experience has restimulated (stirred up). See also engram; mental image picture; secondary.
Logics: a method of thinking. They apply to any universe or any thinking process. They are the forms of thought behavior which can, but do not necessarily have to, be used in creating universes. The Logics can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.
LRH: L. Ron Hubbard.
lumbosis: a made-up name for a disease, coined by L. Ron Hubbard and used humorously in many of his lectures and writings.
machine: an actual machine in the mind (like ordinary machinery), constructed out of mental mass and energy, that has been made by the individual to do work for him, usually having been set up so as to come into operation automatically under certain predetermined circumstances. See also mental mass.
mass: see mental mass.
mechanics: referring to space, energy, objects and time. When something has those things in it, it constitutes something mechanical.
memory: any facsimiles of consciously perceived data which can be recalled by the individual. See also facsimile.
mental image picture: a copy of the physical universe as it goes by; we call a mental image picture a facsimile when it is a “photograph” of the physical universe sometime in the past. We call a mental image picture a mock-up when it is created by the thetan or for the thetan and does not consist of photographs of the physical universe. We call a mental image picture a hallucination, or more properly an automaticity (something uncontrolled), when it is created by another and seen by self. See also automaticity; facsimile.
mental mass: the mass contained in the mental image pictures (facsimiles) in the reactive mind. See also mental image picture; reactive mind.
mest: also MEST, the physical universe. A word coined from the initial letters of Matter, Energy, Space and Time, which are the component parts (elements) of the physical universe. Also used as an adjective to mean “physical”-as in “mest universe,” meaning the “physical universe.”
mest universe: that agreed-upon reality of matter, energy, space and time which we use as anchor points and through which we communicate. A mutual system of barriers on which we have agreed so we can have a game.
mind: a control system between the thetan and the physical universe. The mind is not a brain. See also analytical mind; thetan.
misdirector: a command in an engram which sends the preclear in the wrong direction, makes him go earlier when he should be going later or go later when he should go earlier, etc. “You can’t go back at this point,” “You’re turned around,” etc. See also engram.
misemotion: a coined word in Dianetics and Scientology, often used loosely to refer to anything that is unpleasant emotion, such as antagonism, anger, fear, grief, apathy or a death feeling. The full meaning of misemotion is an emotion or emotional reaction that is inappropriate to the present time situation. It is taken from mis- (wrong) + emotion. To say that a person was misemotional would indicate that the person did not display the emotion called for by the actual circumstances of the situation. Being misemotional would be synonymous with being irrational. One can fairly judge the rationality of any individual by the correctness of the emotion he displays in a given set of circumstances. To be joyful and happy when circumstances call for joy and happiness would be rational. To display grief without sufficient present time cause would be irrational.
missed withhold: an undisclosed contrasurvival act which has been restimulated by another but not disclosed. This is a withhold which another person nearly found out about, leaving the person with the withhold in a state of wondering whether his hidden deed is known or not. See also restimulation; withhold.
moral code: a series of agreements to which a person has subscribed (agreed, consented) to guarantee the survival of a group.
morals: a code of good conduct laid down out of the experience of the race to serve as a uniform yardstick for the conduct of individuals and groups. Morals are actually laws.
motivator: an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. The reason it is called a motivator is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back-it “motivates” a new overt. See also dynamic(s); overt act.
M/U: misunderstood word.
natter: to find fault with; gripe. In Scientology, if a person is nattering about somebody, one knows the person has overts on that somebody. See also overt act.
necessity level: a person’s ability to rise above his aberrations when his action is required to handle an immediate and serious threat to his survival. See also aberration.
no-games condition: a totality of barriers or a totality of freedom. See also game; games condition.
not-isness: the effort to handle isness by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an isness. See also apparency; isness.
Objective Process: objective refers to outward things, not the thoughts or feelings of the individual. An Objective Process deals with the real and observable. It calls for the preclear to spot or find something exterior to himself in order to carry out the auditing command. It locates the person in his environment, establishes direct communication with the auditor, and brings a person to present time, a very important factor in mental and spiritual sanity and ability. See also present time.
obnosis: observation of the obvious. The only way one sees anything is by observing the obvious: one looks at the isness of something, at what is actually there. Fortunately, the ability to obnose is not in any sense “inborn” or mystical. It is easily regained and improved through Scientology. See also isness.
obsessive communication: an outflow which is not pertinent to the surrounding persons or situation. An outflow of communication which is not in reality with the existing reality. See also reality.
occlusion: any part of a person’s memories that is hidden on the time track and is not available to conscious recall except through processing. See also time track.
Operating Thetan (OT): it is a state of beingness. It is a being “at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life.” Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things,” and Thetan is the Greek letter Theta (), which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also n or “theta to the nth degree,” meaning unlimited or vast. Abbreviation: OT.
optimum solution: the solution which brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of dynamics. The infinitely perfect solution would be one which brought infinite survival on all dynamics. See also dynamic(s).
OT: Operating Thetan.
other-determinism: the condition of having one’s actions or conclusions determined by something or someone other than oneself.
overrun: continue a process or a series of processes past the optimum point. See also end phenomena.
overt act: an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. It is that thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you. See also dynamic(s).
overt-motivator sequence: when a person commits an overt, he will then believe he’s got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. For instance, if he hits somebody he will tell you immediately that he has been hit by the person, even when he has not been. See also motivator; overt act.
pan-determinism: the willingness to start, change and stop two or more forces, whether or not opposed, and this could be interpreted as two or more individuals, two or more groups, two or more planets, two or more life species, two or more universes, two or more spirits, whether or not opposed. This means that one would not necessarily choose sides.
para-Scientology: a category of data in Scientology which includes all greater or lesser uncertainties and questionable things; things in Scientology of which the common, normal observer cannot be sure with a little study.
pastoral counseling: counseling delivered by a pastor (minister) of the church. Also called auditing or processing. See also auditing; processing.
perceptics: sense messages.
physical universe: the universe of matter, energy, space and time. It would be the universe of the planets, their rocks, rivers and oceans, the universe of stars and galaxies, the universe of burning suns and time. See also mest; universe.
picture: an exact likeness of something; a copy or representation of a thing, not the thing itself. An image or mental image of something. See also facsimile; mental image picture.
pleasure moment: mental image pictures containing pleasure sensations. See also mental image picture.
postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself; to conclude, decide or resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past.
potential trouble source: someone who is connected with a suppressive person who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life; someone connected to a person or a group opposed to Scientology. This connection results in illness and roller coaster (gets better, then gets worse). Processing would work with such a person for a moment, then wouldn’t work. One can’t audit this person up faster than the environment knocks him down. Because the case doesn’t get well, he is a potential trouble source to Scientology organizations, to others and to himself. See also suppressive person or group.
preclear: a spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence pre-Clear.
Prelogics: see Qs.
prenatal: a Dianetics term used to denote (refer to) an engram which is received before birth. See also engram.
pre-OT: a thetan beyond the state of Clear who, through the pre-OT levels, is advancing to the full state of Operating Thetan (OT). See also Clear; Operating Thetan; pre-OT levels; thetan.
pre-OT levels: the advanced auditing levels after Clear and preparatory to the actual OT levels which begin at New OT VIII. The pre-OT levels are New OT I through New OT VII. See also Clear; Operating Thetan.
present time: the time which is now and which becomes the past almost as rapidly as it is observed. It is a term loosely applied to the environment existing in now, as in “The preclear came up to present time,” meaning the preclear became aware of the present environment. See also environment.
present time problem: a special problem that exists in the physical universe “now” on which the pc has his attention fixed. It is any set of circumstances that so engages the attention of the preclear that he feels he should be doing something about it instead of being audited.
process: a set of questions asked or commands given by an auditor to help a person find out things about himself or life and to improve his condition.
processing: the application of Dianetics or Scientology processes to someone by a trained auditor. The exact definition of processing is: The action of asking a preclear a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Also called auditing.
propitiation: a level of the Tone Scale at which one attempts to appease or buy off some danger or imagined danger.
psychosomatic: psycho refers to mind and somatic refers to body; the term psychosomatic means the mind making the body ill or illnesses which have been created physically within the body by derangement of the mind.
PTP: present time problem.
PTS: potential trouble source: a person who is in some way connected to and being adversely affected by a suppressive person. Such a person is called a potential trouble source because he can be a lot of trouble to himself and to others. See also suppressive person in this glossary
Purification Rundown: a special rundown (series of specific actions done on a case) designed to purify and clean out of one’s system the restimulative drug or chemical residues which could act to prevent case gain from Dianetics or Scientology processing. Abbreviation: Purif. See also case gain; restimulation.
Q and A:(noun) the practice of asking a question about a pc’s answer, i.e., the auditor asks a question, the pc answers, the auditor asks a question about the answer. This is the chief auditor fault, as it is giving session control over to the pc. The auditor following only the pc’s lead is giving no auditing and the pc is left on “self-audit.”
Here is a wrong example of auditing:
Auditor : “How are you?”
Pc : “Awful.”
Auditor : “What’s wrong?”
Here is a right example:
Auditor : “How are you?”
Pc : “Awful.”
Auditor : “Thank you.”
(verb) act indecisively; fail to make up one’s mind. Technically, to Q-and-A means to ask a question about a pc’s answer. But it is often used nontechnically in “Scientologese” as noted above.
Qs: knowledge is a pyramid, and knowledge as a pyramid has a common denominator which evaluates all other data below it. At the top point of this pyramid is what could be called a Q, and it could also be called a common denominator. It is in common to every other datum in this pyramid full of data. The Qs are the highest echelon from which all other things are derived. Q comes from quod in Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum), meaning “which was to be shown or demonstrated,” used specifically in mathematical proofs. The Qs can be found in the book Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.
randomity: a consideration of motion. There is plus randomity and minus randomity. There can be, from the individual’s consideration, too much or too little motion, or enough motion. “Enough motion” is measured by the consideration of the individual.
rationalization: justification; making excuses to explain irrational behavior. See also justification.
reactive: irrational, reacting instead of acting; thinkingness or behavior dictated by the reactive mind rather than the individual’s own present time determinism. See also reactive mind.
reactive mind: that portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored. See also engram; stimulus-response.
reality: the solid objects, the real things of life; the degree of agreement reached by two people. See also ARC triangle.
recall: an auditing procedure which has the preclear think of, remember or put his attention on something that happened in the past-all done from present time. See also present timem.
rehabilitation: the restoration of some former ability or state of being or some more optimum condition.
Release: the term for what occurs when a person separates from his reactive mind or some part of it. The degree and relative permanence of being pulled out of the reactive mind determines the state of Release. There are a number of states or stages of Release and these are called Grades. See also Expanded Lower Grades; Grades.
religious philosophy: a term which implies study of spiritual manifestations; research on the nature of the spirit and study on the relationship of the spirit to the body.
repair: patching up past auditing or recent life errors.
repeater technique: a Dianetics auditing technique given in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in which the auditor would have the preclear repeat over and over certain phrases found in engrams being run. See also engram.
repetitive processing: auditing in which a process is run over and over again, with the same question of the pc. The pc answers the question and the auditor acknowledges him. The process is run until it is flat. See also flat.
responsibility: the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be; the ability and willingness to be cause. To accept responsibility for something is to accept that one operated as cause in the matter. It should be clearly distinguished from such lower-level considerations as blame or praise, which include the further evaluation of the goodness or badness of the thing caused.
restimulation: reactivation of a past memory due to similar circumstances in the present approximating circumstances of the past. See also key-in.
restimulator: anything in the individual’s surroundings which is sufficiently similar to something in his reactive mind that it causes part of his reactive mind to become restimulated. See also reactive mind; restimulation.
reverie: a light state of “concentration” not to be confused with hypnosis; in reverie the person is fully aware of what is taking place.
R-factor: reality factor. It is the action of the auditor telling the pc what the auditor is going to do at each new step. This gives the pc more reality on what is occurring in the auditing session.
ridge: a solid accumulation of old, inactive energy suspended in space and time. It is generated by opposing energy flows which hit one another, and continues to exist long after the energy flows have ceased. See also flow.
routine: a standard process. See also process.
rudiments: those steps or actions used to get the pc in shape to be audited in that session. For auditing to take place at all the pc must be “in- session” which means: (1) willing to talk to the auditor, (2) interested in own case. Rudiments are actions done to accomplish this.
run: to administer or undergo a process or auditing action.
rundown: a series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Scientology Drug Rundown. See also end phenomena.
sanity: the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. The legal definition of sanity is the “ability to tell right from wrong.” The better one can tell differences, the more rational he is. The less one can tell differences, no matter how minute, and know the width of those differences and the closer one comes to thinking in identities (A=A), the less sane he is. See also A=A=A=A.
Scientologist: one who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively attaining it.
Scientology: Scientology applied religious philosophy. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Scientology means scio, knowing in the fullest sense of the word and logos, study. In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is a “route,” a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowledge. Through its drills and studies one may find the truth for himself. The technology is therefore not expounded as something to believe, but something to do.
Scientology Drug Rundown: a rundown (series of auditing actions) which uses Scientology auditing techniques to handle the harmful effects of drugs, medicine and alcohol on a case. This rundown extroverts a person, brings him into present time, and allows him to experience the relief and expansion available to one who has been freed from the influence of drugs. See also case; rundown.
secondary: also called secondary engram. A period of anguish brought about by a major loss or threat of loss to the individual. The secondary engram depends for its strength and force upon physical-pain engrams which underlie it. See also engram.
second dynamic: see dynamic(s).
self-determinism: that state of being wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice. He is confident about any and all abilities or talents he may possess. He is confident in his interpersonal relationships. He reasons but does not need to react.
service facsimile: a computation generated by the individual to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and to enhance own survival and injure that of others. This computation will cause the individual to deliberately hold in restimulation selected parts of his reactive mind to explain his failures in life. For example, a person may keep an old injury in restimulation so that his family has to look after him. See also facsimile; reactive mind; restimulation.
session: a precise period of time during which an auditor audits a preclear.
significance: a word which is used in the special sense to denote any thought, decision, concept, idea, purpose or meaning in the mind in distinction to its masses. (The mind is basically composed of masses and significances.) See also mental mass.
solid communication line: a communication line is the route along which a communication travels from one person to another; the line on which particles flow. A solid communication line is one requiring solid contact, such as the auditor’s hand in the preclear’s hand or the preclear’s hand in his.
somatic: a physical pain or discomfort of any kind. The word somatic means, actually, bodily or physical. Because the word pain is restimulative, and because the word pain has in the past l
somatic mind: that mind which takes care of the automatic mechanisms of the body, the regulation of the minutiae (precise details) which keep the organism running.
sonic: the recall of something heard, so that it is heard again in the mind in full tone and strength.
soul: the living unit which operates the body. See also thetan.
SP: suppressive person. A person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality.
space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track. See also whole track.
stable datum: one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which other things can be aligned. Any confusing motion can be understood by conceiving one thing to be motionless. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder.
Standard Technology: the exact processes and auditing actions laid down by L. Ron Hubbard and used for the invariable resolution of cases, taught in the organizations of Scientology and used without variation by all Scientology auditors. The term applies equally to Dianetics and its technology.
start-change-stop: the cycle of action in this universe, which is also the anatomy of control. Almost the entire subject of control is summed up in the ability to start, change and stop one’s activities, body and one’s environment. See also cycle of action.
static: something which doesn’t have wavelength, so it is not in motion; it doesn’t have weight, it doesn’t have mass, it doesn’t have length, breadth or any of these things. It is motionlessness.
stimulus-response: given a certain stimulus, something will automatically give a certain response.
Straightwire: the name of a process. It is the act of stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any detours. The auditor is stringing a straight wire of memory between the actual genus (origin) of a condition and present time, thus demonstrating that there is a difference of time and space in the condition then and the condition now, and that the preclear, conceding this difference, then rids himself of the condition or at least is able to handle it. The motto of Straightwire could be said to be, “Discover the actual genus of any condition and you will place the condition under the control of the preclear.” See also present time.
subconscious: the unconscious mind. See also unconscious mind.
suppress: to squash, to sit on, to make smaller, to refuse to let reach, to make a person uncertain about reaching, to render or lessen in any way possible by any means possible, to the harm of the individual and for the fancied protection of a suppressor.
suppressive acts: actions or omissions undertaken knowingly to suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists. (Such actions are high crimes and result in dismissal from Scientology and its organizations.)
suppressive person or group: a person or group of persons who actively seek to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts. See also potential trouble source; suppressive acts.
survival: an impulse to persist through time, in space, as matter and energy. It is a condition susceptible to nonsurvival. If one is “surviving,” one is at the same moment admitting that one can cease to survive, otherwise one would never strive to survive.
sweetness and light: a humorous term which means pleasant, good-tempered, etc. Often used to describe the case which cannot conceive of ever having done anything bad to anybody or anything. See also case.
symbiote: a term which in Dianetics is extended beyond the dictionary definition to mean “any or all life or energy forms which are mutually dependent for survival.” The atom depends on the universe, the universe on the atom.
tactile: the perceptics (sense messages) of touch.
tech: 1. technical. 2. technology.
technology: the methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself.
terminal: anything used in a communication system; anything that can receive, relay or send a communication; a man would be a terminal, but a post (position, job or duty to which a person is assigned) would also be a terminal; also, things with mass and meaning.
theta: energy peculiar to life or a thetan which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it; natural creative energy of a thetan which he has free to direct toward survival goals, especially when it manifests itself as high tone, constructive communications. See also thetan.
Theta Clear: a person who operates exterior to the body without need of a body.
thetan: the person himself-not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The term was coined to eliminate any possible confusion with older, invalid concepts. It comes from the Greek letter Theta (), which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also n, or “theta to the nth degree,” meaning unlimited or vast.
1. thought matter (ideas), thought energy, thought space, and thought time, combined in an independent universe analogous to the material universe. One of the purposes of theta is postulated as the conquest, change, and ordering of mest. (From Science of Survival Glossary)
2. is a postulated reality for which there exists much evidence. (From Science of Survival, page 99.)
third party: one who by false reports creates trouble between two people, a person and a group, or a group and another group. See also third party law.
third party law: a law which states that a third party must be present and unknown in every quarrel for a conflict to exist. Or, for a quarrel to occur, an unknown third party must be active in producing it between two potential opponents.
time track: the consecutive record of mental image pictures which accumulates through a person’s life or lives. It is very exactly dated. The time track is the entire sequence of “now” incidents, complete with all perceptics, picked up by a person during his whole existence. See also incident; mental image picture.
tone: the emotional condition of an engram or the general condition of an individual. See also engram; Tone Scale.
Tone Scale: a scale which shows the emotional tones of a person. These, ranged from the highest to the lowest, are, in part, serenity, enthusiasm (as we proceed downward), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy. (There are additional tone levels than these in the Expanded Tone Scale).
Touch Assist: an assist action which reestablishes communication with injured or ill body parts. It brings the person’s attention to the injured or affected body areas. This is done by repetitively touching the ill or injured person’s body and putting him into communication with the injury. His communication with it brings about recovery. The technique is based on the principle that the way to heal anything or remedy anything is to put somebody into communication with it.
track: see time track.
truth: the exact consideration. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.
two-way communication: a two-way cycle of communication would work as follows: Joe, having originated a communication, and having completed it, may then wait for Bill to originate a communication to Joe, thus completing the remainder of the two-way cycle of communication. Thus we get the normal cycle of a communication between two terminals (people).
unconscious mind: a term from psychoanalysis. It is said to be the sum of all thoughts, memories, impulses, desires, feelings, etc., of which the individual is not conscious but which influence his emotions and behavior. In actuality, the “unconscious” is the sum of all a man’s bad experiences and nothing more mysterious than that. In Dianetics and Scientology it is called the reactive mind. See also reactive mind.
universe: a whole system of created things. The universes are three in number. The first of these is one’s own universe. The second would be the material universe, which is the universe of matter, energy, space and time, which is the common meeting ground of all of us. The third is actually a class of universes-the universe of every other person.
unmock: become nothing; make nothing of.
valences: personalities. The term is used to denote the borrowing of the personalities of others. Valences are substitutes for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. Preclears “in their father’s valence” are acting as though they were their father.
VGIs: abbreviation for Very Good Indicators. It means good indicators to a very marked degree. Extremely good indicators. For example, if a preclear were happy or laughing in session, those could be considered very good indicators. See also indicators.
vias: relay points in a communication line. To talk via a body, to get energy via eating, alike are communication by-routes. Enough vias make a stop. A stop is made out of vias.
viewpoint: a point of awareness from which one can perceive.
visio: the recall of something seen, so that it is seen again in the mind in full color, scale, dimension, brightness and detail.
whole track: the moment to moment record of a person’s existence in this universe in picture and impression form.
withhold: an unspoken, unannounced transgression against a moral code by which the person was bound. Something the preclear did that he or she is not talking about. A withhold is always the manifestation which comes after an overt. Any withhold comes after an overt. See also moral code; overt act.
X Y Z
I had a girlfriend who was into EST (and ropes courses) way back when. It gave her a lot of positive energy, but it always seemed a bit creepy to me. Not sure if it was typical, but it also seemed very secretive--she wouldn't really tell me much what it was about, but I found out more from her EST friends, who assumed I was "in the know".
"I don't think so many people are naturally "suckers"... but the basic human need to be accepted and appreciated is strong enough to override the otherwise better judgment of many folks."
Andrew Clark: You don't have any goals.
John Bender: Oh but I do.
Andrew Clark: Yeah?
John Bender: I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need, is a lobotomy and some tights.
Brian Johnson: You wear tights?
Andrew Clark: No I don't wear tights. I wear the required uniform.
Brian Johnson: Tights.
Andrew Clark: Shut up.
Scientology does good for the stars though, instead of killing people in dui's, going through heroin phases and generally being as#@&%es they are doing e meters, staring contests, looking up words in dictionaries and generally being as#@&%es; at least they aren't causing me harm.
Thanks, Anastasia. Somewhere I knew L. Ron Hubbard wrote something about the quickest way to becoming a millionaire was to start your own religion, so thanks for the reference.
You can say what you like about Jesus, but he sure didn't "start" anything to become rich. Poor old bugger died without a possession in the world, though they played for his clothes.
Actually, you don't hear many people saying anything negative about Jesus, just Christians. What can you say negative about Jesus? Jesus was very cool. He's the person in history I'd most like to have a beer with. Or wine - and he could buy the first round!
in all fairness of my ribbing of the seizmologists, i did see a lot of very happy people every Saturday night during graduation.
much improvement over when they came in.
so, unless you have been "inside" for a while, you really have no idea of what really goes on, because of all the screwed up pr it gets for some weird reason.
the diseminators put it a little nicer, "if you don't know what the f*#k your talkin about, shut the f*#k up so you don't show the world what an ignorant chicken sucker you are!"
you have to try pot to form an opinion.
you have to get drunk to from a valid opinion.
the main reason i did not like it was it was too straight.
they told me i could no longer use the chronic.
but then i go to a staff party on saturday nite, and all the higher up's are just getting plastered on booze, orgies in the hallway, three sheets to the wind, but i can't do my thing?
it was funny to see them drunk, some of them even turning on scientology, "this chick corea music sucks!"
"have you heard L Rons album? what a joke!"
so it was a bit more open than most folks think.
this book was banned by the seizmologists, too weird:
Apathy. 1. Lack of emotion or feeling. 2. Lack of interest in things generally found ex-
citing, interesting, or moving; indifference.
– The American Heritage Dictionary
"I'm on a different trip now," my young friend said. "Nothing
bothers me; I
just take life as it comes. I've matured a lot in the last few months. I got all those wild
dreams out of my system and now I'm ready to settle down to some serious study.
That's where it's really at."
If I didn't know the tone scale, my friend's assertions of maturity might have
convinced me. But I recalled his sparkling ebullience only four months earlier as he
left for New York City. Confident of his talent, optimistic about the future, he de-
parted with dreams of success. Somewhere in the intervening months, soundlessly
and without fanfare, the bottom dropped out of his world. Someone or something
took away his hope. The philosophic "realization" was a cop-out. He had given up.
When a person suffers a severe loss and cannot express his grief, he restrains
it and goes into Apathy where he may claim that he isn't affected at all. "I didn't want
that part in the play anyway."
Apathy is turned-off. Turned-off to loving, living, hoping, crying, laughing,
A person may drop to any low tone after a loss, but in Apathy he has not
only lost, he knows he will never be able to win again.
This is the most serious of all tone levels. A dangerous state of mind border-
ing on death, it's often suicidal. Life is a herd of elephants and trampled him beyond
help or hope.
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF APATHY
If every person in this emotion were curled up in a ball on the floor of a men-
tal institution and labeled "catatonic," you could identify him easily. But you are just
as likely to find him lecturing in a large university and labeled a "brilliant intellectual."
Apathy breaks down into two levels. Deepest Apathy (sometimes called pre-
tended death) is only a gnat's breath above death. He may be in bed, unable to care
for himself, completely withdrawn and suffering hallucinations. People are usually in
this state after an operation or severe accident. He's easy to recognize.
It's the higher level, walking-around-Apathy person we find more deceiving.
He may be barefoot, bearded and freaked out on LSD. He could be wearing the
portly businessman's costume and getting smashed on martinis every afternoon. He
may commit suicide with a gun or wander listlessly across the street against the
light, hoping someone else will do it for him.
"I met a talkative Apathy person at a dinner party recently. His tone was re-
flected in nearly every remark. We were talking about cars. He disposed of the sub-
ject with: "The automotive business is dead. It's all over."
