Opening new independent org

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Going back to the early 1970s, before Dianetic Clear was re-defined, "A well and happy human being" was the EP for a Dianetic Case Completion. At the time (R3R) Dianetics came before the lower grades on the Grade Chart.

Although a "well and happy human being" is also a pretty good definition of Clear, as far as I'm concerned.

I audited at a break-away mission in the aftermath of the Diantetic Clear frenzy of '78, and lots of people were attesting to Dianetic Clear. Without going into details, I ran my "pc" on a late 1950s listing and nulling and help process, and it went very well. The "pc" originated that he wanted to attest to Clear and he did.

So there seem to be many paths to Clear, and people can argue over definitions, but a person knows when he has attained it.



Very good advice, and the same advice I gave my (outside the CofS) "PCs," steering them away from auditing Hubbard's "case" on the confidential levels.
.

Okay so you believe in the state of Clear. I didn't know that.

And you picked one of the many different definitions of Clear that you liked. Didn't know that either.

And you believe that a person "knows when he has attained it (clear)". I didn't know you had that belief either.

And you believe that Scientologists running 1950's L&N on the help button produces a clear. I had no idea you believed that either.

And you believe that a Clear is a person who has attained the state of a "WELL & HAPPY HUMAN BEING". I was also clueless that you held that belief.

Now it begins to make sense after all these years of reading your posts, why you keep insisting that others look for and find the "good parts of Scientology". In effect, you are still (to some degree) a believing and practicing Scientologist as it pertains to believing that people can attain the state of Clear. Who knew?!

So, let me ask you a question about that "WELL & HAPPY HUMAN BEING" state that you feel so sure about. . .

What if someone attains "Clear" and then later they get sick (pneumonia, covid, heart disease, cancer, et al) and die. Are they still "Clear" while they are dying?

If they get sick at some point does it mean they did not attain Clear? Or is it your belief that the state of Clear is a very temporary state? For example, If I went Clear today and got the flu tomorrow, did it mean that my Clear state was only a 24 hour affair? If so, why bother attesting to it?

What if I went Clear and an hour later I got a migraine headache and heartburn? Was I only Clear for one hour, or did I falsely attest?

Honestly, I am clueless how you can claim there is a state of Clear. Try to answer the above questions, instead of your SOP which is to say that the questions are ridiculous or "straw man". I just asked you real questions, try to give real answers.


.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Okay so you believe in the state of Clear. I didn't know that.
You are mistaken, and your comments through the rest of this post are mistaken.

And you picked one of the many different definitions of Clear that you liked. Didn't know that either.
You are so passionate about being a contrarian on anything whatsoever related to Scientology that you sometimes don't put things in context.

And you believe that a person "knows when he has attained it (clear)". I didn't know you had that belief either.
You are mistaken again.

And you believe that Scientologists running 1950's L&N on the help button produces a clear. I had no idea you believed that either.
I wasn't referring to Scientologists (plural). I was referring to one person, thirty five years ago, who was curious about auditing and wanted to do various Grade Chart actions, ARC S/W, some Objectives (brief), some Dianetics (brief, to experience what it was like), and the Lower Grades, and (yes, gasp) even an exteriorization exercise from G. Filbert's photocopied compendium of processes and significance, plus a little audited NOTs, again to satisfy his curiosity.

Shortly after we had begun Grade One (Help/Problems), the person found out that he had been invited to a family reunion (parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.) in Canada. Previously, such reunions were unpleasant experiences for this person, but he decided he would attend, and wanted to see if he could experience all his relatives without the previously unpleasant emotional reactions. This was his idea.

So, we had a few days before the break, and I decided to not do any more of the routine (circa 1980) grades processes, and did some searching, and came across a discontinued Help process from the 1950s, which was interesting and different.

What can I tell you. There was a very positive result. And it was a stable result. And the person originated to me (with no prompting) that he was "Clear," even though that went against the (most recent) dogma, from Hubbard, that people can only "go Clear" on Dianetics and the Clearing Course.

