By Jim Logan
The game I want to look at is being played out today on the media stage and involves, broadly on one side, Dave’s Church of Scientology VERSUS Mark Rathbun, Mike Rinder, and their side including their media outlets and “team mates”, Alex Gibney, Lawrence Wright, among various other now “ex” Scientologists.
This game came to the fore some years back when Mark “Marty” Rathbun began a blog and concurrent with a series of articles published in the Tampa Bay Times, the Truth Rundown. I myself had an article published in that paper relating to the cycle involving my self and my now deceased ex-wife, Annie Tidman. I also participated heavily in posting on Marty’s blog for some years and was the subject of OSA sites calling me “bad” and other such activity on the part of the DM Church of Scientology side, in the game called then, “Independent Scientology” vs “Dave’s Church”.
I ceased posting in Marty’s blog in early 2013 when I observed that it was tending in a direction that was no longer following a purpose to handle the departures from Scientology that DM has carried on over some decades and when the blog began to cater to denunciation of Scientology and in particular it embarked on a course of blaming L. Ron Hubbard for things that were and are the responsibility of the actual players in the present game of DM’s CofS vs. M&M and the other now anti-Scientologists.
I am not anti Scientology, anti-Ron Hubbard, or anti-any other being that is honestly espousing the tenets and methods of Scientology. I’m not on the side of the anti-Scientologists. I am not either on Dave’s side. He falsely declared me an SP 23 years ago and has continued to mis-apply Scientology Technology and Policy in the cycle with he and me to this date with malice aforethought and afterwards, to boot.
I am a plain Scientologist, embracing and using to the best of my ability the incredibly workable applied religious philosophy that is Scientology as written and spoken by L. Ron Hubbard.
I continue to study and apply Scientology and have moved on the Bridge up through to Solo NOTs on the auditing side and well into the St. Hill Briefing Course with a full chronological study of all released tapes and materials including now up to the entire series of some 437 BC tapes with the accompanying HCOBs, all the while applying and auditing the materials of the Academy Levels up through and including the full, original pack of L. Ron Hubbard’s NED for OTs series of bulletins.
It is from this viewpoint that I am observing the destructive and fully dramatized game and GPM between Dave’s Church of Scientology versus Mark Rathbun, Mike Rinder et al., the “ex” and “anti” Scientology camp as it has certainly turned out to become.
Presently, the organs for these two camps include Mike Rinder’s blog tied closely to one Tony Ortega’s vehemently anti-Scientology site and the Freedom Mag site for the DM side of the dramatizations.
Marty’s blog has long since died similar to the postulate he had for the Church of Scientology.
Today I read on Rinder’s blog of how bad the DM side is, including in that, generous slurs and chops of Ron Hubbard and Scientology as well as supplying the list of articles on the Freedom Mag site.
From Rinder’s blog I went to DM’s and watched a string of videos decrying the anti-Scientologists, including Rinder.
What is apparent when viewing BOTH sides of this game in wild dramo, is the lack of responsibility on either side, for the game (all members agreed at some point to similar goals and purposes, and the playing field, the football they are tossing around – Scientology) for the actions of each side in its own dishonesties, its rampant commissions and omissions against agreed upon codes of conduct, and denial of the initial CO-ACTION necessary as a prime condition for the now wanton perpetuation of destructive acts by one to the other and each to themselves. Both sides are egregiously false in their “reportage”.
The Terminals and Opposition Terminals, the valences locked in the problem over the goal and game, each solving the other with further lies, more overts piled on overts, withholds of conduct unbecoming, and neither applying any of the actual materials of Scientology so they can’t get out of the obsessive games condition and on it goes and goes and goes.
What I find tragic is that the fundamentals of what these beings are locked up in, the persistent, timeless and floating problems and the solidity they build on day by day, is something addressed, defined and delineated with an effective actual resolution, in the very materials they are, both sides, busy trashing in righteous rightness, and if one views it objectively, a marked similarity of dripping sarcastic lying, one to the other and each to themselves.
Scientology will persist after all of this theater of these valences because it is true.
There are enough beings that see that truth and reach and learn and apply the legacy of L. Ron Hubbard to make it available to all these “players”, eventually.
They’ll live more lives.
Someday they’ll forget enough to approach a Scientologist and ask “what is Scientology?” and because of actual Scientologists and Scientology, they’ll have a chance to find their basic agreements to co-action with the subject, their very own violations of those agreements, their very own overts, and thanks to that Scientologist, they’ll have another chance at the freedom that exists with this subject.
The aims of Scientology include a better game for one and all. It sure would be better than the one these two groups of individuals are playing now, methinks.
I am and have continued to be an infinite individuality, further and further along the road to truth, less alloyed by valences, myself and remain a dedicated, educated, practicing Scientologist.
