Scientology & the Sea Org

[lexmark]

In 1964 I attended an introductory lecture at a local class 4 org followed by a comm course. I later signed up for the HPA course and class 4. It was on these courses that I learnt about Ron’s version of spirituality. Later I joined staff and ran the academy and also audited people. It was going the auditor’s route that I learnt so much about spirituality. If but Rons version.

After serving my contract I took a break and got a job and earned some money and then I joined the sea org in 1968 at AO Alicante in Spain. The AO was similar to a class four org and people were learning about higher levels of auditing and training and I enjoyed my experience there.

Then I was transferred to the ship and this was very different to a class 4 org or an AO. It was here that I learnt about harsh ethics conditions and control mechanisms. LRH sent ethics missions out to St Hill in order to assert that it was the sea org that was now in control and not St Hill. Missions were sent out all over the world and asserted their authority. Many class 4 orgs hated the sea org and their ethics missions. Many of those missions failed and the missionaries were comm eve’d after they returned to the ship and placed in lower conditions followed by doing the formula.

It was in the sea org that spirituality got lost and replaced by ethics and harsh ethics conditions. Spirituality became confronting MEST and LRHs new purpose of getting ethics in on the planet. People were recruited and trained in ethics and sent out to orgs to terrify them. LRH said “You don’t send an auditor on an ethics mission, they like people”. But the majority of the people in the sea org were decent good people. Those trained on the auditor route learnt more on the spiritual side of Scientology than those who went the admin route. Some of those people now in charge did not go the auditors route but because of their nature use the control mechanisms and apply the evil side of Scientology that they learnt in the SO.

LRH wrote about the Helotrobis implants. This was about the heaven implants and mentioned that everybody went there and got implanted. The way he described “Heaven” followed the pattern of materialism and did not conform to his earlier lectures on spirituality. If there is such a place as heaven it would be non-material, that is to say, outside of space and time and “non local” according to the modern definition given by science today. His writings on space opera and heaven got scientology into trouble in the early days. “The Heaven” bulletins appeared in the press which started much of the bad press. A lot more that LRH wrote and did later added to much of the antagonism and more bad press.

Science had not entered the field of spirituality in the early days and LRH wrote what he thought or intuited, but today much of what he wrote but not all if compared to the discoveries in science could be discarded as nonsense. OT3 in particular and NOTS could be considered non scientific. But the human spirit is being confirmed by science along with “creative evolution” and the possibility of re-incarnation. A higher Power or creative force outside of space and time is being confirmed but not to be confused with the Christian God.

I think if the sea organization were gotten rid of and the lower level orgs left alone and did their comm course and did lower level auditing without all the space opera, Scientology would be better off.

Travers

 

[The Great Zorg]

(snip)I think if the sea organization were gotten rid of and the lower level orgs left alone and did their comm course and did lower level auditing without all the space opera, Scientology would be better off. Travers

I believe everything hubbard did while creating his delusional empire should be properly reworded: "research", "discovery" and "wrote/write" should be properly reworded as "concocted", "made-up", "fantasized" and "applied unethically". That last would include any repeatable observation that the big clam made and subsequently twisted and dirtied up for his use to control and manipulate others. :confused2:

 

[shanic89]

But the human spirit is being confirmed by science along with “creative evolution” and the possibility of re-incarnation. A higher Power or creative force outside of space and time is being confirmed but not to be confused with the Christian God.
Travers

Where have read these findings, I would be quite interested to see, I hope they are not produced by pseudo scientists.

 

[lexmark]

Where have read these findings, I would be quite interested to see, I hope they are not produced by pseudo scientists.

Unfortunately what you ask for is complex. Below although a bit lengthy is but some of the proof however if it is too difficult to understand you will need Scn study tech to understand it.

By Goswami. Physics Professor Oregon University
The good news is that not one, but four separate experiments are now showing that quantum consciousness, the author of downward causation is nonlocal, is unitive, is God. The first such experiment proving it unequivocally (that is, with objective machines and not through subjective experiences of people) was performed by the neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg and his collaborators (1993) at the University of Mexico. Let’s go into some details.
Quantum physics, besides discontinuity, gives us another amazing principle to operate with–nonlocality. The principle of locality says that all communication must proceed through local signals that have a speed limit. Einstein established this speed limit as the speed of light (the enormous but finite speed of 300,000 km/s). So this locality principle, a limitation imposed by Einsteinian theory of relativity precludes instantaneous communication via signals. And yet, quantum objects are able to influence one another instantly, once they interact and become correlated through quantum nonlocality. This was demonstrated by the physicist Alain Aspect and his collaborators (1982) for a pair of photons (quanta of light). The data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is–a signal-less interconnectedness outside space and time.

Grinberg, in 1993, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signalless, nonlocal) communication. After twenty minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unifying intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an “evoked potential” is extracted with the help of a computer upon subtracting the brain noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject’s brain onto the EEG of this subject that gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signal-less communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential.

The experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important–nonlocality of quantum consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one subject’s brain can lead to the free choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner’s brain? As stated above, the experiment, since then has been replicated several times. First, by the neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick and collaborators in London. Second, by Wackermann et al (2003). And again by the Bastyr university researcher Leana Standish and her collaborators (2004).

The conclusion of these experiments is radical. Quantum consciousness, the precipitator of the downward causation of choice from quantum possibilities is what esoteric spiritual traditions call God. We have rediscovered God within science. However it is a new paradigm of science, based not on the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being which we now can recognize as what the spiritual traditions call Godhead.

 

[shanic89]

Lexmark that was a nice rundown of experiments that have been run, and bloody interesting!!!

Altho I do not believe that experiments on "quantum consciousness" can prove or disprove for that matter, re incarnation or a higher power. How do we know this is not a fault of carbon nature at some level?

 

[lexmark]

Lexmark that was a nice rundown of experiments that have been run, and bloody interesting!!!

Altho I do not believe that experiments on "quantum consciousness" can prove or disprove for that matter, re incarnation or a higher power. How do we know this is not a fault of carbon nature at some level?

Again unfortunately the subject is very lengthy and I will just post a bit which is also rather lengthy but interesting. I also use Goswami because his work is less complex than other scientists

From Goswami
Signatures of The Devine

Those Fossil gaps! What Do They Prove?

My second important scientific evidence for the Divine signature of downward causation comes from biology. Everybody knows about the fossil gaps. Contrary to great number of biologist’ expectations ever since Darwin (1959), the fossil gaps never filled up with thousands upon thousands of predicted intermediates. The vast majority of the gaps are real. So what do they signify? What do they prove?

The neo-Darwinists, and majority of biologists fall into this category, still insist, they mean nothing. They are sold on a promissory evolutionism–eventually they will fill up.
The most public opponents of this view are followers of Biblical Genesis creation or creationism, the idea that God created life as it says in the genesis, all at once. There is no evolution. Fossils mean nothing significant and the fossil gaps are the living (or should we say dead) proof of that.
According to creationism, there cannot be any intermediates whatsoever. So biologists tout the few intermediates that are found in the fossil data as evidence for evolution as well as for Darwinism. This is highly misleading. It is true that the existence of intermediates between two fossil lineages (as between reptiles and birds) refutes creationism and proves evolutionism, but evolutionism is not synonymous with Darwinism which would require thousands upon thousands of such intermediates to verify.
A slightly less radical group than either of the two groups above subscribes to a philosophy called intelligent design. Like creationists, they (most of them anyway), too, believe (unnecessarily) that the fossil gaps mean no evolution ever. Species do not change much and an intelligent designer created them all at once. Implicitly, the intelligent designer is assumed to be God, but no reference is made to the Bible.

It is easy to criticize the creationists and the intelligent design theorists. The Biblical account of the creation of the world and the life in it, if taken literally, is just plain wrong; the geological and radioactive data evidence is against it. The intelligent design proponents are also wrong in part–there is too much evidence that species evolve from older species, we have too much common with monkeys, monkeys have too much in common with lower (in the evolutionary ladder) mammals, and so forth. Even today, if you look at early development of the embryo of a “higher” species, you will find that the stages resemble lower creatures of the earlier era. The Darwinists got this one right! Later species evolve from earlier ancestors; there is no doubt about it.

But neo-Darwinists are dead wrong when they say there is no meaning and purpose to evolution, there is no play of intelligence in the design of life and how it evolves, there is no “lower” and “higher” creatures. And their insistence that evolution is synonymous with Darwinism–a material process of blind chance and survival necessity is myopic. When you have only a hammer in your hand, you cannot but see the world as a bunch of nails. Darwinists are materialists, the ax they grind is the idea that everything is made of matter via upward causation, and all life is the play of genes–portions of DNA that carry hereditary information. There is no scope in such a philosophy to talk about meaning or of purpose or intelligent design except for any survival value that these ideas may have which allows them to evolve as evolutionary adaptation.

Let’s take the case of meaning. For meaning to evolve as an adaptive survival value, matter must be able to process meaning. But in grammar, there is a category difference between syntax and meaning. The symbol processing by matter in the form of a computer is akin to processing syntax; so the idea of meaning processing by matter has always been a little suspect (Searle, 1994). And recent research (Penrose, 1990) has confirmed that computers can never process meaning. How can nature select a quality from matter that matter cannot process?
This shortcoming of attempts to explain intelligent qualities as evolutionary adaptation becomes even more obvious when we ask, how does our ability to discover a scientific law arise? Such a discovery has survival value, that is not the question here. The question is, can the knowledge of scientific laws be coded in matter somehow? Can they arise from the random motion of matter somehow? Attempts to prove that such is the case have not had any success whatsoever.

