((This is probably about a particular unnamed apostate of standard 
tech.  Most apostates are right in their complaints, the tech did not
work for them, or they collapsed later, but the apostate rarely has
the ability to correct, so they correct by leaving and nattering.))

Rogers ( wrote:
>1)  He is a no-case-gain suppressive who bluffed and manipulated his way
>through Scientology (that's my personal choice).


>2)  He did have case gains in Scientology but then just somehow relapsed
>into psychotic attack against the subject and Ron personally.

     The issue may be more complex than this.

     Different people hooked onto different parts of what Hubbard said,
grabbed the ball and ran with it.

     Some of what Hubbard said was either wrong, short sighted, or easy
to misinterpret.

     For example his early models of the time track and its bank were
'workable' at the low end of auditing and wildly bogus at the high end.
He knew this, but tried to publish what would work for the greatest
number, which was then taken as gospel by maybe somewhat brighter people
who then ended up in the drink.

     Dianetics works well when applied by some auditors to some
preclears, but leads to disaster if someone tries to solo with

     Part of this is that early Dianetics was a motivator based process,
that's hopeless from the word go.

     Auditing others is a bottom up enterprise, and solo auditing is a
top down enterprise.  You can't run out an engram without putting it
there first.  Thus putting it there solo will work, but trying to run it
out solo will simply grind their nose to the grindstone, as they are
trying to run out something that is making them an effect, no putting it
there first you see?

     A LOT of people upon first reading Dianetics tried to run it on
them selves first before committing to an auditor just 'to see if it
works' and of course failed miserably, thus they never got further

     Another item is the Church insisted on putting Dianetics below the
grades where of course it would take another auditor to run the engrams
on a preclear because out grades is WHY the preclear is keeping and
using engrams in the first place.  No preclear is going to solo out an
engram he is keeping in restimulation lest he die for lack of it.

     And the PTS rundown was put above the drug rundown and ARC
straightwire, it just made no sense to a lot of people.  If you check
the order of the bridge in the freezone, probably, you
will find engrams are placed above the grades where they make sense, as
most will be gone anyhow by the time the grades are run.  And PTSness
has to be handled when ever and where ever one finds it even if it takes
a Class XXX auditor to do it.

     Thus grabbing onto one of these things and running with it could
have lead to a miserable spiral.

     This kind of happened to me, I am very much fixated on my black V
condition, and so I spent a lot of time reading everything that Hubbard
had to say about it.  *MY* impression from Hubbard was that the black V
was due to unwillingness to view an incident and thus I couldn't make
mockups any more.

     This lead to a very small and unrich view of what is probably
really happening, which is more an unwillingness to view a whole other
universe repleat with people and their incidents and mockups.  So now
that's a datum of more comparable magnitude to the condition than merely
'unwilling to view an incident'.

     But worse I have found that the Black V is really a Black Infinity
case, can't mock up endless amounts of beings and MEST, and the preclear
is stuck in an *AND*, which Hubbard never talks about as far as I can

     In other words a Black V is caused by a compulsive MUST mockup,
MUST NOT mockup, and the two form a mocked up ridge that looks like
'nothing there', but really is a mix of so many something theres it
looks like nothing there.  Mix all the colors of the rainbow together in
a paint dish, and you will get ugly brown.  That's a Black V, too much
mocked up and scrambled you see.

      I find that as I unravel my own case, the real issues are not
that Hubbard was right or wrong, but the emphasis that was placed on
various things like incidents rather than questions, mockups rather
than universes, force rather than other beings, etc.

      Hubbard would run 'Do you have a withhold' until the cows came home,
but they never did.  Try instead "Are you withholding another being?"

      So I walked away with a rather broad picture of 'what was going
on' but my attention was introverted into a whole mess of 'relative
importances' that caused me to miss the bigger picture.

      For example Dianetics may work in auditing others, but if the pc 
thinks its because facsimiles are erasing, he is just going to get jammed. 
Its much bigger than that as every facsimile is an entity, which is why 
dianetics works best on pcs who haven't been indoctrinated into dianetics.

      Thus *WHY* dianetics works is probably a major wrong why in most pc's 
minds, which is enough to stop them from making any case gain at all, on 
dianetics or on anything else.

      Phil likes to attribute evil intent to Hubbard, as if Hubbard
knew better but was more interested in power, control and money for
selfish reasons than he was in actually freeing anyone.

      Many claim Hubbard didn't know better, and didn't care, he was
an imposter, scoundrel and con artist out of the gate.

      Others think Hubbard did a damn good job considering...

      That is for each to decide.  Sometimes I have to wonder how
Hubbard got his relative importances so wrong.

      Or at least didn't periodically correct them as time went on.

      Or maybe it was just my reading of Hubbard that fixated on things
too small to account for the mess I was in.

     Feeling humiliated by your *CASE* is a sure sign of underestimating
what happens when an infinite eternal operating entity gets wrapped up
in a death wish.  If you think others are doing just fine, boy are you 

     You also need to audit spiritual death, and understand that most
everything in the mest universe is made of dead beings.

     That's -400 on the tone scale, Hubbard didn't go there.

     And he also cut the tone scale's head off above 40.0 Serenity of
Beingness, leaving Sovereignty at 400 on the tone scale unknown.

     Anyhow to this day I feel that Op Pro by Dup, or putting your
attention repeatedly on MEST is a crazy thing to do as there is no two
way communication.  Putting your attention on other beings, and other
universes is much more productive.

     Op Pro by Dup means Opening Procedure by Duplication.

     "You look at that book.  You pick that book up.  What is its color,
weight and temperature?  You put that book back exactly where it was..."

     Extroversion into MEST is *INTROVERSION* into death and dead

     If your visio were to turn on, what would you see?

     Also Hubbard was very much into getting pcs to dramatize asking
questions to find answers, rather than running out the question asking
process itself.  Thus people actually became MORE interior to their
minds as they ran more and more questions looking for more and more

      In the end listing can drive a person crazy even if he does find
the right answer, because he doesn't run out the god damn question

      The pc is asking "What is wrong with me?" and it does have one
answer "You are asking questions looking for answers."

      Questions are like clouds on a summer eve, you watch them come
and go, but never chase after them.

      Once the pc realizes that questions ARE what is wrong with him,
mishandled questions, then he starts looking at questions as questions
rather than as opportunities to seek answers, and the questions
start to come off like layers of pancakes, and pretty soon his
mind is still.

      That is pretty close to clear, no longer dramatizing asking
questions of import as if finding answers were necessary to his

      The E/P of full exteriorization from the mind is a being who can
survive by BEING and who is no longer compulsively surviving by
BECOMING, which includes learning lessons, and asking questions trying
to find answers, both of which stick your face in time to a point
where you can't get out of it any more.

      Asking 'Why?' is why.


Mon Oct  6 16:08:46 EDT 2014