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

Featured From Miss X - About Annie Broeker

Discussion in 'Stories From Inside Scientology' started by Lulu Belle, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    The broader society can make a case. Its time it did so.
  2. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks for your input Jim. However, how can you be sure theat LRH was not up for a money grab?

    I agree that the freeloader policy application is contrary to basic Scn theory of production and exchange, but it seems to me there are plenty of examples of LRH not applying Scn basics.

    When I was in Scn, a quarter of a century ago, it always seemed to me that LRH's freeloader policy was more to do with control, punishment and aversion than any ideas of fair exchange. LRH siphoned off huge Scn income resources for his own use and a large proportion of Scn income was from freeloader payments made by those desperate to stay on LRH's Bridge.

    Why are you so sure LRH wasn't up for a money grab? To me the evidence indicates otherwise.
  3. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Dear LH,
    OK, here's some things to evaluate re: your comments.
    1. LRH is not an issue here, it is the policy, so whether he applied them or not is moot. At issue is whether we apply them. All policy is to be applied in alignment with the reason that is the premise, and that includes the full admin scale and that includes purpose. If Scientology as an applied philosophy is aimed at restoration of reason in individuals and thereby groups, then it is not rational that someone who is not an actual freeloader is treated as one and billed when he exchanged. I think it more to the point that those persons who paid when they had exchanged didn't find the actual references and make them known. It is unfortunate that the phenomenon of 'clay pigeon' exists but it does and if you don't know or aren't aware of your rights as a Scientologist, then you won't be able to see them enforced. The freeloader policy, as stated in the policy that is its inception, was to deal with freeloaders and was and is not intended to apply to those who exchanged. The one assigned the wrong condition has the onus on him, in Scientology ethics, to see that the illegal order is corrected. However difficult that concept may be to apply when the situation is way wide of an ideal scene, it still is on the person's shoulders to apply this material, else he won't succeed with it.

    2. Forgive me if this seems patronizing, but the idea of LRH siphoning off, taking the 'skim', for his own inurement is by observation of his actual life, a contrary fact. He majorly lived in a bus in the later years, he drove and older model car, he ate cheeseburgers and so on. If he wanted to abscond with the money then he would have as there are plenty of places on this planet to live a life of luxury with no possible harassment. What actual evidence, facts, do you know exist to put him anywhere like that. Were you on the ship? Have you seen the quarters of comparable positions on comparable ships? Were you in NYC in the apartment? Was that 'Trump Tower'? Even Creston is a modest estate amongst the estates thereabouts.

    So, not to beat this to death, but if he was in it for the money then he didn't seem to spend it on traditional luxuries so from the actual verifiable facts your polemic lacks substance.
  4. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    This is the crux of the issue; because it's not. In fact, 'reasonable' is a dirty word in Scientology.

  5. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    The broader society will not make a case, only individuals can or will. It requires a person, assuming responsibility.
  6. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    This thing on the word 'reasonable' as used by SO members and staff and some public is grossly mis-understood. It was and is meant as a type of sarcasm and more accurately means what is called 'rationalizing' and that has the connotation of 'faulty reasoning'. The 'reasonable' person, from the Data Series 10 context this word has been lifted, will 'explain away outpoints' and not simply see them for what they are, irrationality.

    This idea of being 'reasonable' with outpoints, or finding faulty explanations for them, led to the idea of being 'reasonable' with 'reasons' why something couldn't be done. Hence, to be 'unreasonable' was to mean one didn't accept faulty explanations, but got the thing done.

    English is a homonymic language and words sometimes mean completely opposite things with the same letters and sound.

    Last edited: Nov 25, 2007
  7. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    More likely several. Someone is currently looking at starting a class action suit against COS, Thats Larry Brennan. Others have been alerting authorities
    to the conditions in the LA complexes. In the first case a lawyer or lawyers
    must pick up the ball, and in the second individuals in health and safety, fire dept etc must decide to take action.
  8. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    I think the confusion is elsewhere, and, far from being 'sarcastic' the denigrating reference to 'reasonable' in Scientology is meant entirely literally As in, 'PTS to the middle class' etc. The misunderstood here is Scientology's use of 'reason'. Scientology 'reason' is not 'wog' reason. Scientology Logic is not 'wog' logic.

    Scientology reason and logic are based on Scientology axioms and 'stable data' that are *good for Scientology*. And, good for Scientology is very unlikely good for anyone or thing else.

    The world run on reason that Scientology envisions is one run on *Scientology Reason*, and that's unlikely to be something sane or reasonable in the 'wog' sense.

  9. Alan

    Alan Gold Meritorious Patron

    He continuously flipped identities and walked both lightside and darkside of the fence! - LRH was very dichotomous.