Neither one of us were Scientologists anymore, so weren't bound by Hubbard's ideas or whims.

We were free and exploring.

And you believe that a Clear is a person who has attained the state of a "WELL & HAPPY HUMAN BEING". I was also clueless that you held that belief.
If someone has a sustained positive experience and sustained positive result, through any procedure, and characterizes it in a way that makes sense to him/her, and he or she is not in any danger, and is doing well, I am not going to tell that person, "No! You're wrong!"

Now it begins to make sense after all these years of reading your posts, why you keep insisting that others look for and find the "good parts of Scientology". In effect, you are still (to some degree) a believing and practicing Scientologist as it pertains to believing that people can attain the state of Clear. Who knew?!
Mistaken again.

So, let me ask you a question about that "WELL & HAPPY HUMAN BEING" state that you feel so sure about. . .
It has nothing to do with me "feeling so sure about..." I've expressed my views on this topic extensively and they are not what you are describing.

It's not mainly about me. It's mainly about other people. There are lots of other people and only one of me. Do the math. Others are more important.

-snip-

Honestly, I am clueless how you can claim there is a state of Clear. Try to answer the above questions, instead of your SOP which is to say that the questions are ridiculous or "straw man". I just asked you real questions, try to give real answers.
I have never claimed there is a state of Clear. See above for answers.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
.
You are mistaken, and your comments through the rest of this post are mistaken.
---snipped---
I have never claimed there is a state of Clear.
.
.
As I predicted, you would not answer my questions, but instead offer ambiguous misdirection and self-righteous, irrelevant and snippy recriminations.

On the subject of "Clear", here are your own words:

*** "Going back to the early 1970s, before Dianetic Clear was re-defined, 'A well and happy human being' was the EP for a Dianetic Case Completion."​
*** "Although a "well and happy human being" is also a pretty good definition of Clear, as far as I'm concerned."

*** "I audited at a break-away mission in the aftermath of the Diantetic Clear frenzy of '78, and lots of people were attesting to Dianetic Clear. Without going into details, I ran my "pc" on a late 1950s listing and nulling and help process, and it went very well. The "pc" originated that he wanted to attest to Clear and he did."

*** "So there seem to be many paths to Clear, and people can argue over definitions, but a person knows when he has attained it."

CONCLUSION: According to you, there is no actual definition of the state of Clear. It can be any one of Hubbard's many different and/or contradictory definitions or anything you think or anything the PC randomly feels. Ergo, if you were auditing someone who sneezed in session and thereupon claimed that this caused their reactive mind to be forcibly ejected and tiny dayglow green fairies with bagpipes appeared inside their auditing cans---that would also be occasion to celebrate the state of Clear. Because "a person knows when he has attained it".

If a word like "clear" has a different definition for every person on earth, then it has no definition. And if the word has no objective meaning, why should anyone be "attesting" to it? Who are they attesting it to? Themselves?

/
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
.


.

As I predicted, you would not answer my questions, but instead offer ambiguous misdirection and self-righteous, irrelevant and snippy recriminations.

On the subject of "Clear", here are your own words:

*** "Going back to the early 1970s, before Dianetic Clear was re-defined, 'A well and happy human being' was the EP for a Dianetic Case Completion."​
*** "Although a "well and happy human being" is also a pretty good definition of Clear, as far as I'm concerned."

*** "I audited at a break-away mission in the aftermath of the Diantetic Clear frenzy of '78, and lots of people were attesting to Dianetic Clear. Without going into details, I ran my "pc" on a late 1950s listing and nulling and help process, and it went very well. The "pc" originated that he wanted to attest to Clear and he did."

*** "So there seem to be many paths to Clear, and people can argue over definitions, but a person knows when he has attained it."

