Keeping scientology worki

ao579@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson)

>HCO PL 7 Feb 1965
>KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
[snip]

>_________________________________________________________________
>
>Hubbard sets the tone of the piece here. I'm struck by the
>*mechanical* nature of his tech -- there's only one way of
>doing it right (Hubbard's way) and it always works it it's
>done his way. Do *all* human minds really operate so uniformly?
>Is there no diversity in human mental processes?
No, there is not. The Retractive Mind (bank) is uniform, person to person. There is no variance in it's structure according to the Phattard. Only the specific contents of *some* of the incidents is different.

The only thing that people have in common, Tubbo sez, is their reactive minds. That's what they agree on. That's why they agree on the things they do. They have no choice. It's all stimulus-response.

Wassamatta, Diane? Doesn't seem real to you? Doesn't "indicate"? That's because you have *so* much charge on your case [sic] that the truth is just not "real" to you. >_________________________________________________________________
>
>Getting the correct technology applied consists of:
>
>One: Having the correct technology.
>Two: Knowing the technology.
>Three: Knowing it is correct.
>Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.
>Five: Applying the technology.
>Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.
>Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
>Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
>Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
>Ten: Closing the door on incorrect technology.
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>These 10 points are the essentials of this policy, although it's
>actually the last four points that are discussed. It seems to
>me that "Three: Knowing it is correct" is given short shrift
>here, since without "belief" in the tech, none of the rest applies.
>
>Note the "power verbs" in the last four points.
These 10 points must be learned verbatum by all auditors in the cult. My primary responsibility, as Chief Cramming Officer, in the Qualifications Division, according the Phatman, was enforcing points 7-10. >_________________________________________________________________
>
>One above has been done.
>Two has been achieved by many.
>Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct
>technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way.
>Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world.
>Five is consistently accomplished daily.
>Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently.
>Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.
>Eight is not worked on hard enough.
>Nine is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the not quite
>bright.
Being reasonable is a *very* bad thing to the scienos.

>Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.
Ferocious demand for compliance with the dogma is part of the everyday environment in the cult.

>Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can
>bog down in any areas.
That's why a specialist, like me, is needed to hammer, knock and close doors.

>The reasons for this are not hard to find. (1) A weak certainty
>that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven,
>Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) [sic--!] further, the not-too-bright
>have a bad point on the button self-importance [sic--hunh?]
>(c) The lower the I.Q., the more the individual is shut off
>from the fruits of observation. (d) The aberrated computations
>people make them defend themselves against anything they
>confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank
>seeks to knock out the good and perpetrate the bad.
>
>Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very
>alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
>____________________________________________________________
>
>I have no idea what Hubbard's trying to say in (b) above.
>Anybody got any clues? In fact, nothing beyond (1) above
>seems to make much sense.
The "not-quite-bright" think, according the El Ron, that their opinions have importance to anybody. They don't. Only Tubbo's opinions matter.

>To be continued....
Thanks for posting this, Diane. It brings back such memories.

I hope Elizabeth is reading this.

>Diane Richardson
>ao579@yfn.ysu.edu
+--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"