Ex members who still use pieces of Scientology.

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I still do verbal acks in conversations with normal people. Which makes some think I must work in the field of psychology. :D
 

Dotey OT

Totally Freed Customer
We chinese school credit and debit accounts every morning.

"Assets, what is it?"

"Equity, what is it?"

Not really.

I have my juniors deliver a blow despite personal danger.

No, not that really.

I take long walks. I go to bed when I'm tired, and eat when I'm hungry. I look up words that I don't know.

Well wait, I was doing that before.

I give up, what do I still do?

I make a BP everyday.

But I did that before the cult as well.

Like @Karakorum I give everyone plenty of acks. I listen to people as well. Real people in the real world tend to not need much 2.5 in my opinion, so I am not doing much in the way of 2.5. Half acks, just in case you managed to dump that part of your memory.

I didn't give acks all that much before, so there. You have your answer.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Auditing one's own GPM's
For those who don't know, GPMs is an acronym for Goals Problems Mass.

"One's own" usually means "actual" GPMs, rather than Implant GPMs, which are, essentially engrams.

Actual GPMs, complete with identities and opposing identities. occur (or form) over a long period of
time.

Actual GPM were, at one time, thought to be the final barrier to full OT.

Lots of Independent auditors toyed around with actual GPMs. The results were mixed.

Around 1963, with no explanation, Hubbard abandoned actual GPMs, and went with Implant GPMs.

Implant GPMs were TOLD to the person, while the person had previously been ASKED for his actual or own GPMs. (Telling a preclear the contents of his own mind or space violated the spirit of the Auditors code.)

At the time, there were people who parted company with Hubbard/Scientology on this point, The same people usually also objected to Hubbard formally positioning himself as the sole source of the subject, in the 1965 Keeping Scientology Working.

Early on, I had a huge stack or Ability magazines from the actual GPM period of the early 1960s, trying to figure out when Hubbard went off the rails.

Could you say more about what you're doing with own GPMs?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Ed8

Riddick

I clap to no man
Awaiting accounts from your experiences.
probably the only thing I use is Exchange in Abundance. That's a keeper. If you give better service than expected instead of this bullshit of free shipping online, why it's good.

My recent house painting by some local guy was not exchange in abundance and I will not refer him to another. This is also why I don't promote dianetics and scientology as both do not exchange in abundance even though Hubbard said he did. Nobody went clear, nobody went OT, nobody has returned from past life.

I can only think that Hubbard maybe got exchange in abundance from Aristotle on Friendship, Hubbard may have got it from Napoleon Hill:


 

alf

New member
Veda
It's Dianasis, you will know. This auditing regards one's own matters. Yes, the experiences are mixed, I don't know why. For me it was life changing, very hard but on the point. I went mad for almost 3 months, like pulling out Bricks under a wall and it coming all down over you. It's like breaking a belt around oneself, which has never even been touched by upper level auditing. I used it extensively, now I do it when I feel like it. Irene Mumford said, LRH changed over to implant GPMs as an easy solution, because people had difficulties (euphemism) listing and overrunning endlessly hundreds of Items. L&N was perfectionated later on. I know, that many have been betrayed by Scn, but I think that for this one LRH deserves respect.
 

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
Veda
It's Dianasis, you will know. This auditing regards one's own matters. Yes, the experiences are mixed, I don't know why. For me it was life changing, very hard but on the point. I went mad for almost 3 months, like pulling out Bricks under a wall and it coming all down over you. It's like breaking a belt around oneself, which has never even been touched by upper level auditing. I used it extensively, now I do it when I feel like it. Irene Mumford said, LRH changed over to implant GPMs as an easy solution, because people had difficulties (euphemism) listing and overrunning endlessly hundreds of Items. L&N was perfectionated later on. I know, that many have been betrayed by Scn, but I think that for this one LRH deserves respect.
@alf, did you do that solo?
 

alf

New member
Yes. I entered the Prg. being audited for a couple of sessions by a very good auditor, that helped not missing the entrance. I lived elsewhere, so I had to get on alone. It can be done, and in the end it is preferable. Even that is no "all resolver", but no comparison.
 