    He wanted very little of that fame, money, glamor, influence, etc., for himself rather it was a tool as for who or what he could control by having it.......but he was adamant that others must not get any of that fame, money, glamor, influence, etc., as they would pose a threat to him.

  10. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    I am assuming from your posts and your identity that 'the destruction of Scientology' is not your aim. Frankly, it's an idea and there isn't any vague chance of 'destroying' it. Any CofS, at any level, if it substantially departs from the principles and tenets, as written or spoken by LRH, is not 'coterminal' with Scientology. That's clearly enunciated in the Articles of Incorporation of CST. For instance, as an analogy, one could get rid of a car, but the idea of transportation ain't gonna go. So, 'destroying Scientology' is a fallacy. The cat is way out of the bag and the bag is gone. What remains is the effective use of the subject to achieve its aims. If any individual, or group for that matter, departs from the axioms, disciplines, the workable methods and they are either 'official' or not, then there is a case for fraud. But it is a fraud on the subject and the trust assigned. If one is out to nudge this back to its basics then one will succeed. That requires clean hands and a pro-survival intention. It is a 'hairline' route that an ethical person or persons will be able to see and execute. Of course the vagaries of the the courts and lawyers and precedent construction and the ability to present a persuasive and supported argument all come into play. The GO failed and got nailed. Why? If evaluated from the perspective of departure from the tenets then it makes sense and I say that to you because you have presumably had gains using the tenets so are aware of the profound force and power of them. I think it is safe to say that a person with an EPurp on Scientology isn't going to 'straighten it out'. No matter on which 'side' that person operates.

    What to do about departures from the ideal scene is quite a subject so we'll have to continue in later posts. Jim
  11. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Well, Zinj, that's quite a mouthful. There is no distinction between 'wog' logic and 'Scientology logic' or reason or rationality etc. Logic is a gradient scale association of facts. Starting with an assumption one follows from one datum to the next to arrive at a conclusion. If the assumption is faulty or within the association there are 'held down 5's' or bad data in any way it can be illogical, then the conclusion won't work. That's the same line-up in any logic system, from 'two-valued' through to 'infinity-valued'. Scientology uses infinity valued which is covered in Korzybski's work Science and Sanity. It would seem in any valid discussion of this that one needs to remain willing to look at other points of view. Are you? Otherwise, in your logic, it would appear that the assumptions are carved in stone and no matter what contradictions come from these, you are loath to review them to closer align them with observed phenomena. Our discussion will procede better or degress into mere name calling depending on your ability with logic, whatever type you choose. Over to you. Jim
  12. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Even though Hubbard claimed that Scientology uses infinity valued logic, I don't see its use anywhere in Scientology.

    I see a very dualistic two-valued logic in use in almost all aspects.

    Especially when Hubbard talks about "Theta vs. MEST" and "Exterior vs. Interior" and "100 Percent Standard Tech" etc.

    Can you give us an example of Scientology's use of infinity-valued logic?
  13. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Good point, Alanzo.

    Also, for a subject that states there are no absolutes..............
  14. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    To limit his ability to only a dichotomous flip is a disservice to the man. Multitudinous identities is more apropos.

    In reading your own posts on this MB I have seen multiple points of view that you are able to assume. I presume you to be able to assume multiple identities at your wish. So what's the big deal? You have truly amazing insight into this body of work, (like the fundamental of C/S ing), so it puzzles me how you have not resolved for yourself the BPC that persists in certain areas. The skill level you have presented is nothing short of consummate when applying the fundamentals of auditing to an individual preclear. It seems to me you mayhaps have done what you have said LRH did, didn't get your BPC handled and so you aren't in PT when on various topics. It's just a puzzle why you can't see it in yourself when you have seeming perspicacity for Ron' case. Now, mind you the above is an evaluation, but, after all, I'm not auditing you here. I would hope you are of sufficient compos mentos to toss it out if it isn't on.

    By the by, good to have you aboard here Alan. I have wanted to meet you from the days back at Flag when it all flapped with Bill Franks. From what I recall, you were a major player in the good ol' booming mission days. They were wonderful. Too bad about the Mission Holders cylces. Not our finest hours. Jim
  15. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    First, infinity valued logic is a sliding scale of right on one side, say towards the left and wrong on the other towards the right, with a balance or even point of right/wrong in the middle. A fact or action to be taken is weighed by determining what effect it has on the scale of right/wrong and right/wrong is assigned on the basis of benefit to 8 dynamics or harm respectively. Any degree of right or wrong on this scale is relative. There are no absolutes. Let's take one of the ones you mention even though these so-called dualities are begging the question, i.e. asking I accept a duality as an infinity value which it isn't by definition. Nevertheless, take "theta v. MEST'. There is no such absolute distinction or duality in the philosophy. The polarities are presented yet in fact there are gradient scales of more theta and more MEST. One, theoretically, if he has any contact with the 8 dynamics of this particular universe, is not going to be just a Static. MEST, isn't just MEST, there is theta in it, even if it's no more than according to the premises, it has it's source, theta or the Static.

