Categories
UrqBones

Old Questions…New Answers? 02

OLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?    02

Old Answers: First of three IVy Excerpts

In the introduction to this new series which I’m calling “Old Questions..New Answers?”, I undertook to look at some basic questions about how Scientology delivered on some of its basic promises. That post posed the questions and concluded by saying that I had already written on matters relevant to the questions and would follow that first post with a “reprint” of an article published back in the early 2000s, before adding some new material.

I have divided the old article into three excerpts for ease of reading. And I have left the text alone except for relatively unimportant changes. In the first excerpt I have added some brief notes and they are inserted in square brackets and printed in italics in a small font.

In the title of the old article, quoted below, the words “Inside Scientology” reference the name of the first part of the book under review, A Piece of Blue Sky, the 1990 edition; I was using that name as the jumping-off point for my article. I should probably also explain that “IVy on the Wall” was the name of the regular column I wrote for the journal. [I’d wanted to call it “IVy off the Wall” but another’s superior judgment prevailed, sad to say.] And in those years, I lived in the USA, although no longer.

IVy on the Wall

by Ken Urquhart, USA

Outside “Inside Scientology”, Chapter Five in a consideration of A Piece of Blue Sky, the 1990 book by Jon Atack

[First of three excerpts from the Chapter]

WE HAVE SO FAR [that is, in Chapters One to Four of KU’s response to Atack’s book] considered the externals, the Acknowledgments, the Preface, and the essay “What is Scientology?”, which introduce and begin Jon Atack’s book, A Piece of Blue Sky. We come now to Part One of the book, which bears the title: “Inside Scientology, 1974-1983”. It has four chapters headed, respectively: “My Beginnings;” “Saint Hill”; “On to OT”; “The Seeds of Dissent”.

These chapters outline Jon’s introduction to and involvement with the subject and his departure from it. They include fair summaries of Dianetic engram running, of the basic Training Routines (but here the summary betrays misunderstanding of their purpose), and of the OT Levels. In these chapters we also get some of Jon’s experiences with and observations of the people and practices. They are sharply drawn, interesting, and valuable.

In the early days of the organization (or movement, as it was more then), it had an energy and a hope one could personally and freely respond to. I first came into contact with Scientology through a family friend in 1956. Over time the energy and hope became force and franticness. One no longer responded freely and personally either as staff or public; the force and franticness pulled one in or spat one out. The Scientology world had changed completely over the years.

Jon’s Scientology world

The picture Jon paints of the Scientology world he became a loyal member of, starting in 1974, is mostly negative, of course. This is, after all, an exposé. And there is plenty to be negative about. The picture is entirely credible as well as pitiful. Just about everything that Jon says about the Scientology world he experienced rings very true:

  1. Jon went to an official Scientology organization in the North of England to buy training courses so he could get a job at the Birmingham Mission. The registrar at the org was “insistent and belligerent”. And, “he seemed to take an immediate dislike to me”. I have come across such org welcomes myself.
  2. A Saint Hill staff member who lived in the same house as Jon had done OT levels and claimed OT powers – such as being able to pick the winning horse (while living in poverty). Another ate only bananas because he had “heard” that L. Ron Hubbard was researching carbohydrate diets. These are behaviours characteristic of some Scientologists, as I have observed.
  3. Due to a mix-up in court paperwork, Jon received a summons for non-payment of a court fine, a matter apparently easily resolved. He needed the Ethics Officer’s permission to take time off his Saint Hill training course to go take care of it. The Ethics Officer, an “intense and overweight” woman, “wore knee-length boots with her dishevelled Sea Org uniform”. She told him she was removing him from the course because he was a “criminal” and explained that even for a parking ticket she would bar the offender from Scientology courses until it was paid. I remember the person as Jon describes her. I can hear her voice and its tones. I can accept his account of her reaction to his request as authentic.
  4. Quoting Jon: “At Saint Hill, the Ethics Officers were daunting, overworked, and unsmiling. Saint Hill registrars…were a little too sugary and it was obvious they wanted money. The constant and unavoidable discussions with Sea Org recruiters at SH were wearing. Virtually everyone there was too busy trying to save the world to create any genuine friendships.” All this is true.
  5. Jon writes that he had “serious reservations about the increasingly high prices and the incompetence of the organization. I [Jon] simply could not understand how Hubbard’s research into administration had created such a bumbling and autocratic bureaucracy. Although staff worked themselves to a frazzle, they seemed to achieve very little. Then there were the little Hitlers who used their positions to harass anyone who did not fit neatly into their picture of normality.” The monthly price increases were an insanity that LRH originated all by himself. I don’t think LRH had any idea of how bumbling and autocratic was the bureaucracy which infected the organizations; had he been on the site to experience it he would have exploded in fury and shaken everyone up very drastically. Yes, we did work ourselves to a frazzle and usually achieved very little. And Yes, “little Hitler” is a good name for such nuisances, of whom there were far too many. [And a few of them were far from puny.]

This concludes the first of the three excerpts of Chapter Five of the IVy series, “A Consideration of A Piece of Blue Sky”, reprinted here in 2018 on the urqbones blogIn the next excerpt, which begins with the subtitle “LRH Viewed as Source of All”, I attempt an analysis of some of LRH’s less successful modes of management.

*     *     *     *     *

Eleven chapters of this IVy series (there are twelve altogether, with the final chapter yet to be written) are available at:

http://www.freezoneearth.org/ivy/bluesky/index.htm

and the IVy website is here: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/%20

The 2013 edition of A Piece of Blue Sky is offered on Amazon UK:

and the original of 1990:

For amazon.com, the respective links are:

N.B. These links are not ‘affiliate’ links and I will in no way profit from any purchase using them.

“Outside ‘Inside Scientology’” is reproduced by kind permission of the IVy publisher, Antony Phillips. Thank you, Antony.

