(Hey Eugene, I’m reposting what I said earlier with a few additions. I was trying to edit it on my iPhone using the control panel at the Disqus website and my fat fingers somehow deleted my post (although I can still see it on my desktop posted under a guest, but not with my iPhone, weird. Maybe my post went whole-track :-).

Hate to see you go, Eugene, and I hope you don’t, as I was enjoying our dialog. But I can understand why you would, because you have taken a beating here trying to simply clarify a few esoteric topics on LRH’s approach and the benefit that you have derived from practicing his tech. As you know, the people here are completely against LRH and Scientology, largely because (i.e., the biggest piece of the pie, IMO) the balance of most people’s experience (who have been in and out of the church and practiced its tech, or have had family members who have) has been much more negative than positive. I know that you have had a lot of wins with the tech, but I think that puts you in a minority, which is one of the reasons that I think that you are a true maverick. It sounds like you
were a maverick in the church, and that you came to the bunker and did your best to make a few valid points about LHR makes you a maverick here as well. You might not be very good at sizing up your audience, but you’re a maverick nonetheless. And this place needs mavericks like you!

I like to think that I have read much more than the average person in the brain sciences and the mechanisms of the human mind. I have also read a fair amount about the various approaches to the human spirit. My current spiritual practive is primarily mindful breathing/meditation practices. But as you know, I have not read nearly as much LRH as you. Now, I have to admit to one of my biases (which is also a smaller piece of the pie that I referenced above). One of the cognitive biases that we all suffer from is “the confirmation bias” in which we tend to seek out only information that confirms what we already believe and overlook or quickly dismiss information that contradicts our beliefs. It is a difficult thing to control. I must admit to my own confirmation bias against LRH, which you have disabused me of (but only slightly!), so I have been reading more LRH
(but gosh, my empirical training and eduction sure makes it hard to get past so much of what he claimed he had ‘discovered’ in Dianetics MSMH!). I hope that you are also able to manage your own confirmation bias, and continue reading. I think that if you do keep reading about other approaches to understanding the human mind and the human spirit, you will find other valid, and maybe even more cogent, explanations.

I initially said that one of the things that I appreciate from LRH is the idea that what’s true for you is what’s true for you. But on second thought, I don’t think that this is always true, because we are so prone to error due to our built in cognitive biases. I am saddened that you find that quote from LRH to be correct, because it is in the same vein of the primary
evil embedded in the major religions: that since we have god on OUR side, our way is The Only Way. If you really believe that quote, then you apparently believe that, because you have studied LRH, you have THE Answer for everyone and that you know what everyone needs (here is a another current example of this way of thinking, which is FAR worse than Scientology and even what DM has done to it: http://youtu.be/bV710c1dgpU). As a maverick and apparently quite an independent thinker, and someone who experienced it here on this blog, I am surprised that you think that a statement that devalues other people’s independence of thought is correct (because agreement with that statement necessarily means that you think that someone else’s experiences, education, and ways of thinking are so inferior that they are unworthy of consideration). I really don’t think that is true for you, but maybe it is.

Again, my own experience, especially the training and education that I have had in the neurosciences, has opened me up to a wonderfully wide array of approaches to understanding how the brain and the mind work, and how it underlies our spiritual experiences (the latter of which, BTW, is worthy in its own right of deep exploration and will never be explained away by science). I can only hope that you can take what you have learned from the writings and lectures of LRH and expand that knowledge by educating yourself on the nature of empiricism and what has been learned about the brain and the mind since LRH’s passing. It really is fascinating. If you are interested, here is the kind of stuff that I find interesting and most persuasive. It is lecture from Steven Pinker, who is on the cutting edge of scholarship on how the mind works: http://youtu.be/lkSNDN871TQ. This is a college freshman lecture, so it might be fairly elementary for you, but if you are inclined, you can try any of his other books or lectures. I previously sent you a video of Dan Dennett, which I cannot recommend highly enough, especially his most recent book on “Tools for Thinking.” On the spiritual side, my thinking was especially transformed by reading and listening to the lectures of Joseph Campbell. His interviews by Bill Moyers are on YouTube. They’re great! I still intend to explore TROM more deeply, and I am very interested in any other LRH essays, and especially any of his lectures, that you found most fascinating, interesting, and persuasive.