When the conversation turned to problems in the construction business, he
said, "The small contractor is dead. He hasn't a chance."
Later we discussed a political problem: "Try to get something like that cor-
rected and you're dead."
The clue to his tone was not only his absolute pessimism, but his frequent use
of the word dead.
Although the Apathy person may be going to classes, doing housework,
making movies, or holding a job, he is usually trying to destroy himself in some
DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
The drug addict and the alcoholic are Apathy persons. Don't be misled by any
surface belligerence, maudlin sweetness, or exuberance manifested when he's high.
How is he when he's down? That's the feeling which drives him back to the chemical
escape. He's committing suicide slowly. He's waiting to succumb, but he's going to
stay stoned so it won't hurt so much. Meanwhile the people around him will be frus-
trated, concerned and desperately trying to do something for him. That's a good tip-
off to Apathy; his associates are frazzled beyond endurance from trying (and failing)
to help him.
BEYOND RIGHT AND WRONG
Now and then we find a person in Apathy who thinks he's in a state of seren-
ity. Unable to acknowledge his own feeling of helplessness, he justifies it with schol-
arly discourse. I call this "Intellectual Apathy."
Bill, a college student, told me about his friend who studied many philoso-
phies and religions until he evolved one of his own. The friend lengthily described
his achievement of "ultimate awareness."
Deeply impressed, Bill said, "Now that you've reached this state yourself, I'm
surprised you're not trying to help others to get there too."
"Why should l?" the friend replied. "They're all me anyway."
Everything is beyond right and wrong. He walks around in Apathy and
thinks he's a god.
There are certain philosophies (such as Eastern religions) based on the highest
attitudes of the scale; but low-tone people can invert the meaning so that the end
result is Apathy. When any individual or body of thought advocates less activity, lesscommunication, less contact with people or less involvement with living, you can
disregard the erudite labels. It leads toward Apathy.
Other studies and doctrines seem to invite an apathetic outlook. The fatalist
clings to the belief that all events are preordained and human beings are powerless
to change anything ("I'm not even responsible for myself" says Apathy). Their fol-
lowers look to the stars, numbers, colors and crystal balls to indicate their destinies.
People in Apathy are perfect dupes for such hokum.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
When someone considers himself to be totally governed by influences outside
himself, he sits in Apathy. He will accept grievous losses and say with a sigh, "It's
God's will; nothing can be done." "If it was meant to be, it will be." (This is not truly a
religious viewpoint, incidentally, for any religion worthy of the name, offers man a
way out – a salvation.) The Apathy person considers himself less than the stars, the
planets, the baseball scores and the flea on his leg. High on the tone scale a person
feels dangerous to his environment (not full effect of it); he changes the environment
to suit him; he's cause. But the more a person believes himself to be the effect, the
closer he is to Apathy and death.
Low-tone people have peculiar concepts of ownership. At Apathy, however, a
person is close to feeling that he owns nothing. This may be literally true or he may
own many possessions and still run around saying, "There's just no point in owning
He also thinks others should own nothing. He lets all property decay and rot.
He wastes your time, runs up your utility bills, leaves lights on and motors running,
and casually uses your telephone to call New Zealand. He's quite bewildered if this
bothers you: "You should get rid of all this anyway." A newly rich screen star says: "I
should save money for my old age, but I don't. All the money I've made just slips
away as if it didn't belong to me. I don't feel like doing anything to save myself. I
just let everything happen ."
There are people who brag about not being affected by anything; they're the
emotionally unemployed. This is most extreme in Apathy. Jim, a college student, felt
that life was losing its sparkle; nothing turned him on anymore. He told his friend,
George, he planned to try an LSD trip. Both boys knew that the drug could produce
long-term mental disorders and, up to that point, they had opted to bypass the
whole drug venture. George, however, was also in Apathy at the time, so he said
only, "Well, I don't agree with what you want to do, but I know there is nothing I
can say that will stop you." In a higher tone, George would not have felt powerless;
he would at least try to do something about the situation . The sophisticated Apathy person will claim he's bored: "I'm fed up with life. Nothing is amusing. What can you
do to create excitement in this superficial world?"
"THINGS ARE NEVER REAL"
One year after the first moon landing by American astronauts, a large U.S.
newspaper chain sent reporters to conduct seventeen hundred interviews in com-
munities across the nation, asking for opinions of the event. The newsmen reported
that an extraordinary number of people doubted the reality of the Apollo feat. This
was true particularly among the old and the poor. An elderly Philadelphia woman
thought the moon landing was "staged" on the Arizona desert. An unemployed con-
struction worker in Miami said, "I saw that on television, but I don't believe none of
it. Man's never been on the moon." In a Washington, D. C. ghetto more than half of
the people interviewed expressed doubts about the authenticity of the moon walk.
One man, trying to explain away his emotional attitude, said, "It's all a deliberate ef-
fort to mask problems at home. The people are unhappy, and this takes their minds
off their problems." Things are never real to the Apathy person.
The compulsive gambler is at Apathy. If a person consistently wins he's
higher-tone because he's cause over the game rather than effect. The compulsive
gambler, however, cannot quit any game a winner. When a man gambles away the
rent and grocery money every payday, he's manifesting the Apathy attitude about
ownership: "I'd better not own."
A steamship on a cruise to South America received a report that another ship
nearby was wrecked and on fire. The captain changed course and was the first to
arrive at the flaming ship. Eight hundred passengers and crew members were in the
water, floundering, wet and frightened. They'd lost everything but the clothes they
wore. All of them were saved, however, and passengers crowded on deck where
they watched and participated in the exciting rescue, some of them providing cloth-
ing, and warm quarters for the victims.
Throughout all this activity the gambling casino remained open. A certain
number of hard-core players stayed there, eyes hypnotically fixed on the tables, ap-
parently unaware and unaffected by the real-life drama occurring a few yards out-
side the door. That's Apathy. No other tone would be indifferent to such a moving
"MAN NEVER CHANGES"
The youngster who understands the tone scale knows whether to accept ad-
vice and ideas from his elders. One day my seventeen-year-old son described a lec-
ture given by one of his high school teachers, who declared, "Man never changes. He
keeps making the same mistakes over and over. He never learns. He will never im-
"Where's that on the tone scale?" I asked. My son laughed and said, "Apathy, of course." This is another person using
her years of education and experience to support an emotional attitude over which
she has no control.
You can find history and documentation to support every attitude on the
scale. If we fully accepted her "proof," however, no teacher would bother to teach,
no scientist would continue to juggle his test tubes, and I would have stayed in bed
No matter how brilliant he is, no Apathy person can be more than an imita-
tion of the vitality we find in the higher tones.
Let's crawl up a notch . . .
"INTEREST AND ENTHUSIASM (3.5-4.0)
Our new high school math teacher was speaking carefully, "This is supposed
to be a true story," he said. "A man, sitting in church with his wife, fell asleep and
dreamed he was living in the time of the French Revolution. He was captured and
brought before the guillotine. Death seemed imminent. At just this moment his wife
noticed his closed eyes and drooping head, so she picked up his straw hat and
tapped the back of his neck. Dreaming that this was the blade of the guillotine com-
ing down on him, he died right there in his sleep.
"Now, how do you know this is not really a true story?"
The teacher laughed as he watched us catch on, one by one, to his trick story.
If the man died in his sleep who would know what he was dreaming?
Our introduction to this handsome young man was certainly unusual. The
girls were delighted to be in his class, of course, but we were somewhat apprehen-
sive about that formidable looking geometry textbook.
To our surprise, however, he ignored the text for over a week. Instead, he
spent each class period telling us baffling stories for which we were to find loopholes
or solutions. This was school? Soon we were eagerly anticipating his class and won-
dering what kind of posers we would get each day. After a week of grappling with
strange puzzles – taking them apart, finding flaws, arriving at solutions – we were
convinced that problem solving could be fun. By the time he finally opened the ge-
ometry textbook, we were interested.
That's how a topscale person handles others – by bringing them up to a level
where they become interested. He uses reasoning rather than the emotional persua-
sions used by lower tones ("Do your work or you flunk").
At the top of the scale we find a band ranging from Interest (amusement) to
Enthusiasm (cheerfulness). I've placed them in one chapter because they're similar in
characteristics. The 4.0 is just a little more so. Anyway, when we meet either one of
them, it's such a welcome experience we don't want to waste our time nit-picking
about which tone he's in.
One can become interested in various subjects, of course, at any level of the
tone scale. He may be interested in anything from learning Swahili to looking at
dirty pictures; but this doesn't place him at 3.5 on the scale.
The high-tone person takes an active interest in subjects related to survival.
There's more action, more involvement and more creativity.
He can envision far-reaching plans and ideas that project toward a better fu-
ture for himself and all mankind. His interests may be more novel and of broader
scope than those of the lower-tone person.
He's more of a participant than a spectator. If he takes up sports, he'll excel
because of his fast reaction time.
The 3.5 is capable of maintaining a strong, sustained interest; he doesn't take
up something and drop it a week later (as we see in lower tones).
I once knew a young man who became interested in bird-watching. He was
so enthused with the subject that he learned to recognize every bird call as soon as
he heard it, and within a few months became an expert. Later this same young man
studied karate until he earned the coveted black belt. Before he was twenty years old
he acquired two skills that would give him pleasure and confidence for the rest of his
life. I've known many people twice his age who have dabbled in a dozen subjects
without achieving such proficiency in any of them.
One reason the 3 5 can put more attention onto any subject he's learning is
because he is less introverted. His attention is outside of himself; he wants to be in-
terested rather than interesting.
This is the tone of the fellow who just won the Irish Sweepstakes (before the
income tax men arrive). He's eager, enthusiastic, cheerful, alive!
Before you get the picture of 4.0 as a perpetually grinning ape whom most of
us would find obnoxious (at least before the first cup of coffee in the mornings, I'd
better explain that he is not constantly bubbling over (that's more likely the phony
bonhomie of the 1.1 or the strange, hysterical glee that may occur on any low tone –
even Apathy). Generally he wakes up with a quiet sense of well-being and looks
forward to carrying out his plans for the future.
He's mobile on the scale – able to experience all emotions as the occasion calls
for them – although he's generally at the top with the volume turned down to a
He's an active person who inspires others to action. If he's not the boss yet, he
probably will be.
He enjoys working and is willing to be responsible for a large sphere of activ-
ity. You won't find him in squalid quarters; he recognizes and enjoys the good
things in living. Here's a fully sane human being.
He's free from having to take sides. He finds no need to fight; but he defi-
nitely will rather than tolerate injustices. Since he doesn't need approval from others,
he is able to do things courageously on a basis of personal conviction.
He can spend time with low-tone people without getting depressed, compul-
sively sympathetic or cruel.
There was a San Francisco men's club which collected money and food each
year for a needy family in the community. One year, after such a family was se-
lected, Fred, an up-tone member of the club, said, "You know, I don't mind helping
this fellow, but I'd much rather see him earn his own money."
Fred followed up on his idea and learned that the impoverished man was laid
off, but sincerely wanted to work. With the cooperation of the other members, Fred
helped the man set up a lawn care business. The man soon came upscale and started
adding customers. Within two years he owned two trucks, employed several helpers
and ran a busy, thriving business – one that benefited the whole community. That's
Having no need to control or dominate people to satisfy his own ego, the 4.0
uses his enthusiasm and confidence to inspire others to reach higher levels and do
things for themselves. His tremendous personal power is a calming influence to a
worried or troubled area.
Because of his fast reaction time, he avoids accidents. He's excellent at sports
or any project he undertakes. He generally enjoys good health, because he doesn't
recklessly ignore the rules of good body care.
A high-tone person makes himself understood easily. He's capable of com-
municating deeply-felt ideas, but he does so with discrimination. He prefers dealing
with constructive facts, rather than destructive ones. While a lower-tone doom
salesman is reciting all the shocking news, he will be pointing to the survival activi-
ties occurring. He'll mention a book that will help you make more money. He'll de-
scribe a new development for making sturdier cars. He prefers discussing solutions,
rather than clucking about the horribleness of it all.
He listens to others and understands them easily (provided the communica-
tion is understandable and does not exceed his educational level) and he can hear
low-tone people without becoming upset, critical or derogatory .
My son told me about an upscale teacher who periodically gave the students a
free discussion period in which they could make suggestions or comments about the
class. One day a girl peevishly complained, "I don't think you let us talk enough."
Not finding it necessary to argue or defend himself, he replied calmly: "Hmm.
I think you're right. I often talk too much"
If a high-tone fellow delegates someone to give him a full report on a situa-
tion, he'll expect truthful facts and, if possible, a suggestion for rectifying any nega-
tive conditions. He will not accept a report based on generalities, innuendoes and
assumptions that merely concludes: ''The world is going to hell in a handbasket." The
3.5 will call such a person on the carpet. He resents and strikes back at unnecessary
"bad news" reports.
At 4.0 the person simply cuts a vicious or slanderous communication line. He
doesn't absorb it or relay it. If possible, he'll raise the tone of the originator. Other-
wise, he'll probably just cease accepting communication from that person.
When the 3.0 gets mad at a newspaper for biased reportings he'll write a blis-
tering letter to the editor. The 4.0 will most likely cancel his subscription and look for
a more upscale paper.
AS A FRIEND
His magnetic personality attracts people without effort, and he'll be loved by
almost everyone. Some low-tone types, however, will get upset around 4.0 because
they can't knock him down to their level. People who can move easily on the tone
scale will find him inspiring. His high tone is contagious; they want to be around him
so they can catch it themselves.
Be friends with him, hire him, elect him, promote him, work for him. You
can't go wrong.
If you are playing cards with him and accidentally expose your hand, he
won't look. He's honest. He doesn't subscribe to the get-away-with-what-you-can
philosophy. He actually refines ethics beyond those demanded by his group. He
doesn't need laws, rules or policies to force him to be honest.
You can trust him with your money, your reputation or your wife.
ON THE JOB
A person who can assume no responsibility feels horrible.
''Full responsibility is a very light-hearted thing.''
– L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course
If Enthusiasm isn't chairman of the board, he should be. He enjoys his work
and takes large responsibilities easily. He's willing to take command or take orders
(although he'll rebel against executing non-survival orders).
He works with persistence toward constructive goals. if someone tells him it
can't be done or "We don't have any," a person in this tone band will bypass the ob-
structing individual and find another way to accomplish his purpose. I observed a
topscale man recently calling a New York supplier to order materials for one of his
machines. The supplier's order department was manned by a Grief/Apathy person
who said, "Well, I don't know if you're ever going to get these supplies. We're out of
them and they've been on order for ages. That machine is obsolete now, you know."
"Are you telling me the company just stopped making supplies for the ma-
chines that are out in the field?"
"Well, it's coming to that. We aren't getting our shipments like we used to."
"What am I supposed to do?"
"I don't know. You'll just have to get a new machine, I guess."
"Would I be able to trade this one in?" "Well, you won't get much money for
it. After all, it's obsolete. "
"This is ridiculous; my machine is still working fine." "That's all I can tell you.
There's nothing more I can do."
He hung up in disgust; but he didn't stay upset long. Unwilling to accept this
stop, he phoned another supplier who promptly filled the order. A lower-tone per-
son would have succumbed to the bad news without question. The upscale guy just
doesn't give up so easily.
He tends toward higher goals than people lower on the scale. If you hire him,
you'd better plan on promoting him; he won't settle for mediocrity. While he's not
grasping or greedy, he's more capable of owning than people lower on the scale. He
enjoys possessions, can easily make a fortune and usually embraces plentiful goals of
survival. Lower on the scale, we find people who think they would like to have more
money or more possessions and sometimes they acquire them. More often, how-
ever, they cannot permit themselves to own much. This is no problem to the high-
tone person. He will realize that survival on a bare necessity level is unsafe, and it
will be intolerable to him. If it appears that he needs five hundred dollars a month in
order to provide the minimum needs for himself and his family, he'll get busy and
earn two thousand dollars a month.
He can tolerate larger effects on himself than lowertone people. This means
that he may lose a fortune; but he's able to bounce back and earn another one. Al-
though he's frequently attacked by downscale people, he fights such attacks (if nec-
essary) and recovers easily.
LOVE AND FAMILY
If you can find such a spouse, take him (or her) and don't look back. You
must be doing something right.
Here at the highest level of the scale, we find constancy and a natural instinct
for monogamy. The 4.0 has a high enjoyment of sex; but a moral reaction to it. Al-
though he loves with a spontaneous and free exuberance, we won't find the dissi-
pated love at 4.0, because at this level a person is more likely to sublimate the sexual
drive into creative thought and energy.
The 4.0 is extremely interested in children. He not only cares for their mental
and physical well-being, he is concerned about the society in which they will live. He
is interested in efforts that improve the culture, so that youngsters will have a better
chance for survival in the future.
THE EXPANDED SCALE
Ron Hubbard has plotted a second, expanded tone scale which goes below 0.0
and above 4.0. it relates to the spiritual entity, however, and to understand it one
must know and embrace the religious philosophy of Scientology. One actually ap-
pears on both scales. But this book deals with the human being, who will always befound somewhere between 0.0 and 4.0. A chart of the expanded scale is available to
those who are interested (see list in the back).
He's alive and he likes it. Neither falsely modest nor egotistically inflated, he
knows what he can do and has an honest evaluation of his own worth. He enjoys
He's mobile on the tone scale. He can suffer a loss and bounce back quickly.
When he is deliberately stopped or suppressed, he fights with fervor, although he
holds no long-term grudges.
This fellow is no rubber stamp, but he'll follow orders without an argument
provided they do not compromise his own integrity. He's both independent and
cooperative. He can stay on good terms with others without surrendering his own
If he resolves to save money, lose weight or stop playing the horses, he'll do
He's a lighthearted man with a free mind, capable of changing viewpoints and
looking at new concepts. He can act spontaneously and intuitively. He's liable to
follow his hunches – and be right.
Can you remember the last day of school? You walk out of the dreary build-
ing. Gone are the deadlines, those tardy themes, the verb conjugations, the heavy
homework and the dull lectures. There's a tremendous relief. You're so light you
could float through the air with the dandelion seeds. Nothing is serious; the future
looks gloriously bright. You feel magnanimous and the world is yours to explore, to
love, to play in and to laugh with.
That's the top of the scale.
You just can't buy that sort of thing at the corner drugstore.
This is by far, the funnest emotion to act out on.
This is everything good in life, right here.
This is where the fun is at:
COVERT HOSTILITY (1.1)
Covert: l) Covered or covered over; sheltered. 2) concealed; hidden; secret. Hostile: 1)
Of or pertaining to an enemy. 2) feeling or showing enmity; antagonistic.
– American Heritage Dictionary
The main difficulty with a 1.1 is that he doesn't wear a neon sign telling you
he's a 1.1.
It's a cover-up tone – the most difficult one on the scale to recognize. After
you do spot one, don't expect the next 1.1 you meet to bear much resemblance.
HIS MANY DISGUISES
He may be that hearty buffoon, "the life of the party." She's the inconspicuous
little old maid down the street who never forgets your birthday. He could be the
jovial, back-slapping salesman. The smooth con man. The witty, entertaining gossip
columnist. The swaggering office Don Juan who might be the smiling lady next door
who knows all the delicious little stories about the neighbors. He's the lover who is
gay and tenderly passionate one minute and disdainfully sarcastic the next. He's the
clever impostor who passed himself off as a surgeon for fifteen years. He's the gen-
tle-mannered homosexual. Or that pleasant young man who "never said an unkind
word to anyone" but was just convicted of seven hideous sex crimes. Or that news-
paper reporter who appeared so friendly until his story (full of slimy innuendoes)
was in print. And here's where we find that nice bank president who embezzled
100,000 and skipped off to Brazil with the belly dancer. He could be the sensitive
poet, the suave millionaire or the charming vagrant who lives by his wits and hasn't
done a day's work in twenty years.
Wherever he turns up, he'll be in disguise. If you're generous in character,
you may be tempted to treat him leniently.
At 1.1 we find the emotion Ron Hubbard has described as "the most danger-
ous and wicked level on the tone scale." (Science of Survival)
He's halfway between Fear (which motivates his tone) and Anger (which he
must conceal). His emotion dictates that he smile and put up a good front at all times
since he "knows" we mustn't ever become angry. At this position we find flagrant
lying in order to avoid real communication. Such lying may be in the form of pre-
tended agreement ("what a marvelous idea"), flattery ("that's a darling dress, my
dear") or appeasement ("now don't worry; I'll take care of everything").
The 1.1 constructs a false facade, an artificial personality. He's the cheerful
hypocrite. AS A FRIEND
You won't need enemies. You'd be better off as a recluse. Don't trust him
with your money, your reputation or your wife. He's a person who hates but is un-
able to say he hates. He deals in treachery and expects to be forgiven. He'll tell you
he stood up for you when he actually did his best to destroy your reputation. He'll
flatter you quite insincerely while he waits for his moment to do you in. And he'll
find more ways of doing you in than I can possibly catalog in one chapter.
The 1.1 expects special privileges or exemptions, He'll be the one most likely
to assume that he can break the rules – of a marriage, a company, a group or soci-
We often like the 1.1 at first because he pretends to be so high-tone. But even-
tually (unless we're in Sympathy) we grow to despise him. Our loathing, however, is
sometimes hard to explain because we can seldom pin down exactly what this doll is
doing that's so despicable.
While he's arrogant, he's such an accomplished actor that we may be deceived
by his put-on of humility Having command of all the tones below his, he uses them
without conscience to convince us he's harmless and means well. In this way, he ma-
nipulates people, always seeking hidden control. He may weep, plead, propitiate or
sympathize; he may pose contempt or disdain. But through all the histrionics he is
trying to nullify others to get them to the level where they can be used.
If you get mad at him, he usually drops to Propitiation (goes out of his way to
do things for you or brings you gifts) or Grief ("I didn't mean any harm...") in order
to worm his way back into your confidence. Count on him to know your soft spots
and to play on them with consummate skill.
Here's a fast way to peg a 1.1: he seeks to introvert you. This generally occurs
in the first few seconds of meeting him. He'll say, "You've gained some weight,
haven't you?" or "I can't figure out why you look so different..." On the phone, he
may open the conversation with: ''Your voice sounds funny; do you have a cold?"
Under the guise of friendly concern, these remarks are meant to push your attention
into yourself (and away from him). Soon you'll be explaining yourself or worrying:
"What's the matter with me?"
On meeting, the 1.1 nearly always tries to speak first in order to grasp control
of the conversation. If he gets his own darts in first, there is less chance for some-
thing to be thrown at him. I once introduced two 1.1 men to each other. As I did so, I
wondered who would win the inevitable rush to get in the first word. Well, they both
started talking at once, and they kept talking for at least a full minute, neither hear-
ing a single word said by the other. They were well-matched.
Covert Hostility fills his conversation with small barbs, thinly veiled as com-
pliments ("this cake is delicious, almost as good as anything you could buy in a
store"). It's a 1.1 who uttered the classic put-down: ''That's such a lovely dress you're
wearing. I've admired it for years."
He feels a continual nervous necessity to reject almost any remark. If you're
trying to make a sincere statement or present an upscale idea, he'll query it, "I see
what you mean, but..." He'll helpfully correct your pronunciation and word choices
(he's the semantic fanatic), start picking lint off your shoulder, or interject a joke at
your expense (usually with puns; he loves them). He uses any conceivable method
of cutting your communication to ribbons. Of course (ha ha) he didn't mean any
harm. Just being friendly.
He lies when there's no reason to lie. Facts are confused, twisted or hidden,
while he noisily advertises his honesty, ethics and virtue. He may be giving you his
"sacred word" while he wields his automatic knife-in-the-back trickery.
If you challenge his lies, he'll probably tell you he was being "subtle."
The high-tone person might play the role of spy and do it well (although he
does not enjoy subterfuge). The 1.1, however, is a natural spy. If you want to make
this fellow come to life, present him with an inviting situation that requires guile,
cunning, deviousness or perversion. Give him a justification for window peeping,
eavesdropping, snooping or secret investigating and he's fully aware.
When there's a straight course for doing something, the 1.1 won't use it; it
doesn't occur to him. He'll think of a devious method for doing the same thing. I
once worked in an office where the 1.1 office manager forbade dumping ashtrays in
the wastebaskets. I assumed this rule was motivated by fastidiousness (or a con-
science about fire prevention) until I learned that every night he searched through all
the wastebaskets before they were emptied (even piecing together torn bits of pa-
per), so he could find out what was "really going on" in the office. He relished dis-
covering some juicy secret in this manner. Of course, the word got around, so the
staff started amusing themselves by planting all sorts of wild, fictitious scraps of
"evidence" in with the discards.
Although 1.1 conceals his own motives and activities, he is strongly compelled
to reveal secrets of others. This is the tone of the traitor and the subversive. Having
no regard for privacy, he thrives on the chance to expose people (this is even more
prevalent in the next tone: No Sympathy). The Covert Hostility who is having a "se-
cret" love affair will do his best to see that evidence is left around so that people find
out, especially where this creates trouble for his partner.
He's a genius at extracting information from others. Several years ago I
worked for a company on some secret research. Only three of us knew the nature of
the project and none of us was an indiscriminate talker. Therefore, I was surprised
one day, lunching with the switchboard operator, when she casually said, "Well, I
understand you found..." She was so nearly right that it was hard to believe she was
only guessing. I denied any knowledge of the subject, so she said, "Oh, come on,
don't kid me. Everyone knows what you're working on." I realized later that she must have listened in on phone conversations for part of her information; the rest
Even the speculations of a 1.1 are done with a blatant pretense that he knows
all; this way he frequently lures his unsuspecting victim into telling too much.