CONCLUSION: According to you, there is no actual definition of the state of Clear. It can be any one of Hubbard's many different and/or contradictory definitions or anything you think or anything the PC randomly feels. Ergo, if you were auditing someone who sneezed in session and thereupon claimed that this caused their reactive mind to be forcibly ejected and tiny dayglow green fairies with bagpipes appear inside their auditing cans---that would also be occasion to celebrate the state of Clear. Because "a person knows when he has attained it".

If a word like "clear" has a different definition for every person on earth, then it has no definition. And if the word has no objective meaning, why should anyone be "attesting" to it? Who are they attesting it to? Themselves?

/

CONTEXT.

Here's the context you're ignoring, which was a person who attested to Clear, and then had nothing more to do with Scientology, not unlike the people in the Those who "quit fast" thread.

I didn't experience any abuse in scn and the auditing I gave and received went smoothly. Somewhere on a grade chart the EP of clear is stated as "A well and happy human being". So my point is that outside of the corruption of an organization if someone audits to clear and had a worthwhile experience then go do something else or go live life.

-snip-
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
OK, I'll throw down . . . :LOL:

If I'm being honest, I got some benefits from auditing along the way -- especially early on -- or
I probably wouldn't have stuck around for so long. Some of the lower level techniques must have
worked some way, somehow. That's another discussion though.

So, I'm gonna say this . . .

The objects and lower level techniques of Scientology mental therapy -- before the more "imagination
techniques" of the OT levels -- should have been made "open source."
In the computer industry, open source software is computer code that's designed to be publicly​
accessible and tweakable — anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code.​

In the early 50's, Hubbard was originally amenable to a group approach -- for that brief moment of
eternity -- so he claimed.

Historical: Sir Isaac Newton, the English physicist who is arguably the most influential scientist of all time and a main contributor to the scientific revolution, did not copyright and trademark his works and discoveries, which include:
  • Laws of motion and gravity
  • Foundations for most of classical mechanics
  • Contributions in optics
  • Reflecting telescopes
  • Theory of colour
  • Empirical laws of cooling
  • Speed of sound
Hubbard actually tried to trademark and commercialize (put on a paying basis) most aspects or fields (of his brand ) of the humanities, including: philosophy, religion, laws of the universe, study methodology, talk therapy, human potential improvement techniques, on and on.

But mental image pictures and the mind -- as they do exist -- exist independent of any copyright law or trademark and consequently can be, and could be, independently discovered by many other investigators in the future. That is, if they do in fact exist in as described by Hubbard. I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Just like the laws of physics would have been discovered independently of Issac Newton had he not done his work when he did.

The mind and MIPs (mental image pictures) would be things that simply "are." Just like things in physical sciences simply "are." They are objects that will be discovered and observed and confirmed by many researchers over time. Again, if actual as described.

That said, realistically you cannot copyright laws of nature, things that exist in nature, or techniques that work in nature.

I guess, I'm just waiting for someone in the world to come up with a variation of mental therapy, some form of talk therapy, that can help our troubled or fallen brethren. It's gonna be either talk or drugs. So far, nothing much works that well in the talking arena. "You can't fix crazy."

Might be a long, long wait. I'm not optimistic with the way things are going in the world right now. Science and discovery has become so politicized and woke. We're entering into a new era for the humanities.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
CONTEXT.

Here's the context you're ignoring, which was a person who attested to Clear, and then had nothing more to do with Scientology, not unlike the people in the Those who "quit fast" thread.

Thanks but i did not ignore it. I didn't agree with your assertions that there is such a thing as the state of "CLEAR" by anyone's definition, Hubbard's or otherwise.

In my view anything that lends credibility to referring to the "state of Clear" (as if it is a real thing) is doing a real disservice to the unsuspecting marks that Scientology is so avariciously searching for and stalking.

Personally I think it is utterly ridiculous that the preclear in your anecdote is noted as achieving "Clear" when their definition of it did not even remotely match with the books, HCOBs and audio lectures on the mythical state of Clear. It would be like me claiming to have won an OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL in the high jump. Then if someone asked why my name didn't appear in the official record of Olympic medalists, I'd explain to them that "....to me personally, I feel the word "Olympic" means any physical action that a person does. So when I was in my backyard and hopped over a 1 foot tall rock, I consider that I won the Olympics. And after that happened I awarded myself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that I like to call a 'medal'."

