ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at


Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by jennifer, Sep 22, 2007.

View Users: View Users
  1. Bea Kiddo

    Bea Kiddo Crusader

    Thats my dad!!! WOW!!! Cool!!!
  2. The Oracle

    The Oracle Gold Meritorious Patron

    You are SOOO brilliant!

    What a beautiful mind!

    This is what you do on the CofS OT8, a NOTS correction to find out who you were not.

    But anyone could start with this and blow huge amounts of case!

    I guess you could start it as a process: "Tell me who you are not" ?

    Vinny, I just love it! This makes perfect sense for an ethics sort out! :clap:
  3. The Oracle

    The Oracle Gold Meritorious Patron

    Well, I have had many disagreements with people on this one: Find out who you really are.

    See, every time I was so low I had to cycle through that one, I found out who I really was , was some kind of dramatizing idiot. Then I had to look at my products as a dramatizing idiot. Then I had to decide if it was really helping me to be a dramatizing idiot. Because that is exactly what I was being as a who.

    Then I got mixed up with the Sea Org and started reading all these theetie wheetie write ups: "Who I really am is a nice thetan....." "Who I really am is basically good..." Oh really? Then why are you checking yourself out in the mirror in enemy condition hmmmm....?

    No matter what I said I could get no one to agree with my way of doing that condition.

    Then in the Freezone I ran into the "ethics experts" ...same thing.

    That is why Vinny's idea of finding out who you are not sounds good therapy to me.

    If people can't even confront who they are, it may be easier for them to confront who they are not.
  4. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    A short essay on Ethics would be in order, to help clear up any confusion.

    We have it as a stable datum in Scientology that man is basically good and powerful. This was an assumption LRH made (a quite unjustified one, he says) and which paid huge dividends in his research of the mind. When we talk about ethical behaviour we mean behaviour stemming from this basic goodness and power that is inherent in each one of us. When you act purely out of your own goodness then (and only then) are you being truly ethical. This is why Ethics can never be imposed or enforced on anyone - to do so would violate the determinism of the source of true ethical conduct.

    As the person moves away from himself as source he moves into a descending spectrum of conduct, going through good manners, moral codes, firm policies in his group, laws, statutes, punishment-avoidance behaviour, slavery to another’s will, and then down through extreme robotism and eventually out the bottom altogether. This all forms a spectrum or gradient scale. A continuum. We are familiar with these in Scientology.

    So what is needed in the field of ethics is a method by which one can regain one’s access to one’s own inherent goodness and power. If this were achieved then one’s conduct would naturally be in the best survival interests of one’s eight dynamics. The conditions formulas, properly done, provide one with such a method.

    So that gives an overview of what an Ethics “Officer” should be seeking to attain in a person. Let’s look at some of the conditions and their formulas.

    One starts a lifetime in non-existence. This aligns with “I am not” on the Chart of Attitudes. I don’t have one to hand right now but if you look at the various points on it as it moves upscale you’ll see a correlation between them and a baby’s behaviour as he grows though childhood and into full beingness. Somewhere near the bottom of this chart the child derives beingness from being admired and validated by Mum and Dad, later he makes contributions to the family, and so on. He is moving up the conditions and up the Chart of Attitudes. Initially he had no beingness. Bit by bit he developed the person he was going to be in this life - he mocks it up more and more as he grows up.

    It could happen - often does to most of us - that at some time he encounters a situation for which he is unprepared, his “beingness” is not adequate to handle it and attain survival. [A Doubt Condition exists at this moment] He then tends to either flee, avoid, neglect or succumb, or hurriedly scrabble around trying finding some other beingness that could possibly handle the situation. The Black Panther mechanism comes into play here. Also the Effect Scale: “What sort of beingness would be adequate to handle the situation?” he asks. Being in a sudden non-existence situation he is low on the Effect Scale and so will quite likely adopt a beingness that could (he thinks) create massive effects on others. Let’s say he adopts such a valence (persona) and he uses it and it works. Hooray! The win makes it a “pro-survival” valence. If it then also gets admired by others and if it is used successfully again on another occasion then it is pretty much hot-wired for life.

