There was significant value in Scientology before it became a cult.

We can’t say this enough times. There was significant value in Scientology before it became a cult.

rameses ii ozymandias colossus ramesseumIn the early 1950s, Ron Hubbard wrote some of the most inspiring material I have ever seen. It was this that inspired me to become a Scientologist and an auditor. It still inspires me as I push through boundaries erected during the ossification of the church by its leadership.

Ken Ogger, aka The Pilot, describes the freedoms and the potentials of those early years in one of his classic posts where he responds to a question from one of his readers:

Pilot’sPost Z16 – On Standard Tech, 1950s Tech, Free Tech
From Post 23 – January 1998

On 25 Jan 98, lakis agrogiannis <agrogiannis@swipnet.se> posted on subject “To Pilot”

> Hi again!
>
> This is from Lakis. Well, I consider myself a free zoner, but I
> haven’t yet made my mind up to deviate from LRH’s standard tech. (If
> you disagree with LRH, would you like to tell me at which points?) I
> believe that he was an honest being, with the salvaging of Earth’s
> people in mind.

I am very much in agreement with the LRH of the 1950s.

In DMSMH he says to get busy and build a better bridge.

In all the courses of 1952-4, you were expected to make up your
own process commands as needed and also to self audit.

In the 3rd ACC, the ultimate rundown was SOP8-OT where you
were supposed to handle whatever else you could find that was in
the way of going OT by designing your own processes on the fly.

In the HCL lectures (1952), he defines Scientology as the study
of how to bring absolute truth into workable form and says that
any technique devised by anybody is part of Scientology if it
works to accomplish that goal.

Throughout that early period, the idea was that we had a logical
framework that allowed us to evaluate the relative truth of the
data and techniques used by other practices and that we could
therefore create workable techniques from them.

That was the true breakthrough. How to create processes. How
to mix practices successfully. Every early auditor and Ron
himself in those days would have been labeled as squirrels today.

That was the research line. But it died in the 1960s. And we
never made stable OTs (we did sometimes get sporadic OT phenomena).

I believe that it was an honest research effort. In the early
days, he talks about magic and Crowley and Krishnamurti, and
how to extract workable processes from those things and evaluate
which data were workable and which were just foolishness.

He used to say that he was only an organizer rather than an
originator of tech.

I am in agreement with this and with the basics discovered in
those days and with the entire attitude and approach which
created people who could think with the subject.

When the tech solidified in later days, we were left high and
dry with only a subset of the tech that was discovered, and
with strict and dreadful rules against altering anything, and
without the research techniques that I believe had carried
us about halfway to a total solution and simply needed to be
taken further.

Even as late as about 1965, he was saying that the rules were
only for training new students and trained auditors should use
their judgement instead (this is on an SHSBC tape called, I
think “Tech Roundup”).

As to the later days, there is much good stuff, but I filter
it all through the sieve of the 1950s material and evaluate
it just as if I was pulling things out of Science of Mind or
the Tibetan materials.

So I see things like “Don’t mix practices” and “Don’t self audit”
and toss them because they are in total conflict with the basics.

I believe, for example, that Ron was right in 1952 when he said
that ARC = Understanding and that you study successfully by raising
ARC or handling barriers to ARC. That is a senior basic. I
evaluate later study tech on that basis. Handling an MU is smart
because the MU = out communication. Thinking that the primary
out-point is MUs and doing endless hours of tiresome and
unnecessary word clearing is an outpoint, it ignores too many
factors and will end up reducing ARC for the subject. Letting
the students talk about the tech is a plus because it raises
ARC, making them all shut up is obviously wrong. And so forth.

The 1952 attitude on implants is correct. The 1960s research
gave us some valuable implant platens, but put them in a bad
context, almost a suppressive context, by making them a big
“Why” on the case. The correct attitude is that they are motivators,
rather than major sources of aberration. Of course you want
to get the person’s confront up on them and do some handling,
but if it is too charged up, you run the overt of implanting
others rather than thinking that implants are oh so important and
making the PC into a victim.

Same goes for entities, which were looked on as trivial and not
a major why on the case, but which could be handled if
necessary by what we now know of as Nots techniques.