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
...
Hubbard actually tried to trademark and commercialize (put on a paying basis) most aspects or fields (of his brand) of the humanities, including: philosophy, religion, laws of the universe, study methodology, talk therapy, human potential improvement techniques, on and on.
,
,
If Hubbard could have somehow managed it, he would have registered patents worldwide on TR-0, and thereafter filed infringement lawsuits in all 195 countries against anyone who looked at the person they were speaking to.

If that had become possible, Hubbard never would have needed to claim Scientology is a non-profit religion--because the trillions streaming in from the obligatory royalty payments and litigation settlements would be far to great to spend--even after paying all the taxes.

.
 

Veda

Well-known member
OK, I'll throw down . . . :LOL:

If I'm being honest, I got some benefits from auditing along the way -- especially early on -- or
I probably wouldn't have stuck around for so long. Some of the lower level techniques must have
worked some way, somehow. That's another discussion though
Hubbard's initial problem with the idea of Clear was that Clear was IT, and there was nothing more to do after.

So, I'm gonna say this . . .

The objects and lower level techniques of Scientology mental therapy -- before the more "imagination
techniques" of the OT levels -- should have been made "open source."
In the computer industry, open source software is computer code that's designed to be publicly​
accessible and tweak able — anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code.​

In the early 50's, Hubbard was originally amenable to a group approach -- for that brief moment of
eternity -- so he claimed.

Historical: Sir Isaac Newton, the English physicist who is arguably the most influential scientist of all time and a main contributor to the scientific revolution, did not copyright and trademark his works and discoveries, which include:
  • Laws of motion and gravity
  • Foundations for most of classical mechanics
  • Contributions in optics
  • Reflecting telescopes
  • Theory of colour
  • Empirical laws of cooling
  • Speed of sound
Hubbard actually tried to trademark and commercialize (put on a paying basis) most aspects or fields (of his brand) of the humanities, including: philosophy, religion, laws of the universe, study methodology, talk therapy, human potential improvement techniques, on and on.

But mental image pictures and the mind -- as they do exist -- exist independent of any copyright law or trademark and consequently can be, and could be, independently discovered by many other investigators in the future. That is, if they do in fact exist in as described by Hubbard. I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Just like the laws of physics would have been discovered independently of Issac Newton had he not done his work when he did.

The mind and MIPs (mental image pictures) would be things that simply "are." Just like things in physical sciences simply "are." They are objects that will be discovered and observed and confirmed by many researchers over time. Again, if actual as described.

That said, realistically you cannot copyright laws of nature, things that exist in nature, or techniques that work in nature.

I guess, I'm just waiting for someone in the world to come up with a variation of mental therapy, some form of talk therapy, that can help our troubled or fallen brethren. It's gonna be either talk or drugs. So far, nothing much works that well in the talking arena. "You can't fix crazy."

Might be a long, long wait. I'm not optimistic with the way things are going in the world right now. Science and discovery has become so politicized and woke. We're entering into a new era for the humanities.
I'm also not optimistic.


Thanks but i did not ignore it. I didn't agree with your assertions that there is such a thing as the state of "CLEAR" by anyone's definition, Hubbard's or otherwise.
That's not your decision to make. Or mine. Let each person decide.

In my view anything that lends credibility to referring to the "state of Clear" (as if it is a real thing) is doing a real disservice to the unsuspecting marks that Scientology is so avariciously searching for and stalking.
These "marks" all left Scientology, and exited the "Bridge," after they became "Clear," or had some other positive experience. How were they "marks"?

Don't the people who ceased involvement with Scientology, after having had a good experience, deserve any mention?

Your message is that Scientology is all bad.