THE MYSTERY TECHNIQUE
The 1.1 not only enjoys probing a mystery, he likes to create one. He can
even use a knowing, enigmatic smile as a put-down. I once saw a 1.1 looking over
the manuscript prepared by a friend of mine, while my friend eagerly awaited
comments. When he finished, the 1.1 merely smiled slyly and said, "I'm reserving
judgment on it. I'll be thinking it over."
This was an insidious blow to the author's pride, but he recovered when I in-
dicated the tone level of his would-be critic. A clever and vicious way to entrap a
creative person – pin his attention in a mystery.
Implying hidden knowledge is a common device of the gossip. A person of
higher tone may pass on news of mutual friends, but he tries to stay with facts. The
1.1, however, embellishes the facts with additives which sound true. "You know Joe
and Phyllis are splitting up?" That may be a fact. But Mabel (the 1.1) will add: "Just
between you and me, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that she was running around
with Bill on the sly." Her knowing manner suggests that she's certain of more facts
than she's telling.
The chronic gossip who enjoys shredding a reputation with half-truths, sup-
positions and speculations is a 1.1. You may meet her draped over the backyard
fence; you'll find him leaning on the office water cooler. It's often the tone of the re-
porter, interviewer and talk show m.c. – the one who uses his charm to gain the con-
fidence of the interviewee before he slices him up. It requires stoic discipline to resist
the sly questioning techniques of the 1.1. Many years ago I moved into a flat and
purchased the furniture of the former tenants. A short time later, the upstairs neigh-
bor dropped in. "I see you bought their furniture," she said.
I nodded and changed the subject. A few minutes later she brought the con-
versation back to the furniture: "I understand they were asking fifteen hundred dol-
lars for it . . . " The statement hung in the air like a question, creating a perfect op-
portunity for me to correct or confirm her statement. Having met her kind before,
however, I decided to out 1.1 her, so I simply murmured, "Really?" and changed the
The 1.1 will jeopardize a business. He cunningly infects an entire office, turn-
ing people against each other and all of them against the company. He's so covert
that he's nearly invisible as the source of bad news and general frustration in the en-
vironment. Although he can do a job, and usually manages to appear hardworking,
it's often a bluff. Unable to tolerate being the effect of anyone, he evades by covert means. Ask him to do a job and he says, "Sure, I'll be glad to do it," but it never gets
done. He pretends to take orders; but there's no intention to follow through.
Covert Hostility is not responsible but he pretends to be. I went to a charm-
ing modern wedding out on the West Coast where there were no ushers. A 1.1 rela-
tive of the groom took it upon herself to stand at the door telling incoming guests:
"Since apparently there aren't to be any ushers, I guess you'll just have to find your
own seat." Speaking with acid emphasis, she appeared to be assuming responsibil-
ity; but her intent was destructive. Clearly, she wanted to make certain the guests
knew this wedding was "improperly planned." If a high-tone person noticed that ar-
riving guests were confused (and I don't think they were in this case), he might say,
"Just take a seat wherever you like" No vicious implications.
The 1.1 is so preoccupied with making an impression on people, his need for
recognition puts him on stage all of the time. Never relaxing, he's an actor, con-
stantly studying his audience to see if everyone is impressed. It's difficult for a 1.1 to
be an audience for long.
In the classroom, he's often the first person to pose a question after the lec-
ture (he'll interrupt if permitted): "Professor, don't you think . . ." He's not interested
in getting an answer; he merely wants to establish his brilliance. The question is
posed for its effect.
Many 1.1s want attention so much they're immune to embarrassment. I once
knew one who dressed in the most outlandish clothes imaginable. He drifted around
looking like a psychedelic bad trip and frequently bragged: "Everybody noticed me."
This same person relished any opportunity to make remarks designed to shock eve-
ryone in the room. There are other 1.1s, incidentally, who dress and speak most con-
When he can't get into the limelight himself, he fastens onto creative, success-
ful people and works unceasingly to knock them downscale. We find 1.1s clustered
around the perimeter of show business. He is often the non performing critic who
seeks hidden control over some area of aesthetics so he can tell the talented person
viciously destructive things "for your own good."
When he fails to get close to the winners, he brags that he is anyway. He
knows the big movie stars. The President asks his advice. He pretends he's having
love affairs with the most beautiful women.
Because of a strong compulsion to play the big shot, the 1.1 often connives his
way to the higher echelons of business, politics, clubs or social groups. He's a short-
cutter, however, with such idle persistence that he's rarely proficient in any line. In-stead, he learns only enough to fake his way to an influential spot. He wants the ap-
plause without ever learning to dance.
He's the dilettante who dabbles in music and gives it up. He studies painting
for a month and loses interest. Too flighty to concentrate on a subject long enough
to become accomplished, he prefers to make a cursory study after which he uses
guile and chicanery to pass himself off as an expert.
All criminals fall below 2.0 on the scale (as long as they are still criminals) and
a great many of them are 1.1s. Even when a Covert Hostility person is not actively
breaking the law, he is unethical and dishonest.
He has a tendency toward suicidal actions; but he is actively seeking the death
of his entire environment ("I guess I'll succumb but maybe I'll take you with me").
Here we have murder by slow erosion of individuals and culture, each harmful ac-
tion slyly masked with lengthy reasoning. Here we find the people who most pro-
mote (and most enjoy pornography.) Here is the silky pimp who talks the young
girl into becoming a prostitute. Here is the cagey pusher who convinces teenagers
that they should "get with it," and that drugs are harmless anyway.
RELAY OF COMMUNICATION
He prefers to relay only the most malicious communication. Good news is
quickly forgotten or deliberately suppressed. If you send a special bargain notice to a
customer and there's a 1.1 opening the mail, he'll see that the notice never gets to the
buyer in time. Covert Hostility people frequently position themselves where they
can control incoming communications. This not only gratifies their snooping in-
stincts, it permits hidden control.
One morning I observed a 1.1 handling a small business establishment for the
absent owner. It was a busy day with customers, orders and inquiries constantly
flowing in. An irate workman called; a foreman was not on the job and couldn't be
located. A few minutes later the owner phoned in. "Oh boy," our dream girl reported
with relish, "things are really a mess around here today. . ."
She dwelled lengthily on the one "trouble" call, completely neglecting to men-
tion all the good news and normal business.
SENSE OF HUMOR
He enjoys no real sense of humor, but at this tone you'll most often hear the
compulsive laughter that burbles out when there is nothing at all amusing. We may
be discussing the weather or the ball scores and the 1.1 will titter or chuckle mean-
inglessly. He laughs at a joke – probably longer than everyone else – but it's not
really funny to him. Nothing is.
I've known many 1.1s who were not practical jokers; but I've never known a
practical joker who wasn't a 1.1. They delight in making elaborate, secret prepara-tions designed to fool, embarrass, expose, belittle or humiliate the victim. All in fun,
The manager of a local insurance company told me of a time, early in his ca-
reer, when he was transferred to an office in another state. Apparently some ethnic
conviction caused people in that particular area to shun life insurance policies, al-
though they would happily buy annuities. Unaware of this, our man spent two frus-
trating weeks trying to sell life insurance; but he failed completely. Bewildered and
depressed, he described his experiences to the men in the office. Finally, they dis-
closed the secret of selling in that city. Permitting him to lose for awhile was part of
the "initiation" for a new man. Although my friend failed to appreciate the joke, the
1.1 boys in the office considered it hilarious.
He acts amazed when you don't laugh at his sly capers. If you get annoyed,
he expects you to forgive his peccadilloes.
You could write a whole book on the sexual characteristics of the 1.1 (and
many people have). Some of them are strait-laced to the point of prudishness and
blatantly insist on morals for others. But also at this level we most frequently find
promiscuity, perversion, sadism and every irregular practice. Strangely, the 1.1
doesn't actually enjoy the sex act itself, but is hectically anxious about it. He'll be the
strong advocate of "free love."
The excessively promiscuous person is nearly always a 1.1. His lack of persis-
tence shows up in the inability to enjoy a long-term, meaningful relationship with
one individual. He constantly seeks sexual pleasure through the new and different.
Such people are dangerous to a society because their kinky behavior is conta-
gious. Free love and promiscuity are danger signals which should be heeded if a race
is to go forward. Such activities indicate a covert reversal of the sanctity of love and
marriage. There are now so many publications devoted exclusively to advocating,
encouraging and glamorizing promiscuity, that the upscale person may fee! out-
numbered. He begins to question his natural instinct for fidelity and constancy and
wonders if he's old-fashioned.
Today's frank confrontation of problems related to abortion, birth control
and enlightened sexual adjustment is much saner than the Victorian priggishness
that clouded such issues for many years. However, harbingers of the "liberated age"
(usually the 1.1s of the press and periodicals) would have us believe that this means
anything goes. With glib irresponsibility, they report on man's most debased activities
and ignore the possibility that their own choice of "news" will be a corroding influ-
The 1.1 can be the sweetest-talking lover on the tone scale, but as a long-term
partner, he's most harmful. Very likely he'll cheat and/or insidiously undermine his
spouse's confidence with all manner of subterfuge. He won't be satisfied until his
partner is reduced to Apathy and all dreams are gone.
HOMOSEXUALS Recently a friend wrote me about observing a group of homosexuals who
lived near him: "I think they're called 'gay' for good reason," he said, "I've never
heard so much laughter as I have living with these cats around. There's an almost
constant level of superficial gaiety and happiness."
This is the forced "happiness" of the 1.1.
Homosexuals may be fearful, sympathetic, propitiative, griefy or apathetic.
Occasionally they manage an ineffectual tantrum. But home base is 1.1.
Homosexuals don't practice love; 1.1s can't. Their relationships consist of: 1)
brief, sordid and impersonal meetings or 2) longer arrangements punctuated by
dramatic tirades, discords, jealousies and frequent infidelity. It could hardly be oth-
erwise since the tone is made up of suspicion and hate, producing a darling sweet-
ness interspersed with petty peevishness. Their "love" turns to deep contempt even-
Although the 1.1 detests children, he's sometimes capable of playing the role
of parent convincingly. There is always the subtle, damaging inclination, however,
no matter how benignly masked. We see little concern for the future of the child. We
see careless family actions (such as adultery) which tend to split up the family and
destroy the security on which the child's future depends.
Sometimes the 1.1 takes good physical care of a child, but is guilty of emo-
tional and moral neglect. This tone always tries to stop the child from being angry,
thus suppressing him below 1.5 on the scale. He's excessively concerned with the
child's appearance and manners – his front. Ultimately, he tries to push the child to
apathetic compliance. At best, the Covert Hostility parent begets a Covert Hostility
Since it's unpopular to dislike children, the 1.1 may hide his cruelty behind
playful jokes. He will tease, criticize and gently harass a child to the point of tears.
One time a saleswoman calling at the door jokingly said to my youngest son, "I'm
going to take you home with me." He looked at her as if she'd lost her marbles and
wandered off to play. She related that earlier the same day she told a little girl she
was going to take her baby brother home; the little girl burst into tears. It is typical
of the 1.1, that having just produced a totally alarming effect on one child, she was
now attempting to use the same technique on mine. Under the guise of joking
friendliness, she wanted to hurt the youngsters.
In a safe, upscale environment, the 1.1 may come up to 1.5. But generally
speaking, he is incapable of Anger. Somewhere in the past, losing his temper became
so dangerous that he is now afraid to do so. The animosity is there, however, con-
stantly squeezing out beneath the veneer of good fellowship. If he could blow his
top and get it out of his system, he might move up the scale and become a nice per-
son. But as long as he is unable to express himself in direct confrontation, he works
secretly to injure and destroy. If you're uncertain whether a person is 1.1, notice how you feel with him. Do
you get thrown off balance? Feel self-conscious? Worry about whether you're witty
enough, cool enough, sophisticated enough?
This is a common social tone. People of higher or lower levels will adopt a
somewhat false politeness for superficial contacts. Such "good manners," however,
do not carry the destructive intention of the chronic 1.1.
The tones below this are more destructive (especially for the poor chaps who
are in them); but they are weak. Unless your relationship is very personal, they will
have little influence on you. The 1.1, however, can seldom be ignored. He impinges.
He makes his presence known. The more able you are, the more likely he will in-
sinuate himself into your space, your time and your life – as jovial as the deadly vi-
rus that invades your bloodstream and lays you up in bed for six weeks.
Several ways of handling a 1.1 will be discussed in later chapters, but probably
the best advice is this: get him out of your environment. Don't bother being subtle
about it. He's insensitive to hints, incapable of embarrassment. He'll keep coming
back with the persistence of a fly on a sticky summer day unless you bluntly tell
him – perhaps several times – that you don't want his company. Once you do this,
naturally, he'll talk about you behind your back. But, don't kid yourself, he's been
talking about you all along anyway.
Remember that beneath that pixie twinkle thumps a heart of solid granite." (uh oh...)
OK, you are in Sympathy, or a 0.9d
Read up on yourself:
Sympathy: A relationship or affinity between persons or things in which whatever
affects one correspondingly affects the other. The act of or capacity for sharing or under-
standing the feelings of another person. A feeling or expression of pity or of sorrow for the
distress of another.
– The American Heritage Dictionary
Maxwell was a cheerful, optimistic man who plodded off to a regular job each
day and spent every night writing short stories. These he sent off to the popular
magazines. Although he did sell two stories, he acquired a huge collection of rejec-
tion slips. He persisted, however. One day, he promised himself, I'll quit that dull job
and write all the time.
Meanwhile, he married a lovely girl who was kind and understanding. He
knew she would "stand by him" through everything. And she certainly did. Every
time he received a rejection slip, she said, "Poor darling. They don't appreciate your
One day he came home to find four of his favorite stories returned. Slumping
dejectedly in the chair he moaned, "I guess I just don't have what it takes."
His tender wife sat on the arm of his chair to comfort him. "Now, dear,
you've just been working too hard. You need a rest. Why don't you take a vaca-
So he did take a vacation – from writing. Maxwell now spends his evenings
glumly watching television and drinking beer. His sweet wife understands why he
gave up his ambitions and consoles him: "You tried so hard, and you are a good
writer. I'm sure the only people who get published nowadays are the ones who
know the editors personally."
That's Sympathy. She's a darling. And she's deadly.
The only trouble looming in this chapter is with the definition of the word
Sympathy. So let's clear that up first.
We say "we're in complete sympathy with each other" when we're talking
about the closest possible harmony with someone. We say "he's sympathetic to our
cause" when referring to a person who's smart enough to agree with our own ideas.
And is there any one of us with a character so stoic that we don't welcome a sympa-
thetic person around to soothe us when someone has stolen our little red wagon,
our lover or our knee warmers (depending on which stage of this game we're play-
Sympathy, as we generally use the word, can mean a high toned empathy
and accord, the charitableness and understanding of the big-hearted, a shaft of warm
sunlight slicing through the murk. However, we're talking something else here. The .9 is a counterfeit. He doesn't choose to be kind; he's chronically sympa-
thetic. He can't do anything but commiserate.
The prominent manifestation of this emotion is obsessive agreement. We're in
the Fear band here and it is Fear that dominates the .9. So at this position of the scale,
Sympathy is not valor, but cowardice, stemming from a basic fear of people. He's
excessively afraid of hurting others. He's compulsively "understanding" and "reason-
able" about all the lowest-tone unfortunates of the world. He's the person who's
"reasonable" about the axe murderer. He'll be understanding about the toadying
Sympathy means "feeling together," so if one were sympathetic with a high-
tone person, everything would be glorious; he'd feel high-tone. But the person at .9
seldom achieves more than a superficial tolerance of upscale people and conditions.
He is most comfortable when he can sympathize with Apathy and Grief. Of course,
his "feeling together" causes this chameleon to wobble drunkenly through the low
tones always somewhere between complacent tenderness and tears.
He looks harmless. And that's just how he wants to look. He's desperately
trying to ward off blame. "See how understanding I am?" "See how I wouldn't hurt
anybody?" His addiction to praise and fear of blame make him compulsively under-
It was a quiet, pleasant party. We were exchanging ideas about the future of
religion when Casper – a new arrival – interrupted contemptuously: "Surely you've
read Schemerhorn's theory on penalties and predicaments?"
No one had, but he rambled on interspersing his complicated monologue
with obscure references. When he ran out of breath, we picked up our conversation
again. Someone said, "I think most people need to believe in something, whether or
not they call it religion. So if . . . "
Sneeringly, Casper cut in: "That's just infantile thinking! In my opinion, there's
only one intelligent viewpoint. Vosgarten's treatise on the majestic obsession covers
the whole concept. . . " After enduring two hours of Casper's rude arrogance and
unintelligible speeches, an aggressive member of the party challenged him: "Why
can't you just say what you want to say, man? We don't understand you. Do you
"Well, it doesn't fit into my model of reference. It's like Wumvoogen says.. . "
"Don't get started again. I'm trying to tell you that we can't understand you.
You don't make sense. You've monopolized the conversation and you haven't said
anything. Furthermore, you don't listen to anything the rest of us say. What's the
matter with you that you can't communicate?"
To our amazement, Casper's defenses collapsed and his eyes filled with tears.
Although everyone felt some compassion for him (and eased the conversa-
tion back to neutral grounds), only one compulsive Sympathy person emerged. A pretty young woman named Judy, silent until now, leaned toward him, "Casper,"
she said, "I see beautiful qualities in you."
"I can't believe you mean that."
"Of course, I mean it."
"Oh, people say those things, but they don't follow through. It takes more
than words to convince me."
"I want you to believe me. I mean it sincerely."
I could see the beginnings of a complicated and regrettable relationship here.
Judy saw nothing "beautiful" about Casper in his moments of boorish arrogance. It
required his defenseless state of Grief to bring her to life. The ultimate cohesion be-
tween this pair would be about as inspired as a glutinous mass of day-old spaghetti .
BEHIND EVERY FAILURE
Someone once said that behind every successful man there's a woman. What
no one said (until Ron Hubbard uncovered this emotion) is that behind every up-
scale man who goes downhill and fails, there's probably a sympathetic woman. No
high-tone man ever broke down from mere hard work or even a few setbacks. He
can be crushed, however, by the slow, eroding benevolence of a Sympathy person
who "helps" by supplying infinite justifications for his failures.
Sympathy is so devastating because he is telling the low-tone person: "The
helplessness you feel about yourself is so justified that I feel it too."
No one needs that kind of assistance; it strengthens the person's problems in-
stead of his ability to solve problems. It takes responsibility away from the individ-
ual. "Poor you. The world isn't treating you right."
The high-tone person (especially if he understands the tone scale) would say,
"Well, this is most unfortunate; but let's take a look and see what went wrong. You
can go out and try it again." But Sympathy loves company, so he doesn't help some-
one recover from a loss and go back to win. He can't; there wouldn't be anyone to
spend his Sympathy on.
The high-tone person sees a drowning man and throws him a life line. The
Sympathy person jumps in and drowns with the victim.
INFLUENCE ON LOW-TONE PEOPLE
We may find ourselves liking Sympathy better than the more aggressive
people between 1.1 and 2.0 on the scale. He's not throwing barbs at us. He's not de-
manding that we change. He's not excessively critical. If we need to lay the head
down for a good cry, he's right in there with a velvet-cushioned shoulder. It feels so
comfortable to have someone who accepts us uncritically in our most unlovely mo-
ments (it's probably quite similar to the sensation of drowning).
But, he's ineffectual. He does nothing to improve conditions. The upscale per-
son says "You're hurt; we'll patch it up." But .9 moves in on the same wavelength saying, "Oh, you're so tired. We'll have to take care of you." There's a deadly time-
lessness about that. He doesn't say "cure." He says "take care of."
Sympathy (as well as Propitiation) is most comfortable around sick people.
And if they're not sick already, he'll help them along. If the person on the receiving
end of all this kindness becomes convinced that he needs to be cared for, he remains
at the bottom of the scale.
The .9 is too afraid of hurting others to do anything effective. He just agrees
about how terrible it all is. A high-tone person is not afraid of hurting others for a
just cause; he's able to take any necessary actions to benefit the greatest number. But
Sympathy, instead of curing the alcoholic, sits down and gets drunk with him.
Don't work yourself into a lather trying to figure out whether a person is at
Sympathy or Propitiation. Although each tone is slightly different in character, they
intertwine like two tangled coat hangers. Sympathy often leads, automatically, to
Propitiation. Mother says, "It's too cold out for you to walk (Sympathy). I'll drive
you to school (Propitiation)." The student says, "It's too bad you fell asleep during
the lectures. Here, you can copy my notes."
THE CRIME OF SYMPATHY
The crime of Sympathy is the crime of omission – the crime of not handling,
not controlling, not disciplining, not providing strength. His pity and leniency
merely reinforce low tones.
He's quite destructive when coupled with a highertone individual because the
emotion results from a hidden goal to knock the higher person down to the point
where Sympathy will be needed. He waits until the upscale person suffers a setback,
at which time he comes alive. He slows down or stops the other individual by pity-
Sympathy finds many ways of castrating the higher tone person. The boss
gets mad when he hears that the tippling salesman is offending customers, so he
plans a showdown. Along comes Sympathy who soothingly purrs: "Now, now,
boss. Of course it's upsetting, but let me handle it. I have a little more patience than
Patience may be a virtue at the top of the scale, but at .9 it's only another
euphemism for weakness.
THE DEADLY CYCLE
Everyone – even the topscale person – sinks down into the drearies some-
times. Sympathy, however, is more prone than any other emotion to revolve in a
perpetual circle between happiness and melancholia. His brand of happiness, of
course, is nothing you're going to want to bottle up and sell on the street corners.
It's mostly a consoling self-righteousness: "Oh, how merciful and compassionate I
am. I never turn my back on anyone who needs me."
He's a magnet for the dregs of society. He puts his attention on the criminals,
the invalids, the skid row bums, addicts, alcoholics, and all the woeful, poor, stricken, limp, sobbing Grief and Apathy cats he can find. He's easily taken in by their lies.
Grief says he has no money, no job and nobody loves him. So Sympathy says, "Oh,
you poor thing. Life has treated you terribly. Of course I'll help you." So he goes
down to Propitiation, providing shelter, food, money, sex – perhaps his whole life.
Soon he's down there in Grief himself (he's always duplicating tones, remember)
and we hear him sobbing "I've done everything I could, but nothing seems to help."
When Sympathy isn't slobbering over the needy types at the bottom, he's
recklessly defending the destructive ones in the 1.0 to 2.0 band. He insists that "No-
body is all bad. Give them the benefit of the doubt."
He's the most gullible victim of the 1.1 con. Also, because of the ease with
which he is influenced, the Sympathy person can be readily corrupted; the glib 1.1
can lure him into all sorts of criminality, perversion or promiscuity (all of which are
more common to the 1.1 tone). Eventually these activities get Sympathy into trou-
ble, so we hear him grieving again.
Too weak to actually handle the low tones he attracts and too compulsively
"understanding" to permit himself to retreat, he stays locked in a permanent elevator
ride with Sympathy as the top floor and Apathy in the basement.
You can spot him by his fluctuation. Even if you point out that he's associating
with low-tone people who are dragging him down, he's unable to handle and un-
willing to disconnect. He might hurt somebody.
That's how such a nice person gets betrayed so often. He's noble though. He
soon crawls back up to Sympathy and tries again.
If you run a business and you want to stay solvent, don't put a Sympathy
person in charge of a department. His overwhelming fear of hurting others is a dan-
gerous attitude. He'll be ineffective on the job, he'll throw away your profits and
he'll attract the losers because he feels sorry for them. He's the one who insists on
hiring the griefy girl because she's had all the bad breaks. He'll defend the employee
who goofs off because "he has a sick wife and fourteen children, you know."
IN THE FAMILY
It's the Sympathy person who most often marries the bad fellow. Here you
find the beautiful young girl who weds the down-and-outer, because she just can't
bear to hurt his feelings.
The .9 is one of the worst possible parents. His over-permissiveness breeds an
uncontrolled, destructive child.
It's easy for loving parents to get lured into feeling Sympathy. How many of
us could remain untouched if we saw a small child sobbing because his ice cream
cone just fell in the sand? Attitudes of Sympathy and Propitiation are automatic:
"There, there, don't cry. I'll buy you another one." This is not truly kindness because
it neglects the future of the child; the gesture teaches him that no matter how careless
and negligent he is, if he cries loud enough someone will pity and take care of him. It would be equally cruel to shrug unsympathetically and say, "That's tough; you
should learn to be more careful." What is the high-tone response? Give the child a
chance to recover from the loss with dignity, not as a beggar: "How would you like
to do a job for me? You can earn the money for another ice cream if you want it."
When we see a youngster who is chronically hideous – crying, whining,
screaming or throwing tantrums – it's a safe bet his parents are stuck in the Sympa-
thy/Propitiation tones. They obviously surrendered, repeatedly, to this behavior;
that's why the child continues using it. He's rewarded for his weaknesses, so he
never develops strength.
Sympathy parents wonder "Where did we go wrong?" while the child grows
into a perpetually immature adult who continues whining through life looking for a
permanent baby sitter to hold his hand and agree that it's a cruel world.