© Kenneth G. Urquhart, 2001, 2018CATEGORIESOLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?UNCATEGORIZEDTAGSCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTL.RON HUBBARDLRHLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORSCIENTOLOGYSCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

2 Replies to “Old Questions…New Answers? 02”

  1. Vinay AgarwalaI remember purchasing the book “A Piece of Blue Sky” in the early 90s and reading it. I bought the book very surreptitiously and felt guilty about reading it. But I was undergoing a change of mind then. It was part of sorting mtself out after leaving the Sea Org. At that time I had not left Scientology yet. I was simply keeping my distance from it.Yes, the above quotes describe part of my experience as well of the autocratic managment by Hubbard that was full of arbitraries. The abritraries came from the heavy push by Hubbard. The staff resorted to arbitraries in order to “make it go right” in response to the heavy push.Hubbard was in a great hurry, indeed! I sometimes wonder wat that great hurry was. What was he trying to achieve?He was definitely trying to achieve the broad recognition of Scientology. He definitely achieved that.He was trying hard to make Scientology self-sufficient as an organization, finamcially, of course. He definitely achieved that too.But somewhere along the way, in this scramble of rush, Scientology lost its soul. Was Hubbard aware of this? Probably not. He was too interiorized in has case.That tells me about the toll that LRH took on his research on OT Levels because of his lack of OBNOSIS.
  2. chuckbeattyx75to03“….Over time the energy and hope became force and franticness….”Hope was a powerful factor that followers of any new group provide that fuel themselves, freely, and the new group they get into takes that energy from them.When the members have their hopes bashed up, it’s kind of a big start change stop of people’s hopes, for what that group was claiming to provide.Some people got into and out of Scientology in various times getting what they came for.The bureaucracy Hubbard created, and then the ethics rules and policies just kept adding to the difficulty of being staff and forcing this whole “positive” activity along.Makes me reflect that weren’t you, Ken, in the original David Mayo group, you’re in that video, and I remember in that video several of you Apollo vets (and older timers than that even) reflect on the Mayo group’s atmosphere intentionally dropping all the heavy bureaucracy and ethics.————-The Max Hauri Ron’s Org chapter in Switzerland, likewise, I note dropped that whole ethics bureaucracy crap.I today appreciate all the history of you oldest timers who lived Scientology important history.Everything you write Ken is good for those who try deeply understand their Scientology history.There will be future Scientologists, I think due to new persons who aren’t aware of all the details of life, who will become Scientologists in the future.IT’s good for old Scientologists like you Ken, to tell your important history.

Comments are closed.

Categories
UrqBones

Old Questions…New Answers? 03

OLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?     03

Old Answers: Second of three IVy Excerpts

In the introduction to this new series which I’m calling “Old Questions..New Answers?”, I undertook to look at some basic questions about how Scientology delivered on some of its basic promises. That post posed the questions and concluded by saying that I had already written on matters relevant to the questions and would follow that first post with a “reprint” of an article published back in the early 2000s, before adding some new material.

I have divided the old article into three excerpts for ease of reading. And I have left the text alone except for relatively unimportant changes, mostly punctuation.

In the title of the old article, quoted below, the words “Inside Scientology” reference the name of the first part of the book under review, A Piece of Blue Sky, the 1990 edition; I was using that name as the jumping-off point for my article. I should probably also explain that “IVy on the Wall” was the name of the regular column I wrote for the journal. [I’d wanted to call it “IVy off the Wall” but another’s superior judgment prevailed, sad to say.] And in those years, I lived in the USA, although no longer.

IVy on the Wall

by Ken Urquhart, USA

Outside “Inside Scientology”, Chapter Five in a consideration of A Piece of Blue Sky, the 1990 book by Jon Atack

[Second of three excerpts from the Chapter]

LRH Viewed as Source of All

Jon was not alone in not understanding how someone whom he accepted as being exceptional, LRH, could create such a bumbling, autocratic bureaucracy. It seems to have been a fairly common delusion that everything any staff member did was at the express instigation of LRH himself, and that LRH was aware of all that was being done all the time. The truth was that he had little awareness of what was being done in his name and that staff had great freedom to impress on others that the source of their bumbling was LRH himself. From my personal experience of LRH in his dealings with subordinates on the ship, and earlier at Saint Hill, I am certain that had he been on the ground and seen for himself what people were doing in his name and claiming that he was responsible for, he would have been unrestrainedly outraged. He would have torn into those bumblers like a tornado; they wouldn’t have known what had hit them. Unfortunately, he didn’t go there and he didn’t do that.

However, the bumbling was not altogether the bumblers’ fault. A great deal of LRH’s “research into administration” was valid and valuable; some of it was nonsense. Likewise, some of his management style was valid and admirable, and some of it was nonsense. The nonsense enabled the bumbling and autocratic bureaucracy; it empowered the little Hitlers; it institutionalized the bureaucracy and the Hitlers; it gave them ammunition for self-protection.

[NB. Lest it appear that I lay all blame on LRH for the way in which his organizations developed – or deformed, one might say – I should clarify here my opinion that the evolution (or deformation) was a cooperative effort. The sanity in what LRH set out to do in itself triggered people. Any nonsense in his behaviour would have triggered further material. The activity triggered people in the environment. Experience tells us that triggered people working closely together usually trigger each other. These crosscurrents and interactions triggered everybody, including LRH; he responded with some sanity and some further nonsense. And so it went, around and around, up and down, in and out, across, over, under, amongst, and through. He coined two words for it later: over-restimulation and cross-restimulation. The presence and influence of these two factors throughout Scientology – and throughout Planet Earth, indeed – affect all manifestations of sanity within Scientology (and over all of Planet Earth) but reduce or alter any underlying sanity only when we agree that they do so. It is a great sadness that people like Jon Atack see something of the sanity within Scientology and then come to agree that the insanity within the subject utterly overrules the sanity.]

Validity vs. Nonsense

I can’t undertake a review here of the policy LRH issued as to what is valid and what is nonsense, and I don’t know that I would be qualified to do that anyway. But as a bumbling insider who had a position both central to but paradoxically mostly external to the nonsense, I have opinions about what was the nonsense in LRH’s management style and how the nonsense helped to pervert what was valid:

  1. LRH seemed to know and trust no other organizational structure than that of the military model – with its rigid verticalities of authority and consequent horizontal infighting over practice and performance. At the top of the structure is the commander-in-chief, whose word is law throughout the structure. The structure owes him instant and exact compliance, without exception. Any disagreement with, or opposition to, or non-compliance with the commander’s word is treasonous.

