Freezone
on the 
Web

Uni's KSW #1 Critique

Homepage     (Click)

Sign Guest book:
                    (Click)

Links:

IVy magazine's
Link page    (Click)

FZAOInt      (Click)

Pilot's Reform
 page             (Click)

FreeScientology.org
                    (Click)

ST83.org with info and links     (click)

IVy Magazine
(print -  world wide distribution)
                      (Click)

Sign Guest book:
                    (Click)

Original article was written by Unindoctrinate (screen name) and posted to news groups on the web. It was reposted by Greg to ARS and ACT news groups.

Indoctrination

As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent. By this I mean that we have become less than adequately critical of Scientology™ and of  Ron Hubbard (LRH).
And this is a not right. It violates study technology. More fundamentally, it contradicts a good deal of basic Scientology™ philosophy; and it's from that base that everything else is built.

As a Scientologist, one has no business accepting any data without having evaluated them thoroughly, critically, and entirely to one's complete satisfaction.
Yet we all end up doing exactly this. The only difference amongst us is that some of us evaluate them less  fully than others. The vast, vast majority of Scientology™ data is perfectly legitimate, if not downright brilliant and extraordinary. The more Scientology™ one does, the more clearly one understands this and the greater one's appreciation of LRH becomes.

But there are also data included in the subject and authored by LRH which are simply false. I'm referring almost exclusively to Policy.  It is actually a minuscule portion of Scientology™ policy, and not in Scientology™ philosophy or the tech. We'll look at an example in a moment. If, as Scientologists, we were not indoctrinated to be less than adequately critical, these false data would be known and clearly evident as such to all of us.

If we look at what the ideal scene should be here, we should ask the question: "Who, if not a Scientologist, should be well aware of anything in Scientology™ or about LRH which may be legitimately criticized?" Not exaggerated or incorrectly evaluated as critics almost invariably do, but correctly evaluated and criticized simply because it warrants criticism. The answer, of course, Scientologists, and no one else.

Keeping Scientology Working # 1

There are parts of this policy which make a great deal of sense, and this is evident. But there are also some parts of it which are just false and make no sense at all, and this is evident too. Take a look at the following excerpt in a new unit of time.

I'm going to add some comments here and there to bring to your attention just some of the false or questionable data included in it.

"In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to 'eat crow'."

I don't actually know how true any of this may or may not be, as I don't have all of the data concerning suggestions others made. The point here is that probably no one knew this other than LRH.
That individuals, not groups, evolve truth is, I'd say, self evident. This does not mean, however, that only one person in any given group or only one person on an entire planet is capable of evolving truth. 

LRH Used to Thank People

LRH took the opportunity on a number of occasions in the early fifties to acknowledge the "thinking men" who came before him. He acknowledged that he owed much to them. They too had evolved truth.

Amongst these were Sigmund Freud, who made real the concept of resolving problems in the present by locating and re-examining traumas in the past.

Why LRH later stopped acknowledging others is a legitimate question to ask. Why he went on later to attack Freud viciously and to thoroughly invalidate his work - about the best he goes on to say about him is that he was a cocaine addict - this is a good question to ask too.

'I am the Only One'

Let's read on:
"On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pc's. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technology". By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as 'unpopular' 'egotistical' and 'undemocratic'. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax."

Neither you nor I are familiar, of course, with the "actual record" to which he refers, and one might legitimately wonder whether any such record exists.
Let's look at the numbers ourselves to see what we're looking at here. Let's just imagine any old group. And let's give its members as much time as they need to dream up 100,000 ideas which are to be applied to technology. 20 of these ideas will be okay at least insofar as they wouldn't destroy good technology.

Some of them would be the ones that actually resulted in new and good technology or which would improve already existing and good technology; and 99,980 of them would destroy what good technology this group already had.

A few hours ago I visited my computer manufacturer's website to check out their latest computers. Then I took a quick look at some of IBM's. I know that both of these companies have more than one person dreaming up technology; they have quite a few. I imagine as well that if these people had been dreaming up 20 good ideas and 99,980 that would destroy what good technology they already had - well, I don't think they would still be in business. I wouldn't even have been able to access any web sites either. Do you agree?
Do you know of any group yourself, large or small, with such percentages? I don't. The data are not just obviously false. It's obvious that it's ridiculously false.