When I was a child, I knew a young boy who was constantly getting beaten
up by a neighborhood bully. One day he ran home crying and his mother decided
not to be sympathetic: "You go back over there and lick that kid or I'm going to give
you a beating myself."
More frightened of his mother's mood than the neighbor, the boy went back
and beat up on the bully for the first time. With new confidence he soon established
neighborhood supremacy as a fighter. As I recall, it was necessary to take on nearly
every belligerent kid in the school first, but he eventually emerged as a peace-loving
individual who knew he could defend himself.
A mother stuck in Sympathy will be so "understanding" that she creates a
permanent loser. I'm not suggesting that we cultivate bullies; but we should recog-
nize that fighting is higher-tone than surrender. And the person who cannot fight
cannot move upscale.
Probably the best answer is to teach the child the tone scale so he can select
He's the nice guy who marries the helpless clinging vine because "she needs
Not everyone who goes to read to the blind children is in permanent Sympa-
thy. High-tone people care too. In fact, they'll probably be the first ones to teach the
children to read Braille.
The highscale person will be compassionate; but he'll boost you back up.
When you find someone who seems hard to place on the chart, who's never vicious,
who's prone to noble deeds and good intentions, but who collects physical and emo-
tional cripples faster than a dog picks up parasites in a flea farm, suspect a Sympathy
I started my study of this tone with the assumption that I would find very few
people here – probably only those types who get their kicks out of going to funerals
or placing wreaths on gravestones. I couldn't have been more wrong. I finished with the shocking realization that it was one of the more populated
levels of the tone scale. Those who aren't there already are frequently forced into
Sympathy socially by the many popular pity-the underdog movements.
In the harsh light of research I recognized a disconcerting number of my fa-
vorite people at .9 – people I tried (sympathetically) to place at a higher tone.
The act of Sympathy convinces a person he has lost, and once he thoroughly
believes that he can lose, he is unable to win. After a person finds the comfortable
warmth of Sympathy, he begins to desire it. He may become so addicted that he
runs around hoping for an accident or illness so he can get more.
This is a thick, gooey, insidiously destructive emotion. Everything's so seri-
In fact, it's a downright shame.
Scientology, just like Mormon, present old thyme religions a very serious challenge - credibility.
It is stunning that some of the same folks in this thread who label one, the other or both, as cults would be offended when it is pointed out Christianity started out the exacte same way and was a cult in every definition of the word, for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Witnessing the birth of a religion is some ugly f*#king sh#t.
OK, that is because they are afraid, which is
Fear - 1.0
Fear: A feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by the expectation of danger, pain, disas-
ter, or the like; terror, dread, apprehension.
– American Heritage Dictionary
"Now, Fred, slow down. Watch this car up here, Fred. Better get into the left
lane, Fred. We have to turn eight blocks from here. That dog might run out. Be care-
Driver panics (at scream, not at any outside threat) and hits brakes; he nearly
gets rammed by the car behind. Everyone is a nervous wreck.
This tone wears many disguises. It slips down to influence the Sympathy per-
son (who is afraid of hurting others) and Propitiation (where we see the strange
manifestation of a person attempting to buy off imagined danger by propitiating),
and it sneaks upward on the tone scale to lurk behind Covert Hostility and No Sym-
Most people harbor a few select, temporary fears. We see the tough, swag-
gering student who turns to a quivering butterfly in the seat of an airplane. We see a
housewife who has the courage to be a Cub Scout den mother, but who quails at the
sight of a harmless snake. We see the bull strength of the business tycoon melt into a
pool of limp terror when forced to give a speech. Although irrational, these fears are
not necessarily chronic, so they don't indicate that the person is a 1.0.
There is a time to be afraid, just as there is a time for joy or grief. It's sensible
to have a respect for danger when caught in a burning house or a New York taxicab.
Acute Fear (whether rational or irrational) causes a pounding heart, a cold
sweat or trembling. This may be fear of actual death, injury or merely some harm-
less menace. Stark terror is the highest volume of Fear. In low volume, we see Fear
expressed as excessive shyness, extreme modesty, or unwarranted suspicions. We
find the person who gets tongue-tied easily, who withdraws from people, who
jumps at a door slam.
The person in chronic Fear tone lives with one or another of these manifesta-
tions all the time. He's continually frightened; everything is dangerous. He's afraid
to exist. He's afraid to own things (he might lose them). His solution to life is to be careful – about everything. So, whether he's in terror, mild anxiety, dread or insecu-
rity, he's at Fear on the tone scale. He talks about fearful things, real or imaginary.
In Grief we find anxiety taking a limp form ("Oh, dear, how am I going to
handle this? I just don't know what I can do.") but at the higher tone of Fear the per-
son tries to handle all of the anxieties. Of course, he's pretty ineffectual, but he does
work hard at it.
This person is scattered – like a Kleenex that's been through the washing ma-
chine. He's trying to be somewhere else – anywhere else. He flits around, physically
or mentally. His attention jumps from one thing to another. His conversation takes
grasshopper leaps from subject to subject.
Sometimes (not always) you can see this dispersal in his eyes when he talks to
you – they flit over here, over there, up, down – everywhere but straight ahead. He
can't look at you.
LIFE IS THREATENING
Fear is careful because he knows that nearly everything is threatening. I once
knew a man who insisted that all of the doors and windows of his house be locked,
day and night. He called his wife half a dozen times daily just to see if everything
was all right. If she went on an unscheduled visit to a neighbor, he phoned every
house in the block until he located her. His speech was peppered with phrases such
as "You can't be too careful," "You never know what might happen," and "It doesn't
pay to take chances."
Where a higher-tone person will plan his attack on the enemy force, Fear is
always planning his defense (if he's on the high side) or his retreat (if he's on the low
side of Fear).
When there's a robbery on the other side of town, Fear puts extra locks on his
doors. If he lives in Minnesota, but learns of a deadly new mosquito breeding in the
tropics, he get anxious about it. His attention flits all over the universe trying to
cover every possible danger.
In case you think there aren't many people at Fear, let me remind you of the
now famous Orson Wells radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" in 1938-a realistic
but fictional report of a Martian "invasion." An estimated one million listeners missed
the three announcements about the fictional nature of the program and panicked.
Telephone lines were hopelessly jammed and people were running in the streets. A
Fear person is gullible and credulous about fearful things. He selectively hears only
communications on his own level.
A smooth-talking insurance salesman chalks up a bonus day when he meets
up with a Fear person – the poor devil will buy one of everything.
He's afraid of losing things, so he walks around constantly fearing that he'll
get bad news – news of a loss. He's afraid he'll hear that his house burned down;
he's apprehensive about getting fired; he wonders if somebody is going to die; he
worries about his wife leaving him.
I once lived across the street from a Fear couple. His face compressed with
deep worry lines, completely bald at the age of twenty-nine ( I don't know if that's
relevant; but I'll mention it anyway), he and his wife worried constantly about
germs, diseases, bad health, burglaries, accidents and disasters. Name anything
dreadful – they dreaded it. Before letting their children out to play, they bundled
them up like Eskimos for fear of catching colds. Interestingly, their two youngsters
suffered more colds and illnesses than any children on the block.
One quiet Sunday morning I saw this neighbor cautiously emerge from his
house. After carefully testing the door to make certain it was locked, he walked to
the garage and unlocked it. After unlocking his car, he drove out to the gate, which
he also unlocked. He backed the car out, returned to the garage and locked it,
walked down the drive, put the chain padlock back on the gate and drove off.
Impressed, I thought: he must be leaving for a month. (We weren't living in
the heart of the crime belt, you understand. The most serious wrongdoing in this
bland suburban community during the previous six months was when a three-year-
old youngster down the street toddled off with another three-year-old's tricycle).
Ten minutes later, however, the neighbor returned with the Sunday papers. He un-
locked the gate, the garage, and went through the whole lockup routine in reverse.
This chap could put the security system at Fort Knox to shame.
While we were living in the same neighborhood, a salesman called one eve-
ning trying to sell a fire alarm system. We turned him down, but as he left I thought:
If he would only stop across the street, they'll surely buy one.
Well, he did, and they did.
LOVE AND CHILDREN
At 1.0 love shows up as suspicion of proffered affection. Filbert offers Belinda
his class ring. Instead of happily accepting it, she queries, "What does this mean?"
He tells her he loves her and she wonders what that really means: "I don't
want to say I love you; it might turn out that I don't."
There won't be much free-wheeling love from a Fear partner. He's too careful
to be spontaneous.
Fear parents strongly influence their children. I once knew a woman who ac-
tually hid in the bedroom closet whenever there was a thunder storm. Her fearful
mother taught her to do this. I knew another woman who was afraid of cats, "My
mother always said they were dangerous. You know, they're supposed to carry all
sorts of diseases-at least that's what Mother told me."
A contagious emotion, Fear. Unless he takes the trouble to examine all the
boogies himself, the child grows up convinced that nearly everything is dangerous.
The Fear person performs poorly on a job. He constantly worries about protecting
himself. He's afraid to make decisions, worries about taking on new projects and
invents amazingly insurmountable obstacles to any new plan. "This is a dangerous
time to get into that market. We could lose our shirts." "I'm afraid we'll get sued for
patent infringement if we try this." "It's a nice idea if it weren't so risky."
Convinced that huge effort and energy are necessary to overcome his imaginary
barriers, he'd rather put off than confront them. So he invents reasons why he can't
do a job.
He tries to avoid responsibility at all cost (he thinks he'd be hurt): "Oh no,
you're not going to get me to take on that job. Everybody would be passing the
buck to me. I'd have to take the blame for everything that goes wrong."
While he's better than all the tones below this, you have a poor job risk here.
THE THREE LEVELS OF FEAR
Fear represents a crossover point on decision making. At the lower part of
Fear, the person is afraid to do things. Retreating, on the run, he's a master at
avoiding. At the high point of Fear the person is afraid not to. He defends against
every possible eventuality. In the middle of Fear tone, we find the absolute maybe.
Here is the person frozen into indecision; he can't make up his mind.
This is not the apathetic indecision of Grief ("I just don't know what to do"). At
Fear the person actively vacillates between "Should I ?" and "Shouldn't I ?"
When a higher-tone person hits this level of the scale, he finds it uncomfort-
able. Here we see the young girl faced with the choice between two eligible men.
She likes them both; she can't decide; she wavers back and forth. Finally, the indeci-
sion becomes so painful that she impulsively makes a choice (she may even run
away with a third man who is totally unsuitable). Anything to move off that maybe.
Some Fear people, however, live in indecision for years – waiting for some
occurrence to tip the scale. Such an individual is afraid to be right and he doesn't dare
be wrong. He's afraid to and he's afraid not to. He can't commit himself. He can't
plan the future, and he can't face the present. If you ask him to set up an appoint-
ment a few days in advance, he can't: "Call me later. We'll see what happens." (The
more high-tone a person is, the more willingly he will commit himself to something
in the future.)
Here we find the couple who date each other for seventeen years because
they're afraid to get married. He's the man who wants to change jobs, but can't
muster the nerve; he grows old waiting for the right impetus. Here's the miserable
marriage that continues on because neither person works up the courage to resolve
it or end it.
Hope is a marvelous quality when it is quickly transferred into specific plans,
actions and accomplishments. Every great doer starts with a dream. At Fear, how-
ever, we find the vacuum of blind hope – the deadly initiative killer. He doesn't pro-
gress; he doesn't give up. He simply postpones living today. It's too frightful, so he
waits for something to happen. What is that something? I don't know. I've seen
people who waited for years, but "it" never arrived. They spend their lives living out
of mental suitcases; they never unpack and settle down to something and they never
take off and go anywhere. They wait. They day-dream. They think wistfully. The
next moment, the next hour, the next day, surety, will bring that magic something
that dissolves all doubts.
That's blind hope. Waiting. Indecision. That's the dead center of Fear.
Fear is the last of the soft emotions. Now we're going to leave the mushy
marshes and pick our way through a stretch of barbed wire.. .
You go to the beach for a two-week vacation. Sometimes it takes most of the
journey to quit worrying about whether you turned off all the stove burners and
whether the dog will feel heartbroken at the kennel. It may be another day or so
before you stop waking up with the panicky feeling that you're late for work. Fi-
nally you relax and drift along with the mildly pleasant experience of no pressures or
demands. You sleep late, swim, fish, loaf. When everything becomes so calm that the
big event of the day is a stroll to the general store to see what's going on – you've
arrived at Boredom.
It's a pleasant state where one is unconcerned about the larger issues of the
world. Most of us, however, soon reach a saturation point on this level and start
looking forward to getting involved again.
Not so with the chronic Boredom person. His biggest purpose in life is to kill
time; he's an expert at it.
About the only mistake you can make with this tone is putting people here
who don't belong.
Sometimes a person gives the appearance of going up to Boredom when ac-
tually he is still in his usual tone with the volume turned down. Nothing is happen-
ing which permits him to dramatize his chronic tone.
An Apathy person may tell you almost anything was boring, because it takes
such an impact to create any effect on him. Grief will complain that a funny movie
was boring, simply because she found no occasion to cry. When the 1.1 is not getting
enough attention to ignite his spark plugs he affects a sophisticated, hypercritical
boredom: "Why are we hanging around here? Let's go where there's some action."
Such people are bored (by most definitions) because nothing is occurring that
turns on the adrenaline; but they are not at 2.5 on the tone scale. The Boredom per-
son is not complaining, not impatient. He can endure it.
Let's look in on a high school classroom. ..
"Dear Marcy, I've never been so bored. If this guy doesn't shut up pretty
soon, I'm going to have a screaming fit! He's talking about grasshopper legs, for
gosh sakes! Like, wouldn't you think you'd 'earn something sexy in Biology?"
Three seats behind our letter writer, a lanky six footer slumps in light slum-
ber. Across the row, a scowling youth swings his foot impatiently.
All of them will say they are bored; but none of them are really at Boredom
on the scale. The real 2.5 is sitting in the back of the room. He doodles in his note-
book. He watches a fly explore the top of the desk. He wonders if the instructor is
wearing a wig and decides it doesn't matter. He examines dust particles drifting through a shaft of sunlight. He thinks briefly about grasshoppers and limp
solves to read that chapter someday.
Let's turn up the volume on the true tone of the students by introduc
emergency. A huge rock smashes through the window and thuds on the tea
desk. Papers fly. A vase of flowers crashes to the floor. The teacher jumps b
chilling wind whips through the room. A girl screams. Another bursts into
Several students laugh. One of them rushes up to see if the instructor is hurt
affects concern while mentally planning how he'll embellish the story later. E
them turns on strong in his chronic tone. In the back of the room, Boredom p
watches everything. He realizes this might be serious; but he doesn't panic. Lo
out the window, he wonders who threw the rock; but he decides it really d
matter. It's been an interesting afternoon.
He's "well adjusted." The emotion is pleasurable. His attention is leisure
slightly scattered. He wants to be entertained. He likes a certain amount of pl
random activity. He can occupy himself for hours, days, years with the most
matters. He'll wash the car, trim the shrubs, play a game of cribbage, watch t
game on TV.
Although some large ideas may flicker through his mind from time to
he won't be the guy who invents a new fuel to replace gasoline, and he won
the revolution movement.
This tone is marked by a purposelessness in living.
He's careless, indifferent, mildly pleasant. You'll probably like him. He
be attacking you, trying to undermine you, warning you, taking care of y
sopping all over you. He won't try to draw you into his game; he's not even p
much of a game. He's just watching it.
Boredom is somewhat negligent about facts; but you'll find him comfo
and amiable. He won't pick a fight because he doesn't care whether or not you
with him. If you introduce some static, he'll say, "Let's not argue."
He makes pointless, idle conversation. Although this easygoing guy m
able to tell you all about the neighbors, his mild gossip is never vicious. He's
what careless as to whether his communications are received or understood.
try to clarify something, he'll toss it away: "Oh, it's not important."
He accepts people, not necessarily because he's interested in them, b
cause it would be too much trouble to do otherwise. Ask him whether he thin
should hire Martin for the job and he'll say, "He's OK, I guess."
The 2.5 devaluates emergencies. If somebody comes along and says, "The
house is burning down. Hurry! Do something!" he says, "Well, now, don't get all
worked up about it."
He collects comfortable platitudes with which to dismiss all emergencies and
shed all responsibilities. Tell him you're trying to find a way to make more money,
and he'll shrug and discard the whole subject with: "Well, it takes money to make
He doesn't feel much need to do anything about anything.
Ask him what he's been doing lately; he'll probably say, "Oh, nothing much.
Same old thing." He putters and loafs. He collects useless information and trivia. He
may remember every baseball score since the beginning of time; but won't master a
new subject that could improve his whole life.
He'll never achieve greatness unless it's thrust upon him.
SENSE OF HUMOR
There's a moth-eaten, old joke about two Britishers talking: "I was so sorry to
hear that you buried your wife yesterday."
"Well, I had to, old man. She was dead, you know."
The 2.5 will laugh merrily at that one (he'll probably repeat it too). His sense
of humor is so literal that he likes the groaners. His attempts at humor will include
cheerful, but corny puns and platitudes – seldom original – which he will repeat pre-
dictably over and over: "Long time no see," "I should stood in bed," and "Well, shut
my mouth." The witty, original puns are usually the product of a 1.1. Boredom can't
be bothered thinking up anything original.
I was selecting ears of corn from a wheelbarrow in front of a farm house
when the owner strolled over. "Looks like nice corn," I said.
"Yup. Fresh too. Only been picked less than an hour. I know that for a fact,"
he leaned forward and with a conspiratorial grin, confided: "cause I picked it myself –
that's how I know."
Chuckling in appreciation of his own nimble humor, he bagged up the corn
and handed me change. This agreeable exchange represents the height of original
humor that will be attempted by a 2.5.
Not exactly a rapier wit, but a pleasant fellow.
THE LOVE DEPARTMENT
As a father he's OK. He has a friendly tolerance of children, although he never
gets too involved in their affairs.
If you like a passionate relationship, scintillating repartee and hilarious high
jinx, don't hook up with Boredom. He's far too negligent to pursue you with any
burning passion. He won't even lose sleep worrying about whether or not you love him. If he wants to watch Wild Will Six-gun on television, he'll simply turn it on. He's
indifferent about getting your agreement or support.
Hardly the lordly cavalier; but he'll keep the grass mowed.
Although he doesn't look as active as many lowertone people, he'll drift along
fairly well on a routine job, and he'll be much better liked by his fellow employees.
He's a poor candidate for manager because he's incapable of getting others enthused
and too careless of support or participation. As an idea man, don't count on him. His
decision making is indifferent. Ask him, "How would you like to organize a big sales
campaign?" He'll shrug and say, "I don't mind."
Not persistent, too idle, concentration poor, he's willing to do the job . Just.
Boredom is a sort of high-tone Apathy. But there's flippancy in Boredom. It's
much more alive, carefree and extroverted.
This is the nicest person we've met so far on our trip up the scale. If you find it
hard to remember any Boredom people, it's because they so seldom say or do any-
He's a man of unused ambition, pleasant and easygoing, who won't set the
world on fire – or even light a match.
He's neither contented nor discontented. He mostly wants to be entertained.
He's a spectator.
I grew up in Clearwater, FL - the universe headquarters for scientology, so I've got a bit of experience with them.
So BESIDES them buying up tons of prime realty, tax free of course because its a religion, and basically shutting down any commerce not related to supporting scientology....
New recruits have to give up their posessions and pay into the 'church' regularly.
They work them like worker bees - low wages, work for the queen, return to the hive, don't speak up.
They don't do doctors. Many low-level people have died for basic issues such as dehydration.
So they've got these 2 cans that you hold that are hooked up to a meter. Reads out some sort of signal thats generated by negative memories. By doing this you can get rid of negative memories and improve yourself. This gives you access to more of their 'knowledge'. You must pay for each of these sessions.
The highest level people and 'knowledge' are on a ship permanently at sea.
Scientology from a biblical standpoint is warned about or against
due to their summons of the dead.
As far as being a cult 1 criteria listed by Dr. Walter Martin
for a cult is that they profess to be the 1 and only truth, ie.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not ceratin if Scientologist
profess to be the 1 and only truth and I forget if they were listed
in Kingdom of the Cults?
My take is L Ron Hubbard - the writer - was a cheap knock off of Robert Heinlein. He was also a con artist, but whaddaya gonna do? My reading of Battlefield Earth suggests their fare was similar - homoerotic scifi targeted at 13-year old boys. No wonder Tom Cruise fell in love with it.
Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology.
by Lawrence Wright
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
On August 19, 2009, Tommy Davis, the chief spokesperson for the Church of Scientology International, received a letter from the film director and screenwriter Paul Haggis. “For ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego,” Haggis wrote. Before the 2008 elections, a staff member at Scientology’s San Diego church had signed its name to an online petition supporting Proposition 8, which asserted that the State of California should sanction marriage only “between a man and a woman.” The proposition passed. As Haggis saw it, the San Diego church’s “public sponsorship of Proposition 8, which succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California—rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state—is a stain on the integrity of our organization and a stain on us personally. Our public association with that hate-filled legislation shames us.” Haggis wrote, “Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.” He concluded, “I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.”
Haggis was prominent in both Scientology and Hollywood, two communities that often converge. Although he is less famous than certain other Scientologists, such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta, he had been in the organization for nearly thirty-five years. Haggis wrote the screenplay for “Million Dollar Baby,” which won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2004, and he wrote and directed “Crash,” which won Best Picture the next year—the only time in Academy history that that has happened.
Davis, too, is part of Hollywood society; his mother is Anne Archer, who starred in “Fatal Attraction” and “Patriot Games,” among other films. Before becoming Scientology’s spokesperson, Davis was a senior vice-president of the church’s Celebrity Centre International network.
In previous correspondence with Davis, Haggis had demanded that the church publicly renounce Proposition 8. “I feel strongly about this for a number of reasons,” he wrote. “You and I both know there has been a hidden anti-gay sentiment in the church for a long time. I have been shocked on too many occasions to hear Scientologists make derogatory remarks about gay people, and then quote L.R.H. in their defense.” The initials stand for L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, whose extensive writings and lectures form the church’s scripture.
Haggis related a story about Katy, the youngest of three daughters from his first marriage, who lost the friendship of a fellow-Scientologist after revealing that she was gay. The friend began warning others, “Katy is ‘1.1.’ ” The number refers to a sliding Tone Scale of emotional states that Hubbard published in a 1951 book, “The Science of Survival.” A person classified “1.1” was, Hubbard said, “Covertly Hostile”—“the most dangerous and wicked level”—and he noted that people in this state engaged in such things as casual sex, sadism, and homosexual activity. Hubbard’s Tone Scale, Haggis wrote, equated “homosexuality with being a pervert.” (Such remarks don’t appear in recent editions of the book.)
In his resignation letter, Haggis explained to Davis that, for the first time, he had explored outside perspectives on Scientology. He had read a recent exposé in a Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times, which reported, among other things, that senior executives in the church had been subjecting other Scientologists to physical violence. Haggis said that he felt “dumbstruck and horrified,” adding, “Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil-rights violations.”
Online, Haggis came across an appearance that Davis had made on CNN, in May, 2008. The anchor John Roberts asked Davis about the church’s policy of “disconnection,” in which members are encouraged to separate themselves from friends or family members who criticize Scientology. Davis responded, “There’s no such thing as disconnection as you’re characterizing it. And certainly we have to understand—”
“Well, what is disconnection?” Roberts interjected.
“Scientology is a new religion,” Davis continued. “The majority of Scientologists in the world, they’re first generation. So their family members aren’t going to be Scientologists. . . . So, certainly, someone who is a Scientologist is going to respect their family members’ beliefs—”
“Well, what is disconnection?” Roberts said again.
“—and we consider family to be a building block of any society, so anything that’s characterized as disconnection or this kind of thing, it’s just not true. There isn’t any such policy.”
In his resignation letter, Haggis said, “We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification—I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.” Haggis reminded Davis that, a few years earlier, his wife had been ordered to disconnect from her parents “because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. . . . Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them.” Haggis continued, “To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?”
Haggis forwarded his resignation to more than twenty Scientologist friends, including Anne Archer, John Travolta, and Sky Dayton, the founder of EarthLink. “I felt if I sent it to my friends they’d be as horrified as I was, and they’d ask questions as well,” he says. “That turned out to be largely not the case. They were horrified that I’d send a letter like that.”
Tommy Davis told me, “People started calling me, saying, ‘What’s this letter Paul sent you?’ ” The resignation letter had not circulated widely, but if it became public it would likely cause problems for the church. The St. Petersburg Times exposé had inspired a fresh series of hostile reports on Scientology, which has long been portrayed in the media as a cult. And, given that some well-known Scientologist actors were rumored to be closeted homosexuals, Haggis’s letter raised awkward questions about the church’s attitude toward homosexuality. Most important, Haggis wasn’t an obscure dissident; he was a celebrity, and the church, from its inception, has depended on celebrities to lend it prestige. In the past, Haggis had defended the religion; in 1997, he wrote a letter of protest after a French court ruled that a Scientology official was culpable in the suicide of a man who fell into debt after paying for church courses. “If this decision carries it sets a terrible precedent, in which no priest or minister will ever feel comfortable offering help and advice to those whose souls are tortured,” Haggis wrote. To Haggis’s friends, his resignation from the Church of Scientology felt like a very public act of betrayal. They were surprised, angry, and confused. “ ‘Destroy the letter, resign quietly’—that’s what they all wanted,” Haggis says.