LRH’s words as commander were many – very many – but not well prioritized. He had a very bad habit of originating one high-priority project after another, so that few could come to completion; the resources allocated to the last urgent handling would soon be ripped off to man up the latest new one. Over the years, a new policy would contradict an older one that would remain in force but perhaps not actively. LRH created volumes of policy that anyone could explore. The bureaucrat could always find in those volumes a line or page or two that supported his/her position and attacked a rival’s; bullying personalities could set themselves up as mirror-image copies of the commander and few would dare to give them the lie. The game in any bureaucracy can become survival within the structure at others’ expense and with minimal expenditure of energy in only the absolutely unavoidable change. The professionals working at the public level, those who knew their jobs and why they were doing them, fought a losing battle with their own side.

The higher up, the more intense this confusion and the infighting which “resolves” it. At the Commodore’s Staff level, close to the commander, the professionals had to do their jobs despite the elbowing for attention and favour, the jealousy, the manipulations and intrigues, the stabs in the back, and the propitiation, of the dedicated courtiers. [Perhaps this phenomenon took place at all levels, in parallel.]

All the same, the core of professionals, the ones who had seen in Scientology something of real value to real life, wanted that real value to reach out into the world. They wanted that for the world’s sake, and they worked very, very hard to bring it about. Had LRH remained true to his earlier intentions, the result of their work would have been a proud and effective, helpful organization.

  1. As he aged, LRH could not tolerate the idea that anyone else could do a good enough job to actually take over from him, despite the obvious fact that he could not go on forever. He overloaded himself in denying others responsible authority to act. He prevented the most able around him from developing into future leaders. He kept his management levels in constant frustration and turmoil. And he ruled them by fear of his wrath. He created incompetence around himself instead of potential leadership. We all got competent as courtiers and bureaucrats.
  2. LRH always knew best, even when the size and scale of the organization removed him from contact with the realities of life in the organizations delivering to the public. The people on the front lines never knew what radical changes would hit them next. They were constantly ordered this way and that as though what they had been doing beforehand was wrong and their fault. He created incompetence in his remote offices and centres.
  3. LRH encouraged staff, despite all the above, to feel that they were part of an elite group with an elite purpose. That the world they dedicated themselves to saving insisted on being uncooperative and ungrateful reinforced their self-perception as elites. It could not occur to them that the world had any right to not want to be saved, or need to be saved, or that they could do nothing to save it without developing real affinity, agreement, communication, and understanding with that world. As “elites”, they scorned any such affinity, agreement, communication, or understanding.
  4. LRH shamelessly and shamefully pushed what he thought were panic buttons to hopefully get people to flood into the orgs to buy lots of services. First it was the Communists, then atomic war, then World War III. With regard to people’s cases, it was the horrors of not getting to OT III and doing it right.
  5. His paranoia has often been remarked on, and sometimes documented. It coloured his view of the world as it related to himself and to the organization he created. He used the Guardian’s Office to protect against his perceived attackers. He gave the GO seniority in the organization, and its activities influenced every aspect of the organization’s life; all staff and public Scientologists were subject to the movements and requirements of the GO. The paranoia and the supremacy of the GO had to be justified by the size and extent of dangers within and without the organization. LRH was at times obsessed with his perceived “opposition” – the SPs, PTSes, R/Sers, and, above all, the associated ogres of government and the psychs. To this extent he reacted with unnecessary force to real barriers, and unnecessarily created many enemies for himself and for Scientology – both within and without.
  6. LRH treated his Sea Org followers as slaves for economic exploitation. He never paid anyone who joined him more than a pittance (exception: some forceful salespeople). From the ’70s he demanded that his people work for money that could not house and feed them decently – let alone their families. For some, this was all part of the exciting game, a proof of an elitism whose rewards would come later. But others became bitter and resentful because it abused them and they knew it.
  7. LRH brought great confusion to the organization’s major product-delivery and income activity – the delivery of Scientology technology. There are arguments today that the technology and its delivery are severely flawed at best. Some say it is all based on LRH’s own case alone and has nothing to do with anyone else’s. Be this as it may, I argue neither for nor against these points: things change; technology good yesterday may not apply today. No matter what the reason, technology that doesn’t help a person is not the right technology for the person, and that’s that. Nonetheless, when someone complains that Scientology didn’t or doesn’t work, we don’t know the truth of the matter until we know what was done, why it didn’t work, and whether it was Scientology or something else.

Nonetheless, the technology was what it was and the organizations had to deliver it. In the late ’70s, the philosophical and technical underpinnings of the State of Clear, the Excalibur by which Scientology lived or died, started to unravel. Hubbard issued more than one “clarification”, each of which confused the issue further. Now the whole organization was operating over uncertainty as to its own integrity; I don’t think it has ever regained its integrity. In losing its integrity, a group loses its soul.

This concludes the second of the three excerpts of Chapter Five of the IVy series, “A Consideration of A Piece of Blue Sky” (written in 2001), reprinted here in 2018 on the urqbones blogIn the next and last excerpt, which begins with the subtitle “Whose wants are we focusing on?”, I attempt an objective and, I hope, charitable review of some of the brokenness that so disturbed Jon Atack, and just about everybody who has been seriously involved in Scientology.

*     *     *     *     *

Eleven chapters of this IVy series (there are twelve altogether, with the final chapter yet to be written) are available at:

http://www.freezoneearth.org/ivy/bluesky/index.htm

and the IVy website is here: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/%20

The 2013 edition of A Piece of Blue Sky is offered on Amazon UK:

and the original of 1990:

For amazon.com, the respective links are:

N.B. These links are not ‘affiliate’ links and I will in no way profit from any purchase using

“Outside ‘Inside Scientology’” is reproduced by kind permission of the IVy publisher, Antony Phillips. Thank you, Antony.