The question of how consciousness can evolve in matter is another case in point. Can matter codify consciousness? is that hard question: how can interacting objects ever produce a subject-object split awareness? If material interactions can never produce consciousness, to think of consciousness as an adaptive evolved value does not make any sense.
So intelligent design aficionados have got this one right? Or have they?
Not quite. The conclusive scientific proof that there is purpose in God’s creation is that there is a biological arrow of time. By looking at the fossil data you can tell the direction of time, that time has gone from the past, from when the fossil data show only relatively simple life forms, to later times from when the fossil data show more and more complexity of life forms. And only the most recent fossil data show us humans, the most complex of living creatures. So the purpose of evolution is to create complexity and the biological time’s arrow moves from simplicity to complexity of living organisms.
All creationists and most intelligent design theorists deny evolution and justify their denial because an evolution in complexity is against the entropy arrow of time and is seemingly in violation of the entropy law. But by denying evolution they are missing the boat on one of the best pieces of evidence for God. Of course, evolutionists miss the boat by missing purpose and design in life.

So what are the fossil gaps evidence for? Maverick biologists from time to time have suggested what they signify. Apart from the slow tempo of evolution that Darwin suggested and neo-Darwinists are sold on, there is a fast tempo of evolution–so fast that there isn’t time to lay down fossils. This fast tempo is what produces the fossil gaps. In other words, evolution is like punctuated prose; there are abrupt and discontinuous punctuation marks among the otherwise continuous prose (Eldredge and Gould, 1972). The proponents of the idea are called punctuationists.
Another class of biologists called developmental biologists (also called organismic theorists because they emphasize the role of the organism) has de facto supported this idea of a second tempo. For they believe that significant evolution at the macro level must involve the coming into being of a novel organ. But a complex organ cannot evolve piece by piece. A little piece of an eye is no good for seeing. So such “macro-evolution” must be discontinuous requiring a fast tempo. But because in biology there has never been any plausible suggestion of a mechanism for a fast tempo, the idea has not found general acceptance in the biological community. Scientists don’t like living in an explanatory vacuum: If no theory of fast tempo is available, let’s proclaim that Darwin’s is the right theory of all evolution and explain away the fossil gaps (as in the theory of geographical isolation [Mayr, 1982]; a small population of a species gets geographically isolated and undergoes divergent and relatively rapid changes. When they reappear amongst the previous population, there is a discontinuity)!

There are also biologists who point out another important piece of data that also suggests discontinuity. Before all great creative evolutionary epoch of macroevolution, these theorists point out, that there always occurs some kind of catastrophe leading to a massive extinction of biological species. These catastrophes clear up the biological landscape for new evolution of species. And so the new evolved species have no need to compete for survival, and another pet idea of Darwinism goes down the drain.
So here’s what I intuit. The fossil data is some of the best proof of the existence of God, of God’s creativity. Creativity occurs through quantum leaps, taking no time. Only the creative process (see below) takes time. I submit that here is the new mechanism for the fast tempo of evolution! I will show below that this theory integrates the thinking of everyone: of the intelligent design proponents, because the designer is God, how can they complain? Of the developmental biologists, because indeed it takes creativity, one giant leap to “see” all the right possibilities for making a new organ and then make the organ. It satisfies the catastrophe thinkers because catastrophes are part of creativity, destruction before creation. The destruction is needed to open up new ground for the play of the new. The appropriate metaphor for God in this aspect of creativity is what Hindus would call Siva’s dance. God in this special aspect of Siva, the king of the dancers is first a destroyer and then a creator. The idea of creative evolution even should please the neo-Darwinists: Darwin’s slow mechanism is the conditioned limit of God’s creative downward causation–call it situational creativity

 

[shanic89]

The problem that I have with this is that if there is a power out side of space and time, why would it slowly build more complex beings, are we just an experiment?

You could argue to get the earth into a state that enables life as we perceive it now, for it to exist in the state that now occurs, all the previous incarnations of life had to exist. But why would that be, god, not the Christian god but a supreme being of some form, could sing and life would occur in its most perfect form.

Spirituality has not been proved or even alluded to. My mind can not make the leap to a power that is out of our space and time just because we are still arguing about the origins of life. You are still asking me to have faith to some degree, nothing has been proved but several solutions have been postulated.

It is one o’clock in the morning here and I have been working for way to long maybe I will dream of a half decent argument.

Actually isn’t that wonderful how our subconscious mind is able to function.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I think if the sea organization were gotten rid of and the lower level orgs left alone and did their comm course and did lower level auditing without all the space opera, Scientology would be better off.

Travers

Yes. That used to be called "The Mission Network" and it could be a lot of fun.


Mark A. Baker

 

[smartone]

I think if the sea organization were gotten rid of and the lower level orgs left alone and did their comm course and did lower level auditing without all the space opera, Scientology would be better off.

Travers

Yeah, the workers can always do better than stupid bosses. I've met too many stupid bosses where their workers would run rings around them if allowed to.