Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:26 am
Ken Urquhart and " Ex Scientology Kids."
Ken Urquhart and " Ex Scientology Kids."
I meant to post this some months ago, but didn't get around to it. Below is an URL for Ken's Blog, excellent reading, and I quote one of his articles.
bb
--------------
http://kgurquhart.blogspot.com/
-----------------
My Return to Reality and Responsibility
Just today (written on Sunday, March 2nd, 2008), I have read the stories of the three young women who have created the site http://www.exscientologykids.com/. Their stories are deeply disturbing and dreadfully shocking. I first have to say that although the details of their experiences are new to me, the general and overall tendency of what established Scientology had become and the direction it was going in when I left it (in 1982) are not. I regret profoundly that I did not feel capable of steering the organization back to what I felt was the integrity of the technologies of Scientology. In leaving the organization, I played my role in permitting what happened in it later to come about. In the scheme of things, my leaving was not a large factor; small as it is, it is big for me, and I apologize for it.
I have another apology to make. When I first knew L. Ron Hubbard and worked close to him, in the early 1960’s, he was almost unfailingly cheerful, up-beat, high-toned, positive, energetic, friendly, courteous, respectful, helpful, tolerant, considerate, kindly, firm, commanding, inclusive, open, purposeful, warm, and generous. I remained close to him physically or in the hierarchy until 1978. Over those years he changed profoundly. Over those years it never occurred to me that I had it in my power to influence how he developed; I never tried. Looking back on those years in which his behaviour deteriorated from what I had known it to be, it amazes me that it did not enter my head that I could point out to him that instead of blowing up at people he could use TRs, he could consider putting in his own rudiments (including Similar Overt of Your Own? MWH? What part of this situation are you responsible for? Etc., etc.) on the occasions when I would have thought about those things with some other person. To this extent, again, I contributed to a deterioration that led, in time, to the miseries the established church enforced on the three young women who are now speaking out, and on many other children and adults in that group who deserved much better. Would it have made any difference, if I had challenged LRH as I now think (in hindsight) I should have done? He would for sure have blown me off without hesitation, giving me no opportunity to speak my mind in that way ever again. But he would have thought about it; he would have recognized that objective eyes could be watching him, and in the quiet of his own cabin, he would have reflected on his behaviour. Who knows how this would have affected how he then charted his course. I think it’s unlikely that I could have substantially changed him. At any rate, I do regret that I did not take him on as I could have and really should have.
Reading these young women’s stories today forces me to acknowledge that I do have an exact share of responsibility for the conditions that they lived through, and for the state of the organization of which I in the past had some ownership of (in the Scientology sense of “own,” which is to hold or occupy the space of something). I don’t doubt that in this organization as it has been since I left and is today, there are many fine, able, intelligent, and sane individuals. Nor that there are many actions coming out of the organization that are helpful to somebody and perhaps to all. On the other hand, there is evidence (firstly, the evidence of my own personal experiences up to 1982, and secondly, these young women’s stories) that the organization has become in part both stupid and evil (to an extent I never dreamed of in 1982) especially in regard to its treatment of staff and of staff’s children. If the stories that these three young ladies tell us are characteristic, then this “Church” is guilty of crimes not simply against some people but against humanity. I unequivocally support any and all honest attempts to bring this “church” to account for any serious crimes it has committed temporally or spiritually unless it clearly demonstrates energetic willingness to reform itself. Adults in the church choose to accept abuse when it happens, or to leave. Children can't choose with whom and where they live. When a “church” trains staff parents to neglect and abuse their children, abuse has become wickedness beyond tolerance. No decent society can put up with this in its midst. People who join the church become aware of its Fair Game policy and what disconnection is all about. If they want to play that game within their group, that’s fine with me. But when it adversely and seriously affects the lives of children born into the group or taken into it, it’s time to stand up and say, This is Not Acceptable. That the “church” lies publicly that it no longer practices disconnection is Not Acceptable.
My Ownership
The stories I read today also force me to acknowledge something I have shrugged off for too long. I referred above to the fact that for a period of time I had some “ownership” of the organization, placed as I was at the right hand of L. Ron Hubbard. Many of the fine people with whom I worked closely must have had their own “ownership.”
While of course whatever power I had within the organization came from my closeness to him, that very closeness gave me a breadth and depth of insight into the people and the workings of the organization. That insight enabled a certain amount of permeation of the organization, and this was an organization that I lived with for all of my waking hours over several years.
[Allow me to note here that despite the seniority of my post, and my length of time on it, I certainly was not perfect in it. I had many weaknesses, and in many aspects of my performance I was less than satisfactory to LRH and to others. Ah, well…it’s all water under the bridge, now.]