Last March, I met Haggis in New York. He was in the editing phase of his latest movie, “The Next Three Days,” a thriller starring Russell Crowe, in an office in SoHo. He sat next to a window with drawn shades, as his younger sister Jo Francis, the film’s editor, showed him a round of cuts. Haggis wore jeans and a black T-shirt. He is bald, with a trim blond beard, pale-blue eyes, and a nose that was broken in a schoolyard fight. He always has several projects going at once, and there was a barely contained feeling of frenzy. He glanced repeatedly at his watch.
Haggis, who is fifty-seven, was preparing for two events later that week: a preview screening in New York and a trip to Haiti. He began doing charitable work in Haiti well before the 2010 earthquake, and he has raised millions of dollars for that country. He told me that he was planning to buy ten acres of land in Port-au-Prince for a new school, which he hoped to have open in the fall. (In fact, the school—the first to offer free secondary education to children from the city’s slums—opened in October.) In Hollywood, he is renowned for his ability to solicit money. The actor Ben Stiller, who has accompanied Haggis to Haiti, recalls that Haggis once raised four and a half million dollars in two hours.
While watching the edits, Haggis fielded calls from a plastic surgeon who was planning to go on the trip, and from a priest in Haiti, Father Rick Frechette, whose organization is the main beneficiary of Haggis’s charity. “Father Rick is a lot like me—a cynical optimist,” Haggis told me. He also said of himself, “I’m a deeply broken person, and broken institutions fascinate me.”
Haggis’s producing partner, Michael Nozik, says, “Paul likes to be contrarian. If everyone is moving left, he’ll feel the need to move right.” The actor Josh Brolin, who appeared in Haggis’s film “In the Valley of Elah” (2007), told me that Haggis “does things in extremes.” Haggis is an outspoken promoter of social justice, in the manner of Hollywood activists like Sean Penn and George Clooney. The actress Maria Bello describes him as self-deprecating and sarcastic, but also deeply compassionate. She recalls being with him in Haiti shortly after the earthquake; he was standing in the bed of a pickup truck, “with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and a big smile on his face, and absolutely no fear.” Though Haggis is passionate about his work, he can be cool toward those who are closest to him. Lauren Haggis, the second daughter from his first marriage, said that he never connected with his children. “He’s emotionally not there,” she says. “That’s funny, because his scripts are full of emotion.”
In the editing room, Haggis felt the need for a cigarette, so we walked outside. He is ashamed of this habit, especially given that, in 2003, while directing “Crash,” he had a heart attack. After Haggis had emergency surgery, his doctor told him that it would be four or five months before he could work again: “It would be too much strain on your heart.” He replied, “Let me ask you how much stress you think I might be under as I’m sitting at home while another director is finishing my f*#king film!” The doctor relented, but demanded that a nurse be on the set to monitor Haggis’s vital signs. Since then, Haggis has tried repeatedly to quit smoking. He had stopped before shooting “The Next Three Days,” but Russell Crowe was smoking, and that did him in. “There’s always a good excuse,” he admitted. Before his heart attack, he said, “I thought I was invincible.” He added, “I still do.”
Haggis had not spoken publicly about his resignation from Scientology. As we stood in a chill wind on Sixth Avenue, he was obviously uncomfortable discussing it, but he is a storyteller, and he eventually launched into a narrative.
Haggis wasn’t proud of his early years. “I was a bad kid,” he said. “I didn’t kill anybody. Not that I didn’t try.” He was born in 1953, and grew up in London, Ontario, a manufacturing town midway between Toronto and Detroit. His father, Ted, had a construction company there, which specialized in pouring concrete. His mother, Mary, a Catholic, sent Paul and his two younger sisters, Kathy and Jo, to Mass on Sundays—until she spotted their priest driving an expensive car. “God wants me to have a Cadillac,” the priest explained. Mary responded, “Then God doesn’t want us in your church anymore.”
Haggis decided at an early age to be a writer, and he made his own comic books. But he was such a poor student that his parents sent him to a strict boarding school, where the students were assigned cadet drills. He preferred to sit in his room reading Ramparts, the radical magazine from America—the place he longed to be. He committed repeated infractions, but he learned to pick locks so that he could sneak into the prefect’s office and eliminate his demerits.
After a year of this, his parents transferred him to a progressive boys’ school in Bracebridge, Ontario, where there was very little system to subvert. Haggis grew his curly blond hair to his shoulders. He discovered a mentor in his art teacher, Max Allen, who was politically radical and gay. Flouting Ontario’s strict censorship laws, Allen opened a theatre in Toronto that showed banned films; Haggis volunteered at the box office.
Haggis got caught forging a check, and he soon left school. He was drifting, hanging out with hippies and drug dealers. Two friends died from overdoses. “I had a gun pointed in my face a couple of times,” he recalls. He attended art school briefly, then quit; after taking some film classes at a community college, he dropped out of that as well. He began working in construction full time for his father. He also was the manager of a hundred-seat theatre that his father had created in an abandoned church. On Saturday nights, he set up a movie screen onstage, introducing himself and other film buffs to the works of Bergman, Hitchcock, and the French New Wave. He was so affected by Michelangelo Antonioni’s “Blow-Up” that in 1974 he decided to move to England, in order to become a fashion photographer, like the hero of the movie. That lasted less than a year.
Back in London, Ontario, he fell in love with Diane Gettas, a nurse, and they began sharing a one-bedroom apartment. He was starting to get his life together, but he was haunted by something that his grandfather had said to him on his deathbed. “He was a janitor in a bowling alley,” Haggis told me. “He had left England because of some scandal we don’t know about. He died when I was twelve or thirteen. He looked terrible. He turned to me and said, ‘I’ve wasted my life. Don’t waste yours.’ ”
One day in 1975, when he was twenty-two, Haggis was walking to a record store. When he arrived at the corner of Dundas and Waterloo Streets, a young man pressed a book into his hands. “You have a mind,” the man said. “This is the owner’s manual.” The man, whose name was Jim Logan, added, “Give me two dollars.” The book was “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,” by L. Ron Hubbard, which was published in 1950. By the time Haggis began reading it, “Dianetics” had sold about two and a half million copies. Today, according to the church, that figure has reached more than twenty-one million.
Haggis opened the book and saw a page stamped with the words “Church of Scientology.”
“Take me there,” Haggis said to Logan.
Haggis had heard about Scientology a couple of months earlier, from a friend who had called it a cult. The thought that he might be entering a cult didn’t bother him. In fact, he said, “it drew my interest. I tend to run toward things I don’t understand.” When he arrived at the church’s headquarters, he recalled, “it didn’t look like a cult. Two guys in a small office above Woolworth’s.”
At the time, Haggis and Gettas were having arguments; the Scientologists told him that taking church courses would improve the relationship. “It was pitched to me as applied philosophy,” Haggis says. He and Gettas took a course together and, shortly afterward, became Hubbard Qualified Scientologists, one of the first levels in what the church calls the Bridge to Total Freedom.
The Church of Scientology says that its purpose is to transform individual lives and the world. “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology,” Hubbard wrote. Scientology postulates that every person is a Thetan—an immortal spiritual being that lives through countless lifetimes. Scientologists believe that Hubbard discovered the fundamental truths of existence, and they revere him as “the source” of the religion. Hubbard’s writings offer a “technology” of spiritual advancement and self-betterment that provides “the means to attain true spiritual freedom and immortality.” A church publication declares, “Scientology works 100 percent of the time when it is properly applied to a person who sincerely desires to improve his life.” Proof of this efficacy, the church says, can be measured by the accomplishments of its adherents. “As Scientologists in all walks of life will attest, they have enjoyed greater success in their relationships, family life, jobs and professions. They take an active, vital role in life and leading roles in their communities. And participation in Scientology brings to many a broader social consciousness, manifested through meaningful contribution to charitable and social reform activities.”
In 1955, a year after the church’s founding, an affiliated publication urged Scientologists to cultivate celebrities: “It is obvious what would happen to Scientology if prime communicators benefitting from it would mention it.” At the end of the sixties, the church established its first Celebrity Centre, in Hollywood. (There are now satellites in Paris, Vienna, Düsseldorf, Munich, Florence, London, New York, Las Vegas, and Nashville.) Over the next decade, Scientology became a potent force in Hollywood. In many respects, Haggis was typical of the recruits from that era, at least among those in the entertainment business. Many of them were young and had quit school in order to follow their dreams, but they were also smart and ambitious. The actress Kirstie Alley, for example, left the University of Kansas in 1970, during her sophomore year, to get married. Scientology, she says, helped her lose her craving for cocaine. “Without Scientology, I would be dead,” she has said.
In 1975, the year that Haggis became a Scientologist, John Travolta, a high-school dropout, was making his first movie, “The Devil’s Rain,” in Durango, Mexico, when an actress on the set gave him a copy of “Dianetics.” “My career immediately took off,” he told a church publication. “Scientology put me into the big time.” The testimonials of such celebrities have attracted many curious seekers. In Variety, Scientology has advertised courses promising to help aspiring actors “make it in the industry.”
One of those actors, Josh Brolin, told me that, in a “moment of real desperation,” he visited the Celebrity Centre and received “auditing”—spiritual counselling. He quickly decided that Scientology wasn’t for him. But he still wonders what the religion does for celebrities like Cruise and Travolta: “Each has a good head on his shoulders, they make great business decisions, they seem to have wonderful families. Is that because they were helped by Scientology?” This is the question that makes celebrities so crucial to the religion. And, clearly, there must be something rewarding if such notable people lend their names to a belief system that is widely scorned.
Brolin says that he once witnessed John Travolta practicing Scientology. Brolin was at a dinner party in Los Angeles with Travolta and Marlon Brando. Brando arrived with a cut on his leg, and explained that he had injured himself while helping a stranded motorist on the Pacific Coast Highway. He was in pain. Travolta offered to help, saying that he had just reached a new level in Scientology. Travolta touched Brando’s leg and Brando closed his eyes. “I watched this process going on—it was very physical,” Brolin recalls. “I was thinking, This is really f*#king bizarre! Then, after ten minutes, Brando opens his eyes and says, ‘That really helped. I actually feel different!’ ” (Travolta, through a lawyer, called this account “pure fabrication.”)
Many Hollywood actors were drawn into the church by a friend or by reading “Dianetics”; a surprising number of them, though, came through the Beverly Hills Playhouse. For decades, the resident acting coach there was Milton Katselas, and he taught hundreds of future stars, including Ted Danson, Michelle Pfeiffer, and George Clooney. “Most of Hollywood went through that class,” Anne Archer told me. In 1974, two years after her son Tommy Davis was born, she began studying with Katselas. She was a young mother in a dissolving marriage, coming off a television series (“Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice”) that had been cancelled after one season. Katselas had a transformative effect. She recalled discussions “about life, people, and behavior,” and said that Katselas “said some things in class that were really smart.” Some of the other students told her that Katselas was a Scientologist, so she began the Life Repair program at the Celebrity Centre. “I went two or three times a week, probably for a couple of weeks,” she said. “I remember walking out of the building and walking down the street toward my car and I felt like my feet were not touching the ground. And I said to myself, ‘My God, this is the happiest I’ve ever been in my entire life. I’ve finally found something that works.’ ” She added, “Life didn’t seem so hard anymore. I was back in the driver’s seat.”
Jim Gordon, a veteran police officer in Los Angeles, and also an aspiring actor, spent ten years at the Playhouse, starting in 1990. He told me that Scientology “recruited a ton of kids out of that school.” Like Scientology, the Playhouse presented a strict hierarchy of study; under Katselas’s tutelage, students graduated from one level to the next. As Gordon advanced within the Playhouse, he began recognizing many students from the roles they were getting in Hollywood. “You see a lot of people you know from TV,” Gordon says. He began feeling the pull of the church. “When you started off, they weren’t really pushing it, but as you progressed through the Playhouse’s levels Scientology became more of a focus,” he told me. After a few years, he joined. Like the courses at the Playhouse, Scientology offered actors a method that they could apply to both their lives and their careers.
Not long after Gordon became a Scientologist, he was asked to serve as an “ethics officer” at the Playhouse, monitoring the progress of other students and counselling those who were having trouble. He was good at pinpointing students who were struggling. “It’s almost like picking out the wounded chicks,” he says. He sometimes urged a student to meet with the senior ethics officer at the Playhouse, a Scientologist who often recommended courses at the Celebrity Centre. “My job was to keep the students active and make sure they were not being suppressed,” Gordon says. In the rhetoric of Scientology, “suppressive persons”—or S.P.s—block an individual’s spiritual progress. Implicitly, the message to the students was that success awaited them if only they could sweep away the impediments to stardom, including S.P.s. Katselas received a ten-per-cent commission from the church on the money contributed by his students.
Katselas died in 2008, and Scientology no longer has a connection with the Beverly Hills Playhouse. Anne Archer told me that the reputation of Katselas’s class as, in Gordon’s words, a “Scientology clearinghouse” is overblown. “His classes averaged about fifty or sixty people, and there would be maybe seven to ten people in it who would be Scientologists,” she says. But the list of Scientologists who have studied at the Playhouse is long—it includes Jenna Elfman, Giovanni Ribisi, and Jason Lee—and the many protégés Katselas left behind helped cement the relationship between Hollywood and the church.
Haggis and I travelled together to L.A., where he was presenting “The Next Three Days” to the studio. During the flight, I asked him how high he had gone in Scientology. “All the way to the top,” he said. Since the early eighties, he had been an Operating Thetan VII, which was the highest level available when he became affiliated with the church. (In 1988, a new level, O.T. VIII, was introduced to members; it required study at sea, and Haggis declined to pursue it.) He had made his ascent by buying “intensives”—bundled hours of auditing, at a discount rate. “It wasn’t so expensive back then,” he said.
David S. Touretzky, a computer-science professor at Carnegie Mellon University, has done extensive research on Scientology. (He is not a defector.) He estimates that the coursework alone now costs nearly three hundred thousand dollars, and, with the additional auditing and contributions expected of upper-level members, the cumulative cost of the coursework may exceed half a million dollars. (The church says that there are no fixed fees, adding, “Donations requested for ‘courses’ at Church of Scientology begin at $50 and could never possibly reach the amount suggested.”)
I asked Haggis why he had aligned himself with a religion that so many have disparaged. “I identify with the underdog,” he said. “I have a perverse pride in being a member of a group that people shun.” For Haggis, who likes to see himself as a man of the people, his affiliation with Scientology felt like a way of standing with the marginalized and the oppressed. The church itself often hits this note, making frequent statements in support of human rights and religious freedom. Haggis’s experience in Scientology, though, was hardly egalitarian: he accepted the privileges of the Celebrity Centre, which offers notables a private entrance, a V.I.P. lounge, separate facilities for auditing, and other perks. Indeed, much of the appeal of Scientology is the overt élitism that it promotes among its members, especially celebrities. Haggis was struck by another paradox: “Here I was in this very structured organization, but I always thought of myself as a freethinker and an iconoclast.”
During our conversations, we spoke about some events that had stained the reputation of the church while he was a member. For example, there was the death of Lisa McPherson, a Scientologist who died after a mental breakdown, in 1995. She had rear-ended a car in Clearwater, Florida—where Scientology has its spiritual headquarters—and then stripped off her clothes and wandered naked down the street. She was taken to a hospital, but, in the company of several other Scientologists, she checked out, against doctors’ advice. (The church considers psychiatry an evil profession.) McPherson spent the next seventeen days being subjected to church remedies, such as doses of vitamins and attempts to feed her with a turkey baster. She became comatose, and she died of a pulmonary embolism before church members finally brought her to the hospital. The medical examiner in the case, Joan Wood, initially ruled that the cause of death was undetermined, but she told a reporter, “This is the most severe case of dehydration I’ve ever seen.” The State of Florida filed charges against the church. In February, 2000, under withering questioning from experts hired by the church, Wood declared that the death was “accidental.” The charges were dropped and Wood resigned.
Haggis said that, at the time, he had chosen not to learn the details of McPherson’s death. “I had such a lack of curiosity when I was inside,” Haggis said. “It’s stunning to me, because I’m such a curious person.” He said that he had been “somewhere between uninterested in looking and afraid of looking.” His life was comfortable, he liked his circle of friends, and he didn’t want to upset the balance. It was also easy to dismiss people who quit the church. As he put it, “There’s always disgruntled folks who say all sorts of things.” He was now ashamed of this willed myopia, which, he noted, clashed with what he understood to be the ethic of Scientology: “Hubbard says that there is a relationship between knowledge, responsibility, and control, and as soon as you know something you have a responsibility to act. And, if you don’t, shame on you.”
Since resigning, Haggis had been wondering why it took him so long to leave. In an e-mail exchange, I noted that higher-level Scientologists are supposed to be free of neuroses and allergies, and resistant to the common cold. “Dianetics” also promises heightened powers of intelligence and perception. Haggis had told me that he fell far short of this goal. “Did you feel it was your fault?” I asked. Haggis responded that, because the auditing took place over a number of years, it was easy to believe that he might actually be smarter and wiser because of it, just as that might be true after years of therapy. “It is all so subjective, how is one supposed to know?” he wrote. “How does it feel to be smarter today than you were two months ago? . . . But yes, I always felt false.”
He noted that a Scientologist hearing this would feel, with some justification, that he had misled his auditors about his progress. But, after hundreds of hours of auditing sessions, he said, “I remember feeling I just wanted it over. I felt it wasn’t working, and figured that could be my fault, but did not want the hours of ‘repair auditing’ that they would tell me I needed to fix it. So I just went along, to my shame. I did what was easy . . . without asking them, or myself, any hard questions.”
When Haggis first turned to Scientology, he considered himself an atheist. Scientology seemed to him less a religion than a set of useful principles for living. He mentioned the ARC Triangle; “ARC” stands for “Affinity, Reality, and Communication.” Affinity, in this formulation, means the emotional response that partners have toward each other; reality is the area of common agreement. Together, these contribute to the flow of communication. “The three parts together equal understanding,” Haggis said. “If you’re having a disagreement with someone, your affinity drops quickly. Your mutual reality is shattered. Your communication becomes more halted. You begin to talk over each other. There’s less and less understanding. But all you need to do is to raise one part of the triangle and you increase the others as well. I still use that.”
Some aspects of Scientology baffled him. He hadn’t been able to get through “Dianetics”: “I read about thirty pages. I thought it was impenetrable.” But much of the coursework gave him a feeling of accomplishment. He was soon commuting from London, Ontario, to Toronto to take more advanced courses, and, in 1976, he travelled to Los Angeles for the first time. He checked in at the old Chateau Élysée, on Franklin Avenue. Clark Gable and Katharine Hepburn had once stayed there, but when Haggis arrived it was a run-down church retreat called the Manor Hotel. (It has since been spectacularly renovated and turned into the flagship Celebrity Centre.) “I had a little apartment with a kitchen I could write in,” he recalls. “There was a feeling of camaraderie that was something I’d never experienced—all these atheists looking for something to believe in, and all these loners looking for a club to join.”
Recruits had a sense of boundless possibility. Mystical powers were forecast; out-of-body experiences were to be expected; fundamental secrets were to be revealed. Hubbard had boasted that Scientology had raised some people’s I.Q. one point for every hour of auditing. “Our most spectacular feat was raising a boy from 83 I.Q. to 212,” he told the Saturday Evening Post, in 1964.
At the Manor Hotel, Haggis went “Clear.” The concept comes from “Dianetics”; it is where you start if you want to ascend to the upper peaks of Scientology. A person who becomes Clear is “adaptable to and able to change his environment,” Hubbard writes. “His ethical and moral standards are high, his ability to seek and experience pleasure is great. His personality is heightened and he is creative and constructive.” Someone who is Clear is less susceptible to disease and is free of neuroses, compulsions, repressions, and psychosomatic illnesses. “The dianetic Clear is to a current normal individual as the current normal is to the severely insane.”
Going Clear “was not life-changing,” Haggis says. “It wasn’t, like, ‘Oh, my God, I can fly!’ ” At every level of advancement, he was encouraged to write a “success story” saying how effective his training had been. He had read many such stories by other Scientologists, and they felt “overly effusive, done in part to convince yourself, but also slanted toward giving somebody upstairs approval for you to go on to the next level.”
In 1977, Haggis returned to Canada to continue working for his father, who could see that his son was struggling. Ted Haggis asked him what he wanted to do with his life. Haggis said that he wanted to be a writer. His father recalls, “I said, ‘Well, there are only two places to do that, New York and Los Angeles. Pick one, and I’ll keep you on the payroll for a year.’ Paul said, ‘I think I’ll go to L.A., because it’s warmer.’ ”
Soon after this conversation, Haggis and Diane Gettas got married. Two months later, they loaded up his brown Camaro and drove to Los Angeles, where he got a job moving furniture. He and Diane lived in an apartment with her brother, Gregg, and three other people. In 1978, Diane gave birth to their first child, Alissa. Haggis was spending much of his time and money taking advanced courses and being audited, which involved the use of an electropsychometer, or E-Meter. The device, often compared in the press to a polygraph, measures the bodily changes in electrical resistance that occur when a person answers questions posed by an auditor. (“Thoughts have a small amount of mass,” the church contends in a statement. “These are the changes measured.”) In 1952, Hubbard said of the E-Meter, “It gives Man his first keen look into the heads and hearts of his fellows.” The Food and Drug Administration has compelled the church to declare that the instrument has no curative powers and is ineffective in diagnosing or treating disease.
During auditing, Haggis grasped a cylindrical electrode in each hand; when he first joined Scientology, the electrodes were empty soup cans. An imperceptible electrical charge ran from the meter through his body. The auditor asked systematic questions aimed at detecting sources of “spiritual distress.” Whenever Haggis gave an answer that prompted the E-Meter’s needle to jump, that subject became an area of concentration until the auditor was satisfied that Haggis was free of the emotional consequences of the troubling experience.
Haggis found the E-Meter surprisingly responsive. It seemed to gauge the kinds of thoughts he was having—whether they were angry or happy, or if he was hiding something. The auditor often probed for what Scientologists call “earlier similars.” Haggis explained, “If you’re having a fight with your girlfriend, the auditor will ask, ‘Can you remember an earlier time when something like this happened?’ And if you do then he’ll ask, ‘What about a time before that? And a time before that?’ ” Often, the process leads participants to recall past lives. The goal is to uncover and neutralize the emotional memories that are plaguing one’s behavior.
Although Haggis never believed in reincarnation, he says, “I did experience gains. I would feel relief from arguments I’d had with my dad, things I’d done as a teen-ager that I didn’t feel good about. I think I did, in some ways, become a better person. I did develop more empathy for others.” Then again, he admitted, “I tried to find ways to be a better husband, but I never really did. I was still the selfish bastard I always was.”
Haggis was moving furniture during the day and taking photographs for church yearbooks on the weekends. At night, he wrote scripts on spec. He met Skip Press, another young writer who was a Scientologist. Press had read one of Haggis’s scripts—an episode of “Welcome Back, Kotter” that he was trying to get to the show’s star, John Travolta. Haggis and Press started hanging out with other aspiring writers and directors who were involved with Scientology. “We would meet at a restaurant across from the Celebrity Centre called Two Dollar Bill’s,” Press recalls. Chick Corea and other musicians associated with the church played there. Haggis and a friend from this circle eventually got a job writing for cartoons, including “Scooby-Doo” and “Richie Rich.”
By now, Haggis had begun advancing through the upper levels of Scientology. The church defines an Operating Thetan as “one who can handle things without having to use a body or physical means.” An editorial in a 1959 issue of the Scientology magazine Ability notes that “neither Lord Buddha nor Jesus Christ were O.T.s, according to the evidence. They were just a shade above Clear.” According to several copies of church documents that have been leaked online, Hubbard’s handwritten instructions for the first level list thirteen mental exercises that attune practitioners to their relationship with others, such as “Note several large and several small male bodies until you have a cognition. Note it down.” In the second level, Scientologists engage in exercises and visualizations that explore oppositional forces:
Laughter comes from the rear half and calm from the front half simultaneously. Then they reverse. It gives one a sensation of total disagreement. The trick is to conceive of both at the same time. This tends to knock one out.
Haggis didn’t have a strong reaction to the material, but then he wasn’t expecting anything too profound. Everyone knew that the big revelations resided in level O.T. III.
Hubbard called this level the Wall of Fire. He said, “The material involved in this sector is so vicious, that it is carefully arranged to kill anyone if he discovers the exact truth of it. . . . I am very sure that I was the first one that ever did live through any attempt to attain that material.” The O.T. III candidate is expected to free himself from being overwhelmed by the disembodied, emotionally wounded spirits that have been implanted inside his body. Bruce Hines, a former high-level Scientology auditor who is now a research physicist at the University of Colorado, explained to me, “Most of the upper levels are involved in exorcising these spirits.”
“The process of induction is so long and slow that you really do convince yourself of the truth of some of these things that don’t make sense,” Haggis told me. Although he refused to specify the contents of O.T. materials, on the ground that it offended Scientologists, he said, “If they’d sprung this stuff on me when I first walked in the door, I just would have laughed and left right away.” But by the time Haggis approached the O.T. III material he’d already been through several years of auditing. His wife was deeply involved in the church, as was his sister Kathy. Moreover, his first writing jobs had come through Scientology connections. He was now entrenched in the community. Success stories in the Scientology magazine Advance! added an aura of reality to the church’s claims. Haggis admits, “I was looking forward to enhanced abilities.” Moreover, he had invested a lot of money in the program. The incentive to believe was high.
In the late seventies, the O.T. material was still quite secret. There was no Google, and Scientology’s confidential scriptures had not yet circulated, let alone been produced in court or parodied on “South Park.” “You were told that this information, if released, would cause serious damage to people,” Haggis told me.
Carrying an empty, locked briefcase, Haggis went to the Advanced Organization building in Los Angeles, where the material was held. A supervisor then handed him a folder, which Haggis put in the briefcase. He entered a study room, where he finally got to examine the secret document—a couple of pages, in Hubbard’s bold scrawl. After a few minutes, he returned to the supervisor.
“I don’t understand,” Haggis said.
“Do you know the words?” the supervisor asked.
“I know the words, I just don’t understand.”
“Go back and read it again,” the supervisor suggested.
Haggis did so. In a moment, he returned. “Is this a metaphor?” he asked the supervisor.
“No,” the supervisor responded. “It is what it is. Do the actions that are required.”
Maybe it’s an insanity test, Haggis thought—if you believe it, you’re automatically kicked out. “I sat with that for a while,” he says. But when he read it again he decided, “This is madness.”
The many discrepancies between L. Ron Hubbard’s legend and his life have overshadowed the fact that he was a fascinating man: an explorer, a best-selling author, and the founder of one of the few new religious movements of the twentieth century to have survived into the twenty-first. There are several unauthorized Hubbard biographies—most notably, Russell Miller’s “Bare-Faced Messiah,” Jon Atack’s “A Piece of Blue Sky,” and Bent Corydon’s “L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?” All rely on stolen materials and the accounts of defectors, and the church claims that they present a false and fabricated picture of Hubbard’s life. For years, the church has had a contract with a biographer, Dan Sherman, to chronicle the founder’s life, but there is still no authorized book, and the church refused to let me talk to Sherman. (“He’s busy,” Davis told me.) The tug-of-war between Scientologists and anti-Scientologists over Hubbard’s legacy has created two swollen archetypes: the most important person who ever lived and the world’s greatest con man. Hubbard was certainly grandiose, but to label him merely a fraud is to ignore the complexity of his character.
Hubbard was born in Tilden, Nebraska, in 1911. His father, a naval officer, was often away, and Hubbard spent part of his childhood on his grandparents’ ranch, in Montana. When his father got posted to Guam, in 1927, Hubbard made two trips to see him. According to Hubbard, on the second trip he continued on to Asia, where he visited the Buddhist lamaseries in the Western Hills of China, “watching monks meditate for weeks on end.”
In 1933, Hubbard married Margaret Grubb, whom he called Polly; their first child, Lafayette, was born the following year. He visited Hollywood, and began getting work as a screenwriter, very much as Paul Haggis did some forty years later. Hubbard worked on serials for Columbia Pictures, including one called “The Secret of Treasure Island.” But much of his energy was devoted to publishing stories, often under pseudonyms, in pulp magazines such as Astounding Science Fiction.
During the Second World War, Hubbard served in the U.S. Navy, and he later wrote that he was gravely injured in battle: “Blinded with injured optic nerves and lame with physical injuries to hip and back at the end of World War II, I faced an almost nonexistent future. I was abandoned by family and friends as a supposedly hopeless cripple.” While languishing in a military hospital in Oakland, California, he said, he fully healed himself, using techniques that became the foundation of Scientology. “I had no one to help me; what I had to know I had to find out,” he wrote in an essay titled “My Philosophy.” “And it’s quite a trick studying when you cannot see.” In some editions of Hubbard’s book “The Fundamentals of Thought,” published in 1956, a note on the author says, “It is a matter of medical record that he has twice been pronounced dead.”
After the war, Hubbard’s marriage dissolved, and he moved to Pasadena, where he became the housemate of Jack Parsons, a rocket scientist who belonged to an occult society called the Ordo Templi Orientis. An atmosphere of hedonism pervaded the house; Parsons hosted gatherings involving “sex magick” rituals.
In a 1946 letter, Parsons described Hubbard: “He is a gentleman, red hair, green eyes, honest and intelligent.” Parsons then mentioned his wife’s sister, Betty Northrup, with whom he had been having an affair. “Although Betty and I are still friendly, she has transferred her sexual affections to Ron.” One day, Hubbard and Northrup ran off together. In the official Scientology literature, it is claimed that Hubbard was assigned by naval intelligence to infiltrate Parsons’s occult group. “Hubbard broke up black magic in America,” the church said in a statement.
Hubbard and Northrup ended up in Los Angeles. He continued writing for the pulps, but he had larger ambitions. He began codifying a system of self-betterment, and set up an office near the corner of La Brea and Sunset, where he tested his techniques on the actors, directors, and writers he encountered. He named his system Dianetics.
The book “Dianetics” appeared in May, 1950, and spent twenty-eight weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. Written in a bluff, quirky style and overrun with footnotes that do little to substantiate its findings, “Dianetics” purports to identify the source of self-destructive behavior—the “reactive mind,” a kind of data bank that is filled with traumatic memories called “engrams,” and that is the source of nightmares, insecurities, irrational fears, and psychosomatic illnesses. The object of Dianetics is to drain the engrams of their painful, damaging qualities and eliminate the reactive mind, leaving a person “Clear.”
Dianetics, Hubbard said, was a “precision science.” He offered his findings to the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association but was spurned; he subsequently portrayed psychiatry and psychology as demonic competitors. He once wrote that if psychiatrists “had the power to torture and kill everyone they would do so.”
Scientists dismissed Hubbard’s book, but hundreds of Dianetics groups sprang up across the U.S. and abroad. The Church of Scientology was officially founded in Los Angeles in February, 1954, by several devoted followers of Hubbard’s work.
In 1966, Hubbard—who by then had met and married another woman, Mary Sue Whipp—set sail with a handful of Scientologists. The church says that being at sea provided a “distraction-free environment,” allowing Hubbard “to continue his research into the upper levels of spiritual awareness.” Within a year, he had acquired several oceangoing vessels. He staffed the ships with volunteers, many of them teen-agers, who called themselves the Sea Organization. Hubbard and his followers cruised the Mediterranean searching for loot he had stored in previous lifetimes. (The church denies this.) The defector Janis Grady, a former Sea Org member, told me, “I was on the bridge with him, sailing past Greek islands. There were crosses lining one island. He told me that under each cross is buried treasure.”
The Sea Org became the church’s equivalent of a religious order. The group now has six thousand members. They perform tasks such as counselling, maintaining the church’s vast property holdings, and publishing its official literature. Sea Org initiates—some of whom are children—sign contracts for up to a billion years of service. They get a small weekly stipend and receive free auditing and coursework. Sea Org members can marry, but they must agree not to raise children while in the organization.
As Scientology grew, it was increasingly attacked. In 1963, the Los Angeles Times called it a “pseudo-scientific cult.” The church attracted dozens of lawsuits, largely from ex-parishioners. In 1980, Hubbard disappeared from public view. Although there were rumors that he was dead, he was actually driving around the Pacific Northwest in a motor home. He returned to writing science fiction and produced a ten-volume work, “Mission Earth,” each volume of which was a best-seller. In 1983, he settled quietly on a horse farm in Creston, California.
Around that time, Paul Haggis received a message from the church about a film project. Hubbard had written a treatment for a script titled “Influencing the Planet” and, apparently, intended to direct it. The film was supposed to demonstrate the range of Hubbard’s efforts to improve civilization. With another Scientologist, Haggis completed a script, which he called “quite dreadful.” Hubbard sent him notes on the draft, but no film by that name was ever released.
In 1985, with Hubbard in seclusion, the church faced two of its most difficult court challenges. In Los Angeles, a former Sea Org member, Lawrence Wollersheim, sought twenty-five million dollars for “infliction of emotional injury.” He claimed that he had been kept for eighteen hours a day in the hold of a ship docked in Long Beach, and deprived of adequate sleep and food.
That October, the litigants filed O.T. III materials in court. Fifteen hundred Scientologists crowded into the courthouse, trying to block access to the documents. The church, which considers it sacrilegious for the uninitiated to read its confidential scriptures, got a restraining order, but the Los Angeles Times obtained a copy of the material and printed a summary. Suddenly, the secrets that had stunned Paul Haggis in a locked room were public knowledge.
“A major cause of mankind’s problems began 75 million years ago,” the Times wrote, when the planet Earth, then called Teegeeack, was part of a confederation of ninety planets under the leadership of a despotic ruler named Xenu. “Then, as now, the materials state, the chief problem was overpopulation.” Xenu decided “to take radical measures.” The documents explained that surplus beings were transported to volcanoes on Earth. “The documents state that H-bombs far more powerful than any in existence today were dropped on these volcanoes, destroying the people but freeing their spirits—called thetans—which attached themselves to one another in clusters.” Those spirits were “trapped in a compound of frozen alcohol and glycol,” then “implanted” with “the seed of aberrant behavior.” The Times account concluded, “When people die, these clusters attach to other humans and keep perpetuating themselves.”
The jury awarded Wollersheim thirty million dollars. (Eventually, an appellate court reduced the judgment to two and a half million.) The secret O.T. III documents remained sealed, but the Times’ report had already circulated widely, and the church was met with derision all over the world.
The other court challenge in 1985 involved Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne, a defector who argued that the church had falsely claimed that Scientology would improve her intelligence, and even her eyesight. In a courtroom in Portland, she said that Hubbard had been portrayed to her as a nuclear physicist; in fact, he had failed to graduate from George Washington University. As for Hubbard’s claim that he had cured himself of grave injuries in the Second World War, the plaintiff’s evidence indicated that he had never been wounded in battle. Witnesses for the plaintiff testified that, in one six-month period in 1982, the church had transferred millions of dollars to Hubbard through a Liberian corporation. The church denied this, and said that Hubbard’s income was generated by his book sales.
The jury sided with Christofferson-Titchbourne, awarding her thirty-nine million dollars. Scientologists streamed into Portland to protest. They carried banners advocating religious freedom and sang “We Shall Overcome.” Scientology celebrities, including John Travolta, showed up; Chick Corea played a concert in a public park. Haggis, who was writing for the NBC series “The Facts of Life” at the time, came and was drafted to write speeches. “I wasn’t a celebrity—I was a lowly sitcom writer,” he says. He stayed for four days.
The judge declared a mistrial, saying that Christofferson-Titchbourne’s lawyers had presented prejudicial arguments. It was one of the greatest triumphs in Scientology’s history, and the church members who had gone to Portland felt an enduring sense of kinship. (A year and a half later, the church settled with Christofferson-Titchbourne for an undisclosed sum.)
In 1986, Hubbard died, of a stroke, in his motor home. He was seventy-four. Two weeks later, Scientologists gathered in the Hollywood Palladium for a special announcement. A young man, David Miscavige, stepped onto the stage. Short, trim, and muscular, with brown hair and sharp features, Miscavige announced to the assembled Scientologists that, for the past six years, Hubbard had been investigating new, higher O.T. levels. “He has now moved on to the next level,” Miscavige said. “It’s a level beyond anything any of us ever imagined. This level is, in fact, done in an exterior state. Meaning that it is done completely exterior from the body. Thus, at twenty-hundred hours, the twenty-fourth of January, A.D. 36”—that is, thirty-six years after the publication of “Dianetics”—“L. Ron Hubbard discarded the body he had used in this lifetime.” Miscavige began clapping, and led the crowd in an ovation, shouting, “Hip hip hooray!”
Miscavige was a Scientology prodigy from the Philadelphia area. He claimed that, growing up, he had been sickly, and struggled with bad asthma; Dianetics counselling had dramatically alleviated the symptoms. As he puts it, he “experienced a miracle.” He decided to devote his life to the religion. He had gone Clear by the age of fifteen, and the next year he dropped out of high school to join the Sea Org. He became an executive assistant to Hubbard, who gave him special tutoring in photography and cinematography. When Hubbard went into seclusion, in 1980, Miscavige was one of the few people who maintained close contact with him. With Hubbard’s death, the curtain rose on a man who was going to impose his personality on an organization facing its greatest test, the death of its charismatic founder. Miscavige was twenty-five years old.
In 1986, Haggis appeared on the cover of the Scientology magazine Celebrity. The accompanying article lauded his rising influence in Hollywood. He had escaped the cartoon ghetto after selling a script to “The Love Boat.” He had climbed the ladder of network television, writing movies of the week and children’s shows before settling into sitcoms. He worked on “Diff’rent Strokes” and “One Day at a Time,” then became the executive producer of “The Facts of Life.” The magazine noted, “He is one of the few writers in Hollywood who has major credits in all genres: comedy, suspense, human drama, animation.”
In the article, Haggis said of Scientology, “What excited me about the technology was that you could actually handle life, and your problems, and not have them handle you.” He added, “I also liked the motto, ‘Scientology makes the able more able.’ ” He credited the church for improving his relationship with Gettas. “Instead of fighting (we did a lot of that before Scientology philosophy) we now talk things out, listen to each other and apply Scientology technology to our problems.”
Haggis told Celebrity that he had recently gone through the Purification Rundown, a program intended to eliminate body toxins that form a “biochemical barrier to spiritual well-being.” For an average of three weeks, participants undergo a lengthy daily regimen combining sauna visits, exercise, and huge doses of vitamins, especially niacin. According to a forthcoming book, “Inside Scientology,” by the journalist Janet Reitman, the sauna sessions can last up to five hours a day. In the interview, Haggis recalled being skeptical—“My idea of doing good for my body was smoking low-tar cigarettes”—but said that the Purification Rundown “was WONDERFUL.” He went on, “I really did feel more alert and more aware and more at ease—I wasn’t running in six directions to get something done, or bouncing off the walls when something went wrong.” Haggis mentioned that he had taken drugs when he was young. “Getting rid of all those residual toxins and medicines and drugs really had an effect,” he said. “After completing the rundown I drank a diet cola and suddenly could really taste it: every single chemical!” He recommended the Rundown to others, including his mother, who at the time was seriously ill. He also persuaded a young writer on his staff to take the course, in order to wean herself from various medications. “She could tell Scientology worked by the example I set,” Haggis told the magazine. “That made me feel very good.”
Privately, he told me, he remained troubled by the church’s theology, which struck him as “intergalactic spirituality.” He was grateful, however, to have an auditor who was “really smart, sweet, thoughtful. I could always go to talk to him.” The confessionals were helpful. “It just felt better to get things off my chest.” Even after his incredulous reaction to O.T. III, he continued to “move up” the Bridge. He saw so many intelligent people on the path, and expected that his concerns would be addressed in future levels. He told himself, “Maybe there is something, and I’m just missing it.” He felt unsettled by the lack of irony among many fellow-Scientologists—an inability to laugh at themselves, which seemed at odds with the character of Hubbard himself. When Haggis felt doubts about the religion, he recalled 16-mm. films he had seen of Hubbard’s lectures from the fifties and sixties. “He had this amazing buoyancy,” Haggis says. “He had a deadpan humor and this sense of himself that seemed to say, ‘Yes, I am fully aware that I might be mad, but I also might be on to something.’ ”
Haggis finally reached the top of the Operating Thetan pyramid. According to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, the activist group run by Julian Assange, the final exercise is: “Go out to a park, train station or other busy area. Practice placing an intention into individuals until you can successfully and easily place an intention into or on a Being and/or a body.”
Haggis expected that, as an O.T. VII, he would feel a sense of accomplishment, but he remained confused and unsatisfied. He thought that Hubbard was “brilliant in so many ways,” and that the failing must be his. At one point, he confided to a minister in the church that he didn’t think he should be a Scientologist. She told him, “There are all sorts of Scientologists,” just as there are all sorts of Jews and Christians, with varying levels of faith. The implication, Haggis said, was that he could “pick and choose” which tenets of Scientology to believe.
Haggis was a workaholic, and as his career took off he spent less and less time with his family. “He never got home till late at night or early in the morning,” his oldest daughter, Alissa, said. “All the time I ever spent with him was on the set.” Haggis frequently brought his daughters to work and assigned them odd jobs; Alissa earned her Directors Guild card when she was fifteen.
In 1987, Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz, the creators of the new series “thirtysomething,” hired Haggis to write scripts. When I talked to them recently, Herskovitz recalled, “Paul walked in the door and said, ‘I love the fact that you guys are doing a show all about emotions. I don’t like talking about my emotions.’ ” In the show’s first season, one of Haggis’s scripts won an Emmy. Since he rarely discussed his religion, his bosses were surprised to learn of his affiliation. Herskovitz told me, “The thing about Paul is his particular sense of humor, which is ironic, self-deprecating—”
“And raw!” Zwick interjected.
“It’s not a sense of humor you often encounter among people who believe in Scientology,” Herskovitz continued. “His way of looking at life didn’t have that sort of straight-on, unambiguous, unambivalent view that so many Scientologists project.”
Observing Zwick and Herskovitz at work got Haggis interested in directing, and when the church asked him to make a thirty-second ad about Dianetics he seized the chance. He was determined to avoid the usual claim that Dianetics offered a triumphal march toward enlightenment. He shot a group of Scientologists talking about the practical ways that they had used Dianetics. “It was very naturalistic,” he recalls. Church authorities hated it. “They thought it looked like an A.A. meeting.” The spot never aired.
In 1992, he helped out on the pilot for “Walker, Texas Ranger,” a new series starring Chuck Norris. It ran for eight seasons and was broadcast in a hundred countries. Haggis was credited as a co-creator. “It was the most successful thing I ever did,” he says. “Two weeks of work. They never even used my script!”
With his growing accomplishments and wealth, Haggis became a bigger prize for the church. In 1988, Scientology sponsored a Dianetics car in the Indianapolis 500. David Miscavige was at the race. It was one of the few times that he and Haggis met. They sat near each other at a Scientology-sponsored dinner event before the race. “Paul takes no sh#t from anybody,” the organizer of the event recalled. Several times when Miscavige made some comment during the dinner, the organizer said, “Paul challenged him in a lighthearted way.” His tone was perceived as insufficiently deferential; afterward, Miscavige demanded to know why Haggis had been invited. (Miscavige declined requests to speak to me, and Tommy Davis says that Miscavige did not attend the event.) The organizer told me, “You have to understand: no one challenges David Miscavige.”
Haggis’s marriage had long been troubled, and he and his wife were entering a final state of estrangement. One day, Haggis flew to New York with a casting director who was also a Scientologist. They shared a kiss. Haggis felt bad about it, and confessed to it during an “ethics” session. He was given instruction on how to fix the problem. It didn’t work. He had a series of liaisons, each of which he confessed. Yet, perhaps because of his fame, he was not made to atone for what Scientologists call “out ethics” behavior.
Haggis and Gettas began a divorce battle that lasted nine years. Their three girls lived with Gettas, visiting Haggis occasionally. Gettas enrolled them in private schools that used Hubbard’s educational system, which is called Study Tech. It is one of the more grounded systems that he developed. There are three central elements. One is the use of clay, or other materials, to help make difficult concepts less abstract. Alissa explains, “If I’m learning the idea of how an atom looks, I’d make an atom out of clay.” A second concept is making sure that students don’t face “too steep a gradient,” in Hubbard’s words. “The schools are set up so that you don’t go on to the next level until you completely understand the material,” Alissa says. The third element is the frequent use of a dictionary to eliminate misunderstandings. “It’s really important to understand the words you’re using.”
Lauren, the middle sister, initially struggled in school. “I was illiterate until I was eleven,” she told me. Somehow, that fact escaped her parents. “I assume it was because of the divorce,” she says.
When the divorce became final, in 1997, Haggis and Gettas were ordered by the court to undergo psychological evaluations—a procedure abhorred by Scientologists. The court then determined that Haggis should have full custody of the children.
His daughters were resentful. They had lived their entire lives with their mother. “I didn’t even know why he wanted us,” Lauren says. “I didn’t really know him.”
Haggis put his daughters in an ordinary private school, but that lasted only six months. The girls weren’t entirely comfortable talking to people who weren’t Scientologists, and basic things like multiple-choice tests were unfamiliar. At a regular school, they felt like outsiders. “The first thing I noticed that I did, that others didn’t, is the Contact,” Alissa told me, referring to a procedure the church calls Contact Assist. “If you hurt yourself, the first thing I and other Scientology kids do is go quiet.” Scientology preaches that, if you touch the wound to the object that caused the injury and silently concentrate, the pain lessens and a sense of trauma fades.
The girls demanded to be sent to boarding school, so Haggis enrolled them at the Delphian School, in rural Oregon, which uses Hubbard’s Study Tech methods. The school, Lauren says, is “on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere.” She added, “I lived in a giant bubble. Everyone I knew was a Scientologist.”
For one course, she decided to write a paper about discrimination against various religions, including Scientology. “I wanted to see what the opposition was saying, so I went online,” she says. Another student turned her in to the school’s ethics committee. Information that doesn’t correspond to Scientology teachings is termed “entheta”—meaning confused or destructive thinking. Lauren agreed to stop doing research. “It was really easy not to look,” she says. By the time she graduated from high school, at the age of twenty, she had scarcely ever heard anyone speak ill of Scientology.
Today is Hubbard's 100th birthday. Excerpt from a short bio:
Parsons described Hubbard as his "magical partner," and together the men engaged in a rite in which Parsons tried to impregnate with an antichrist child a woman he considered the whore of Babylon, a goal that Crowley had long promoted. With Rachmaninoff's "Isle of the Dead" playing in the background, Hubbard allegedly chanted spells over the copulating couple, according to Miller and others. (Ultimately Hubbard would steal Parsons' girlfriend and allegedly bilk him in a Miami yacht venture.) Years later, when Hubbard had grown famous and realized the antichrist episode didn't comport with his image as a man of culture and wisdom, he would reportedly claim to have been working on an undercover mission for U.S. Naval Intelligence to investigate black magic.
hubby prided himself on being "a yachtsman," and i think, hence, the ascot. don't knock ascots, they have a place, as at horse races in england.
the best comment i've seen on scientology came in the movie "repo man". the principals are standing around a good old homeless people's 50-gallon-barrel fire somewhere near downtown l.a. one is reading a book, which looks a lot like the standard scientology handbook. the closeup on the cover, however, shows a slightly different spelling: "diuretics".
People should know better. Look into their founder. Look into their doctrine. Look into what they teach. Look into what they do. Look into how hard it is to leave if you become a member and how these people are abused mentally and emotionally. Pure 100% Bovine Dung.
Can anyone who has a beef with Scientology tell us what's wrong with it, in your own words, without refering to an article someplace someone else wrote or a film on YouTube?
Or are you content to let others do your thinking for you?....Just like the Scientologists.
They didn't like a friend of mine's public criticism of them, so they printed up flyers warning neighbors that a sexual predator had moved into their neighborhood featuring her picture and distributed them in peoples mailboxes and stapled to telephone poles.
It they come to my house, I'm putting the dogs on 'em.
According to Hubbard, Scientology is an "applied religious philosophy" and is "a religion in that it addresses the spirit". At the beginning of many Scientology books this statement to the reader appears:
Scientology is a religious philosophy containing pastoral counseling procedures intended to assist an individual to attain spiritual freedom. The mission of the church of Scientology is a simple one-to help the individual attain full awareness of himself as an Immortal Being, and his relationship to the supreme being. The attainment of the benefits and goals of Scientology requires each individuals dedicated participation as only his own efforts can he himself, as a spiritual being, achieve these.
Hubbard founded Scientology in the 1950's. He was influenced by "in a nut shell" by Vedic Hinduism.
The Veda he writes...A great deal of our material in Scientology is discovered right back there. This makes the earliest part of Scientology, sacred lore. Another is Taoism. Hubbard states that Tao means Knowingness. In other words it is an ancestor to Scientology, the study of how of knowing how. Scientology claims that a Scientologist is a first cousin to the Buddhist.
Chaz asked, "Can anyone who has a beef with Scientology tell us what's wrong with it, in your own words.."
Here is my story. 1980- was 23. Flew up from LA to Davis to interview for a job at UC Davis. I was supposed to have a place to stay for the night B4 I bussed over to Yosemite for a few weeks. Did the interview, but the place to stay fell through. Did not know what to do, so I did some buildering on campus to kill time. Fellow student chatting me up while I scale walls. He says he thinks he’s got a couch I can stay on.
Turns out to be his Scientology mentor's house and couch.. .
...and before I get to lay my head to pillow, I had to sit through a 2 hour Intro-to-Scientology session that evening. Mildly stimulating at best. OK- I want to go catch some zzzzz’s. Except- they would NOT let me be until I dropped $15 for their intro book. Communication- the book is titled. This their first step towards an enlighted self. Communicate well with others. Uh-huh.
Except i was staying in Yosemite and Tuolumne for 2 weeks, and needed every cent I had. I fought hard to keep my greenbacks, but was no match for their relentless mental arm-twisting. I ponied up the $15, got a safe night’s sleep, plus a ride to the bus station.
I actually perused the book a little while in Tuolumne. I mentioned it (and Scientology) to Randy Vogel, and he snapped me back to reality. Told me in no uncertain terms that Scientology was absolute bullsh*t. I knew this, but was already mildly under the spell. Never looked back, but I sure remember that taste of relentless mental arm-twisting.
it sounds like you have made that evaluation: Will it do anything for me?
What is right with Scientology? You have suggested, "Good for them", to those that find something right with it. Let's say that what is good TO them is they can manipulate people using Scientology. Do you still have a feeling and wish such folks that manipulate in this way a pleasant approval like, "Good for them"?
dirty manipulating bastards, using the guise of their "religion" to feast upon weak willed people. i happen to know a person who was manipulated into giving basically every cent they had saved to these people. coincidentally, she is not a scientologist anymore.
