I dont really. I was just making fun of Val, but he really did resurface recently then disappear again.

I just posted the painting for you sweetie.. so just save as is… I made 2 backgrounds.. One with a really rough background..the other with like crumpled folded paper.. So it is on Tony’s blog.. Also feel free to do whatever you want to do with it! xoxo Glibby

Yeah, I can see what you mean about the claims. I never really focused my attention on those. I look for things that I can use and sort of skip all the rest. I haven’t read this first edition since I never had access to it until now, but I’m sure it would be the same as the one from 1970’s. By the way, thanks for the tip! I really needed the first edition for my project of comparing materials.

Hi Eugene, I am interested in “Fundamentals of Thought” but when I went to the stss.nl website, it stated that I must agree that I a scientologist to enter the website “under the penalty of perjury.” Not going to chance that! I found a 1956 edition on lermanet.com, which looks like a first edition. I took a few minutes to read the first couple of pages. LRH (who I did not know had a Ph.D., Is that true as far you know?) really comes out big, with some very dramatic claims! In your estimation, is this an appropriate edition?
Very full day, so it won’t be till this evening (hopefully) that I will be able to respond (although I will probably check back in).

Yes, Sir Hemet, there is nothing unusual in the idea that an individual carries some responsibility for the conditions he finds himself in, and this notion is not just limited to Scientology either. Obviously, these concepts can be taken into extreme including by the critics.

You can see some basic information on the original books here:
http://www.truelrh.com/

You can download some pdf’s of text Transcripts here (Library section):
http://www.stss.nl/

Just keep in mind that those are transcripts, not one for one copies of the actual books. And it looks like some of those are OCR results from scanning the books – I found some typos here and there that are not in the actual books but looks like something that may be due to faulty OCR results. Also, for some reason the website doesn’t seem to load when I was trying to access it when writing this comment. Hopefully, it’ll be working ok by the time you get to it.

The books I recommend you to read if you wanted to get a general idea:
A New Slant on Life
Fundamentals of Thought

Hey Eugene, the writings of LRH’s could certainly be the subject of an entire college level course, if not an academic career. Surely someone has undertaken this project. I when I get to it, I’ll check the references in Lawrence Wright’s book, which I read when it came out. Its well researched and it seems like there should be such a reference. I thought that he was fair in his treatment of LRH, but I would be interested in your point of view to balance my own confirmation bias. Do you know of any online resources to LRHs original work (before DM corrupted it)? I think I saw where someone posted such a link, but with well over 1,000 comments, I don’t think I could find it easily.

I also agree that there is something to the idea of “pulling something in,” which in my way of thinking usually represents the rough edge of a person’s personality, poor social skills, or even the negative side effects of an addiction. It is an important thing to be able to have some self awareness about, and I think I can see how, in the right auditors hands, that could be a helpful aspect of the tech. But I don’t think that that is unique to the tech and exists in other forms of relationships, including good therapy. Of course, if it is only used as a form of mind and behavioral control, or is only a one way street, you have what DM created, but as I think you know, I am under the impression that LRH actually created it, but I am trying to keep my confirmation bias in check while I try and figure it out from the source material, which I need your help on, if you have the time (I kinda don’t, now you got me curious!).

Yes, the thought is definitely not complete in my comment because it is just my entrance point in evaluating apparent inconsistencies or things on which I feel some disagreement. This is after I spent the past year in a massive project comparing the new batch of books released by Miscavige in 2007 with the originals from the 70’s. I figured I needed to know what Ron Hubbard did and did not write to be able to evaluate properly.

Just for FYI, this reference on “blow-offs” is NOT in the original batch of basic books. The original “Introduction to Scientology Ethics” book was tiny comparing to the thick and brick heavy one in 2007. The Bunker failed to draw that distinction: in the previous post by Jefferson they featured 1970’s version, and in this post they are drawing stuff out of 2007 one. I don’t like 2007 materials because they are booby trapped with “corrections” most of which are in fact various alterations of what Ron Hubbard actually wrote. This is a big subject in its own right. I briefly looked over the source references for “blow-offs” which looked basically the same so I proceeded in evaluating the actual logic.

Also, I see what you mean by “pie chart.” This is what it was supposed to be in D&S initially with the concept of survival across the various dynamics and infinity valued logic. That’s why I was very surprised when Jefferson picked that – the ethics formula – to demonize. That’s one of the most useful and commons sense things in my view which is not so much the case with the subjects that he brought up in this post.

I do see that with some of the later “technology” things became a little more “absolute.” – i.e. blow-off = overt, sick = PTS (connection to a suppressive person) – these absolutes left no room for contemplation or a wider view of all the factors involved.

One day… The only difference between a dream and a goal is a plan.
and Derek.. I know your mindset right now.. You want it to happen Today. You are in the save someone else mode. .. OMG it is such a strong feeling.
You don’t want one more child..one more person to go what you went through.. You remind me of me at a young age ( without the Scn. shit..) but that is why I worked with the unwed mothers ( teenagers) because I was one.
So start your mini goals.. and what do you have to achieve them? What are your obstacles.
and then figure out a way to overcome the obstacle. Make a check sheet. What would you have needed. ( don’t say $) that is a given..
What agency could have provided it?
Just mini bites at a time Derek.. and Good Lord boy.. Patience is a Virgin..ha xox Glibby

Those are true horror stories. That’s the reason that I want to create a “safe” house for people like that.

When I was a cult member I always was against that cross.
It has such a strong connection with Christianity. And then
you don’t understand why someone would come up with such
a symbol, where you have problems to draw a clear line
between a kind of “science” and a Jesus implant.