© Kenneth G. Urquhart, 2001, 2018CATEGORIESOLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?UNCATEGORIZEDTAGSCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTL.RON HUBBARDLRHLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORSCIENTOLOGYSCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

2 Replies to “Old Questions…New Answers? 03”

  1. Vinay AgarwalaStaff was simply following LRH policy as written under great pressure to raise stats. That policy often changed, and that provided the room for arbitrariness. Arbitrariness in following the policy simply means that the logic underlying the policy was either missing or not very clear. It was not understood by the staff. LRH was supposed to be fully aware of this, else his claim to be OT comes under doubt. The truth is that LRH was simply experimenting with policy. He was forging ahead with a lot of suppositions.It is not a matter of blaming staff or blaming LRH. It is simply a matter of perceiving the IS-NESS. The situation demanded that a big impact be made on the society in a hurry. The result was Scientology as it developed.
  2. Vinay AgarwalaThe military model suited LRH because he was in an experimental mode. Therefore, others had to suffer when things didn’t go right. He himself had to suffer too by constraints put on him by various governments. All the problems came from the tremendous rush of time constraints that he put on himself, and from his trial and error mode of operation.LRH made efforts to consolidate the hard earned knowledge from his trial and error approach, but he did not fully cancel or update the outmoded procedures and policies.For example, he never updated DMSMH. Thus, the training route became unnecessarily long. People had to study all his trials where he did not try to isolate his errors.LRH’s key button was that he wanted to be thought of as right always. He promoted himself in that manner. It was just his nature that he could not admit to be wrong. He never tried to isolate errors in his earlier computations. LRH blamed the environment. The staff members of the orgs copied this trait..

Comments are closed.

Categories
UrqBones

Old Questions…New Answers? 04

OLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?    04

Old Answers: Last of three IVy Excerpts

In the introduction to this new series which I’m calling “Old Friend Questions..New Answers?”, I undertook to look at some basic questions about how Scientology delivered on some of its basic promises. That post posed the questions and concluded by saying that I had already written on matters relevant to the questions and would follow that first post with a “reprint” of an article published back in the early 2000s, before adding some new material.

I have divided the old article into three excerpts for ease of reading. And I have left the text alone except for relatively minor punctuation corrections.

In the title of the old article, quoted below, the words “Inside Scientology” reference the name of the first part of the book under review, A Piece of Blue Sky, the 1990 edition; I was using that name as the jumping-off point for my article. I should probably also explain that “IVy on the Wall” was the name of the regular column I wrote for the journal. [I’d wanted to call it “IVy off the Wall” but another’s superior judgment prevailed, sad to say.] And in those years, I did live in the USA, although no longer.

IVy on the Wall

by Ken Urquhart, USA

Outside “Inside Scientology”, Chapter Five in a consideration of A Piece of Blue Sky, the 1990 book by Jon Atack

[Third of three excerpts from the Chapter]

Whose wants are we focusing on?

It was during the late ’70s and ’80s that Jon Atack entered the quicksand of Scientology as practiced by its organizations as they existed then. In this period, all of the above nonsense factors were raging in full dramatization.

Into this mess came Jon. What did he want? For himself, he says: “What I wanted from Scientology was emotional equilibrium so I could win my girlfriend back, make a successful career in the arts, and concentrate on achieving Enlightenment.”

I don’t see anything wrong or difficult or strange about this. I couldn’t have guaranteed Jon that his ex-girl-friend would agree to be won back. But I could have happily committed to helping him to achieve emotional equilibrium, to make a successful career, and to achieve Enlightenment. So could any practicing Scientologist then who actually practiced Scientology – or does so today. So could have – and would have – L. Ron Hubbard himself if Jon had asked him personally and directly.

We would all have said, or say today, “Sure, Jon, no problem! That’s what we’re here for! This is my fee. When do you want to start?” And we could be doing something for Jon whether using “standard” Scientology or something derived from it or from something else.

The Scientologists Jon involved himself with were too busy being good Scientologists to pay any attention to his real needs and wants. They made him cooperate with their needs and wants. That was their way of pleasing their bosses and the little Hitlers – and what they perceived LRH to be. Everyone leaned on everyone else to produce their “statistics”. Jon was statistics fodder. His actual needs and wants were not important as long as he could be made to subjugate them “for the greatest good of the greatest number”, a nebulous but vital component of Scientology life which manifests itself in “up statistics”.

Who is friend to whom?

Unfortunately, Jon allowed himself to be swept up into the nonsense. LRH’s self-promotion had dazzled him as it has so many. He, Jon, compromised his own integrity enough to achieve disappointment and frustration but not enough to suppress his own feelings in the end. The Scientologists took him up the OT levels unprepared for any of them, and they took him for a lot of his money. It is no surprise he wrote his exposé. In their own ethics terms, they were in Enemy to him and they created an enemy out of him. Worse, having invited him to trust them and then by behaving as enemy to him, they betrayed his trust: this they themselves call Treason.

What might have been…

Jon had felt that, as a therapy, Scientology might have a world-changing impact. So did we all! Even though we didn’t regard it as a “therapy”, I don’t think Jon or we were wrong about its potential.

LRH, and we, all together, forced Scientology to become something other than it really is. Perhaps the Axioms of Scientology are the purest summation of what it really is.

We don’t know what Scientology’s impact would have been had we let Scientology agree with its own axioms.

That we couldn’t let it be what it is was probably inevitable. No single human intelligence could envision and design something as revolutionary as Scientology claimed to be [especially here on Planet Earth] – and made serious attempts to be – without including fatal flaws in the vision and design.

Broken Tools

That a person on Earth, L. Ron Hubbard, conceived of the possibility of such a vision and such a design and did so much to make it a reality in spite of its and his own flaws is in itself a triumph, and a worthy one. He did his best to make it be real and he fell foul of his own imperfections. But he tried. He tried! His trying embraced things he was right to do, and things he should never have tried to do.

He tried, and he failed. He “failed” in that he didn’t fully succeed. But in trying he achieved more than the victims of the failure will be able to understand – for a while. And in failing, he caused a lot of damage.