I was heavily exposed to scientology in 1984; while dredging for Gold in the Klamath Basin.
I can tell you right now it is a scam, from the large amounts of money required to buy the books (discs or web access now more than likely) to the little black box they hook you up to; a holy amp meter of sorts.
I'm surprised Spock wasn't a scientologist, most Vulcans are.
Scientology is good stuff. Like a long hard climb in Yosemite, challenging, beautiful, and full of magic, also with rough spots and times you wonder what you are doing here but in the end completely satisfying.
30 years ago I cautiously approached the group, tested the water, then dove in. In very short order I was no longer a customer. I am a founding member.
I've met Mr Hubbard, I've read all the books. I've listened to hundreds of hours of recorded lectures. I've done just about every course, I've become skilled with the training. I have been helped greatly by this and I've been able to help others to live better lives through the use of this philosophy.
With Scientology I have been able to get along well with others, enjoy a rich and interesting life, get myself out of troubles, help others out of troubles, make more money and rock climb better.
No. It doesn't "make" you. It can help you climb a little better depending on how much of it you know and study.
It can help you over come fears. Dianetics is best for the that. It can help cure chronic unwanted sewing machine leg (Elvis syndrome). That is if practice and exercise isn't working.
I dare say that if you study it up well and practice it's philosophical discipline then you might climb a grade or two harder.
It is about life and how you as a being interact with the physical universe. Climbing is interaction with the physical universe in a very pure sense.
When you are climbing at a good hard level and challenging yourself with the determination to succeed, especially on lead or soloing, you can get to a place where the noise of mind just shuts off and you can just "be" and you are in complete control in a place where, strictly speaking, humans do not belong. That state of cause over body and the physical universe is what Scientologists are seeking with both feet on the ground.
Such a state climbers, especially good ones, achieve all the time for moments or even hours. A Scientologist is following a philosophical path trying to get there full time. Very much like the original Buddhist seeking state of Bodhi. It does work to get there through Scientology. But just like a good hard climb you have to work to get there. The more you practice the better you get at it.
This sounds like a very interesting book. According to the reviews the author refrains completely from overtly opinionating and treats the subject with "respectful language". However the net result is that any reasonable and rational examination, even one that strives for sme deference to it, destroys scientology as a straight up fraud and social blight, regardless of what ever value some individuals somehow glean from it.
It reminds me of certain self centered gun nuts. Sure you may gain some reasonable value out of your ownership and use of machine guns, but it makes you blind to what the broader net effect is. It is a societal blight with no rational justification for its existence. What ever value it offers can be found easily elsewhere or if you really must have a machine gun you can always man up and join the army or become a SWAT team member or something.
How do you reconcile the facts of scientology's negative impact on society with your personal positive experiences Spider?
How do you reconcile the facts of scientology's negative impact on society with your personal positive experiences Spider?
Bruce, I have not read the book you reference but I have read every single book of Scientology. Stacked up they all about the size of an encyclopedia.
Having been deeply involved in The Church of Scientology for over 30 years, I am not aware of any negative impact it has had on society. Quite the opposite.
I am an ordained minister of this church. I have helped build it with my time and money. I have helped guide it and grow it from inside and from out. My grown children work there at high levels of the organization. I have worked at high levels of the organization and I have many friends in all levels of the organization. If you ever had a problem with the group, I could help you get it sorted out.
Critics of Scientology:
1. Just heard some crap about it from an unreliable source and innocently enough believed that false information thinking the source was reliable.
2. Want what Scientology has but had some upset with individuals in the group who failed to help them get what they needed and wanted.
3. Are part of a special interest that is deeply threatened by what Scientology has to offer since it would eliminate the need for their livelihood, eg., tenured professors of psychiatry, drug dealers, psych-drug makers, astrologers, hypnotists, people who want to see you strictly controlled and not running around free having ideas and a good time in life. These are the guys producing the alarming books, web sites and other sources horror stories. Some of them are quite mad.
The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends.
It was started in the 1950s by a science fiction writer named L. Ron Hubbard in fulfillment to his declared aim to start a religion to make money. It is an offshoot to a method of psychotherapy he concocted from various sources which he named "Dianetics". Dianetics is a form of regression therapy. It was then further expanded to appear more like a religion in order to enjoy tax benefits. He called it "Scientology".
Scientology is a confused concoction of crackpot, dangerously applied psychotherapy, oversimplified, idiotic and inapplicable rules and ideas and science-fiction drivel that is presented to its members (at the "advanced" levels) as profound spiritual truth.
The Harm it Does to a Person
The results of applying their crackpot psychotherapy (called "auditing") is to weaken the mind. The mind goes from a rational state to an irrational one as the delusional contents of the subconscious mind are brought to the surface and are assumed to be valid. It also makes a person more susceptible to suggestion since it submerges the critical thinking faculties of the mind into a partial subconscious state. It results in a permanent light hypnotic trance and so from thenceforth that person can be more easily controlled. The person will, to a much greater extent, believe and do whatever they are told. And of course this is used to the full in persuading them to hand over further money and dedicating themselves further to the cult.
The results of applying their oversimplified and inapplicable rules in life is to lose the ability to think rationally and logically. A person loses the ability to think for themselves and so they lose the ability to challenge incorrect ideas. This makes them easier to control. It also isolates and alienates the person from society so that they withdraw from normal society and into their "Scientology" society. This further increases their susceptibility to the influence of their group. They end up being afraid of society, believing all society to be controlled by a group of drug companies, psychiatrists and financiers all of whom report to more remote masters. In other words they are in a state of mass paranoia. They therefore avoid reading newspapers and the like since they fear it will disturb their safe Scientology world. It is a downward spiral into madness.
The science fiction content of Scientology is revealed to them after they have reached the state they call "Clear", meaning freed from the aberrations of the mind. However, perhaps "brainwashed" would be a more applicable word to describe the mental state of someone who has survived the near entire delusional contents of their subconscious mind brought to the surface and presented to them as "truth". On the "advanced" levels (called OT levels) above the state of "Clear" they encounter the story of Xenu. Xenu was supposed to have gathered up all the overpopulation in this sector of the galaxy, brought them to Earth and then exterminated them using hydrogen bombs. The souls of these murdered people are then supposed to infest the body of everyone. They are called "body thetans". On the advanced levels of Scientology a person "audits out" these body thetans telepathically by getting them to re-experience their being exterminated by hydrogen bombs. So people on these levels assume all their bad thoughts and faulty memories are due to these body thetans infesting every part of their body and influencing them mentally. Many Scientologists go raving mad at this point if they have not done so already.
The "Ethics" Trap
On the surface the Church of Scientology seems reasonable. The insane content of it is only revealed to a person when the early stuff has done its work and made them more susceptible. After a short while a person "believes" that Scientology is doing them good. They are then persuaded to help their new-found group further by donating money and/or working for the organization for almost no money. Many people do exactly that.
"Ethics" is used to good effect to trap a person. A person’s natural tendency to do good is worked upon. Yes - they want to be more ethical, but what is ethical? This is where a clever trick is pulled! "Ethics" is redefined by Scientology in such a way that to be ethical is to be a better Scientologist and obey the "church". Young people, not yet made cynical through the machinations of life and politics, are very keen to contribute to the world and to be ethical. So the "ethics" trick works easily into persuading them to join the "church". Many of them join an elite group called the "Sea Org" where they become brainwashed slaves. There they work a hundred hour week for almost no pay. There they are subject to every cruel whim of their masters. It is a living hell that they endure because of the conditioning they have received and this now perverted sense of ethics that they have accepted. The "Sea Org" is the ultimate in brainwashed slavery. They are expected to work harder and harder to achieve ever higher targets of production. If they fail to meet their targets there are various penalties. One of them is to be put onto a diet of beans and rice and to miss sleep. Another is to be sentenced to a period on the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force). This is the equivalent to "hard labour". Such is the extent of their brainwashing that they actually write "success stories" when they complete their sentences.
Brainwashing Bites Back
There is no doubt at all that L. Ron Hubbard incorporated brainwashing techniques into Scientology to put people under his control. He even wrote a "brainwashing manual" which is still in existence today. However there was a cruel twist in his scheme. He fell victim of it himself. In creating his devoted slaves, the Sea Org, he created an audience that believed every word he said. Now L. Ron Hubbard had an over-active imagination plus delusions of grandeur. The negative feedback he would obtain by being part of normal society was replaced by the positive feedback from his devoted followers. Through this his imagination got the better of him and combined with his delusions of grandeur, his thinking became increasingly bizarre which, on acceptance, led on to more bizarre thinking and the idea that he and Scientology had the job of saving the entire universe He wanted to take over the world in order to further Scientology’s aims to save the universe and so branches of Scientology were set up to try to influence governments and gain positions where they could influence to world to a high degree. So what started out as a mass confidence trick backed up with brainwashing became a monstrous and insane organization with fantastic, fanatical ideals. Because of this change, the Church of Scientology survived the death of their founder. It is like a runaway monster machine that tramples on society and peoples lives that is very difficult to stop."...
Locker, I apologize on behalf of the Church for sending out someone who just wanted your money instead of giving you what ever it was you needed that might help you. We try to hire the best people we can but not all are perfect.
You can get just about every bit of Scientology for free at the public library or on line at www.scientology.org these days.
You just have to know the right Scientologist.
What should have happened.
Credit: Spider Savage
EDIT: Disclaimer - Will not make your dick bigger.
My stomach is sore from laughing. I was trying to pull two chains with one "weak" punch. Hot Dogs are not my interest or care to mention anything on them--I won't say anything on this after being once drug into such a topic because of the shape? of what I was describing.
I read some of lockers posts about how he experienced Neptune mtneering and he though their way was no way to run a business.
I know very little about the internal workings of Scientology but it doesn't take a very good reader to see that some of these posters have had bad experiences with that religion/business. Using locker's observation, 'its no way to run a business'--Why are these people with only slight contact with Scientology so disgruntled?
If wishes were horses beggars would get a free ride. Actually I have did a perusal of Scientology books. It takes a beggar to seek that kind of salvation as they offer. I do not think the world works the way they portray--simply hogwash for I don't know what. But there is freedom of the press--so any kind of BS is serviceable.
But I do not know the internal working of this group nor do I care much to know. And your knowledge of the group seems local meaning you observed what you seen but you post no global holistic view of how they perform.
Haven't looked into it but probably no better or worse than the rest. I consider all religions to be science fiction based.
Walking on water, transubstantiation, ascension into heaven, feeding the multitudes, getting your own planet, rising from the dead, virgin birth.....need I go on?
Relic, your cynicism and distrust shows weakness and a poor yearning for enlightenment.
If you had the balls to trust them and believe and clean dumpsters with toothbrushes you would attain a higher level.
and for a mere $12,032.99 (ten percent off til the end of the month!) you will then be eligible to attain an even higher level!
Spider Savage, you must forgive us this skepticism. You realize no doubt that to the outsider Scientology offers no more credibility than say Mormonism or a Bernie Maddof ponzi scheme, yet the only offer you provide to enlighten involves us engaging in a process that is well recognized as classic brain washing and indoctrination straight out of a Jim Jones kool aid camp. If you are really a 30 year vet and mid level management in the firm you should be able to refute the well substantiated criticisms with something more than a vague allegation of conspiracy by everything from drug pushers to Astrologers.
Do you really expect us to just take your assertions on the basis of how sincere and certain you express yourself?
After thirty years you have only read scientology literature and have no knowledge of the well documented and validated mountains of evidence that indicate fraud and human abuse? I would think you could refute it all quite easily with something more than that vague drivel you provided earlier today.
Or do you insist that first we must trust before we can know?
Same goes for you Sprock. Don't expect an ounce of respect if you treat us like idiots
Yes, people eveywhere say that they find their religious beliefs helpful, comforting....gives them hope, solace. Researchers also find in drug studies that people say that the placebo they are unknowingly taking is helpful, comforting....gives them hope, solace.
The real genius of Scientology as opposed to most normal profit seeking enterprises, is to identify as a religion. The Tax sheltering alone is worth its weight in gold but really that is just the tip of the iceberg in benefits. The real prize is the shelter from critical analysis. Not only do they get to plead "religious freedom" or some other default avoidance of basic human legal and ethical norms but if the sh#t ever really hits the fan prosecution of a religion under the Organized Crime designation are pretty much never going to happen. Even a flake bottom feeder like Scientology would immediately gain some powerful allies If push ever came to shove.
Not that they are not unnecessarily bold or anything. No need to tempt fate unless the chips are really down huh Sprock?
I mean thats why they pursue punitive litigation against individuals rather than big media, authors or journalists who have actually acquired some pretty incriminating evidence and would love the opportunity to demonstrate it, particularly in front of a court.
Fact is Sprock, I'm not the one selling anything. It is not up to the client to produce the evidence that compels us to trust enough to buy the product. That is the responsibility of the vendor. True there is a sucker born every minute but if you think that justifies the assertion that it is our duty to be suckers well you can go suck on it.
If you can refute the above documentary in a way that is more compelling than your usual blather then I might actually change my tune. Are you saying I ask too much of you?
Kirstie Alley Actor 12-Jan-1951 Rebecca from Cheers
Anne Archer Actor 25-Aug-1947 Fatal Attraction
Beck Musician 8-Jul-1970 Loser
Catherine Bell Actor 14-Aug-1968 Sarah MacKenzie on JAG
Karen Black Actor 1-Jul-1942 Five Easy Pieces
Trevor Bolder Guitarist 9-Jun-1950 Uriah Heap bassist
Brandy Musician 11-Feb-1979 R&B singer turned sitcom star
Nancy Cartwright Actor 25-Oct-1959 Voice of Bart Simpson
Erika Christensen Actor 19-Aug-1982 Caroline in Traffic
Chick Corea Jazz Musician 12-Jun-1941 Jazz keyboardist
Tom Cruise Actor 3-Jul-1962 Flamboyant Scientologist
Eddie Deezen Actor 6-Mar-1957 Mr. Potato Head in Wargames
Bodhi Elfman Actor 19-Jul-1968 Son of an Elfman
Jenna Elfman Actor 30-Sep-1971 Freaky chick on Dharma and Greg
Frank Kelly Freas Artist 22-Aug-1922 2-Jan-2005 Illustrator of science fiction and fantasy
Doug E. Fresh Rapper 17-Sep-1966 Rap artist
Soleil Moon Frye Actor 6-Aug-1976 Punky Brewster
Isaac Hayes Musician 20-Aug-1942 Black Moses, also Chef on South Park
Amy Heckerling Film Director 7-May-1954 Fast Times At Ridgemont High
Katie Holmes Actor 18-Dec-1978 Joey Potter on Dawson's Creek
L. Ron Hubbard Religion 13-Mar-1911 24-Jan-1986 Perpetrated Dianetics, Scientology
Jason Lee Actor 25-Apr-1970 Mall Rats
Juliette Lewis Actor 21-Jun-1973 Natural Born Killers
Chris Masterson Actor 22-Jan-1980 Francis on Malcolm in the Middle
Danny Masterson Actor 13-Mar-1976 Hyde on That 70's Show
David Miscavige Religion 1960 Leader of the Church of Scientology
Corin Nemec Actor 5-Nov-1971 Parker Lewis Can't Lose
Judy Norton-Taylor Actor 29-Jan-1958 The Waltons
Liz Phair Musician 17-Apr-1967 Exile in Guyville
Laura Prepon Actor 7-Mar-1980 Donna on That 70's Show
Lisa Marie Presley Musician 1-Feb-1968 Daughter of Elvis Presley
Priscilla Presley Actor 24-May-1945 Elvis's wife
Kelly Preston Actor 13-Oct-1962 What a Girl Wants
Leah Remini Actor 15-Jun-1970 Old School
Giovanni Ribisi Actor 17-Dec-1974 Sky Captain's Dex Dearborn
Mimi Rogers Actor 27-Jan-1956 Someone To Watch Over Me
Billy Sheehan Guitarist 19-Mar-1953 Former Mr. Big bassist
Ethan Suplee Actor 25-May-1976 Frankie on Boy Meets World
Gabor Szabo Jazz Musician 8-Mar-1936 26-Feb-1982 Innovative jazz guitarist
John Travolta Actor 18-Feb-1954 Saturday Night Fever
Greta Van Susteren Journalist 11-Jun-1955 CNN journalist, plastic surgery victim
Edgar Winter Musician 28-Dec-1946 Albino rock star
Woody Woodmansey Drummer c. 1951 Drummer for The Spiders From Mars
have not practiced for 40 years,
but i still remember how to run an L3rd list against a failed F/N after the 4th R3R command,
everybody at the Davis mission called him L Ron Hubcap,
we were just a bunch of hippies looking for the next big thing,
we got the tech and moved on, some stayed, but most returned to normal life,
Went to a great flamenco show tonight. I feel so much better about myself and the universe now. It was sort of organized and there was a collection and people were pretty rabid so I guess it was a religious experience.
What is true for you is what you have observed yourself
And when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know
What you know is what you know
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity And there
is no other integrity. Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all.
(L. Ron Hubbard, in “Ability” No. 125,1961.)
1. Indoctrination Step & clearing words (NOTs 4, 27 #2) _
2. Perception Step. (Optional) (NOTs 27 #3) _
3. D/L point when Pre-OT went Clear (NOTs 11, 12, 17 #4A,43) _
4. Handle misownership of pictures by Pre-OT (NOTs 11, 12,
27 #4A, 43) _ *
5. Handle BTs who went Clear (NOTs 11, 12, 27 #4A, 43) _
6. Handle BTs who went Exterior (NOTs 11, 27, 43) _
7. Handle BTs audited past erasure (NOTs 11, 12, 27, 43) _
8. Handle BTs who were overrun, & Copies (NOTs 11, 12, 27,
43) _ *
9. Repair BTs run on uncharged items (NOTs 11, 12, 39, 43) _
10. L3RF on messed up Dn chains (NOTs 39) _ *
11. Repair any goofed D/L on a cluster (NOTs 9, 12, 27 #4G) _ *
12. Repair of Past Auditing by Name of Auditor (Optional,
only if interested). (NOTs 11, 12, 13, 27 #4F,43) _ *
13. LDN OT III RB (NOTs 41) _
14. Repair List for Errors in Running OT III (NOTs 41, 42) _ *
15. Handle PTSness, if pplicable (NOTs 35) _ *
16. Handle R/Ses (if Pre-OT has R/Sed) (NOTs 36) _ *
17. Handle Mass Mistaken for Mass of Body (NOTs 15, 27 #5) _ *
18. Handle BTs/clusters Being Body Parts (NOTs 27 #6) _ *
19. Handle BTs On or Around the Body (NOTs 14, 27 #7) _ *
20. Generally Spotting and Blowing BTs/clusters
(NOTs 27 #8) _ *
21. Remnant Ridges (& partial blows) (NOTs 23, 27 #9, 45) _ *
22. Flow Assessment Recall Process (NOTs 27 #10, 28) _ *
23. Generally Addressing the Body (NOTs 27 #11) _ *
24. Specifically Addressing Chronic Somatics (NOTs 27 #12,
32) _ *
25. Mass That Kicks in when Pre-OT Looks into Body
(NOTs 27 #13) _ *
26. Perimeter Masses (NOTs 33) _ *
27. BTs with Mis-U words Rundown (NOTs 46) _ *
28. Cleaning the Body of BT/cluster Masses (NOTs 27 #14) _ *
29. Verify whether Pre-OT has achieved the full EP of
NED for OTs as described in NOTs 27, pages 8 & 11.
If so Declare. _
If not, locate the unflat/incomplete Pgm step(s)
and handle. (The NOTs Repair List - NOTs 24 - can be
used here, or any point on Pgm when there are unresolved
BTs or PBC.)
DO NOT DECLARE UNTIL PRE-OT HAS THE FULL EP.
* Shows where on Pgm Rest Points may be taken (ref: NOTS 29).
INTRODUCTION TO SUPER POWER
Super Power Rundown Series 0
The following is a list of materials which should make up a checksheet for students
learning to apply the Super Power Rundown materials. This background material means
it is vital to understand the full theory of the basics of restoring infinite powers to a being.
SCIENTOLOGY 0 THE BOOK OF BASICS
THE WHY IS GOD POLICY LETTER
THE ORGANIZATION SERIES POLICY LETTERS
THE PHOENIX LECTURES
ETHICS AND JUSTICE POLICY LETTERS
THE CONDITION BELOW CONFUSION
Super Power Rundown Series 1
The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint. Before one can know he is
below confusion, he usually has to realize that he is in a condition of no-condition.
Power is the ability to hold a position in space. The first action of creating space is
to assume a point from which to view that space. When a viewpoint has been knocked
around down through the time track by forces he believes have affected him, he tends to
lose his ability to maintain a position in space.
A being can assume the viewpoint of the first dynamic and attempt to take on all the
other dynamics, which eventually overwhelms him. To get a being rehabilitated into the
position of being able to operate at cause on all the dynamics, it is first necessary to get
him into a condition of being.
Therefore, the first action one takes in running the Super Power processes is to have
the person find a viewpoint.
The first command is:
“Find a viewpoint.”
This is run to F/N Cog VGIs.
Then one runs the other flows:
“Find another’s viewpoint,”
“Find a viewpoint that others are creating for others.”
“Find a viewpoint that you have created for yourself.”
A being can be so socked into the MEST universe that viewpoints have become solid
objects. Viewpoints are points from which one views universes. Solid objects are made
up of matter, energy, space and time. Space is created by a viewpoint; a viewpoint can
think the opposite.
Many times you will find a person who is inverted on the dynamics to such an extent
that he feel that MEST has created him rather than the other way around.
This process will get the being into a position of being able to handle the condition
below confusion and set him up for the next steps of the Super Power Rundown.
8TH DYNAMIC PROCESSES
Super Power Rundown Series 2
This is an unlimited process. Usually you will find the person to be inverted on the
dynamics. God is not an object. When one labels god with an identity one immediately
degrades the 8th dynamic into MEST terms. The 8th dynamic cannot be defined in terms
of MEST. It can only be defined in terms of infinity which the number 8 symbolizes.
When running this process start with the 8th dynamic. Then run through the first up
through the seventh and then stop. The purpose is to get the person to assume various
viewpoints on all the dynamics at one level and then bring the person back to the 8th
This process puts responsibility back into the person and sets him up for repair of
all earlier actions which brought about a dwindling spiral away from the 8th dynamic
This process is run even if the person goes exterior or has a big win. The only time
you would end off the process is on a floating tone arm because obviously you cannot get
any more reads on the meter.
While running this process if any upsets, overts, missed withholds occur one simply
cleans them up. On running OTs one deals with any body thetans, clusters, entities and
so forth as they show up. Remember to audit the person in front of you which means if
someone else shows up you must audit them out, set them free before you can set the
person in front of you, in the body, free.
Here are the commands in order:
1. Assume the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
2. Get the idea of another assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
3. Get the idea of others assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
4. Get the idea of you causing yourself to assume the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
5. Get the idea of your second dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
6. Get the idea of another second dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
7. Get the idea of other second dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
8. Get the idea of you causing all second dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
9. Get the idea of your third dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
10. Get the idea of another third dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
11. Get the idea of other third dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
12. Get the idea of you causing all third dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
13. Get the idea of your fourth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
14. Get the idea of another fourth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
15. Get the idea of other fourth dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
16. Get the idea of you causing all fourth dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
17. Get the idea of your fifth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
18. Get the idea of another fifth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
19. Get the idea of other fifth dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
20. Get the idea of you causing all fifth dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
21. Get the idea of your sixth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
22. Get the idea of another sixth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
23. Get the idea of other sixth dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
24. Get the idea of you causing all sixth dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
25. Get the idea of your seventh dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
26. Get the idea of another seventh dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th
27. Get the idea of other seventh dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
28. Get the idea of you causing all seventh dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
29. Get the idea of your eighth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
30. Get the idea of another eighth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
31. Get the idea of other eighth dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
32. Get the idea of you causing all eighth dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the 8th
At this point the person should be in very good shape, enough so that his earlier
injustices on the track can be easily accessible from the various viewpoints of the
The next step is to do the Ethics Repair List as per Super Power Rundown Series 3.
ETHICS REPAIR LIST
Super Power Rundown Series 3
The purpose of the Ethics Repair List is to return full power to a being by proofing
him up against injustices, counter postulates, failed purposes, counter purposes and evil
intentions across the dynamics.
These questions are asked in an unlimited way. In other words it applies to the whole
track and whatever the person comes up with you simply two way comm it earlier similar
to EP. This repair list is actually designed to set the person up to be able to do the actual
super power process. It cleans up the whole track on the subjects of ethics and justice.
Do not take up unreading questions. This list of questions is assessed like a regular
repair list except then when you get a read you stop and handle the question and its charge,
then repeat the same question to ensure no further reads or charge and then carry on with
assessing the list. The list does not have to be F/Ning through the whole list. Handle protest
or false reads accordingly.