How does that immunize a person who has had a positive experience?

A little bit of Scientology can sometimes be a good thing; a lot of Scientology seldom is.

The message is simple. Had a good experience? Then that's probably a good time to leave.

.
 
Last edited:

Bob Hinson

Active member
Hello everyone, we have a happy announcement and is that we are about to open a Rons org in Cancun, Mexico. If you know anyone who lives in Mexico or nearby and needs to get auditing, Ots and auditor training spread the word. We deliver spanish and english. Fortunately, Mexico has been one of the few countries that has not closed its borders during the world lockdowns nor has it imposed requirements to enter the country. To contact us please write to [email protected] or via Whatsapp or Telegram to +5491168136916. Thank you so much!!!
Irregardless the application of the tech has nothing to do with the new church or the DM. He altered the original technology by changing the words and context. Standard technology will always be standard technology.
 

Bob Hinson

Active member
.




Good answer!

I suspect that this "Bill" character is just a stalled and "Resistive Case". Nothing an Expanded Green Form 40 couldn't easily handle in a couple hours, pocketa pocketa!

In the 1960s LRH discovered that some beings do not respond to 100% standard auditing which always produces the state of OT 100% of the time. I call those "The Zero Percenters". I mean, it's so bizarre that even when the tech is working 100% of the time none of it works on them. Their awareness level is apparently below being able to perceive the gains.

I feel sorry for "Bill" if he doesn't get it honest and straight and start admitting to himself that he is having huge OT wins.

.
True!
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Irregardless the application of the tech has nothing to do with the new church or DM.

He altered the original technology by changing the words
and context. Standard technology will always be standard technology.
.
I couldn't agree more!

Per standard tech, when the words or auditing commands get alter-ised, it's not KSW, and to that degree the 100% workable tech is prevented from working.

Back at Old St. Hill, during the time when the stats were booming at unprecedented highest-ever ranges, the staff members would not engage in idle chatter or any written or verbal communications unless it was done with a verbatim LRH quote on the matter.

At first this seemed a little extreme and particularly clumsy if you saw a friend or your spouse and they said something like: "Hello! How are you doing?" Most of us soon figured out that it was actually quite easy to respond (when there was no LRH quote applicable) by simply giving the person a big grin and huge "THUMBS UP!" gesture.

.
 

Bob Hinson

Active member
.

Okay so you believe in the state of Clear. I didn't know that.

And you picked one of the many different definitions of Clear that you liked. Didn't know that either.

And you believe that a person "knows when he has attained it (clear)". I didn't know you had that belief either.

And you believe that Scientologists running 1950's L&N on the help button produces a clear. I had no idea you believed that either.

And you believe that a Clear is a person who has attained the state of a "WELL & HAPPY HUMAN BEING". I was also clueless that you held that belief.

Now it begins to make sense after all these years of reading your posts, why you keep insisting that others look for and find the "good parts of Scientology". In effect, you are still (to some degree) a believing and practicing Scientologist as it pertains to believing that people can attain the state of Clear. Who knew?!

So, let me ask you a question about that "WELL & HAPPY HUMAN BEING" state that you feel so sure about. . .

What if someone attains "Clear" and then later they get sick (pneumonia, covid, heart disease, cancer, et al) and die. Are they still "Clear" while they are dying?

If they get sick at some point does it mean they did not attain Clear? Or is it your belief that the state of Clear is a very temporary state? For example, If I went Clear today and got the flu tomorrow, did it mean that my Clear state was only a 24 hour affair? If so, why bother attesting to it?

What if I went Clear and an hour later I got a migraine headache and heartburn? Was I only Clear for one hour, or did I falsely attest?

Honestly, I am clueless how you can claim there is a state of Clear. Try to answer the above questions, instead of your SOP which is to say that the questions are ridiculous or "straw man". I just asked you real questions, try to give real answers.