Ed8

Member
For those who don't know, GPMs is an acronym for Goals Problems Mass.

"One's own" usually means "actual" GPMs, rather than Implant GPMs, which are, essentially engrams.

Actual GPMs, complete with identities and opposing identities. occur (or form) over a long period of
time.

Actual GPM were, at one time, thought to be the final barrier to full OT.

Lots of Independent auditors toyed around with actual GPMs. The results were mixed.

Around 1963, with no explanation, Hubbard abandoned actual GPMs, and went with Implant GPMs.

Implant GPMs were TOLD to the person, while the person had previously been ASKED for his actual or own GPMs. (Telling a preclear the contents of his own mind or space violated the spirit of the Auditors code.)

At the time, there were people who parted company with Hubbard/Scientology on this point, The same people usually also objected to Hubbard formally positioning himself as the sole source of the subject, in the 1965 Keeping Scientology Working.

Early on, I had a huge stack or Ability magazines from the actual GPM period of the early 1960s, trying to figure out when Hubbard went off the rails.

Could you say more about what you're doing with own GPMs?
Up to a point 'actual goals' still are a strong barrier to full OT. Notice that I wrote 'actual goals' rather than 'actual GPMs' or 'own GPMs'. In the acronym GPM (Goals Problems Mass) the word Goals is a modifier, not the noun; so also is Problems a modifier. The noun is Mass, i.e. mental mass. This mental mass results from problems encountered in failed Goals. So a GPM is the mental mass resulting from failures of goals, it is not the goal itself. This misuse was (when I had contact with the church) and probably still is wide spread among churchies. The proper term is 'actual goal', as distinguished from 'implant goal'.

It is not enough to catalog lists of goals to run. This clears the PC/Pre-OT if audited correctly, but it does not provide that PC/Pre-OT with mastery. Without mastery the PC/Pre-OT will simply fall back, decaying slowly or quickly depending on circumstances. So simple clearing is not enough; strong KRC is needed. To achieve that KRC, the PC/Pre-OT needs to see the structure UNDER the actual goals. My recently deceased friend Max Sandor (Joachim Steingrubner) used to call this level "the structure of the structure". The PC/Pre-OT needs to know how such goals are constructed. I've been mapping them. Anyone who wants a pdf book about them should contact me backchannel, and I will send a pdf free of charge. It is titled Splits of the Original Volition. I'll leave it up to the recipient to decide whether or not the book has any value; and if the person feels an exchange is necessary, that is up to the recipient. (There is a strong reason for this. Physical survival directly opposes spiritual survival, and most people cannot mix the two without Falling. Therefore I do not demand payment of any sort. Exchanging spiritual help for profit is dangerous. But I do accept gifts freely given. Heh, one of my favorites was after giving a woman a session she surprised me with a plate of homemade, from scratch, cookies. They were really good cookies.)
Ed
 

Veda

Well-known member
Veda
It's Dianasis, you will know. This auditing regards one's own matters. Yes, the experiences are mixed, I don't know why. For me it was life changing, very hard but on the point. I went mad for almost 3 months, like pulling out Bricks under a wall and it coming all down over you. It's like breaking a belt around oneself, which has never even been touched by upper level auditing. I used it extensively, now I do it when I feel like it. Irene Mumford said, LRH changed over to implant GPMs as an easy solution, because people had difficulties (euphemism) listing and overrunning endlessly hundreds of Items. L&N was perfectionated later on. I know, that many have been betrayed by Scn, but I think that for this one LRH deserves respect.
I remember Irene Mumford.




Glad it worked to a positive result.

That's a topic that deserves its own thread.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Up to a point 'actual goals' still are a strong barrier to full OT. Notice that I wrote 'actual goals' rather than 'actual GPMs' or 'own GPMs'. In the acronym GPM (Goals Problems Mass) the word Goals is a modifier, not the noun; so also is Problems a modifier. The noun is Mass, i.e. mental mass. This mental mass results from problems encountered in failed Goals. So a GPM is the mental mass resulting from failures of goals, it is not the goal itself. This misuse was (when I had contact with the church) and probably still is wide spread among churchies. The proper term is 'actual goal', as distinguished from 'implant goal'.

