Doubt Formula Debate

(Section 2 of Part 4 – My Final Days)

It was time to go.

I wrote up what I consider to be a very thorough Doubt formula with step 6 announcing that I chose to no longer support the Church of Scientology.

The HAS read it and while she was reading it she noticed something that she said was wrong with it.  She said that I did not do step 1 correctly. Step 1 is:

1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or org, brushing aside all bias and rumor.” – (LRH – HCO PL 6 Oct 76R II, Rev 25 Sept 77 Conditions of Liability and Doubt, OEC Vol 0, page 438)

I felt very sincerely that I had informed myself honestly of these activities, supported by the 1) the fact of how far off the path the church had gone with David Miscavige as the so-called leader, as evidenced by the multitude of his obvious and widespread policy violations, and 2) the fact of hundreds and hundreds of stories I’d read or heard of severe abuse, firsthand from each of them, and not just a few and not just 10 or 20, but far too many to think that they all could be making them up or that they were all just written by a few people under many different names.

If it weren’t for the major outpoints that I could now see with my own eyes, any one of which should have, on their own, been cause for my refusal to cooperate; if I had been seeing and experiencing real expansion and the constant, day-in and day-out phenomenal wins on even just the first and third dynamics that I had originally expected from the tech, to the degree that I had expected would be the case 25 years after I had started out, I wouldn’t have believed anything anyone would have said about COB beating them up or inflicting other forms of degradation on them.  In my opinion, if all those great things had been happening, there would be very few people making such horrible claims, if any.

However, according to the HAS the only way I could legitimately do that step 1 of Doubt would have been for me to actually go to the Int base at Hemet, California, and witness for myself whether the abuses which I said I believed to actually be happening or not.  She said that if I did not do that, there was no way I could legitimately complete that step of the formula.

First of all, this is verbal data. I never would have, and still do not, understand it that way because of what is written by LRH in that step of the formula.  Someone would have to verbally interpret it that way for me to even think that as a possible way that someone could interpret it.

There is nothing in that formula that says that and it is a complete arbitrary.

It would be like saying that I can’t say that there is any such place as China because I’ve never been there, or I don’t know that there was ever such a document as the Declaration of Independence because I have never seen it, or that there was no Roman Empire because I did not see it with my own two eyes.

And I realized later (and I wish I would have thought of it soon enough to say it to her when she brought it up): when Sindy and I brought it up to her that we think that these horrific things are happening in church management, the HAS didn’t consider for one second that they could be true and did no investigation for herself.  The point I’m making is that she was saying that I could not say the abuse in the church was occurring because I had not been there to witness it; yet at the same time, she herself had never been there either to witness that it was not happening, and she was immediately saying it was not happening without even looking at the evidence.

Why was it okay for her to say that these things weren’t true without going to the Int base herself and see it with her own eyes, yet for my Doubt formula, that was the only way I would be permitted to know for myself what was really happening?

When I originated to her that I did not agree with her verbal interpretation of the Doubt formula, I did say that if it were possible to go and observe firsthand, I would, but it’s obviously not possible (aside from the fact that I did not need to do that to do the formula correctly). Her response to my origination was that I must be in some other lower condition (lower than Doubt, and on some other situation I was currently oblivious to) in order for me to have a situation where it is physically impossible for me to apply that step of the formula.

For that brief moment where I conceived this as a possibility, I could feel my head starting to spin.  It was an extremely wrong indication which, if I would have bought into it, would have been so complicated I know it would have driven me nuts!

It was another arbitrary, made “necessary” by the first arbitrary, which would have added more arbitraries.  I’m glad I didn’t buy in.

The HAS, in my view from previous encounters, had a lot pluspoints as an Ethics Officer, including that she did consider the person’s realities to a much larger degree than a few others that I have known, and allowed people to have their own viewpoints.  She was respectful during this whole time and she acknowledged that I had a right to think and do whatever I wanted.  I actually think she is a very kind, compassionate and sincere person.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, she had some stable data that were fixed ideas that prevented her from truly doing her job.  She had an opportunity to really look at some truth about what was happening to her church and she blew it.  It is beyond my reality, for example, how someone can read “Friends of LRH” (which she told me she did read when we asked her to) and then continue to support COB’s squirrel programs while still thinking she is supporting LRH.

Next…Who I am Allowed to Associate With

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Doubt Formula Debate

  1. The Oracle says:

    And I wonder what condition that HAS was in that she could not confront an inconvenient truth?

    Her “logic” would be the same as one in Germany thinking, “If you can not see for yourself what is happening to all of the JEWS being shipped out on trains you should not worry about it.”

    What about the KR system? Should nobody even write a KR because everyone hasn’t seen what they have seen?

    I squirm to think of the predicament you were in trying to have a reasonable comm cycle with a person so clearly stuck in GPMs.

  2. The Oracle says:

    What the HAS was actually telling you, was to have BLIND TRUST.

    BLIND TRUST = NO RESPONSIBILITY.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s