    A more appropriate example is the fact than I am talking to you at all. If I accepted you as anti-Scientology and firmly ensconced, then it is 'wrong' that I am in this dialogue as I am a Scientologist (albeit not in good standing with the Church). Yet, evaluating all the data I have at present, I can see there is rightness in what you say so, you aren't 'black and white'. You have all sorts of rightness and 'wrongness' which will shift and change according to the circumstances. One day what you are operating on is right and then, with the tick, tick, of time factors change and you need to be on top of it or ooops, wrong (and not absolutely either). Does that clarify some of this? Jim
  16. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Yes. Thank you for talking with me. I'm sure that my title of "Destroyer of Worlds" doesn't make you any more comfortable, either. I appreciate your going ahead and talking to me anyway. I know what Scientology teaches about guys like me, after all, I'm a Golden Age of Tech Ethics Specialist!

    Before, in an earlier post of yours, you laid out the way regular logic worked with assumptions, premises, conclusions, etc.

    And yet, when you talked about infinity-valued logic, you seemed to shift into a different animal entirely by explaining "a gradient scale of rightness and wrongness." What happened to premises and conclusions and the rigorous discipline of examining statements and preserving truth throughout the reasoning process with infinity-valued logic?

    How does infinity valued logic actually work to examine arguments for their veracity, for instance, like regular logic does?

    I think that the discipline of logic is very important to learn and apply in one's life. And I also think that Hubbard intentionally obscured the use of logic in Scientology because he knew that his ideas would never stand up to disciplined scrutiny.

    So my point is that this "infinity-valued logic" that Hubbard went on about was a decoy. It isn't logic at all. And by that I mean that "infinity valued logic", as described by Hubbard, will not train people to examine facts and ideas, and to test statements, arguments and beliefs like real logic does.

    What do you think of that?
  17. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    From ISE:

    "Terms like good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong, are used only in conjuction with gradient scales.

    The gradient scale is a way of thinking about the universe which approximates the actual conditions of the universe more closely than any other existing logical method"

    I agree with this, but I don't see it as a logical method. It is a tool for evaluation.

    Rightly or wrongly, I consider logic to be that which enables us to get more facts from known facts, and that which allows us to test the validity of data presented as facts.

    There's a reference that goes into the area of 2/3-valued logic vs infinity-valued logic (Dianometry - Your ability and state of mind, 1951) I'll check it out and get back.
  18. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I'm not disagreeing with you, Alanzo.

    But I had one of my most useful cogs ever when listening to a Logics tape
    Prior to that point (I was aged about 25 at the time) I was definitely stuck in the two-valued game. Something was either right or wrong to me - if I had the choice of two things to do, one was good for me and one wasn't, and I had to decide which. The idea that it might not make any difference was not part of my view on life.

    Crazy but true, as they say. My life was definitely easier after that point!

  19. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    I can see what you are saying here, Paul. I learned a lot of things listening to those tapes, too.

    But what I didn't learn, nor did I learn on the Data Series Course, is how to examine and test statements, beliefs and arguments for their veracity.

    That is a skill that Hubbard never taught, while calling what he did teach "logic".
  20. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Ron's 'Infinity Valued Logic' is so much codswallop. 'Logically' speaking, it's a combination of 'red herring' and 'strawman' fallacies which presupposes that non-infinity-vlaued-logic (i.e. anything but Ron's) is inherently dualistic, which is anything but true. Non-scientologists talk about a 'continuum', not a gradient, but, they do accept the 'shades of grey' so sadly lacking in Hubbardist absolutist fantasies.

    There's even a logical fallacy that's appropriate to much of Scientology called 'false dichotomy'; it's *not* always a case of 'either/or'; not even *often* is it. There are some things where it is; such as, you are either in the kitchen or you are *not* in the kitchen or you are consistent in your own philosophy or you are *not* consistent.

    As to talking to 'anti-scientologists'; as Fluffy is wont to point out, Scientology is a *philosophy* and, while I may reject the philosophy, it's unnecessary to be 'anti' to it. So, philosophically speaking, I'm not an 'anti-scientologist'. But, Scientology is also a 'movement' and an 'organization' and a 'Church' and, in addition to rejecting their stated and pursued goals, I am indeed actively opposed to them and, look forward to the time when they are prosecuted and punished and cease to exist in the current malicious form.

    So, it's not a dichotomy. :) I'm not an 'anti-scientologist' if we're talking about the 'philosophy', just an interested non-adherent. I *am* an anti-Scientologist if we're talking about the very real 'applied religious philosophy' that attempts to enforce itself upon us non-adherents.