One day at Saint Hill in 1965, as LRH was C/Sing the first Power Processing sessions and training the Power auditors, he got up from his desk, which was loaded with case folders; he had had a tough day. Some auditors were misbehaving in the chair; some cases were being difficult. At that time, many of the pcs receiving Power were executives from large Scientology organizations. LRH was learning things about the ways in which they regarded themselves and life. I had gone into his office to tell him it was time for his dinner. He seemed tired, almost dispirited. As I helped him on with his jacket, he looked at me wryly, and said quietly, with a little grin, “I am mending the world with broken tools”.

Poor fellow; he could never publicly acknowledge that a part of himself was broken. Broken or not, he was never little or cowardly. His size and his courage lent terrible power to his weakness.

Has anyone come close to opening a door so wide, such as the one LRH opened for us in his strength and courage?

What does it take to heal the wounds he caused in his broken way of opening that door?

*      *      *     *     *     *

Eleven chapters of this IVy series on A Piece of Blue Sky (there are twelve altogether, with the final chapter yet to be written) are available at:

http://www.freezoneearth.org/ivy/bluesky/index.htm

and the IVy website is here: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/%20

The 2013 edition of A Piece of Blue Sky is offered on Amazon UK:

https://amzn.to/2MqwiCX

and the original of 1990:

https://amzn.to/2AzBTUP

For amazon.com, the respective links are:

“Outside ‘Inside Scientology’” is reproduced by kind permission of the IVy publisher, Antony Phillips. Thank you, Antony.

© Kenneth G. Urquhart, 2001, 2018CATEGORIESOLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?UNCATEGORIZEDTAGSKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTL.RON HUBBARDLRHLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORSCIENTOLOGYSCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

6 Replies to “Old Questions…New Answers? 04”

  1. Vinay AgarwalaLRH focused on his own wants. Scientology organizations focused on their own wants. Staff members focused on their own survival in the orgs. One may call it “statistics” but it was a self-centered want of LRH defined by him alone. The factor of compassion was missing because of the diffused generality of statistics.LRH’s philosophy is based on self-centeredness of survival. It is attractive in the beginning but it ends in betrayal because no man is an island. Our survival depends on every other person’s survival.The axioms of Scientology may be considered a summation of Scientology. They are based on the self-centeredness of the individual survival. Yes there are other dynamics but they are perceived through the filter of the individual. The concept of “thetan” establishes that filter. Scientology does agree with its own axioms. It is corrupted just as the axioms are corrupted.LRH was a product of the western culture. That culture worships individuality to such a degree that it loses sight of compassion. This is the corporate culture. Scientology became a corporation. The idea of corporation is embedded in Scientology axioms as “individual survival” or “thetan”. This is not so in Buddhism to which Scientology gives credit.But LRH did come up with many tools that are valuable. Those tools can achieve what they were designed to achieve if LRH had not ignored the fundamental of OBNOSIS (observing the obvious). He borrowed that concept from Buddha’s mindfulness (seeing things as they are). He thought he was improving over Buddha, and, therefore, he did not explore this concept fully as he should have.LRH was courageous, but he was somewaht foolish in that courage.
  2. Vinay AgarwalaNOTE: The Scientology “static” has the same logic underlying as the concept of “thetan”. This is an arbitrary reference point on which the edifice of Scientology is constructed. Scientology becomes much more effective when the reference point described below is used.Buddhism used EMPTINESS as its reference point. It defines EMPTINESS as no Birth no Death, no Being no Non-being, no Defilement no Purity, no Increasing no Decreasing. In other words, in emptiness there is complete absence of any phenomena.The viewpoint of emptiness is just that. It is totally fresh. It is completely clean. There are no preconceived notions, no fixed ideas, no bias, etc. In short, the concept of emptiness is not viewed through any filters. It is simply what it is.From a scientific viewpoint, this is the ultimate reference point from which all phenomena is perceived objectively. No other reference point is required to understand emptiness. This is like the zero of a scale from which all values on that scale are measured.A reference point aligns everything that follows, into order. In the absence of a reference point things devolve into confusion. It is common to assume an arbitrary reference point just to avoid the immediate confusion, even when it can’t resolve everything.The Semitic GOD and the Scientology STATIC are arbitrary reference points. They are assumed to resolve the confusion of physical reality. But they cannot resolve the reality they represent. To understand the reality of GOD and/or STATIC a more basic reference point is needed.The ultimate reference point is inherently understood. No further reference point is needed. Emptiness has that property of being inherenly understood because it denotes the absence of all realities. From this reference point it is possible to give an objective meaning to any phenomena. Emptiness itself is not a phenomenon, just like zero is not a value.EMPTINESS is the ultimate reference point from which all phenomena can be understood objectively without any pre-conceived notion..
    1. Vinay AgarwalaBy ultimate reference point I mean THE FUNDAMENTAL STABLE DATUM.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Vinay, for sharing where you are at on the questions you raise and something of where you are coming from.You’re more than welcome to send me a link to your own blog and I’ll be happy to post the link here.You’re also very welcome to post a notice in the Comments here that you have your things to say on subjects raised in the blog and to invite interested readers of this blog to visit yours. Any time.
        Ken
  3. OB RoyMaking excuses for LRH case dramatisations is exactly that.I remember the couple before they did OTIII and they were an inspiration. Two beautiful beings full of light, sensetive and aware and highly intelligent.Scientology is flawed and its high time people stopped making excuses and confronted the present time reality.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comre Excuses: I guess we’re referring to my answer to Chuck of June 11?
      Am quite lost on the couple you mention, OB. Could you kindly point me to the post/comment/reply that refers to them?
      Your last line: I’d appreciate (a) an ack that I have never maintained that Scn is complete or perfect.
      (b) who it is that is making excuses, specifically (assuming that you must have someone in mind, since you’re stating the very, very (and almost meaningless) obvious — that people should stop making excuses; I’m supposing it’s me.
      (c) by excuses, are you meaning what I said to Chuck on June 11? If so, I’m not paying a lot of attention to your rant until you pay a little more attention to what I actually said. If you’re saying that the reasons I gave for how LRH might have had some confusions about what was going on with himself have nothing to do with what was going on within him, we have to disagree. I don’t speak of them lightly. You might be looking at my saying that we around him could have helped him get and keep his own ethics in. You’re welcome to look on this as making an excuse for his failings but again I disagree. We can look at Hubbard with a little bit of humanity in us, now and then, you know.
      (d) Your telling us what part of the enormity of Existence represents “present time reality” to you so we can get with it.
      I have the feeling that your comment here actually belongs to a comm cycle on another list or blog. The connection with this blog is not clear to me and perhaps I should be sorry I’m so dumb. At any rate, the TR1 is a bit lacking, sad to say.
      Are you having a bad day. my friend?