It is not enough to catalog lists of goals to run. This clears the PC/Pre-OT if audited correctly, but it does not provide that PC/Pre-OT with mastery. Without mastery the PC/Pre-OT will simply fall back, decaying slowly or quickly depending on circumstances. So simple clearing is not enough; strong KRC is needed. To achieve that KRC, the PC/Pre-OT needs to see the structure UNDER the actual goals. My recently deceased friend Max Sandor (Joachim Steingrubner) used to call this level "the structure of the structure". The PC/Pre-OT needs to know how such goals are constructed. I've been mapping them. Anyone who wants a pdf book about them should contact me backchannel, and I will send a pdf free of charge. It is titled Splits of the Original Volition. I'll leave it up to the recipient to decide whether or not the book has any value; and if the person feels an exchange is necessary, that is up to the recipient. (There is a strong reason for this. Physical survival directly opposes spiritual survival, and most people cannot mix the two without Falling. Therefore I do not demand payment of any sort. Exchanging spiritual help for profit is dangerous. But I do accept gifts freely given. Heh, one of my favorites was after giving a woman a session she surprised me with a plate of homemade, from scratch, cookies. They were really good cookies.)
Ed
Thanks for the insights.

Enjoyed reading it.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Active member
Up to a point 'actual goals' still are a strong barrier to full OT. Notice that I wrote 'actual goals' rather than 'actual GPMs' or 'own GPMs'. In the acronym GPM (Goals Problems Mass) the word Goals is a modifier, not the noun; so also is Problems a modifier. The noun is Mass, i.e. mental mass. This mental mass results from problems encountered in failed Goals. So a GPM is the mental mass resulting from failures of goals, it is not the goal itself. This misuse was (when I had contact with the church) and probably still is wide spread among churchies. The proper term is 'actual goal', as distinguished from 'implant goal'.

It is not enough to catalog lists of goals to run. This clears the PC/Pre-OT if audited correctly, but it does not provide that PC/Pre-OT with mastery. Without mastery the PC/Pre-OT will simply fall back, decaying slowly or quickly depending on circumstances. So simple clearing is not enough; strong KRC is needed. To achieve that KRC, the PC/Pre-OT needs to see the structure UNDER the actual goals. My recently deceased friend Max Sandor (Joachim Steingrubner) used to call this level "the structure of the structure". The PC/Pre-OT needs to know how such goals are constructed. I've been mapping them. Anyone who wants a pdf book about them should contact me backchannel, and I will send a pdf free of charge. It is titled Splits of the Original Volition. I'll leave it up to the recipient to decide whether or not the book has any value; and if the person feels an exchange is necessary, that is up to the recipient. (There is a strong reason for this. Physical survival directly opposes spiritual survival, and most people cannot mix the two without Falling. Therefore I do not demand payment of any sort. Exchanging spiritual help for profit is dangerous. But I do accept gifts freely given. Heh, one of my favorites was after giving a woman a session she surprised me with a plate of homemade, from scratch, cookies. They were really good cookies.)
Ed
"Physical survival directly opposes spiritual survival, and most people cannot mix the two without Falling. Therefore I do not demand payment of any sort. Exchanging spiritual help for profit is dangerous."

Just wanted to comment on this. Is that why Jesus says in the Bible that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven"?

I always disliked that line, because it seemed to equate to an injunction to "choose your misery" (either live in physical deprivation but have spiritual knowledge, or keep your physical comforts and forego your hopes of spiritual advancement), but it seems to me now that it is correct. It's very difficult to enjoy physical comforts or economic security without getting attached to them, and that attachment then becoming a bar to spiritual progress.

King Solomon seems to have been one who did manage it, but even he had to get to the point where they meant nothing to him; "All is vanity, and a striving after wind. Nothing in this world is worthwhile."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ed8

alf

New member
Veda:
Nooo! She is Irene? I often wondered who she was, I had even seen that picture.
Thanks!
 

Ed8

Member
"Physical survival directly opposes spiritual survival, and most people cannot mix the two without Falling. Therefore I do not demand payment of any sort. Exchanging spiritual help for profit is dangerous."