    So he has now adopted a beingness that can create huge effects on others - wipe them out if needed; nullify them. This will of course be modified by his position on the Tone Scale, but the intention is there. Notice, since this is a valence he has adopted, that his original true beingness is now an “other”. The valence is in command and he himself is viewed as an inadequate “other”. (He failed, didn’t he?) So this valence will seek to wipe him out too. It will seek to nullify him. He is now in a condition of Enemy on the first dynamic.

    Even though we talk of a “valence” having supplanted the real guy, it does not in any way lessen his own causation of what is happening. He has simply become the effect of his own causes - a fatal mistake.

    Below Enemy is Treason - well look at the formula: “Find out that you are”. In order to “find this out” he must somehow be of the opinion that he isn’t, and he could only have gotten himself into this mind-set if he had postulated himself into it. So via the enemy valence he somehow nullified himself or postulated himself out of existence or something like that. He’d need to take responsibility in this area if he is to find out that he really is.

    If he doesn’t, if he continues “not being”, well he’ll just get lost as a thetan and cease being anywhere altogether. This is of course, Confusion.

    OK? That gives an idea of ethics conditions on the first dynamic. No group identity or post is involved here. It’s just the bloke himself or herself. It’s his own view of himself - his own concept of who he is is not sufficient to attain survival for himself - just like the definition says. You can’t audit this - you’ll be auditing the valence. During ethics handling we basically get the valence thoroughly restimulated and then we shove the guy’s face in it and say LOOK!!! Then he cognites.

    I suppose it can be audited but it would be long and laborious.

    Any (but ANY) self invalidation in a person, no matter what, is a direct indicator of out-ethics on the first dynamic. This can be a subtle as an unspoken belief that “one day when I am OT I’ll be OK”. Any inval of other dynamics stems directly from out-ethics on the first. Any missing dynamic stems from out ethics on the first. A person has eight dynamics and needs to survive through all eight of them if he is to survive at all - one can no more sacrifice one dynamic to advantage another than one can cut one leg off to advantage the other.

    The program for handling these conditions and bringing the person up to an awareness of these things has been pretty much limited to trained auditors who have themselves had good wins on receiving the handling. Guys who have not sorted out their own conditions tend to have some ’orrible blind-spots on these factors in others.

    As one moves up the conditions one gets back to the basic identity one mocked up for oneself for this lifetime and one can then set about restructuring one’s life in a meaningful way. One does a full Admin Scale, and so on. By the way, difficulties people have in discovering what their goal or purpose is for this life (LRH says a guy has it figured out by the age of two) is not that it is hidden or buried in bank or anything like that. It is because he is looking for it from a completely wrong viewpoint. Once he regains his true beingness he usually has no trouble at all knowing what his goal and purpose in life is. (All those 500 item lists that got nowhere that the guys listed out in the early sixties all had as their primary failure the fact that the preclears were looking for the goal from the wrong viewpoint.)

    It should also be clear from the above why doing ethics conditions on the third dynamic alone is a complete waste of time and effort. Also, anyone who has in the past had difficulty and frustration in sorting out lower conditions - well it wasn’t done in the right way, that’s all. Needs to be unburdened and done in the right sequence. Then it works every time.

    OK. This is a VERY brief overview of the subject just so as to clear the thing up a bit. I hope. I may add some more to it if I feel the need.

    Thak you all.
  5. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    This is the original Vedic process: "Neti, neti." which means, "Not this, not that," in trying to understand BRAHMAN (your ultimate self).

  6. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    In enemy condition, one is supposed to recognize the "enemy" valence one has assumed.

    In Treason condition, one is supposed to establish the stable datum of the beingness one should assume. Without that it would be difficult to apply the enemy condition.

    In Doubt, one compares the valence against the beingness.