Comments are closed.

Categories
UrqBones

Old Questions…New Answers?

NEW BLOG SECTION:

OLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?   01

Introduction

In this new section of the urqbones blog I am going to take up some questions concerning the failure of Scientology to deliver on its fundamental promises (which may or may not have been explicitly expressed).

The questions have been put to me by someone I have known for a long time and who is close to me. By way of introduction to his questions I should say that in 1966, when I was either Director of Communications or LRH Communicator SH [“Saint Hill”], I alerted him to the possibility that he could get some auditing for free because of a change in the organization of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Students were required to audit on another person the level they’d just been trained in (the Briefing Course covers several sequential levels) in order to demonstrate their proficiency on the level.

The change was that the students were now required to procure their own people to audit (“preclears”); this required them to look outside the Saint Hill [SH] Scientology community, and they were having to scramble because feelings about Scientology locally were mixed. There was, therefore, a bit of a vacuum for would-be preclears. If my friend wanted some auditing—but, being a young family man, had to have it cheap or free—here was his chance.

He arranged at once to come to SH for a week and went into session just about on arrival: there was no shortage of willing auditors, I having made sure the word got around that this preclear would be available. By 1966, the Bridge had been sorted out into the Grades (and other levels), and the Grades auditing consisted of running only the then-current major process for each Grade. My friend went through all his Grades within his week and went home extremely happy. He refers in the quote below to his “four or five floating needles” that week; the standard tech of the moment was to run whatever you were running to the first floating needle and then end the action off. That basis was enough to produce happy gains for him [and for me and many others, although I loved my Expanded Grades as much as any level I’ve had].

My friend, having the needs of a relatively large family to take care of and his immediate environment not disposed to know and respect Scientology, wasn’t able to pursue the subject further after going back home. His Saint Hill adventure took place over fifty years ago. nonetheless, one can see in what I’ve quoted here (below) from his message to me the warmth and respect with which he still regards his treatment at the hands of the students who so gladly found him so willing. Even though technology still had a lot of development to do, it’s clear that the student auditors of the time held their standards high as regards the handling of people as people, and that they handled my friend in exemplary fashion. One wonders, as old people do, if students and auditors have the same standards today?

This old Release, happy in his memories, raises questions that I’ve had at the back of my mind for a long time as issues I’d need to treat sooner or later. Now that he has shoved them under my nose, so to speak, I might as well drag-and-drop them into my crumbling pre-frontal cortex and start kicking them about.

What he wrote to me is, in part:

I find myself as disappointed as you that Scn has not brought about the change that it could and should have made.  My week’s experience of four or five floating needles gave me a brief but very real feeling of compassion, heart-centredness and clarity/simplicity of mind, the latter a putting of the mind’s 99% junk, not just actual experiential conditioning but all the unrealistic hopes and thoughts – brain chatter – into an unlocked cupboard.  This, I thought, was the essence of Scio and felt that this would be the reward of all adherents and on to a better world.

I don’t know if you went to the ultimate level of Scio but there is no sign to me that anyone has so is there something wrong with the tech? Is there a missing process?  Does it actually put the 99% of mental junk into a cupboard?  As mentioned that cupboard isn’t locked and it is easy to reconnect with any item and return to a former state of mind but one nevertheless remains aware of the serenity.  It seems to me that Scio has not given its adherents the means to hold or recover that serenity.

The questions I see to answer here are:

  1. Could Scientology have given its adherents “real feeling of compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity/simplicity of mind” or (to allow for differences between individuals) some similar kind or range of blessings?
  2. If it could have given all its adherents such blessings, did it?
  3. If not, what might be some reasons why not?
  4. If one agreed that Scientology could give all or some adherents such “serenity” (or similar state), did it fail to give them the means to hold on to or recover it?

I am going to take it, right off the bat, that brief answers to these questions are:

  1. The potential was there; it was not uniformly achieved.
  2. No.
  3. To be considered.
  4. Yes and No. Yes, in that it gave several tools adherents could use to maintain their gains, such as: Ethics and Admin Tech for use out of session, and technical tools for use in session. No, in that whatever platform one considers the Church of Scientology [C of S] to have provided adherents since the early 1980’s, what they have provided doesn’t seem to have been conducive to the maintenance of any kind of serenity. Indeed, I can only believe that serenity for an adherent of the C of S would have to consist firstly of a zealot’s blind bliss in his or her devoted compliance to all C of S domination (in and out of session) and secondly of the possession of unlimited supplies of cash and credit to keep paying for the endless and relentless domination.

I can’t imagine that what I (and so many others) have seen of the C of S’s doings since leaving that fold can bring about real feelings of compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity/simplicity of mind in adherents. But this invites a whole range of questions beyond my immediate interest, let alone access to all relevant facts on which to offer any useful answers. I’ll base what I have to say on my personal and direct observations and experiences up to my departure in November, 1982, and in my subsequent wanderings.

I doubt we’d look for the C of S as it seems to have become to provide such things as compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity of mind, in the first place. Therefore, whatever facts and figures anyone might have on what the C of S does to people, such information is superfluous in this discussion if one considers (as I assuredly do) the Tone Scale to be an adequate gauge of what one can expect from an individual or group. A group’s habitual behaviours and style of communicating place the group on the Tone Scale. Do the behaviours of that group draw our eyes to a place on the Tone Scale at which compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity/simplicity of mind also manifest? Who could possibly and absurdly think so??