Just wanted to comment on this. Is that why Jesus says in the Bible that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven"?

I always disliked that line, because it seemed to equate to an injunction to "choose your misery" (either live in physical deprivation but have spiritual knowledge, or keep your physical comforts and forego your hopes of spiritual advancement), but it seems to me now that it is correct. It's very difficult to enjoy physical comforts or economic security without getting attached to them, and that attachment then becoming a bar to spiritual progress.

King Solomon seems to have been one who did manage it, but even he had to get to the point where they meant nothing to him; "All is vanity, and a striving after wind. Nothing in this world is worthwhile."
In my book on ethics I go into detail about the four basic ethics styles of play. In short, these are:
win/win (I win, you win)
win/lose (I win, you lose)
lose/win (I lose, you win)
lose/lose (I lose, you lose)

Most (not all) rich people became rich by playing win/lose.
Most (not all) spiritual (actually spiritual) people increase spiritual advancement by playing lose/win.
The choice of one or the other is a false dichotomy because of the existence of playing a win/win game. For example I play win/win. I am not poor, nor am I rich. I live comfortably.

I invite you to notice that Hubbard played a win/lose game.
I also invite you to notice that John McMaster played a lose/win game.
Hubbard abused McMaster, but when I met McMaster in 1968, he was the largest, cleanest being I had ever seen (he was surrounded by the clear light the Tibetans talk about).

These categories are not fixed. They act rather like rheostats.
If someone plays lose/win long enough, they move into win/win.
If someone plays win/lose long enough, they move into lose/lose.

The reason for the decay is explained very well by James Carse in his small book "Finite and Infinite Games". Winning over others is a finite game designed to END with the player as victor. Because the intention is finite, the game descends toward zero. Contrast this with allowing everyone to win. A lose/win game is an infinite game because the intention is an infinite result that keeps going into the future. An infinite game progresses toward infinity.

Solomon was born into wealth as son of King David. So I would venture that he did not play win/lose. In the case of Solomon he perhaps followed a path not too unlike that of Gautama (aka Buddha), a prince of the Sakya clan -- moving toward spiritual rather than material wealth.
cheers
Ed
 

Cat's Squirrel

Active member
In my book on ethics I go into detail about the four basic ethics styles of play. In short, these are:
win/win (I win, you win)
win/lose (I win, you lose)
lose/win (I lose, you win)
lose/lose (I lose, you lose)

Most (not all) rich people became rich by playing win/lose.
Most (not all) spiritual (actually spiritual) people increase spiritual advancement by playing lose/win.
The choice of one or the other is a false dichotomy because of the existence of playing a win/win game. For example I play win/win. I am not poor, nor am I rich. I live comfortably.

I invite you to notice that Hubbard played a win/lose game.
I also invite you to notice that John McMaster played a lose/win game.
Hubbard abused McMaster, but when I met McMaster in 1968, he was the largest, cleanest being I had ever seen (he was surrounded by the clear light the Tibetans talk about).

These categories are not fixed. They act rather like rheostats.
If someone plays lose/win long enough, they move into win/win.
If someone plays win/lose long enough, they move into lose/lose.

The reason for the decay is explained very well by James Carse in his small book "Finite and Infinite Games". Winning over others is a finite game designed to END with the player as victor. Because the intention is finite, the game descends toward zero. Contrast this with allowing everyone to win. A lose/win game is an infinite game because the intention is an infinite result that keeps going into the future. An infinite game progresses toward infinity.

Solomon was born into wealth as son of King David. So I would venture that he did not play win/lose. In the case of Solomon he perhaps followed a path not too unlike that of Gautama (aka Buddha), a prince of the Sakya clan -- moving toward spiritual rather than material wealth.
cheers
Ed
Thanks for that reply. I never met John McMaster but I do know that many old timers speak very highly of him and I think he deserves his own thread here.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Ed8

onceuponatime

Active member
Not sure what I'd do without my daily GPM session. However I let the BTs run the session, seems to go better that way.

Seriously, I can only think of one or two useful things from Scientology. Maybe battle plans? (not like that's unique to Scientology though). Willing to work 14 hours a day? That's all I got.
 
Top