    I am surprised that LRH did not clarify these conditions more fully. These conditions have pushed so many people into unnecessary figure-figure and chewing upon their banks.

    This has hurt cases instead of helping people come out of those conditions.

    Last edited: Sep 24, 2007
  7. The Oracle

    The Oracle Gold Meritorious Patron

    Great essay Leon, Thank you for the time you took to teach!

    I have only one disagreement, and that is with your above quote.

    A person, to evolve, must be able to self correct.

    If he cannot, that is when the group effects it with "justice".

    If a person cannot have notice of his own faults and mistakes, he cannot self correct / move through qual.

    "Self invalidation" although painful, is neccessary if a person is to evolve at all.

    If I had not been able to invalidate myself, I never would have evolved.

    It would be ridiculous for me to look back and not is that I spent at least 70% of my life in confusion, being totally unimportant to anyone at all for anything, and a usual liability to society.

    If I hadn't noticed at age 16 that I was a total bum, I never would have pursued and line of self improvment.

    If I had received hundreds of hours of sec checks, I would still be the little criminal I was as a teenager, not taking any responsibility for the effects I created on others.

    I don't see any of this as self invalidation. I see it as couragous confront. And if I didn't do it I wouldn't have made it up to solo nots .

    I have done the Personal Ethics and integrity course, the Ethics Specialist Course, had lots of sec checks and Integrity Processing. All of that I saw as exploration into my self and my capabilities.

    I continuosly self invalidate myself to evolve at all, because my qual hat is more dynamic than my self importance hat.

    A day doesn't go by that I can't sit down, and look back on something I did or said during the day , that was a flub in life.

    I don't see this as out ethics.

    It would be out ethics to validate myself for flubbing or running about blissfully oblivious.

    Nevertheless, I am not monitored by any goal to be "holy".

    Only by recognizing my faults and liabilities can I correct my social intercourse and like myself better and better.

    Rhetoricians, Sentimentalists, and Poets
    by William Butler Yeats

    We make out of the quarrel with others, rhetoric, but of the quarrel with ourselves, poetry. Unlike the rhetoricians, who get a confident voice from remembering the crowd they have won or may win, we sing amid our uncertainty; and, smitten even in the presence of the most high beauty by the knowledge of our solitude, our rhythm shudders. I think, too, that no fine poet, no matter how disordered his life, has ever, even in his mere life, had pleasure for his end. Johnson and Dowson, friends of my youth, were dissipated men, the one a drunkard, the other a drunkard and mad about women, and yet they had the gravity of men who had found life out and were awakening from the dream; and both, one in life and art and one in art and less in life, had a continual preoccupation with religion. Nor has any poet I have read of or heard of or met with been a sentimentalist. The other self, the anti-self or the antithetical self, as one may choose to name it, comes but to those who are no longer deceived, whose passion is reality. The sentimentalists are practical men who believe in money, in position, in a marriage bell, and whose understanding of happiness is to be so busy whether at work or at play, that all is forgotten but the momentary aim. They find their pleasure in a cup that is filled from Lethe's wharf, and for the awakening, for the vision, for the revelation of reality, tradition offers us a different word -- ecstacy. An old artist wrote to me* of his wanderings by the quays of New York, and how he found there a woman nursing a sick child, and drew her story from her. She spoke, too, of other children who had died: a long tragic story. "I wanted to paint her," he wrote, "if I denied myself any of the pain I could not believe in my own ecstasy." We must not make a false faith by hiding from our thoughts the causes of doubt, for faith is the highest achievement of the human intellect, the only gift man can make to God, and therefore it must be offered in sincerity. Neither must we create, by hiding ugliness, a false beauty as our offering to the world. He only can create the greatest imaginable beauty who has endured all imaginable pangs, for only when we have seen and foreseen what we dread shall we be rewarded by that dazzling unforseen wing-footed wanderer.
    *Letter from Yeats's father, J.B. Yeats, dated July 2, 1913,
    in J.B. Yeats, Letters to His Son W. B. Yeats and Others.
  8. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    "I suppose it can be audited but it would be long and laborious."