1. Have you had a wrong intention?
2. Has another had a wrong intention?
3. Have others had wrong intentions?
4. Have you caused yourself to have wrong intentions?
5. Have you been given a wrong intention?
6. Have you given another a wrong intention?
7. Have others given others a wrong intention?
8. Have you caused yourself to be given a wrong intention?
9. Have you been given a wrong indication?
10. Have you given another a wrong indication?
11. Have others given others a wrong indication?
12. Have you caused yourself to be given a wrong indication?
13. Have you had a wrong postulate?
14. Has another had a wrong postulate?
15. Have others had wrong postulates?
16. Have you caused yourself to have wrong postulates?
17. Have you been given a wrong postulate?
18. Have you given another a wrong postulate?
19. Have others given others a wrong postulate?
20. Have you caused yourself to be given a wrong postulate?
21. Have you ever been in a wrong condition?
22. Has another ever been in a wrong condition?
23. Have others ever been in a wrong condition?
24. Have you ever caused yourself to be in a wrong condition?
25. Have you ever been assigned a wrong condition?
26. Has assigned another a wrong condition?
27. Have another ever assigned another or others a wrong condition?
28. Have you ever assigned yourself a wrong condition?
29. Have you ever applied a wrong formula for a condition?
30. Have you caused another to apply a wrong condition formula?
31. Have others caused others to apply a wrong condition formula?
32. Have you ever caused yourself to apply a wrong condition formula?
33. Has anyone ever disagreed with you?
34. Have you ever disagreed with someone?
35. Have others disagreed with others?
36. Have you caused yourself to be disagreeable?
37. Has someone ever caused you to disagree with another?
38. Have you ever caused anyone to disagree with someone else?
39. Have others caused others to disagree with others?
40. Have you caused yourself to disagree with yourself?
41. Have you ever been punished for disagreeing with someone?
42. Have you ever caused another to be punished for disagreeing with you?
43. Have others caused others to be punished for disagreeing?
44. Have you caused yourself to be punished for disagreeing?
45. Have you ever been lied about?
46. Have you ever lied about someone else?
47. Have others lied about others?
48. Have you lied to yourself about yourself?
49. Has anyone ever said that you were bad?
50. Have you ever said that anyone else was bad?
51. Have others said bad things about others?
52. Have you ever said bad things about yourself?
53. Have you ever disagreed with society?
54. Has society ever disagreed with you?
55. Have others disagreed with society?
56. Have you disagreed with yourself because of society?
57. Have you ever counter postulated the intentions of a society?
58. Has society ever counter postulated your intentions?
59. Have others ever counter postulated the intentions of a society?
60. Have you counter postulated your intentions because of society?
61. Have you ever disagreed with a spouse
62. Have you ever caused another to disagree with a spouse?
63. Have others caused others spouses to disagree with others?
64. Have you caused yourself to disagree with a spouse?
65. Has anyone ever caused you an injustice?
66. Have you ever caused another an injustice?
67. Have others ever caused others an injustice?
68. Have you ever caused yourself an injustice?
69. Have you ever been lied to?
70. Have you ever lied to another?
71. Have others lied to others?
72. Have you lied to yourself about another?
73. Have you lied to yourself about others?
74. Have you lied to yourself about family?
75. Have you lied to yourself about groups?
76. Have you lied to yourself about mankind?
77. Have you lied to yourself about the animal kingdom?
78. Have you lied to yourself about the physical universe?
79. Have you lied to yourself about spiritual beings?
80. Have you lied to yourself about the supreme being?
81. Have you ever agreed with someone verbally but disagreed mentally?
82. Have you caused another to agree with someone verbally but disagree mentally?
83. Have others caused others to agree with others verbally but disagree mentally?
84. Have you caused yourself to agree with others verbally but disagree mentally?
85. Have you ever been falsely accused?
86. Have you ever falsely accused another?
87. Have others falsely accused others?
88. Have you ever caused yourself to be falsely accused?
89. Have you ever been falsely imprisoned by another?
90. Have you ever falsely imprisoned another?
91. Have others ever caused others to be falsely imprisoned?
92. Have you caused yourself to be imprisoned because of others?
93. Have you ever been falsely imprisoned?
94. Has another been falsely imprisoned?
95. Have others been falsely imprisoned?
96. Have you caused yourself to be falsely imprisoned?
97. Have you ever been wrong?
98. Has another ever been wrong?
99. Have others ever been wrong?
100. Have you caused yourself to be wrong?
101. Have you ever been forced into something?
102. Have you ever forced another into something?
103. Have others forced others into something?
104. Have you forced yourself into something?
105. Have you ever been forced into a situation?
106. Have you ever forced another into a situation?
107. Have others forced others into a situation?
108. Have you caused yourself to be forced into a situation?
109. Have you ever been deceived?
110. Have you ever deceived another?
111. Have others ever deceived others?
112. Have you caused yourself to be deceived?
113. Have you ever been manipulated?
114. Have you ever manipulated another?
115. Have others ever manipulated others?
116. Have you caused yourself to be manipulated ?
117. Have you ever been made to stay in a location you didn’t want to be in?
118. Have you ever caused another to stay in a location they didn’t want to be in?
119. Have others ever caused others to stay in a location they didn’t want to be in?
120. Have you ever caused yourself to stay in a location you didn’t want to be in?
121. Have you ever been made to move away from a location you wanted to stay in?
122. Have you ever caused another to move away from a location they wanted to stay in?
123. Have others ever caused others to move away from a location they wanted to stay in?
124. Have you ever caused yourself to move away from a location you wanted to stay in?
125. Have you ever been given a wrong purpose?
126. Have you ever given another a wrong purpose?
127. Have others ever given others a wrong purpose?
128. Have you ever given yourself a wrong purpose?
129. Have you ever had a false purpose
130. Have you ever caused another to have a false purpose?
131. Have others caused others to have a false purpose?
132. Have you ever caused yourself to have a false purpose?
133. Do you have a wrong purpose?
134. Does another have a wrong purpose?
135. Do others have a wrong purposes?
136. Are you causing yourself to have a wrong purpose?
137. Do you have any counter purposes?
138. Does another have any counter purposes?
139. Do others have any counter purposes?
140. Are you causing yourself any counter purposes?
141. Have you ever been told you had a false purpose?
142. Have you ever told another they had a false purpose?
143. Have others told others they have had false purposes?
144. Have you ever told yourself that you had a false purpose?
145. Do you have a failed purpose?
146. Does another have a failed purpose?
147. Do others have a failed purpose?
148. Have you caused yourself to have a failed purpose?
149. Have you ever been told you had a failed purpose?
150. Have you ever told another they had a failed purpose?
151. Have others told others they have had failed purposes?
152. Have you ever told yourself that you had a failed purpose?
153. Are you evil?
154. Is another evil?
155. Are others evil?
156. Are you causing yourself to be evil?
157. Have you ever been told you are evil?
158. Have you ever told another they were evil?
159. Have others told others they are evil?
160. Have you ever told yourself that you are evil?
161. Has anyone ever made you do anything evil?
162. Have you ever made anyone else do anything evil?
163. Have others ever made others do anything evil?
164. Have you ever made yourself do anything evil?
165. Has anyone ever said that you did anything evil?
166. Have you ever said anyone else did anything evil?
167. Have others ever said others did anything evil?
168. Have you ever made yourself say anything evil?
169. Have you been wronged?
170. Have you wronged another?
171. Have others wronged others?
172. Have you caused yourself to wronged?
173. Have you been given an evil purpose?
174. Have you given another an evil purpose?
175. Have others given others evil purposes?
176. Have you caused yourself to have an evil purpose?
177. Have you ever been told you had an evil purpose?
178. Have you ever told another they had an evil purpose?
179. Have others told others they have had an evil purposes?
180. Have you ever told yourself that you had an evil purpose?
181. Have you ever done anything wrong?
182. Has another ever done anything wrong?
183. Have others ever done anything wrong?
184. Have you ever caused yourself anything wrong?
185. Is it wrong to be wrong?
186. Is it wrong for another to be wrong?
187. Is it wrong for others to be wrong?
188. Is it wrong for you to cause yourself to be wrong?
189. Is it wrong to be right?
190. Is it wrong for another to be right?
191. Is it wrong for others to be right?
192. Is it wrong to cause yourself to be right?
193. Have you ever been expelled from a group?
194. Have you ever expelled another from a group?
195. Have others ever expelled others from a group?
196. Have you ever caused yourself to be expelled from a group?
197. Have you ever been forced to leave a group?
198. Have you ever forced another to leave a group?
199. Have others ever forced others to leave a group?
200. Have you ever forced yourself to leave a group?
201. Has anything ever happened too fast for you?
202. Have you ever caused anything to happen too fast?
203. Have others caused anything to happen too fast?
204. Have you caused yourself to have something happen too fast?
205. Has anything ever happened too slow for you?
206. Have you ever caused anything to happen too slow?
207. Have others caused anything to happen too slow?
208. Have you caused yourself to have something happen too slow?
209. Have you ever been given an arbitrary?
210. Have you ever given another an arbitrary?
211. Have others ever given others an arbitrary?
212. Have you caused yourself any arbitraries?
213. Have you been given an absolute?
214. Have you ever given another an absolute?
215. Have others ever given others an absolute?
216. Have you caused yourself any absolutes?
217. Have you ever been given a false law?
218. Have you ever given another a false law?
219. Have others ever given others any false laws?
220. Have you caused yourself any false laws?
221. Have you forgotten anything?
222. Have caused another to forget anything?
223. Have others caused others to forget anything?
224. Have caused yourself to forget anything?
THE EIGHTH DYNAMIC VIEWPOINT
Super Power Rundown Series 4
After the person has completed the condition below confusion by finding viewpoints,
the eighth dynamic processes and the Ethics Repair List, one then has the person
go back to the 8th dynamic process with the following commands:
1. Get the idea of your 8th dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
2. Get the idea of another 8th dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the 8th
3. Get the idea of other 8th dynamics assuming the viewpoint of the 8th dynamic.
4. Get the idea of you causing all 8th dynamics to assume the viewpoint of all 8th
This now expands the persons viewpoint immensely and sets the person up for the
final processes on the Super Power Rundown.
Remember to run each flow to F/N, Cog, VGIs. Only end the session in the event
of a floating TA and for no other reason.
THE ACTUAL SUPER POWER PROCESS
Super Power Rundown Series 5
The final step of the Super Power Rundown is to give back to the person his full
potential power as a being. All prior steps on the Super Power Rundown have been
designed to get a person into a state wherein he is set up to regain his ability to handle
infinite power. These processes are run just like any other process with full F/N, Cog VGIs
as the EP. If the person goes exterior continue to run the processes. If there is a dial wide
F/N continue to run the process. The only time you would end off the process or the session
is if the person has a persistent floating TA.
At some point during the running of this series of processes the person will reach
a state wherein they are speechless. They will laugh with wild abandon. Their TA will be
floating! They will probably also be exterior and will be unable to communicate in words
what they are experiencing. This is the end result of the Super Power Rundown. It is rare
for this to occur prior to the running of the last flow of this series of processes, but if it
occurs then acknowledge the win.
One thing the auditor must not do is interrupt the person while in the middle of this
major win or during the laughter. Otherwise it will invalidate the win. The auditor simply
maintains his TRs and lets the person have his win. Do not end the session until the
laughter stops as this will also tend to invalidate the person and his win.
The laughter can go on for some time. Perhaps up to an hour. Be sure and just be there
with the person during this win and not end the session until the laughter has subsided.
The following is the last series of processes one runs on the Super Power Rundown:
1. Get the idea that you have infinite power.
2. Get the idea that another has infinite power.
3. Get the idea that others have infinite power.
4. Get the idea that you can cause yourself to have infinite power.
5. Get the idea that you have been given infinite power.
6. Get the idea that another has been given infinite power.
7. Get the idea that others have been given infinite power.
8. Get the idea that you have caused yourself to be given infinite power.
9. Get the idea that you can give another infinite power.
10. Get the idea that another can give you infinite power.
11. Get the idea that others can give others infinite power.
12. Get the idea that you can cause yourself infinite power.
13. Get the idea that you are infinite.
14. Get the idea that another is infinite.
15. Get the idea that others are infinite.
16. Get the idea that you can cause yourself to be infinity.
Make sure to run only the reading process and check for interest. Do not run any
process on the person in which he is not interested.
yea, sprocker. i got a blister on my scroll finger now.
i think we've finally gotten spider to put some cards on the table, but there's a couple things wrong with his story.
one is the timeline. hubbard started this mofo in the early 50s. doesn't quite jibe with spider being in on the ground floor.
perhaps we've got a spider game going here. he caught the artful locker in a pretty web. watch him riggle and jiggle.
and then we hear that spider's "i like the christian life" thread a few months back was merely a "sympathy" gesture to the poor, persecuted christians whose beliefs are likewise ridiculed mercilessly on supertopo. i'll revisit all that after my blister heals.
let's suppose that chris really is a scientologist. let's suppose that, along with every other "religion" of any stature in the world, that it's basically a cargo cult on steroids, the result of contacts--carl sagan contact-type contacts--which genuinely happened--that is, if you can think of ufo contactee and abductee experiences as "genuine". i'll tell you one thing for sure. the people these things happen to sure think they're genuine, and they easily convince others of it.
people who have gotten high up in scientology, and then quit, have reported the "inside" story of mother hubbard's ET contacts. i'll bet you'll find the same sort of stuff in 2,000-year-old unpublished "scripture" behind the heavily guarded doors of the vatican library. it isn't really very exciting any more. swing low sweet chariot, adios ezikiel, half a dozen spielberg movies ... and yawn.
Good morning. I do have somewhat of a life outside of Supertopo. (But I do look forward to retirement so I can be here 24/7.)
Doc Sprock was doing a good job saying what I would say yesterday but then late last night he went completely off the rails. As he says, he has not been on board in nearly 40 years but he has tasted the Kool-Aid. He is definitely not on the inside and would be booted quickly for posting the garbage he digs up and dumps here. Practicing Scientology requires a discipline that he does not have. But thanks for giving it a try Doc. And thanks for the earlier posts.
The fact is Scientology is great stuff. All this horror and crazy crap written about it is 180 degrees opposite.
What more could I do than state my experience. You have to see for yourself directly if you are going to have a valid opinion.
Newspaper writers make no money writing that Mr Savage got into Scientology and it helped him quit drugs (which were really bringing him down) and achieve his personal spiritual goals far beyond all expectations. ZZZZZZZZZZ
A much better story is the a gullible fool was brainwashed into doing all sort of embarrassing things and was bilked out of lots of money. Better throw in some deaths, and wild stories about aliens to make it even more crazy. Ah,, there is a something that will sell.
Brainwashing is when you give up your own personal integrity and believe whatever you are told.
Scientology is the exact opposite. Scientology helps you to stand up, be your self, see for yourself what is true and what is not. Hubbard demanded that you think for yourself (Scientology; The Fundamentals of Thought).
The following short video was made by a friend of mine who I took climbing in Yosmite when he was a kid. Many of the other people pictured are friends of mine and one helped me put up the route Vestal Virgin at Texas Canyon.
Scientology is the realest thing you will ever find in this crazy world.
Believe it... or, Not.
I'm going climbing now. After that I'm going down to Sunset to work on my next Scientology course. You are always welcome join me. I'll make sure you have a good time.
The fact is Scientology is great stuff. All this horror and crazy crap written about it is 180 degrees opposite.
Oh. Well I'm glad you cleared that up for us. You hear that? There actually is nothing wrong with Scientology after all.
We can take it on the thirty year veterans word and now that our trust in him has been miraculously restored, we are invited to go sample the kool aid because that is the only way to really understand.
You sound a bit like Mitt Romney telling us that corporations are people. He sounded quite certain and sincere as well, just a little short on the facts but who needs facts when you have faith?
OK so it seems that even the thirty year veteran is incapable of a logical and fact based rebuttal to the well documented mountain of damning evidence against Scientology and he clearly is more than happy to write off the complainants as unsophisticated malcontents who never had the cajones to hang with the big boys in the first place.
Freedom of Religion = License to Rip Off the Gullible
Give me all your money, then I'll make sure you'll get to go to the Happy Place when you die where you'll be reunited with all your family and loved ones. All the neurotic dependency games you played as a child will go on forever and ever.
i say go easy on chris. he's a decent guy, and it took more than the usual guts to "come out" about this on here. stop your attention whoring about scientology and try to have a dialogue with him. we might learn something. he might learn something.
speaking of chicks, when i worked for berlitz translations, we had one hot blonde babe in the graphic arts department who was, unfortunately, a scientologist. all the jokes about it stopped when she was around. say what you will about this cult, they manage to attract some beautiful people.
what did we call the general public, Wogs was a word i remember, Normies,
if you want to get the best and skip the rest, and for cheap, this is what you do,
skip the clearing course and OT levels as the "price per benifit" tends to get worse as you move up the ladder.
they figure if you made it that far, you can surly sport down some big bucks for the advanced levels,
maybe even take a road trip to saint hill if your really loaded,
well, us hippies and drunks at the Kappa Sigma frat house at UC Davis we Required to take the 50 dollarr Comm Course down on Olive Drive, right across the street from Murder Burger,
ok, so it was not like i got talked into it by some street seizmologists, i was getting pressure from the Frat Ratsm so i took it,
but being a broke college student i could not afford the 600 dollar Dianetic Auditors course, or the $1500 dollar Life Repair, or the $4,000 Drug Rundown, so the option they give you is to join the staff.
now i recieved No auditing from the center, only Training.
there ar two ladders in scientology, the training side, and the auditing side where you go OT,
so we train and audit each other, pretty slick, make high priced shrinks out of Normies and have a self perpetuatung machine,no PhD in Shrikology required,
L Ron was a genius in many was, and us Frat boys could smell a few things we didn't like, we were the worst skeptics in town, that is why very few of us did anything more than the Comm course and maybe the PRD, which is the Primary Rundown where you sit there with a dictionary and look up 10,000 words and define them visually with a Demo Kit, which is a can full of junk, you use the objects in the Phicial Universe to Demo out the concept,which is another concept that works extremely well.
now why these frat Rats at Kappa Sig took Seizmology, I will never know, worst frat on campus, latter shut down for gang rape and hazing,
ok, here is what you do if you want the best for cheap,
buy the books online for the Study Course, the PRD, buy Self Analysis, and steal as much info off the net on auditing up to The Grades, Level 4.
everything above the grades was L Ron just keeping product coming down the liner as people ran out of stuff to pay for,
you get the most benifit on everything up to The Grades.
books can be had for 5 bucks used, so you can read good stuff for about 20 bucks and move on to Budhism or the next best thing.
oh, and i took apart my emeter, those are a total rip, so i bought mine used for 200.
now they sting you for mega bucks, so if you need the schematic, forget it, i lost it a long time ago,
it really is a good circuit, works very well,
yoiu can watch your thoughts move the needle around, tripped me out,
Mary Sue Hubbard was Hot!
but we frat boys did not like L Ron cruising around on that huge boat, those things are a money chewing machine and we knew where the money w2as coming from,
felt that if he really loved humanity, he would have lowered prices and bought a smaller boat, does anybody have a pic of that thing?
Interesting story there. So your fellow frat boys pressured you into Siesmologly? That sounds super weird. Don't frat boys usually pressure you into chugging beers and stuff like that, and not joining a cult?
Maybe in Canuckistan we roll a little different.
Oh that documentary BK linked had footage of the boat. It was ridiculous. Hubbard seemed to suit his boat.
let me vouch for chris a little bit. we climbed together once, musta been back in the 90s, something up rattlesnake canyon during an scma trip. he still hangs out with that group and has an abiding interest in the mountains. he's probably a pretty good backcountry telemarker as well, although he keeps talking about going skiing with me and it never seems to get past the talk phase. i think perhaps there's been the matter of clearing some air first, and i'd very much like to pursue that on this thread.
chris is also responsible for a number of well-conceived sport routes in southern california. i've climbed some of his good lines in texas canyon. no, he isn't a bigtime hardman. i don't think he's put up much beyond 5.10s, but a solid sport developer is appreciated by the whole climbing community around here, and chris gets kudos from me for that. we get a lot of blab on supertopo about the best climbing areas, as well as a lot of criticism of the crummy rock we mess with around los angeles. the days of casually jumping in the car and driving 600 miles every weekend ought to be over. the close-in routes are a tremendous asset to our city population, and chris is one of an important group which has given this attention.
chris has also been a welcome, if somewhat cryptic, presence on supertopo. i'm not about to subscribe to scientology, but he tends to keep his cool better, and address most issues with a lot more class, than the common denominator. he also has a sense of humor which comes through in what he writes. your average supertopo buffoon only seems able to express himself by cutting up magazine pictures. i will stand by this bro because he has something to say, he says it well, and he doesn't make an effing pest of himself.
bump for spider savage. has he gone off on an extended road trip? or is he finally pushing that 5.11 line at texas canyon?
just a few side notes on scientology.
1. bill briggs is a lifelong scientologist. from his hall of fame citation:
Bill Briggs is regarded as the father of big mountain skiing in the United States. He was able to imagine and believe it possible to ski in places where no one else had skied before. His first ski descent of Wyoming’s Grand Teton on June 15, 1971 is regarded by most as the single crystallizing moment in American big mountain skiing. He also completed the first high ski traverse in the Canadian Rockies and the first modern ski descent of Mount Rainier.
briggs is also a very respectable rockclimber and banjo picker, and a personal friend of bob dylan's from the days they both played greenwich village coffeehouses.
2. i recently came across the work of paul twitchell, who was in scientology during its early days in the 1950s. he seemed to get right up there to the top, but then he went on to other things, incorporating a possibly imaginary excursion into tibetan mysticism into his "eckankar" religion.
i think there are some interesting parallels between twitchell, carlos castaneda, the "transmigrated" lobsang rampa, and a contemporary entity named anastasia (no, not a certain greek anastasia of mammarian fame) who seems to have captured the imagination of many russians. all are insightful adventures into spirituality which are arguably entirely fictional. arguably.
3. as long as we're talking climbers and cultism, someone posted a photo awhile back of jim bridwell sitting at a picnic table at camp 4 reading a book that looks a lot like a bible. "that's jim's bible," someone commented. it isn't quite that simple. jim's "bible" is a book called urantia, which is yet another opening into realms where many fear to tread.
The charge against scientology is not that assorted individuals are not capable of extracting good value out of its various disciplines or philosophical perspectives. The Damning condemnation is that it as an institution leverages those "values" in a predatory manner on a significant proportion of it adherents. I say predatory in that if it ever meets any challenge from within its impulse is to destroy rather than go for the win on reason and persuasion. As an institution it function as a ruthless and cruel authoritarian tribal power structure that preys up-on its weak and rewards those that cheer lead and are capable of turning a blind eye.
Are you offering Bill Briggs as some sort of legitimizing factor? What difference does it makes if any celebrity such as Briggs, Travolta or Bridwell lends there name to anything they are not validated as being particularly expert or respected for? So he set the benchmark for extreme skiing. What the hell does that have to do with the subject? I personally know a fair number of cutting edge skiers and the last thing I'd do is translate that expertize into any kind of all encompassing wisdom.
Thats about as stupid as Ted Nugent being given credibility for his opinions on social policy or interpreting the meaning of the Constitution
Well said Bruce, it could be a brilliant philosophy, but how many brilliant philosophers started their own cults, let alone tricked people into joining by not disclosing who they are to the recruits. They seem to prey on naive and depressed people, certainly not a unique attribute of cults and religions. This group has a thousand red flags, even if it wasn't based on science fiction.
half the people who came in were friends of people already in who thought it was cool enuff to invite their buddies,
the other half was raw meat, pulled in from the campus,
a contrast to the people involved can be seen with the Davis Mission and the Downtown Sac Mission.
Davis was full of lonely college students away from home for the first time, they made very good seizmologists because they were smart enough to get into UC, which means that they did not have any heavy drug addictions or Serious alcohol problems, yet.
now compare that with downtown Sactown, winos laying in the sidewalks of alkali flats, homeless freaks wandering back and forth to Loaves and Fishes, these were the denizens of the deep who were dredged up in order to meet the monthly goal for new pre-clears,
so when we had a group graduation with Sac, i was very happy to get the heck out of there and back to the Normal type seizmologists,
so your mileage may vary depending on where you are located,
vice pres from LA came up and told us that Davis was very special, and probably the best mission in the united states, so the people do make a difference,
we had some pretty good parties every sat night, people gettin drunk, dancin, pickin up fellow seizmologist chicks for the night, havin fun and getting the tech at the same time, so our image to the public was very different from waht was actually going on,
back then at least, i would probably not get involved in the church today, simply because it don't have the same vibe,
The 1930's traverse must have been valley bottom huh? Pretty cool none the less. The first high Jasper - Louise was chic scott, charlie Locke, Don Gardiner and one other guy I can't remember. It wouldn't surprise me that one of them is a scientologist but what that has to do with anything I'll never know.
You know Tony I'm sure Spider is a nice guy - I have no reason to doubt it. However that makes it all the more imperative that he takes the time to explain how he reconciles the crimes of the institution of Scientology with his material / spiritual gains from the same institution. If there is a reasonable explanation I'd love to hear it. If after a period of time he choses not to it is reasonable for us to conclude that he really dosn't want to.
The fact is that identifying as a religion of power and influence buys you a stay out of jail card. Can you imagine a corporation or some secular organization like Girl guides behaving such as Scientology? They would and should be dragged before a court of law and destroyed. We're willing to see Lance Armstrong and possibly even the whole Biking thing be held to account but Scientology? Its hands off the sacred Blah blah.
Can anyone explain to me why this is right?
Look at the video below and explain to me why the Christian Evangelicals are allowed any degree of respect and admiration let alone held fully to account for their direct involvement in Ugandan politics