As it happens, I already have on record several addresses to these and other questions, in articles I wrote some fifteen years ago for Antony Phillips’ journal International Viewpoints. Some of what I said then is still valid for me with regard to the questions we’re considering. So rather than repeat myself, I am going to follow this post with the text of one article from that journal series. But since my thoughts have developed in the intervening years, I’ll supplement the old material with fresher bones that will simmer and savour as I go.

© Kenneth G. Urquhart, 2018CATEGORIESOLD QUESTIONS…NEW ANSWERS?UNCATEGORIZEDTAGSCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTL.RON HUBBARDLRHLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORSCIENTOLOGYSCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

10 Replies to “Old Questions…New Answers?”

  1. Vinay AgarwalaWhen I look at my experience in Scientology, I had wonderful gains, which I have retained. But I am also quite aware of the insanity that reigned around Hubbard and even emanated from him.LRH was indeed a genius, but his arbitrariness was magnified in the same proportions. Take the example of OT Levels. There are some wonderful ideas there, but what is missing is what Hubbard himself called OBNOSIS elsewhere.As regards compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity of mind, I just wish that it was included in the definition of CLEAR, which I see as follows.“A cleared individual is not absolutely free of flaws, but he is very close to being completely rational. He has a mind in which perceptions continually break down into fine discriminative elements, and get freely associated and assimilated into an orderly mental matrix providing rational solutions.“The cleared individual does not avoid, resist, suppress or deny any thoughts, emotions, and sensations when thinking; and so he perceives things objectively with clarity. He is able to examine and overcome all prejudices, biases and fixations. He is keenly perceptive and knowledgeable and continues to explore new areas of knowledge.“The cleared individual is universal in his outlook. He rises above any idea of self or individuality. He is not subjective, self-centric, or human-centric. There are no conflicts within him. He would not hesitate to sacrifice himself if need be.“The cleared individual can look from the viewpoint of others as well as objectively from the viewpoint of all life and the environment. He continues to expand his understanding of the physical and spiritual aspects of the universe without resorting to superstitions.“The cleared individual is the first to realize his error and correct himself. Whenever he senses resistance or observes some oddity, he follows it up until it is cleared. If he suffers a painful experience, heavy loss, or confusion he is able to sort it out quietly in his mind.“The cleared individual is in good health and has no psychosomatic illnesses. He is purposeful in his demeanor, and graceful in his movements. He is strong and calm even in adversity. In no way is he trying to win or dominate, but he is passionately engaged in bringing order to his environment.“Above all, he is compassionate.”There is the good, the bad, and the ugly in Hubbard and Scientology!
    1. Scott GordonVery nice and very helpful expanded definitions of Clear.Thanks!
  2. Vinay AgarwalaLet me amplify a little bit on what I said about OT Levels and OBNOSIS above.It seems to me that Hubbard was not sure if exteriorization is material or immaterial.Any mystery attached to “exteriorization” would come from not understanding this phenomenon. And any misunderstanding of “exteriorization” can inadvertently create complications with a person trying to interpret his experiences on OT I.Hubbard says on OT I,“A great many phenomena (strange things) can happen while doing these drills if they are done honestly.”This definitely injects trepidation and expectation in the OT process. It thus colors and corrupts one’s ability to simply look.A person’s experience on OT Levels will be messed up to the degree these levels are made mysterious.
    1. chuckbeattyx75to03Vinay,I always thought LRH was quite clear about exteriorization in the “Parts of Man” chapter of “Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought” where he says the optimum position of the thetan is outside and controlling the human body.Additionally, in the “Grand Tour” process in “Creation of Human Ability” book, Hubbard clearly spells out that the preclear is not imagining himself at these far flung locations while being run on the “Grand Tour” process, but that the preclear actually is there (as an exteriorized being).Hubbard additionally in definitions 1 and 3 in the Tech Dicitionary definition of “Operating Thetan” clearly describes being a soul and free of the body entirely, and able to operate without need of a body.Hubbard additionally in the definitions of “Theta Clear” in the same Tech Dictionary also describes out of the body actual continued conscious existence of the thetan, without the body.So, I never ever bought that LRH wished exteriorization to be just what even Hubbard called “exteriorization without visio” or “exteriorization” without 360 visio.Hubbard additionally in the L’s Rundowns promotion, claims when Hubbard was case supervising the L Rundowns he always ensured those preclears he was case supervising one for one achieved out of the body visio experience.So no, I never bought the exteriorization without visio as the “REAL” meaning of Hubbard’s. There’s no case for that by a close complete reading of Hubbard’s writings and lectures.
  3. chuckbeattyx75to03“…One wonders, as old people do, if students and auditors have the
    same standards today?…”Hubbard kept adding auditing technique requirements to the “model session” whole ball of wax, so that by the 70s, the auditors doing the simple auditing process were required to upkeep untold numbers of other little steps.“Model Session” requirements, and Auditor’s Code requirements, and how those requirements were enforced, can wipe out in many trainee auditors their innate counselor demeanor, turn them into wooden rule followers.The factors of what makes a good counselor, I think are those things that “natural auditors” had inherently.And today, since I’m no longer a Scientologist at all, I think the best auditors, the ones who were the Auditors of the Year in the various categories of Auditor of the Year awards that used to be every September each year—it’s really those persons who were auditors of the year caliber innate good people, who infused their auditing with “auditor beingness” (but today outthink all of these Hubbardism categorizations and think it’s massive amount of deflection and pretentiousness on Hubbard’s part that his “auditing” is somehow grander and better than outside world counseling).I in my years placed huge thought into a few key LRH refs, the late 1970s LRH came out with the additional writings that got added to the Hard TRs course, the Auditor Beingness issue, that LRH said their ought be a SECOND TRs Course to polish up the auditor’s “Auditor Beingness” once the auditors were Grade 4 auditors for a while, and they’d audited hundreds or thousands of hours, and now, at this more experienced level of auditing, the auditors were to polish up their auditor beingness.I recall, when this issue came out, it made sense to me. It’s what Class 12 Brian Livingston in effect said to me as I was rightly railing as a Flag Interne auditor in 1976. Brian said, in effect, “Go audit for a couple 3-4 years at an org….” and “…then come back to train on your