Today, I have to give space to a thought that has been buzzing in and out of my consciousness for a few weeks. It is that although when I left the “church” in 1982 my feeling was that the break was complete and permanent. In fact, as I look back, the complete and permanent break was with what the organization had become and with its new management and their style. It was not a break with the organization called Scientology that I originally joined. I did not and could not end the ownership part of my relationship with scientology. Nor did it in fact end, nor will anything ever end (other than my own self-determined decision) my connection with the core of sanity that was the best of L. Ron Hubbard. I still have those connections, or something at least of each. I never left the organization I first joined. I still have some ownership of it. I still love and respect the best of LRH. These things don’t go away, and I don’t want them to. I still support all of the theta [high spirituality] of the original group, and for me it has never gone away. It will never go away!
In the first few years following my departure in 1982, I quietly waited for the membership of the C of S and its various corporate entities to wake up, and for Reality to take over. Then the demands of life in the world took my attention, and I slowly cared less and less about what was happening within the closed world of the self-declared elite. It’s long past time I should have woken up to the truth—that (a) what David Miscavige is doing doesn’t work, and is not scientology, (b) that the members of the organizations can’t be relied on to do anything about Miscavige on their own, and (c) that there are enormous resources of huge value under Miscavige’s control that are in jeopardy because they are under his control (resources both tangible and intangible): given who and what he is, the fact that Miscavige has control over them is mind-bogglingly inappropriate.
Pragmatism
The situation calls for by-pass.
In the old days, Ron told us, in words to this effect: “If you are not sure what to do, ask yourself ‘What would Ron do?’” As I got to know him better and better, I began to take that advice with a large pinch of salt. One could ask, these days, “What would Ron at his best and sanest do?” and use that as a datum for comparison. We also could remember that a basic intention of the applications of Scn is that one should strive to reach his or her own highest level of ARCU, KRC, and pan-determinism. And act accordingly.
With regard to what the best and sanest in Ron might do in the present circumstances, I can’t claim that I really know. What I do know, though, is that whenever confronted with situations of high and imminent risk, Ron in his prime was always the pragmatist. He had no problem with accepting the inevitable, with recognizing the fait accompli, acknowledging his limitations in the situation. As a result he clearly saw and seized his strengths and opportunities. Many of us who were close to him have seen him take a negative situation and turn it around in a flash. Now, sometimes the result was not permanent; often the result got lost in the rush to cool off the next crisis or to pamper the next LRH hobby-horse. But, we would enter his office wondering what on earth we were going to do, and we’d come out of it galvanized into (usually) happy, positive, purposeful action.
The Danger
What concerns me, over and above what has been happening to the young people, is the real risk that continued mismanagement will further pervert the huge resources (material and spiritual) of the C of S (in all its various forms), to the point that:
Ridicule of what Scientology has become will bury the best and sanest of LRH’s product and disconnect Planet Earth from its possible benefits.
Current management may dissipate material wealth gathered by Scientology (ethically or not) in desperate efforts to maintain their status quo, when that wealth ought to be used to (a) compensate at least to some degree those whom the corporate structure has exploited as slave labour, and to (b) invest in opportunities to responsibly help, forward, and create motions that are effective in confronting the real and actual Present-Time Problems of Planet Earth.
Current management will continue to steer the organizations away from being of practical and useful HELP to Planet Earth in her extremely troubled present in order to continue to pull money out of members for individual auditing sessions so they can feel good, in order for…what?
The very greatest value of Scientology (in my opinion), which is its ability to train others to
(a) exactly deliver the discipline of auditing and to
(b) exactly train others to deliver any kind of discipline,
as well as its ability to:
(c) act as the Qual Division for many types of human activity and endeavour,
may be made less of, and possibly lost. To my mind, it would be a crime of the lowest order to sit by and let this happen unopposed. I will not go so far as to say that to let it happen will introduce another Dark Ages into humanity’s history of self-torture, but it could well do so; I feel that it is possible that sane and sensible people could pull off a miracle in guiding Earth to health and sanity without the help of Scientology but I am certain that without the help of Scientology their jobs will be much more difficult and will take much longer. And we have a very narrow ‘window of opportunity’ in which to avoid a descent into what could be global barbarism. I see this as a reality; others may consider it hysterical opinion. In any event, global warming aside, there are far too many global problems that Scientology is not playing a very active role in resolving, as far as I can tell. But what else, for heaven’s sake, should it be doing?? Of course, Scientology management can have a different viewpoint; to me, it is an enormous outpoint that Scientology is not actively and energetically delivering excellent results in support of those who dedicate themselves to Earth Solutions, and as a fighter of those who dedicate themselves to Earth Problems. God knows it has the technology and other means to do it; God knows it may be so unwelcome in enough places in its current form that it has no way to make a difference.