Eugene, I hope you do have the time and patience to respond to my recent posts. But if not, good luck to you in your journeys!

Hate to see you go, Eugene, and I hope you don’t as I was enjoying our dialog. But I can understand why you would, because you have taken a beating here trying to simply clarify a few topics on LRH’s approach and the benefit that you have derived from practicing his tech. As you know, the people here are completely against LRH and Scientology, largely because (i.e., the biggest piece of the pie, IMO) the balance of most people’s experience (who have been in and out of the church and practiced its tech, or have had family members who have) has been much more negative than positive. I know that you have had a lot of wins with the tech, but I think that puts you in a minority, which is one of the reasons that I think that you are a true maverick. It sounds like you were a maverick in the church, and that you came here and did your best to make a few valid points about LHR makes you a maverick here as well. You might not be very good at sizing up your audience, but you a maverick nonetheless. And this place needs mavericks like you!
I like to think that I have read much more than the average person in the brain sciences and the mechanisms of the human mind and I have also read a fair amount about the various approaches to the human spirit (primarily through mindful breathing/meditation practices). But as you know, I have not read nearly as much LRH as you. Now, I have to admit to one of my biases (which is also a smaller piece of the pie that I referenced above). One of the cognitive biases that we all suffer from is “the confirmation bias” in which we tend to seek out only information that confirms what we already believe and overlook or quickly dismiss information that contradicts our beliefs. It is a difficult thing to control. I must admit to my own confirmation bias against LRH, which you have disabused me of (but only slightly!), so I have reading more LRH (but gosh, it sure is hard to get past so much of what he claimed he had ‘discovered’ in Dianetics MSMH!). I hope that you are also able to manage your own confirmation bias, and continue reading, and if you do keep reading about other approaches to understanding the human man and human spirit, you will find other valid, and maybe even more cogent explanations. One thing that I do appreciate from LRH, is that, what’s true for you is what’s true for you! I hope you do have the time and patience to respond to my most recent posts, Eugene. But if not, good luck to you in your journeys!

Sir Hemet, the passage you quoted is quite correct in my view. I have indeed gained very good understanding of the conditions of human behavior when I plowed my way through the materials of D&S. Maybe, it isn’t perfect but it is the most comprehensive and yet simple explanation I found on the mechanisms behind the human mind and human spirit. I just don’t quite understand how it could have gone so wrong in the organization. And yes, I have heard a great deal of criticism and invalidations, but I am yet to see anyone demonstrate to me a better explanation and better, more effective methodology than what has been worked out in Scientology. I noticed quite a good number of people blame the state of the organization on LRH and the “tech,” but I see it as far departed from both as almost unrecognizable. What else can I say? I think I will be phasing out of this blog since I do not see any point of continuing on here for myself.

That was excellent, thank you.

Hi Eugene, I’ve had a very full and active weekend, and I have barely been able to check in and read the recent posts. Re: the “What is Greatness” essay, thanks for the link. I see that you are correct regarding my criticism about compassion and mercy. Based on the quote you referenced, it is flawed (although, etymologically speaking, I don’t think that it is ‘invalid,’ just weak, and therefore flawed). You could have even referenced other statements in the essay, all of which are very similar to the moral principle of “the golden rule” and the “turn the other cheek” notion of how to react when one has been slighted. I think that I mistakenly believed that LRH never said anything about compassion, probably because of all the things I have read about the lack of mercy and compassion that LRH demonstrated to numerous people over the course of his life, especially to his 3 wives, all of his children, and a lot of people in Scientology (e.g., Yvonne Gillham Jentzsch, I followed the ‘what is greatness’ link you sent me to her story. Both LRH and the tech resulted in a lot of horrible circumstances for her, especially the way she was neglected and mistreated for her brain tumor and the way her family was neglected and misinformed and mistreated). I also read the commentary below the essay by Chuck Beatty, who mentioned a lot of contradictions in LRHs writings. BUT, as you pointed out, the essay is clear regarding his stance on love, which is a noble one.
Upon reading the entire essay, here is what stood out to me the most:

