GE Electronic Mail
Sub: More from Paul
No, we, Sue and I (paulswife), don't think of ourselves as
clears or OT's. 'Clear' is something that has SO MANY
definitions in Scn anyway. But the idea of being in control over
one's life, dealing with unwanted thoughts, etc., is not
something that was discovered in Dianetics. A huge black mass of
chains and past-lives and overts and forces and entities and
Yes, the entire structure depends on *their* facts. Yes,
they say that if Scn says it is a fact, it is a *fact*. And no,
they don't want you to start disbelieving things, because if you
do, the concept of clear and OT are going to seem like a
I know what you mean about the KSW thing. Hubbard's tech
can never be wrong, if you accept that KSW is a *fact*.
About OT 3 - 8 and so on, there will always be "reasons",
but they will be meant primarily for the Scn community. The fact
that OT materials had gotten into the public domain was, I
imagine, devastating for many members, especially those high-up.
Because people weren't dropping like flies was probably a slap in
the fact-face for many others.
Carla, I did the clearing-course. There were films of
Hubbard demonstrating the R-6 bank, talking about implants, etc.
He said on those films that if this data ever got out people
would be dying horrible deaths - keying-in all kinds of stuff,
etc. We clearing-course students were actually scared, afraid
that these materials might someday get into the wrong hands. We
were told that just a word form those materials could do someone
in. This was the lightning of life! And we believed it. Sucked
it in hook-line-and-sinker. That we didn't go mad was "proof"
that we had fully completed our "lower" levels, but for someone
else... who wasn't prepared ... oh, man! There just aren't any
reasons (other than he was either lying, or so fully believed in
it himself) for why NO one gets even a twitch when having the
entire story told to them. His *fact* about the materials being
so powerful, that they'd kill people, was painfully found to be
*false*. And the same applies to the rest of it.
So, if you *believe* in Hubbard's facts Scn will work for
you. Question those *facts*, find out that they're not all
facts, then Scn itself looses credibility, and Hubbard can't be
believed; hence, the OT levels are just a belief (not mine).
As to the question of OT abilities (I know you must be
thinking about that) I have a question for you that I think is
important. Have you ever seen *any* OT demonstrate his/her
"power", such as, move a match stick without touching it, let
alone a planet? Or, are said "powers" collectively thought of as
existing, but that they can't be demonstrated, for the sake of
Regarding the anti-scn materials, I think there's a
misunderstanding. We were getting stuff from the library.
Because I had still thought of myself as an OT, and that if the
OT materials were to fall into my wife's hands, that she would be
harmed, I'd black some of the OT stuff out of the article. But
the anti-scn stuff was still read. Later, she on her own, went
back to the library and got the OT materials (contained in the
articles) for herself. It was only after I has found out about
this, and saw for myself that she wasn't in any way harmed, that
I started to think about the OT levels in a different way (as
How do you sound? Sue says, on the BB, you sound like a
"Neutral Fairy Godmother". <g> I thought of you as a needed
During our correspondence, here, you sound to me as an ex-
member who has not let go of the rope, but that you are willing
to investigate the eventual possibility. There, now having said
that, let me also say that I DON'T want to be the one that makes
you let go! Whether you do or don't is going to be up to you,
and it is a deeply personal decision that sometimes requires
years of thought. ESPECIALLY if you have been in SO for so long.
I know that you know that, but I want you to know that I
know it too.
And DON'T do anything "rash", such as "fight" them. I'm
doing it because I don't care any more. The door has slammed
shut on me, totally, and I like it that way. But I didn't always
feel that way. I was like you for many years - laid back and
cool. And it was fine. It's just that now, it doesn't seem fine
anymore. I'm really not that big of a threat anyway. But, for
me to speak out, posting my real name, took a lot of thought.
This whole Scn thing peels off in layers. I guess I'm down
to the core, now - don't know.
Some of my experiences in Scn were very high. Some were the
lowest of low and totally degrading. I haven't forgotten the
lows - don't think I ever will. It feels good to get it off my
chest too. Thanks for talking with me too.
Religion & Ethics RT
Category 15, Topic 6
<If I am self determined, and I KNOW that something is true,
then it's true for me.>
Yes, it is; for you as an individual.
<We're not talking about the boiling point of water...>
No, we are not.
<Further, since I am THAT WHICH KNOWS or THAT WHICH IS AWARE
of BEING AWARE, I guess I know it. Ok, fine. Um, but it sounds
circular to me. Like Kant's Apriori Knowledge, that which is
given by God at Birth...>
Yes. Also, like Descartes' I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.
<I am not the picture of the cat I have in my mind. So,
feelings are things we have, they are not us.>
I'm not so sure that a feeling and a picture are the same
thing, but this debate has been going on since ancient times.
<So, if I deny those things which I am familiar with as
being me, then I need an explanation of what's *really* me...
someone has to give me something in it's place.>
I think you have illustrated wonderfully the difference
between a belief (like a religious conviction) and a so-called
fact; like a boiling-point. You seem to be saying that you are
entitled to believe in anything you as an individual want, and I
would whole-heartedly support that. But, if you were to cross
the line and assert that your belief is fact, or, criticize
another for not accepting your belief as fact, then, I think, you
would have made yourself a target for challenge. If, on the
other hand, you accepted your belief for what it was, stayed with
the idea that it is a belief and that it is your right to believe
it, then there would be no need to have the belief replaced by
something else. Your belief would be yours, personally, and,
because you would not feel the need to scientifically "prove" its
validity, there'd be no *legitimate* reason to challenge you.
'Knowing How to Know', seems to be a way to personally
reinforce the conviction that Scientology is a science. Perhaps
KHTK is a needed concept, because the "science" part doesn't
You know, talking about circular arguments, Scientologists
say that their science is a religion and that their religion is a
science. When challenged on scientific turf, the argument is
usually "You are attacking my religion!", like that which
Theta.Man has fallen back upon a number of times. When
challenged on religious turf, its, "Our religion is a science".
Very interesting post, Carla.