If it were even remotely, remotely, remotely true, we wouldn't even be living in caves now; we'd long ago have destroyed all caves and become extinct.

Democracy

Okay, just one more observation about this paragraph. Democracy. That democracy has given us inflation and income tax is false. There are a number of causes of inflation; none of them have anything to do with democracy. Just look at countries which have never been or are not now democracies and you'll see no lack of inflation. The same goes for income tax or, for that matter, unjust taxes of any kind.

That democracy has pushed Man further into the mud is false. You can select just about any democracy and take a look at what has happened in it for the era it has been a democracy. In almost all cases you will see that these countries have become more and more democratic as time has gone by and that the people living in them have not been pushed further into the mud. Instead their overall condition and standards of living have risen and continues to rise.

Modern democracies are not all fun and games and it's not ideal scenes all over the place. Neither can we assign the progress of the 20th century to democracy as though nothing else had gone on. But here we're viewing trends over long periods of time. And I should think that if democracy were so bad, and if countries have become more and more democratic as they have in the last century, we wouldn't have experienced the almost incredible progress we have.

These three false data about democracy (inflation, income tax, mud) are, in fact, just as ridiculously false as the "actual record".

'My Servant Helpers'

Here is the next quote:
"Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done."

The false datum here is his conclusion that group efforts will not add to Scientology™ or successfully develop it.

To state that "in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group" is fine. But this is hardly a datum from which one can then go on to conclude anything at all. And especially in view of the fact that the group we're discussing is composed of individual Scientologists who are supposed to be able for starters and who are then supposed to become more and more able all the time.

"There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications".

In other words, the rest of us are up to nothing better than keeping score. And this only so long as any score-keeping doesn't affect basic principles, which is fine.

But what if someone discovers,  nearly fifteen years after LRH's death, that some  "successful application" is not actually successful at all?
Some of the policies on which the GO operated and OSA continues to stubbornly operate on, for example, are not successful in the least, but we'll get to this later.

Next quote:

"The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture."

Once more, this doesn't mean that "discovery contribution" could not be part of the broad picture. He has given no legitimate reason, nor does he in the rest of this issue, that validates such a conclusion; and many of the reasons he does give are false.

'I Came to Rise Above the Bank'

I used to read this in awe:
"We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank".

This is actually my "favorite" in the entire issue. One is supposed to be in awe of LRH at this point. Now, a certain amount of awe is fine. It's due to him. No problem here. But anything can be exaggerated, including awe. And it's the exaggeration here which creates another false datum.
- And it's not just a bit of exaggeration; it's a whole lot of an exaggeration.

I don't know about you, but when I used to read this, I'd sit there and wonder, in awe, just how he did come "to rise above the bank"? I didn't wonder long, though, because he leads one to believe that even speculating about it would be a waste of time.

Why? Well, it's obvious: I'm some sort of second-rate thetan who's not up to comprehending something like this. So, I'd leave the concept sitting there as a great and profound mystery - to be resolved some day. But guess what? There's no great and profound mystery. There's not even a minor and shallow mystery. There's no mystery at all. 
What does "rise above the bank" actually mean?

Could I Rise above my Bank?

Well, it doesn't mean anything different than what any of us does when any of us rises above the bank. I rise above the bank at least a few times a day. I'm sure you do too. Just as I'm sure just about everyone else do. If we didn't, we'd be back to the no-more-caves, now-we're-extinct scenario.

This statement is actually nothing more than a mystery sandwich designed to inspire more awe and to establish more distance between himself and the rest of us. So, fine, let's say there's some distance. Let's say there's a lot of distance. But just how much distance is there supposed to be here? And how does it compare to other statements he made which are along the lines of, "If I can do it, I figure you can too." These kinds of statements seem to be considerably saner to me.

Nope, the "rise above the bank" bit is just another take on the basic concept of this issue which is, essentially, that compared to LRH, the rest of us are, more or less, just walk-on parts, supporting actors, bit players, or in his words, coordinators, tabulators, friends who helped out with financial contributions, etc. Little guys. Runts. Compared to the incomparable Source.