“A fully trained Scientologist is in a far better position to understand than a partly trained one. For the Scientologist who really knows…can understand why others do what they do and so knowing, does not become baffled or dismayed by small defeats. To that degree, true greatness depends on total wisdom. They act as they do because they are what they are—trapped beings, crushed beneath an intolerable burden. And if they have gone mad for it and command the devastation of whole nations in errors of explanation, still one can understand and can understand as well the extent of their madness. Why should one change and begin to hate just because others have lost themselves and their own destinies are too cruel for them to face.”

The clear implication of the passage above is that LRH’s formulation of Scientology is The Best Way and indeed The Only Way to understand human nature and behavior, and anyone who does not agree with LRH is therefore inferior, and not even worthy of angry or hated, only pity. Of course, virtually all major religions are guilty of the same thing, often to an even worse degree. It’s classic in-group/out-group behavior that our species falls prey to, as evidenced by the history of both religious and political warfare, and even the behavior of people on this blog. We all fall prey to in-group/out-group behavior. It is on a continuum from healthy and benign competition on one end, to enslavement and slaughter on the other. The evidence suggests that the in-out group behavior on this blog is incredibly benign, and while feelings do get hurt, I would argue that the overall net effect of this blog in the real world is much more positive than negative. The opposite is true for the COS, in large part because of the way LRH set it up. Not as bad relative to the history of the Abrahamic monotheisms (and even their current behavior), but horrible nonetheless. Eugene, am I in error to conclude that 1). LRH believed that he had The Only Workable solution for our human condition, and that; 2). such a belief is therefore inherent to the technology?

I checked out Dennis Steven’s TROM and could not find the LRH criticism that you referenced. TROM looks to be a fairly direct spin off of LRH, but I must acknowledge that I did not spend enough time on it. There is some discussion about it on the ex-scientology website. Do you ever lurk there? I do occasionally, but not that often. Did you ever read “The Truth Rundown”? I see a lot of exes talking about it.
Hope you are well!

I wasn’t saying that there was a company or agency. I was pointing out that $cilons have infiltrated various businesses and its entirely possible that they could have kept tabs on the building from the outside and if need be send in a SO member to act the part long enough to get the information they needed.

The “church” must have learned from SnowWhite. That is why I mentioned it. I would wager good money that any dox that may incriminate Little Boots is not kept with other dox. I think there could be a stash spot for those dox until they get shredded/burned or actually referenced.

It isn’t beyond $cientologists to bury/hide dox (L Ron did it with success). I see it a good possibility that dox that tie DM to Squirrel Busters could have been hidden within the walls of a former Org. Keeping tabs on the building isn’t out of Co$ reach. I am not saying that this is what occurred, but it is possible.

Yeah, “grinning” was more of an expression. It’s never that pleasant to be receiving “flows” of that nature, but hopefully if you looked over that dialog you have gleaned into the sort of oppressive mentality that can actually take place on Church lines. I have ran into it there more than a few times right along side with what I thought were some of the best people that I met. It was always a wonder to me how such characters can co-exist and operate in the same environment.

Let me know if you have any questions on my response. It’s quite lengthy and includes even more special terms.

Hi Eugene, I’ll check out your post. I see that you were grinning a fair amount yesterday 😉
I usually need more time to provide thoughtful answers too. And I have more than a full time job, which makes it quite difficult for me to respond frequently, although I do check in daily to watch the slow train wreck that is the thoroughly harmful and suppressive Cos. I’ll get back to you later.