My “experiment” with bypassing the broken lines, from either or both or the “co-terminal” that these two sides have inevitably become, has been wonderfully successful. I’m not a player in their shared Goals Problematic Massy game.
As this whole topic of Goals Problem Mass is not well understood, I wanted to include the exact LRH references and information on this subject:
The component parts of a game, that of one side versus another with a goal, a purpose in playing the game and the members of one side of the game playing against another, in an agreed upon situation, are the basic components of the core of the reactive, stimulus-response, obsessive and irrational mind that Ron Hubbard exposed in the study of the GPM.
“The entire secret of all overt-withhold mechanisms is valences.”
“If the preclear were in no valence, but was himself completely, he would have a perfect test response and would be wholly Clear. In this statement we have one of the background structure points of Scientology.” The Basic Assumptions of Scientology Versus Overts, HCOB 9 June 1960.
In a game, one assumes a category of beingness that is opposed to the other half of the game, the other side, the opposite member(s) of the game, in agreement with them as to the nature of the game itself, which is a fundamental agreement enabling the playing of the game in the first place.
“A valence is a synthetic beingness, at best, or it is a beingness that the pc is not but is pretending to be or thinks he is.”
“A person is himself or in a valence. You see, it’s one or the other. He is either himself or in a valence.”
“Valences are calculated to do something. They are calculated to solve a problem. And every valence picked up is solution to a problem.”
“So therefore, you can say, if you’ll excuse my rough talk, that these identities as they are passed by on the track are old antiquated solutions to confusions. They’re antiquated solutions to confusions.”
“Now, any pc is being dominantly, at any given time, one valence, but may be tortured or upset by other valences which are the – only the concern of the valence he is being.” Rudiments, Valences, tape of 17 Aug 1961, SHSBC.
“An item or identity the pc has actually been sometime in the past (or present) is called a TERMINAL.”
“An item or identity the pc has actually opposed (fought, been an enemy of) sometime in the past (or present) is called an OPPOSITION TERMINAL.” HCOB 17 Jan 1962, Issue II, Responsibility Again.
“The goal has been balked for eons by opposing forces. The goal pointed one way, the opposing forces point exactly opposite and against it.
“If you took two fire hoses and pointed them at each other, their streams would not reach each other’s nozzles, but would splatter against one another in midair. If this splatter were to hang there, it would be a ball of messed-up water. Call Hose A the force the pc has used to execute his goal. Call Hose B the force other dynamics have used to oppose that goal. Where these two forces have perpetually met, a mental mass is created.
“This is the picture of any problem-force opposing force with resultant mass.
“Where the pc’s goal meets constant opposition, you have in the reactive mind the resultant mass caused by the two forces-goal = force of getting it done, opposition = force opposing it getting done.
“This is the Goal Problem Mass. When contacted it raises the tone arm and sticks the needle.” HCOB 20 Nov 1961, Routine 3D.
“The common denominator of the Goals Problem Mass is “no responsibility. This is the end product that continues any circuit or valence.
“This is a deterioration of pan-determinism over a game into “no responsibility,” as follows:
“No Previous or Current Contact = No responsibility or liability.
Pan-Determinism = Full responsibility for both sides of game.
Other-Determinism = No responsibility for other side of game.
Self-Determinism = Full responsibility for self, no responsibility for other side of game.
Valence (Circuit) = No responsibility for the game, for either side of the game or for a former self.
“The Goals Problem Mass is made up of past selves or “valences,” each one grouped and more or less in a group.
“Therefore, the characteristic of the part (the valence) is the characteristic of the whole, the collection of valences known as the Goals Problem Mass.
“The way a being is hung with persistent masses is the mechanism of getting him to believe certain things are undesirable. These he cannot then have. He can only combat them or ignore them. Either way they are not as-ised. Thus, they persist.
“Only undesirable characteristics tend to persist. Therefore, the least desirable valences or traits of valences persist.
“The way not to have is to ignore or combat or withdraw from. These three, ignoring or combating or withdrawing, sum up to no having. They also sum up to no responsibility for such things.
“Thus, we can define responsibility as the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be. To be responsible for something one does not actually have to care for it or reach it or be it. One only needs to believe or know that he has the ability to care for it, reach it or be it. “Care for it” is a broader concept than, but similar to, start, change or stop it. It includes guard it, help it, like it, be interested in it, etc.
“When one has done these things and then had failures through overts and withholds, one cycles down through compulsive and obsessive care, reach and be, and inverts to withdraw from, combat or ignore. Along with ignore goes forgetting or occlusion. Thus, a person has occlusion on past valences, and past lives go out of sight. These return to memory only when one has regained the concept that they can be reached or that one dares be them again or that one can care for them.
“Herein is the cause and remedy of whole track occlusion.” HCOB 17 Jan 1962, Issue II, Responsibility Again.
Again, thank you L. Ron Hubbard for all of your work and an incredible legacy of freedom for all who care to reach and work for it.