By-pass?
An actual, honest-to-goodness corporate by-pass does not seem possible at this moment.
By-pass can occur on the level of Agreement. Miscavige has many of us convinced, in or out of Scientology, that his way is the only way, that his presence at the helm of Scientology is the only possible one. This agreement is his only bulwark. It allows him to dramatize on Scientology and on Planet Earth his insatiable compulsion to "protect" the sanities of scientology from feared abuse by "suppressives" but achieving instead a stop on the actual use of the sanities by real people in real need of them.
We who are outside of Scientology but still in scientology can ask ourselves: To what extent do I agree that DM is unchallengeable master of all he seems to have legal control over? If I find I disagree, then: How do I live my disagreement so that it communicates clearly to Scientology membership in a sane way that is non-combative nor restimulative to them or me?
We could agree that the Church of Scientology in all its manifestations is in a State of
Delusion, in an hypnotic trance induced by the staring eyes, the grim face, the inflexible inhumanity of its misguided leader. What’s the handling for the State of Delusion? I should think the first thing on the program is Reach and Withdraw on Planet Earth, for one thing. Maybe we in the freezone could help them with that. We could make ourselves very reachable, and very withdrawable from.
We could agree that Miscavige himself is in a Condition of Below Condition, the formula for which we do not have. I suggest one, neither seriously nor in jest, but in the spirit of "If the cap fits, wear it":
Go away.
Go very, very, very far away.
Go further away.
Figure out how to become a member of the human race.
Start coming back step-by-step on your own.
Don’t ever consider lying to yourself again.
Permit yourself to go through the horrors, on a very slow gradient, of actually being truly in session with an auditor.
Repeat from #1 until #7 produces honest-to-goodness case gain and honest return to the human race.
Re-program.
Ultimately, what David Miscavige does is largely up to him.
Reformation Urgently Required
We could discuss what a Reformed Church of Scientology would look like and would do.
Before I enter that level of discussion, I would first like to say how I think the Church’s situation deteriorated as far as it has. This will be the subject of the next paper, entitled "Notes on Main Reasons for the Degeneration of Scientology.
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs/
I meant to post this some months ago, but didn't get around to it. Below is an URL for Ken's Blog, excellent reading, and I quote one of his articles.
bb
--------------
http://kgurquhart.blogspot.com/
-----------------
My Return to Reality and Responsibility
Just today (written on Sunday, March 2nd, 2008), I have read the stories of the three young women who have created the site http://www.exscientologykids.com/. Their stories are deeply disturbing and dreadfully shocking. I first have to say that although the details of their experiences are new to me, the general and overall tendency of what established Scientology had become and the direction it was going in when I left it (in 1982) are not. I regret profoundly that I did not feel capable of steering the organization back to what I felt was the integrity of the technologies of Scientology. In leaving the organization, I played my role in permitting what happened in it later to come about. In the scheme of things, my leaving was not a large factor; small as it is, it is big for me, and I apologize for it.
I have another apology to make. When I first knew L. Ron Hubbard and worked close to him, in the early 1960’s, he was almost unfailingly cheerful, up-beat, high-toned, positive, energetic, friendly, courteous, respectful, helpful, tolerant, considerate, kindly, firm, commanding, inclusive, open, purposeful, warm, and generous. I remained close to him physically or in the hierarchy until 1978. Over those years he changed profoundly. Over those years it never occurred to me that I had it in my power to influence how he developed; I never tried. Looking back on those years in which his behaviour deteriorated from what I had known it to be, it amazes me that it did not enter my head that I could point out to him that instead of blowing up at people he could use TRs, he could consider putting in his own rudiments (including Similar Overt of Your Own? MWH? What part of this situation are you responsible for? Etc., etc.) on the occasions when I would have thought about those things with some other person. To this extent, again, I contributed to a deterioration that led, in time, to the miseries the established church enforced on the three young women who are now speaking out, and on many other children and adults in that group who deserved much better. Would it have made any difference, if I had challenged LRH as I now think (in hindsight) I should have done? He would for sure have blown me off without hesitation, giving me no opportunity to speak my mind in that way ever again. But he would have thought about it; he would have recognized that objective eyes could be watching him, and in the quiet of his own cabin, he would have reflected on his behaviour. Who knows how this would have affected how he then charted his course. I think it’s unlikely that I could have substantially changed him. At any rate, I do regret that I did not take him on as I could have and really should have.
Reading these young women’s stories today forces me to acknowledge that I do have an exact share of responsibility for the conditions that they lived through, and for the state of the organization of which I in the past had some ownership of (in the Scientology sense of “own,” which is to hold or occupy the space of something). I don’t doubt that in this organization as it has been since I left and is today, there are many fine, able, intelligent, and sane individuals. Nor that there are many actions coming out of the organization that are helpful to somebody and perhaps to all. On the other hand, there is evidence (firstly, the evidence of my own personal experiences up to 1982, and secondly, these young women’s stories) that the organization has become in part both stupid and evil (to an extent I never dreamed of in 1982) especially in regard to its treatment of staff and of staff’s children. If the stories that these three young ladies tell us are characteristic, then this “Church” is guilty of crimes not simply against some people but against humanity. I unequivocally support any and all honest attempts to bring this “church” to account for any serious crimes it has committed temporally or spiritually unless it clearly demonstrates energetic willingness to reform itself. Adults in the church choose to accept abuse when it happens, or to leave. Children can't choose with whom and where they live. When a “church” trains staff parents to neglect and abuse their children, abuse has become wickedness beyond tolerance. No decent society can put up with this in its midst. People who join the church become aware of its Fair Game policy and what disconnection is all about. If they want to play that game within their group, that’s fine with me. But when it adversely and seriously affects the lives of children born into the group or taken into it, it’s time to stand up and say, This is Not Acceptable. That the “church” lies publicly that it no longer practices disconnection is Not Acceptable.
My Ownership
The stories I read today also force me to acknowledge something I have shrugged off for too long. I referred above to the fact that for a period of time I had some “ownership” of the organization, placed as I was at the right hand of L. Ron Hubbard. Many of the fine people with whom I worked closely must have had their own “ownership.”
While of course whatever power I had within the organization came from my closeness to him, that very closeness gave me a breadth and depth of insight into the people and the workings of the organization. That insight enabled a certain amount of permeation of the organization, and this was an organization that I lived with for all of my waking hours over several years.
[Allow me to note here that despite the seniority of my post, and my length of time on it, I certainly was not perfect in it. I had many weaknesses, and in many aspects of my performance I was less than satisfactory to LRH and to others. Ah, well…it’s all water under the bridge, now.]
Today, I have to give space to a thought that has been buzzing in and out of my consciousness for a few weeks. It is that although when I left the “church” in 1982 my feeling was that the break was complete and permanent. In fact, as I look back, the complete and permanent break was with what the organization had become and with its new management and their style. It was not a break with the organization called Scientology that I originally joined. I did not and could not end the ownership part of my relationship with scientology. Nor did it in fact end, nor will anything ever end (other than my own self-determined decision) my connection with the core of sanity that was the best of L. Ron Hubbard. I still have those connections, or something at least of each. I never left the organization I first joined. I still have some ownership of it. I still love and respect the best of LRH. These things don’t go away, and I don’t want them to. I still support all of the theta [high spirituality] of the original group, and for me it has never gone away. It will never go away!
In the first few years following my departure in 1982, I quietly waited for the membership of the C of S and its various corporate entities to wake up, and for Reality to take over. Then the demands of life in the world took my attention, and I slowly cared less and less about what was happening within the closed world of the self-declared elite. It’s long past time I should have woken up to the truth—that (a) what David Miscavige is doing doesn’t work, and is not scientology, (b) that the members of the organizations can’t be relied on to do anything about Miscavige on their own, and (c) that there are enormous resources of huge value under Miscavige’s control that are in jeopardy because they are under his control (resources both tangible and intangible): given who and what he is, the fact that Miscavige has control over them is mind-bogglingly inappropriate.
Pragmatism
The situation calls for by-pass.
In the old days, Ron told us, in words to this effect: “If you are not sure what to do, ask yourself ‘What would Ron do?’” As I got to know him better and better, I began to take that advice with a large pinch of salt. One could ask, these days, “What would Ron at his best and sanest do?” and use that as a datum for comparison. We also could remember that a basic intention of the applications of Scn is that one should strive to reach his or her own highest level of ARCU, KRC, and pan-determinism. And act accordingly.
With regard to what the best and sanest in Ron might do in the present circumstances, I can’t claim that I really know. What I do know, though, is that whenever confronted with situations of high and imminent risk, Ron in his prime was always the pragmatist. He had no problem with accepting the inevitable, with recognizing the fait accompli, acknowledging his limitations in the situation. As a result he clearly saw and seized his strengths and opportunities. Many of us who were close to him have seen him take a negative situation and turn it around in a flash. Now, sometimes the result was not permanent; often the result got lost in the rush to cool off the next crisis or to pamper the next LRH hobby-horse. But, we would enter his office wondering what on earth we were going to do, and we’d come out of it galvanized into (usually) happy, positive, purposeful action.