Internships at Flag…..”The experience of auditing, IF the person is ought there stumbling alone, auditing, for years, and THEN comes does the Hard TRs course (as also in the LRH Tech Film where Dan Koon starred, the auditors were all sloppy and somewhat failing mission auditors and field auditors who just needed some TRs to fix their auditing basics), but even TRs is insufficient.I hate to promote Scientology, in any way, but I can see how Scientology will continue.It will continue to the persistence of the people in history, now and in the future, who stick with their auditor auditing.If they continue auditing, and continue out of their drive and wish to do it, that is number one.Then, they will see which of the key Hubbard ideas (since as practitioners they will be boxed into following Hubbard’s options, and to me, honestly a person who is a decent counselor type of person, I instead would bid them get out of Scientology, go to university, become a legit counselor and counsel people and use your human decency in a more legit and regulated counselor industry of psychology—my hindsight views are for people not be stay Scientology auditors, but instead become legit college educated counselors) principles like “Auditor Beingness” as important points that as experienced auditors they will now understand and grab onto.The training of Hubbard auditors I believe has to include all the Hubbard options, and “Auditor Beingness” and a couple of the keymost points in the Auditor’s Code, and there was another 1976 Hubbard reference about what was the determining factor for why auditing worked, and it was the intention factor of the auditor.If the auditor sincerely and deeply wished for the preclear to achieve gains.Hubbard’s Scientology auditing is based on human decency of the auditor.If the auditor is strongly persistently decent and sincere, then the auditing will work.What Scientology is riding on is human decency that somehow squeaks through all the “Model Session” requirements that Hubbard piled onto auditing over the years.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHi, Chuck, and thanks for your comment. I am not so free as you in embracing other approaches although I don’t close any off just because they’r not Scn.
      Decency is all very well, for sure. However, I don’t see how one can eliminate from any client-practitioner relationship the principle (word it as you wish) “PC + Auditor is greater than the PC’s bank.” If the non-Scn approach adheres to the principle, more power to it. If it doesn’t adhere, then it might be better than nothing or could be worse than nothing. Just imho. Is there any approach anywhere that expresses a value/standard that remotely resembles LRH’s?
      We could say much the same for the definition of ‘”in session”: “Willing to talk to auditor [practitioner] and interested in own case.”
      What about the Auditor’s Code ##1 and 2? Who else has thought of such things?
      On what you’re proposing in your comment here, you find me distinctly Conservative. 🙂
      1. chuckbeattyx75to03Thanks Ken. The Auditor’s Code to me, can somewhat contain the auditor’s lack of innate sincerity and decency, but really I think of the best auditors I’ve ever had. In session with them, they were above normal decent. The late Glenn Samuals, for instance, unbelievably decent person. On his own. I had countless good auditors, some just kept the code in naturally, all the time, in and out of session, and were supportive and smart. Auditing I see has worked on persons who had auditors I myself would not have relished being audited by. The beingness of the auditor, their nature and natural comfortableness and interest, and understanding of what I said, all did have great impact to how I enjoyed their auditing.Ken, I have a question, re the auditor plus pc is greater than the pc’s bank. That formula, to me, seemed a sad unfortunate aspect of Hubbard’s life. He needed someone to talk to, and all his solo NOTs in the end of his life, it strikes me that that formula (pc plus auditor greater than the pc’s bank) if slightly adjusted, just the fact that he needed OT 5 NOTs auditing when he was having his final case trouble there, and he instead was doing a bit of dodging around trying to fix it himself. Did you notice he lacked a terminal in his life, re his case?Me, I’ve kind of thought since he was so deeply into his tech as his only options to deal with his case (OT case included), his own case judged by his own case tech rules, I’m wondering what tech people outside with freer license to share their views, think of Hubbard’s case.I wish Ray Mitoff were here able to discuss what he observed when Ray was with LRH at the end there at Creston.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comYes, Chuck, auditors bring into session parts of their own individual beingness and since no two individuals are the same there are going to be many differences between different auditor presences. And then of course each pc has his or her own individuality. The two individualities may work well together or not. LRH did make allowance for this in C/S Series 1, very first paragraph if I remember aright. In it, he gave the right to the auditor to decline to take on a preclear he/she felt unable to help. And he remarked elsewhere that some auditors don’t do well with old ladies. However, your point is taken. Qualities differ between any two individuals anywhere. It’s part of the woof and warp of living, imho.
          With regard to LRH and his approach to his case, I’m not in a position to assert anything. But I believe he never had a terminal of comparable magnitude at his best levels. We who were close to him could have done more to help him focus on his own personal ethics, probably me more than anyone. He seemed to do well with at least some of his auditors but I don’t think he did himself any favours at all by getting rid of David Mayo.
          I tend to believe that towards the very end of his life, LRH didn’t have much of a clue as to what was happening with himself, but this is entirely opinion on my part. For example, since his time, there has been an explosion of information about the human brain, how it can be affected, and how it can affect the body’s owner (even if the researchers don’t believe in spirituality). LRH was a sick man and was on medication. He had had habits of living that tend towards ill-health of body and brain (e.g., smoking, poor diet, working at night, insufficient exercise, constant high-level stress, among others). Had LRH had this information when he could have improved his body and brain health, we might have a very different picture of Scn today.
  4. chuckbeattyx75to03“….If the outside of the cup be not clean, how shall ye know that the inside be clean? …”Ken, I quote this from the first line of your IVy original article.http://www.freezoneearth.org/ivy/bluesky/index.htmI knew with a name like Scientology, the subject was gonna be a bit of a controversial and challenged off-the-mainstream type of group, when I got in, in 1975.Your quoted quote above, means so much, from different viewpoints.“IVy” itself, “International Viewpoints” and what did the “y” in “IVy” stand for?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comIt’s just a ‘y’ stuck on to the acronym, Chuck. If you say the letters “IV” you get a sound like “ivy”.
      And it avoids getting mixed up with “Intravenous”. That could be helpful. 🙂
      Just my take, perhaps dub-in.
      Antony Phillips, who founded and ran IVy, might have a different story.
      https://plus.google.com/u/0/117899924507123082764

Comments are closed.