 And not just now, but for goodness knows how long, and at least until he cancels or revises the issue himself - as per policy no one else can cancel or revise LRH issues except Source.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I consider LRH is rightfully due considerable amount of awe. Lots of  awe. And then some awe.

 But I also consider that he went way out of his way in this issue to assign himself considerably more awe than is his due. This is what I mean by exaggeration. And an exaggeration is an out point and a false datum.

Was a Tech of the Mind Overdue?

We read on:

"We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact - the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology™ but with wild dramatization of the bank called 'new ideas' would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve - psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum."

Most of the above is either false or mere assumption or just meaningless. An example of the last is also the most interesting bit: that "Man has never before evolved workable mental technology". This is also false, as there was some workable technology before, and there has also been some workable technology since, which isn't Scientology. But mostly it's just meaningless.

Before Scientology™ there was certainly little workable mental technology. And there's certainly nothing else around - zip - to compare to it even vaguely today. But, hey, until a couple of centuries ago, Man hadn't developed industrial technology to amount to much, either. And until just a few decades ago, Man was still using slide rulers to speed up calculations and hadn't even dreamed of computers. Now, the idea here isn't to compare Scientology™ to computers. Nor is it to take anything away from what LRH did discover or any of the truly amazing tech he developed. The idea is just not to exaggerate.
Because any exaggeration is an outpoint and false.

The idea, then, is to correctly evaluate things and to arrive at a correct estimation. How far would he have gotten, for example, without the e-meter? He didn't develop it, Volney Mathison did. And Volney wouldn't have developed it if a whole lot of people hadn't developed a whole lot of electronics first.

How soon would LRH have even gotten off the ground if it hadn't been for Freud popularizing some of the basic concepts of psychoanalysis in the late 19th and early 20th century? In other words: are we to understand that LRH descended from Heaven, "came to rise above the bank," and developed something that no one else can touch for fear of destroying it at the odds of 100,000 to 20?

Or are we to understand that, as extraordinary as what he did was and  remains, perhaps it was also about time that something like Scientology™ was developed? 

And perhaps it's also about time that the Church of Scientology™ organized things such that at least some of its more questionable policies were actually evaluated against the effects they actually create.

KSW and Indoctrination

 I chose KSW #1 because some of the data in it is at the heart of what I consider wrong in Scientology. I also chose it because it is at the same time at the heart of the indoctrination Scientologists receive and which is subsequently drummed into them, over and over again, and enforced at all costs.

Why not the Axioms?

There isn't anything more sacred in Scientology™ than KSW #1. Which is absolutely batty when we realize that it's not the Scientology™ Axioms, it's not the Dianetic Axioms, it's not fundamental philosophy or tech of any kind. It's just a flipping policy letter with some perfectly correct data and some perfectly false data - the latter of which are entirely in conflict with ... some of the Scientology™ Axioms, some of the Dianetic Axioms, and some of the fundamental philosophy and tech of Scientology™ and Dianetics.

He Has Our Respect - No Need to Tout His Own Horn

Okay, let's get to the fact that all Scientologists end up with a button on LRH. How can a Scientologist not develop such a button when he's so thoroughly indoctrinated to have an exaggerated opinion of LRH?

Now, this wouldn't be so extreme if we were talking about Bill Gates and Microsoft. Bill might indoctrinate Microsoft staff to have an exaggerated opinion of him. He could way exaggerate it. But whichever way he exaggerated it, we'd still be looking at Mr. William Gates, Jr. and Microsoft Inc., a publicly traded company, and very few people would be that impressed.

Instead we're looking here at LRH and Scientology. And this complicates things considerably. It was entirely unnecessary for LRH to exaggerate his accomplishments at all! They were already huge. So, what happens if we exaggerate something which is already huge? If we exaggerate it not just a little but a whole hell of a lot? Well, we get something far too exaggerated to be good for anyone's health and ability to think. This is why Scientologists end up with a button on LRH.

Our estimation of him has become way too exaggerated. He has placed himself on a pedestal. Most Scientologists consider that he could do no harm. That he was perfect or as close to this absolute as possible.

It becomes an overt or a 'nasty' of some kind to even have a critical thought about him. And all of this is part of the indoctrination too. As we know, Scientologists are sheltered from "entheta" (enturbulated thoughts), and especially entheta about LRH. When not sheltered, they're discouraged from having any contact with it. And if that isn't enough, there are also policies which forbid contact with the sources of "entheta", Suppressive Person's (SP's) etc. All of this is part of the indoctrination picture too.