The Danger
What concerns me, over and above what has been happening to the young people, is the real risk that continued mismanagement will further pervert the huge resources (material and spiritual) of the C of S (in all its various forms), to the point that:
Ridicule of what Scientology has become will bury the best and sanest of LRH’s product and disconnect Planet Earth from its possible benefits.
Current management may dissipate material wealth gathered by Scientology (ethically or not) in desperate efforts to maintain their status quo, when that wealth ought to be used to (a) compensate at least to some degree those whom the corporate structure has exploited as slave labour, and to (b) invest in opportunities to responsibly help, forward, and create motions that are effective in confronting the real and actual Present-Time Problems of Planet Earth.
Current management will continue to steer the organizations away from being of practical and useful HELP to Planet Earth in her extremely troubled present in order to continue to pull money out of members for individual auditing sessions so they can feel good, in order for…what?
The very greatest value of Scientology (in my opinion), which is its ability to train others to
(a) exactly deliver the discipline of auditing and to
(b) exactly train others to deliver any kind of discipline,
as well as its ability to:
(c) act as the Qual Division for many types of human activity and endeavour,
may be made less of, and possibly lost. To my mind, it would be a crime of the lowest order to sit by and let this happen unopposed. I will not go so far as to say that to let it happen will introduce another Dark Ages into humanity’s history of self-torture, but it could well do so; I feel that it is possible that sane and sensible people could pull off a miracle in guiding Earth to health and sanity without the help of Scientology but I am certain that without the help of Scientology their jobs will be much more difficult and will take much longer. And we have a very narrow ‘window of opportunity’ in which to avoid a descent into what could be global barbarism. I see this as a reality; others may consider it hysterical opinion. In any event, global warming aside, there are far too many global problems that Scientology is not playing a very active role in resolving, as far as I can tell. But what else, for heaven’s sake, should it be doing?? Of course, Scientology management can have a different viewpoint; to me, it is an enormous outpoint that Scientology is not actively and energetically delivering excellent results in support of those who dedicate themselves to Earth Solutions, and as a fighter of those who dedicate themselves to Earth Problems. God knows it has the technology and other means to do it; God knows it may be so unwelcome in enough places in its current form that it has no way to make a difference.
By-pass?
An actual, honest-to-goodness corporate by-pass does not seem possible at this moment.
By-pass can occur on the level of Agreement. Miscavige has many of us convinced, in or out of Scientology, that his way is the only way, that his presence at the helm of Scientology is the only possible one. This agreement is his only bulwark. It allows him to dramatize on Scientology and on Planet Earth his insatiable compulsion to "protect" the sanities of scientology from feared abuse by "suppressives" but achieving instead a stop on the actual use of the sanities by real people in real need of them.
We who are outside of Scientology but still in scientology can ask ourselves: To what extent do I agree that DM is unchallengeable master of all he seems to have legal control over? If I find I disagree, then: How do I live my disagreement so that it communicates clearly to Scientology membership in a sane way that is non-combative nor restimulative to them or me?
We could agree that the Church of Scientology in all its manifestations is in a State of
Delusion, in an hypnotic trance induced by the staring eyes, the grim face, the inflexible inhumanity of its misguided leader. What’s the handling for the State of Delusion? I should think the first thing on the program is Reach and Withdraw on Planet Earth, for one thing. Maybe we in the freezone could help them with that. We could make ourselves very reachable, and very withdrawable from.
We could agree that Miscavige himself is in a Condition of Below Condition, the formula for which we do not have. I suggest one, neither seriously nor in jest, but in the spirit of "If the cap fits, wear it":
Go away.
Go very, very, very far away.
Go further away.
Figure out how to become a member of the human race.
Start coming back step-by-step on your own.
Don’t ever consider lying to yourself again.
Permit yourself to go through the horrors, on a very slow gradient, of actually being truly in session with an auditor.
Repeat from #1 until #7 produces honest-to-goodness case gain and honest return to the human race.
Re-program.
Ultimately, what David Miscavige does is largely up to him.
Reformation Urgently Required
We could discuss what a Reformed Church of Scientology would look like and would do.
Before I enter that level of discussion, I would first like to say how I think the Church’s situation deteriorated as far as it has. This will be the subject of the next paper, entitled "Notes on Main Reasons for the Degeneration of Scientology.
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs/
http://www.freewebs .com/techoutside thecofs/