.
You need to get a tech dictionary. If you've looked at the amended definition I believe it says One that no longer has their own reactive mind. If you've done any upper levels you might understand that definition. And then there's the Gremlins. For those of you That got on lines after 76 you missed the boat.
 

Bob Hinson

Active member
.



.

I couldn't agree more!

Per standard tech, when the words or auditing commands get alter-ised, it's not KSW, and to that degree the 100% workable tech is prevented from working.

Back at Old St. Hill, during the time when the stats were booming at unprecedented highest-ever ranges, the staff members would not engage in idle chatter or any written or verbal communications unless it was done with a verbatim LRH quote on the matter.

At first this seemed a little extreme and particularly clumsy if you saw a friend or your spouse and they said something like: "Hello! How are you doing?" Most of us soon figured out that it was actually quite easy to respond (when there was no LRH quote applicable) by simply giving the person a big grin and huge "THUMBS UP!" gesture.

.
I can't give you the exact HCOB reference right now BUT it has to do With Alter-is and the degraded being.
 

Bob Hinson

Active member
In response to whomever mentioned Ron wanting to copyright TR-O, were you aware that he didn't even want to copyright Dianetics? He thought it should be free! He had to be persuaded to copyright the book.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

You need to get a tech dictionary.
.

Actually I do have a tech dictionary.

The problem I've been running into is that there is a hangup regarding my demo kit and thus I have not been getting a proper balance of mass and insignificance, the way LRH describes in the Study Tapes. The situation that bogged my studies down is when after LRH went to Target II, there were some environmental issues that became known regarding used batteries and how they could become a bio-hazard if not properly re-cycled. I was not able to locate any policies/bulletins that addressed this issue, thus I have not been able to do proper demos since then because Ron states we should used paper clips AND some old batteries.

Some of my course supervisors have suggested that I just replace the used batteries with something else, but Ron did not say anything like that, so this was just verbal tech (which I wrote a KR on, to keep my KSW in).

Do you have any Source references about how to do standard demos with just paperclips alone?

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

I can't give you the exact HCOB reference right now BUT it has to do With Alter-is and the degraded being.
.

Wow, cool!

That happens to be one of my favorite HCO PLs /HCOBs!




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 MARCH 19671
Issue I
(Also issued as an HCOB, same date and title)

IMPORTANT

Admin Know-How Series 14

ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS

Alteration of orders and tech is worse than noncompliance.
Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently often brought about by noncomprehension, the noncomprehension itself, and failure to mention it, is an avoidance of orders.
Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their troubles, to get help when needed. Competent higher-toned beings understand orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots of special orders.
Degraded beings find any instruction painful, as they have been painfully indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don’t comply.
Thus, in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert noncompliance) and noncompliance, given sensible and correct tech or instructions, you are dealing with a degraded low-level being and should act accordingly.
One uses very simple low-level processes on a degraded being, gently.
In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-ises or fails to comply, you are also dealing with a degraded being but one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause, and staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.
This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff members.
A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach, really, of a simple S&D and handled only at Section III OT Course.
Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big Being.
Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded being.
A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can’t ever work (obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or even “cooperative,” often even flattering, sometimes merely dull, but consistently alter-ising or noncomplying.
This datum appeared during higher-level research and is highly revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena-the pc who changes commands or doesn’t do them, the worker who can’t get it straight or who is always on a tea break.
In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods, people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.
Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it requires our highest-level tech to finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.
Degraded beings are about eighteen to one over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At the same time, we can’t have a world full of them and still make it. So we have no choice.
And we can handle them even when they cannot serve at higher levels.
This is really OT data, but we need it at lower levels to get the job done.
L. Ron Hubbard
Founder


Was there one particular part of Ron's tech that you thought I should clay demo?


.
 

Chuck J.

Election Fraud Has Consequences
I have a question. Was this Cancun Ron's Org thing just a weekend in Cancun or is it on an on-going operation?

Great location for an org. I imagine a lot of people in the DM cherch would love to be posted to an org in Cancun.
 