    With the wrong tech it is. It may be true that all of our problems come from "Find out who you are" and everything else is piled on window dressing. Therefore ethics in churches is really just "be the identity we want". Not a very good system for living and a certain weakening of anyone's abilities. Especially when there are people around who expect you to create an identity and live "in a meaningful way". Whose business is it of anyone to tell ANYONE how to live? Know best, know less.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2007
  9. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    I think we are dealing with two issues here, we need to seperate them.

    Firstly, I agree that one needs to self-correct. I can do it by saying 'that action of mine didn't work well, change it' or ' that was a dumb thing I said there' or whatever. OR one can say 'I'm no good at all, I'll never be able to get this right, others are all so cool and able and I'm just a stuff-up' etc etc etc. Your statement: "It would be out ethics to validate myself for flubbing or running about blissfully oblivious" is correct. It would also be out ethics to invalidate yourself for having flubbed - just recognise the error, correct it, learn from it and move on. No inval needed.

    What I'm getting at is that being able to recognise areas in oneself that could do with improvement does not imply any invalidation of self. No need for that.

    Second, that quote from Yeats. If Yeats was saying that an artist must first suffer in order to create aesthetics then I think he's talking rot. One does not need to be a pinball bouncing around in order to be creative. Sure he had his lows and his highs - that's roller-coaster and is a well understood phenomenon. But I don't believe this had nothing to do with his creative ability. Nothing at all. In fact if his PTSness had been handled he would quite likely have been a far better poet than he was.

    This applies to many other artists as well.
  10. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    This is armchair psychoanalysis in some ways. If one is mostly crazy, it does not imply that one can never have lucid moments.

    I find enough lucidity in LRH writings to consider him a genius. The moments of lucidity should not be confused with non-lucid moments. I am sure you can see that this applies to you too. So, what is preached should be evaluated for outpoints in the context of that subject, and not by who said it.

    Each one of us is unethical when we are in the throes of our reactive mind. But each one of us is highly ethical when we are keyed out. Ethics is rationality. It is limited by the data one is operating on, and it is corrupted by the outpoints in one's thinking. The outpoints in one's thinking multiply as one's reactive mind is restimulated.

    We should grant beingness to Hubbard's analytical prowess, but we should reject his thinking influenced by his reactive mind.

    And it is your own sense of ethics which helps you make the above differentiation.

  11. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    That is one of the goddamdest things I have ever read.
  12. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Welcome to the Vinaire universe.
  13. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Should be "Vinaire's universe."

    What happened to your writing prowess? Looks like you got somewhat restimulated here.

  14. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Could also be 'Dharmaverse' or, maybe better, 'Vedaverse'

  15. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Please elaborate. The outpoint here is OMITTED DATA.

    Are you still feeling restimulated? :duh:

    Get hold of yourself and get your ethics (rationality) in!

  16. Bea Kiddo

    Bea Kiddo Crusader

    OHHHHHHHHKAYYYYYYYYYYY - Out of sheer curiosity then, Vin, what is the percentage of LRH material you would consider correct? And what percentage is faulty, due to his reactive mind, then?
  17. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    It would depend entirely on one's interpretation.

    I would recommend fully understanding the Axioms & Logics from a Vedic viewpoint, and then taking it from there.

    I would say over 95% of Scientologists and ex-Scientologists in the West do not understand Scientology Axiom # 1, and, therefore, their understanding of rest of the Scientology is very suspect.

  18. Bea Kiddo

    Bea Kiddo Crusader

    I am talking about YOUR interpretation.:yes:
  19. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Remember, she's a sec checker, Vinaire!

    You can not run. You can not hide.

  20. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Sure he can.

    He's got half a roll of tin foil under that turban :)

    Nice Valentino look Vinny!