I'm not interested in promoting entheta. But if there are critical facts to be known, why don't each and every Scientologist learn about these sooner rather than later? Instead there are really no one more ignorant of Scientology's or LRH's outpoints than Scientologists.

Is LRH's Case Part of the Tech?

Okay, one last thing here. Why is it not just a good idea but actually indispensable to discover what, if anything, may have been not quite right with LRH? If he had some aberrations and these remained unhandled right up to his death? If these aberrations did not end up in the Scientology™ materials, then they could be considered of little importance and nothing more than historical and biographical data.

 If, on the other hand, any such aberrations did work their way into Scientology™ materials, then it would be more than useful to know what these aberrations were. This is why I've read several entheta biographies. It's why I've read all sorts of other stuff about LRH too. Almost all of this material is packed with its own false data, exaggerations, incorrect evaluations, and God knows what else.

So, one needs to evaluate things correctly and one needs as well to exercise one's capacity to leave a lot of this data alone in "suspended animation" - if it's not possible to evaluate it correctly because one isn't able to verify the data. Or there can be omitted data, etc. and it's unwise to try to draw conclusions from them; just park it for the time being - without getting bent out of shape, way upset, disaffected, or whatever.

What happens with too many Scientologists, when they finally do decide to look at some of this stuff, is that they do not correctly evaluate some of it or a lot of it. They are led to draw conclusions from it anyway, and often end up getting bent out of shape, etc.

 The good news are that there is no reason why anyone cannot correctly evaluate these data, or temporarily leave them alone unevaluated and awaiting confirmation. This may be harder for some than for others, but it can and should be done.

Unindoctrinate          
(screen name)           

Read Un-Indoctrination Part II and III

   Check our Content Page

(link to Greg's posting on ACT)

© 2002 by Holy Cows. All rights reserved. 
Article edited by Holy Cows

   Check our Content Page

As a Scientologist, one has no business accepting any data without having evaluated it thoroughly, critically, and entirely to one's satisfaction.

The vast, vast majority of Scientology™ data is perfectly legitimate, if not downright brilliant and extraordinary.

But there are also data included in the subject and authored by LRH which are simply false. I'm referring almost exclusively to what is actually a minuscule portion of Scientology™ policy,

"Who, if not a Scientologist, should be well aware of anything in Scientology™ or about LRH which may be legitimately criticized?"

That individuals, not groups, evolve truth is, I'd say, evident. This does not mean, however, that only one person in any given group or only one person on an entire planet is capable of evolving truth. 

Why LRH later stopped acknowledging others is a legitimate question to ask. Why he went on later to attack Freud viciously?

 I know that IBM has more than one person dreaming up technology; they have quite a few.

 Just look at countries which  are not now democracies and you'll see no lack of inflation. Same goes for income tax or unjust taxes of any kind.

if democracy were so bad, and if countries have become more and more democratic, as they have in the last century, we wouldn't have experienced the almost incredible progress we have.

But what if someone discovers,  nearly fifteen years after LRH's death, that some  "successful application" is not actually successful at all?

This is actually my "favorite" in the entire issue. One is meant by this point to be in awe of LRH. Now, a certain amount of awe is fine. It's due to him. 

Nope, the "rise above the bank" bit is just another take on the basic concept of this issue which is, essentially, that compared to LRH, the rest of us are, more or less, just walk-on parts, supporting actors

How soon would LRH have even gotten off the ground if it hadn't been for Freud popularizing some of the basic concepts of psychoanalysis in the late 19th and early 20th century? 

 I chose KSW #1 because some of the data in it is at the heart of what I consider is wrong with Scientology. I also chose it because it is at the same time at the heart of the indoctrination

it's not the Scientology™ Axioms, it's not the Dianetic Axioms, it's not fundamental philosophy or tech of any kind. It's just a flipping policy letter with some perfectly correct data and some perfectly false data

It was entirely unnecessary for LRH to exaggerate his accomplishments at all! They were already huge.

It becomes an overt or a 'nasty' of some other kind to even have a critical thought about him. And all of this is part of the indoctrination too