Bob Hinson

Active member
.


.


Wow, cool!

That happens to be one of my favorite HCO PLs /HCOBs!




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 MARCH 19671
Issue I
(Also issued as an HCOB, same date and title)

IMPORTANT

Admin Know-How Series 14

ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS

Alteration of orders and tech is worse than noncompliance.
Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently often brought about by noncomprehension, the noncomprehension itself, and failure to mention it, is an avoidance of orders.
Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their troubles, to get help when needed. Competent higher-toned beings understand orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots of special orders.
Degraded beings find any instruction painful, as they have been painfully indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don’t comply.
Thus, in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert noncompliance) and noncompliance, given sensible and correct tech or instructions, you are dealing with a degraded low-level being and should act accordingly.
One uses very simple low-level processes on a degraded being, gently.
In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-ises or fails to comply, you are also dealing with a degraded being but one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause, and staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.
This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff members.
A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach, really, of a simple S&D and handled only at Section III OT Course.
Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big Being.
Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded being.
A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can’t ever work (obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or even “cooperative,” often even flattering, sometimes merely dull, but consistently alter-ising or noncomplying.
This datum appeared during higher-level research and is highly revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena-the pc who changes commands or doesn’t do them, the worker who can’t get it straight or who is always on a tea break.
In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods, people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.
Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it requires our highest-level tech to finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.
Degraded beings are about eighteen to one over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At the same time, we can’t have a world full of them and still make it. So we have no choice.
And we can handle them even when they cannot serve at higher levels.
This is really OT data, but we need it at lower levels to get the job done.
L. Ron Hubbard
Founder


Was there one particular part of Ron's tech that you thought I should clay demo?

.
I was specifically referring to DM. I personally like graphic demos.
 

Bob Hinson

Active member
I was specifically referring to DM. I personally like graphic demos.
Thanx for the reference.
I was specifically referring to DM. I personally like graphic demos.
I once had to clay demo "responsibility".
I'm in no way being critical of you or what you're doing. My son once went to Mexico City to get auditing in the 90s because of the difference in priceing. He got hammered by the Church for it. Once upon a time you could also buy books at a certain big box store for much less then an Org or Msn. That twisted some shorts. Personally I pretty much own all the books and tapes but nothing after 82. Remember real to real? How about getting definitions off of index cards? I still have my first dictionary which is light orange.
 

Veda

Well-known member
You need to get a tech dictionary. If you've looked at the amended definition I believe it says One that no longer has their own reactive mind. If you've done any upper levels you might understand that definition. And then there's the Gremlins. For those of you That got on lines after 76 you missed the boat.
In 1978, Hubbard wrote that "keyed out Clear is Clear." This was during the time that he decided to tell Scientologists that there were "Dianetic Clears," and lots and lots of them.

According to David Mayo, then his personal auditor, who also lived with him, and was the Senior Case Supervisor International, and a Class 12, Hubbard redefined Clear DOWN for PR and marketing purposes. After leaving the Organization, David Mayo wrote an article on this period for the International Viewpoints magazine and the Free Spirit magazine. The article is available on the Internet.

I got on lines in 1969, and have done the upper levels. Have you examined the multiple and varied definitions of Clear from 1950s forward? Around 1965, Hubbard had abandoned running actual GPMs and substituted implant "GPMs" (which were, essentially a type of engram, and not actual GPMs at all.) This was the point when Hubbard switched from mainly asking people the contents of their own minds and spaces to telling people the contents of their own minds and spaces. (But that's another story, and a long one, for another time.)

Late in 1966, Hubbard had an emotional breakdown after his disastrous trip to southern Africa. He moped in bed for a week or so, and then invented Xenu, Incident 2, and Incident 1, as the reason he had failed in southern Africa. He also created the Sea Project, later the Sea Org, and recreated himself as the Commodore.

By creating the Sea Org, he had created a cult within a cult. He also made other changes to Scientology which made it less sane.
 
Top