Basically, I disagree with LRH’s later efforts to freeze the
tech into a standard.

I do waffle on the question of what were his intentions in the
later days. He really should have known better.

> I believe definitely that the church should either mend their ways
> or give it all up, and give it all up to us. In which case we must
> really act responsibly.

Truly mending their ways would mean making the tech available and
spreading it as broadly as possible without restriction. They
should be encouraging the freezone and simply being a “standard” in
the sense of a yardstick against whom others are measured.

When they train an auditor, it should be just like a university
that trains a student. The university does not then police the
student or force him to stop applying what he learned if there
is some new discovery. He paid for his course, he did it, and
he now is free to use whatever he learned in whatever manner he
sees fit, restricted only by the laws of the land (don’t use
your knowledge of physics to blow up buildings) and not by
arbitraries introduced by the school that he graduated from.

A university has a right to demand certain standards of their
computer students before giving them a degree, but they do not
have the right to insist that nobody may write a program unless
this one and only university or group of universities has trained
that person. And the university does not have a right to stop
people from opening up computer schools or reading about the
pentium chip specifications.

> By the way, has it not struck you how many different “scientology
> schools of thought” we got? Suppose every thetan exercises his rights
> and developes his own, *workable* version of the tech. How would you
> like to have billions of “standard” tech, each one saying, “it works!”
> Ha-ha!

If you had real competition, maybe it really would achieve maximum
workability and a high success rate.

Those hundreds of different schools in honest competition and also
trying to learn from each other would be the fastest way to really
evolve the subject.

People would go where they made the most gains. It would tend to
be a self correcting situation.

Look at the computer industry. If IBM had owned the exclusive
right to build computers and transistors and so forth, a computer
with 1 MB of memory would still cost ten million dollars (I
remember those days, that was normal pricing when I started
programming). And the competition didn’t drive IBM out of
business either, although there is much squabbling and they have
to stay on their toes.

Taking the analogy further, when IBM developed the IBM PC (a
latecomer in the micro computer market), it swept the market by
creating an open standard that anybody could follow and imitate
without license or copyright fees. They immediately became the
number one PC manufacturer and their name was a household word
even though they had to share the market with all the clone
manufacturers.

IBM got stupid and thought about all the money they had lost by
not keeping their PC standards a trade secret and licensed and
so forth. So they designed the PS/2 and made the microchannel
architecture a closed hidden standard. And with that they
almost disappeared from the PC hardware market within a year
or so. Even IBM stopped making microchannel PCs and went back
to the ISA standard even though it wasn’t as good (now we have
PCI which is better than microchannel).

So I think that open competition is ideal for everybody.

If the org welcomed it and set the tech free and spread it
around and encouraged everybody else to spread it around, they
would boom despite the increased competition.

Best,

The Pilot

One thought on “There was significant value in Scientology before it became a cult.

  1. Roger Boswarva

    The “Pilot” is quite right on almost all points. As is your assertion that: “There was significant value in Scientology before it became a cult.”

    There is a very bold and accurate statement in Ron Hubbard’s book, “Dianetics 55” . . . He wrote: “The accent is on ability!”

    And in 1952, of course, he had the book: “Creation of Human Ability.”

    These were the days when adventurous souls got tremendous, if sometimes unstable, gains from use of the early materials of that era. I say the gains were “unstable” because there was much still to be learned in those days and we hadn’t learned the need to nor how to stabilize the extraordinary gains and recoveries of spiritual powers and abilities.

    But, as I have written elsewhere, Ron Hubbard went negative in April 1963 and off onto the hobby-horse of what was “wrong with each of us” and the hunt for fault was on big time. Even the technology of the “rockslam” manifestation on the “e-meter” was misused to mean something bad and the hunt for enemies then was the order of the day . . . and what followed then by 1965 was the cultization of Scientology with the clamping down on the free and intelligent practice of it. Even the free discussion of it, let alone the intelligent address to individual clients’ cases with suitable processes for each particular client was stamped out. And the regimented cult of mindless robotism was born and enshrined in operational policy.

    This all is an important subject you have raised here, David. It merits air and the light of day.

    Roger

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *