Home

blown-kilt

Poetry & Candles  – “The Down is Up Theory”

by Ren

What if Scientology was currently in the greatest period of expansion and impinging on the population of Earth more rapidly today than at any time in its history?

What if that was transpiring as we speak, BOOMING! In ways we would have never imagined in days passed?

And what if all of that was not occurring because of David Miscavige, or anything the Corporate Church has advanced, but rather, in spite of all they have done and are doing to quicken its destruction and ultimate demise.

Earth is an odd place. Oftentimes, we are awakened to bizarre realities, wherein “up” turns out to be “down” and down goes straight up. My personal observations of these phenomena happen to come from the entertainment industry. But we find it happening throughout history in philosophy, politics, business, religion and the arts.

Cases in point – Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, Madonna, the pop star and the biblical figure both.

Elvis’s rise to worldwide fame began as every parent’s nightmare and Christianity’s pet Lucifer incarnate. Everything about his PR seemed to spell doom, for his popularity and for Rock N Roll. They had Elvis record burning exorcisms in small towns across America. Church pulpits and mainstream commentators called for the immediate banning of his live, sexually explosive appearances nationwide.

Young women’s virtues were being ravished and the devil was loose on their souls, it was claimed.

But then something happened. He emerged from the ashes of dissent as one of the most beloved artist, communicators to ever grace the planet.

Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones destroyed hotel rooms and sampled the drugs and women in every country in the free world. They torched youth culture with contempt for authority and ushered in the age of freewheeling sex, drugs and Rock music. But down was up in the hearts of the youthful and they became idols, not despised ex-convicts – all in spite of the devastating press coverage and the miles of incriminating headlines.

Up was down, the good kid in the nicely pressed JC Penny shirt was a “square,” and the kid with the shaggy hair and torn jeans was “cool.” And John Lennon realized it took Jesus 500 years to become a global celebrity. The Beatles did it in five. That’s years not centuries.

Oh but they ruined youth culture, popularized drugs, reduced music to screaming guitars and generally degraded everything they touched, it could be said.  But that would only highlight the down is up theory mentioned above. The point is every inch of bad press, insult, law suits, criminal charges and devastating attacks did not add up to oblivion. It fueled their rocket rides to stardom.

I can remember a time when one could have asked a hundred people or more before you met anyone who had ever heard the word “Scientology.” Today, if you asked 100 people at any mall in America odds are you would get a pretty high percentage that said, “Oh sure – or that’s that religion thing, that Sci-Fi Hubbard guy, where they…”

That the public’s image, impression or opinion of Scientology or Dianetics or LRH is good or bad is not the point. Of greater importance is the simple fact that “Public Awareness” of their existence has exploded monumentally by comparison to previous times.

The phenomenon is called “cultural lag” (LRH was aware of it) and in simple terms it refers to the amount of time and energy it takes to bring about public awareness of someone or something.  And it is something that every new idea, movement, invention, product, service and/or personality must overcome to ever get a foot on the world stage.

As Elvis’s manager, Coronel Tom Parker put it, “I don’t care what trash you write about Elvis, just spell the name right – it’s Presley.”

He understood something about gaining popularity that a great many have yet to grasp. Down could be up and up could be down when it came to the subject of “public attention,” and one’s place on the global stage. The operative term on the subject is, “attention,” not good or bad press, just ATTENTION.

Tom Parker’s strategy and ultimate aim was very clear. “You don’t like him; you hate him and want him dead, fine. I’m happy to hear it because you aren’t ever going to forget him now are you?”  And he was right. Today Elvis Presley transcends mere popularity. He is embedded in the cultural consciousness of human culture as an icon of joyous interaction – music. The negative references are GONE! Vanished! Or they are celebrated be an ever-increasing base of new, young fans just discovering his iconic haircut.

And so it was with a young Madonna. In the end her talents and array of skills in the ways of the world won her the day and a hundred million fans from two-horse towns in Bulgaria to the Vatican. People quickly forgot that she pranced around nine parts naked, mimicking the sexual act with Jesus hanging on a black cross, in front of all of America. They just saw something in one of her other performances they liked and POW! She was popular suddenly and record sales hit the stratosphere, parents, Christians and little old ladies who read newspapers, “Be damned…”

Sure! Don’t we all wish that nice words spoken about us and friendly relations all around would have people flocking to auditors and plowing through check sheets, all singing the praises of the New Civilization, admiring LRH Tech and spouting why the world needs to tear down the Mental Health industry, by noon on Friday the 13th. Wouldn’t it be grand if up was always up and down was always down and little kids and puppy dogs always got what they wanted for Christmas too.

But that is not how movements, new ideas, iconic communicators or major shifts in human culture gain ground. They blow into an existing culture with the noise of cannon fire, with feuding opponents throwing death blows at each other.

That does not mean civil war or blood or violent chaos must ensue.

But it does mean that gaining popularity on a global scale is a monumental challenge of getting people’s attention, at least enough to begin discussion and debate. And when that happens the “panty-wasted” wimps and mild-mannered peace lover had better leave the room; because, you know the proverbial shit is going to hit the wall and every innocent bystander within three city blocks.

#1: “Change” is a highly explosive, emotional subject. #2: Can anyone spell “Service Facsimile?”

So the theory is posed: What if Scientology was currently in the greatest period of expansion and impinging on the population of Earth more rapidly today than at any time in its history? What would that mean to the thousands of auditors (tech terminals) students and PCs who may feel that Scientology is currently in the worst possible state of affairs?

Is down actually DOWN or is it possible that the truths contained in the subject are so illuminating that no amount of darkness, bad press, not even the implosion of Miscavige’s orgs could have the slightest impact on the forward drive that truth is on?

That may or may not seem logical or even possible – to you, or you or you.

But this much is fact, proven by time itself. Elvis and The Beatles rocked this planet with aesthetics and new forms of beauty. And they did it with devastating press and rabid haters and screaming SP attacks at every turn.

Their creations proved to be timeless treasures and were ultimately seen as such by the masses in the end.

Under the spotlight, on the grand world stage it does not matter who protests the making of your music, or more to the point, the existence and practices of Scientology.  If one does not like it because of something they heard, read or listened to then too bad. Protest and vicious debates are the beginning of the game, not the end, as evidenced in the now famous words of country music’s aging, but popular, Hank William Jr.

“If you don’t like country music you can kiss my ass.”

I might phrase that a bit more eloquently when it comes to the subject of Scientology and LRH, of course. But it would definitely include some reference to my Scottish Highlander, warrior trained, kilt wearing, no under garment arse…

So tonight, as I write these words, I’m inclined to not care what anyone writes or says about LRH, Scientology or Dianetics.  I say, just spell the name right. That’s  H U B B A R D  with an “L” for Lafayette.

41 thoughts on “If You Don’t Like Country Music, Kiss My Ass

  1. Ren:

    Be very careful, my friend, and use hushed tones when you speak of the holy Zeppelin, Peace Be Upon You. 😉

    And yes, the Golden Age of Rock did more than its share to shatter and distort social norms and the literacy of our civilization. Too bad, too, because otherwise I rather enjoyed the 1960s.

    I was never much impressed by Presley. I recognize his talents; but I was never particularly star struck by anyone (not even Lana). I feel similarly about Marilyn Monroe. Going waaay back, I was never much impressed by Mae West, either. Bob Dylan is mildly talented but not near the brilliant lyricist most think he is/was. But I do recognize Presley’s and the Beatles’ impact on popular culture. At one time, “soul” music was something relegated to the far ends of the radio dial, because it was really only for “colored people”. And then the Brits and American teenagers got hold of it. Voila! Madonna was, at one time, quite talented. But she had a fairly deep contempt for “public decency”. Her talent showed through, though.

    (Interestingly, my mother, now in her 80s still drools over Frank Sinatra. I haven’t the heart to tell her he was only a mediocre singer. But he was a master of the cool. And he knew how to perform before an audience, something which is almost a lost art these days.)

    And no, I’m not a fan of country music, so just stick your shiny buttocks up close to my lips and I’ll be glad to give ’em a big smooch. I do recognize the enormous talents of country musicians, producers and composers. And I’ve got nothing on people who enjoy the music. To each his own; I understand the attraction. I believe LRH enjoyed country music quite a bit, but don’t quote me on that.

    But all of this is sort of tangential to your point. Ron did speak of cultural lag, and perhaps Scientology will benefit from it. I don’t know. Will people forget the dreadful reputation the Church has reaped for the subject? You bet. People have short memories for these things. The operative quote (not from LRH) is, “any publicity is better than no publicity”.

    One other interesting point: if the Church came out in favor of an issue that Anonymous (which the Church single-handedly made famous) also favored, those guys would echo whatever the Church said on the subject.

    And Ren, do us a favor and put some pants on. I’m just sayin’. ;-}

    Paul

    • Paul: Good observation. It is surprizing how a few small, good, creative or just worthy actions can turn public opinion around.

      And hey, I’m a Thetan, I don’t need pants at all 🙂

      R

    • P: But the question remains: “What if Scientology was currently in the greatest period of expansion and impinging on the population of Earth more rapidly today than at any time in its history?”

      WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN TO YOU AN THE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS WHO WANT A BETTER WORLD and have had wins with the Tech?

      ?

      R

      • Ren:

        That really sounds like a trick question. There are some assumptions I’d have to make. First, Miscavige never happened. Second, there never were tons of lawsuits filed against us because our conduct didn’t deviate from Standard Tech and Policy. Third, we didn’t pay undue attention to the disaffected authors and Internet trolls. With events like the above, the Church couldn’t be expanding and making great strides. But without them it could.

        Assuming all that was true, I’d probably still be on lines. As would thousands of others. And the Field, which is anemic now, would be almost non-existent. Would that have a visible effect on the broader society? Possibly. What would an additional thirty years of Scientology going up instead of down do for our civilization? I dunno. It could only be positive. But how much positive we can’t know. Assuming we had thousands auditing on NOTs, I would assume a large effect, though in what directions it’s hard to know. Would if affect the arts? Perhaps, though I have to say there probably isn’t a larger nest of vipers on the planet than the arts. At least those surrounding the artists.

        Does that answer your question?

        Paul

        • Paul: No question not answered, not really, in that the subject is the “Down Is Up” theory the article proposes, as a possible reality.

          The proposition is that every negative PR issue about Scn, Dn and LRH are playing straight into the hands of worldwide awareness and eventual popularity of the three. Elvis and all of the arts references were mere examples of down being up in the end.

          The question is: what if that is true? Is it possible that what may appear to be Scientology’s darkest hour is in fact, a straight, on track run to global awareness?

          R

          • Ren: “The question is: what if that is true? Is it possible that what may appear to be Scientology’s darkest hour is in fact, a straight, on track run to global awareness?”

            It looks like you are asking about subjunctive possibility, while Paul’s comment is about epistemic probability.
            Will you please clarify what kind of possibility are you referring to: subjunctive (logical, metaphysical, nomological or temporal) or epistemic.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility

            • MaBu: None of the above, in any kind of strict sense. While obviously subjunctive to a degree, or simply hopeful on my part, the proposition is an interesting one.

              Something is growing or it is not, expanding or contracting in the real, tangible world. Name recognition, knowledge of, interest, what ever, how ever.

              Christians went from being hunted, brutalized, politically toxic scum to 1 billion strong. Same with numerous other groups like the Mormons who were once considered unworthy company at any table.

              So were these group actually expanding, in spite of all “appearancies” or were they not?

              In those cases down for the count really wasn’t down, as witnessed by the number of Christians in America today.

              So I could not help but wonder if Scientology was on a similar path in some odd, but very real way.

          • Ren:

            “…greatest period of expansion and impinging on the population of Earth more rapidly today than at any time in its history?”

            If you’re talking about ironic idea than the publicity the Church is getting now means impingement, maybe. But the only thing improving would be the Church’s and subject’s “name recognition”. “Expansion” could not happen except as I’ve outlined. The tech in the Church being what it is right now means that there is an automatic governor on the actual expansion of the Church. So all things being what they are today, the only thing this will result in is greater name recognition. More people may investigate it, perhaps even to the point of going to a Church. But once there, they’ll find the atmosphere unwelcome and the tech unworkable. Thus, along with name recognition, they will also find that it’s just another piece of crap, a big swindle.

            This is the pinnacle of marketing tech today. They don’t sell products. The best they can hope for is greater name recognition. More and more people recognize the name “Fritos”, but when they eat them and find out they taste like cow liver (assuming that was true), the more the product’s name recognition associates with negativity.

            Look at the experiments with the “New Coke”. Almost everyone knows Coca-Cola. And if you didn’t, you sure would after all the hype and publicity for “New Coke”. Problem was, it sucked. So the overall brand picks up some extra name recognition. The “New Coke” gets a name for itself overnight. But the name is purely associated with junk. Maybe in time people will forget that fact and remember only that there was a product called “New Coke” that didn’t do so well, but we can’t remember quite why.

            Since it appears part of your question is based on a false premise, I can only give you a partial answer, as above. Name recognition, yes. True “expansion”, no.

            Paul

            • Paul: I do believe the questions is far more simple than that. As I mentioned to MaBu, “Christians went from being hunted, brutalized, politically toxic scum to 1 billion strong. Same with numerous other groups like the Mormons who were once considered unworthy company at any table.

              So were these group actually expanding, in spite of all “appearancies” or were they not?

              In those cases down for the count really wasn’t down, as witnessed by the number of Christians in America today.

              So I could not help but wonder if Scientology was on a similar path in some odd, but very real way.”

              And I wondered what your take might be on that simple observation?

              • Ren:

                I don’t see us acquiring a lot more Scientology membership on this planet at this time. A trickle, perhaps.

                Christians are pretty simple to make: “There’s this book you can read about it, but you really don’t have to. All you gotta do is buy three ideas: 1) there’s only one God, 2) he sent his son down here about 2000 years ago to die on the cross, in order to 3) obtain for Man 3) forgiveness from his sins. Oh yeah, and when you die, there’s this kewl place with raves going on every night called “heaven”. It’s gnarly, Dude.” (Now, if you ask me, the above makes absolutely no sense, but apparently it works on a lot of people. So be it.)

                If you have any staff experience at all, you know what it takes to make a real Scientologist. It’s a lot harder than making Christians. (Of course, the up side is that a real Scientologist is a lot more aware and able than a newly minted Christian, by any measure.)

                In the end, the benefit of whatever’s going on in Scientology at this time is marginal. Between the Church alienating Scientologists while simultaneously proving in the mind of the general public that it’s a scam, and our efforts in the Field to salvage those cast aside and gain new members, any increase in our numbers or influence barely moves the needle. Name recognition, sure. Some day that may be worth a whole lot more than it is now. For now, it’s not worth much.

                Don’t get me wrong, folks. It’s not all bleak. Every time we make a Clear, release, OT or just a really true Scientologist, we move the ball ahead that much more. But we in the Field, the few of us, are working our guts out while the Church continues to work against us. Fortunately, their influence will continue to wane as we continue to add to our ranks. But it’s a slow process. Worth doing, but slow.

                Paul

          • Ren, if I may interject in this conversation.

            I think you are right, that over time Scientology could not help but grow, just more or less left alone. By that I mean no heavy push to make things happen, no hard sell, little Sea Org influence etc etc. However I think Ron was concerned with the state of this civilization, in that it would blow itself up, or become so super controlled to the point of little to no freedoms.

            Both of these things I see have the potential to occur. The west has reniged on treaties with Russia and are starting to infringe on their borders. Right now Nato is having the largest war games since the cold war near Russias borders, in what might be construed as provocation. As regards to a super controlled state, the NSA has been keeping tabs on our communications for years, in fact LRH wrote about it in his Mission Earth series back in the ’80s.

            My reason for bringing this up, is because there is, I believe, a time factor regarding getting enough people up to the level of responsibility necessary to prevent either of these 2 actions taking place. Every civilization on this planet has destroyed itself one way or another up till now, and it would be a very foolish person to believe this current civilization will be the exception. My one reservation about this is that there is a broad base swelling of opposition to these 2 scenarios and many people who seem to have a good grasp of what is going on.

            As LRH said, this civilization has been an ideal place for Scientology to make inroads, in that the electronics has been advanced enough to allow the emeter, but before the full use of electronics necessary in a super controlled society such as we are starting to see, or the use of nuclear weapons. Hence the hurry, from LRHs viewpoint (in my opinion) which has lead to cases of in justice.

            So my answer to your question is down up? I say it very well may be, but is it quick enough?

            It is because of these 2 scenarios, that I understand the hurry LRH was in in “waking people up”! And when I think of the number of people who have not gone up the Bridge because of David Miscavige, well it is an crime that in reality is hard to tally up.

            • 4a:

              Wait a minute. Ren, did we say it was okay for 4a to interject into this conversation? I don’t remember that, do you? 😉

              Ron was indeed concerned about the time factor. I don’t really think nukes were the reason. It would take more nukes than exist at the moment to make the Earth unlivable. And it’s unlikely that anyone would use what we have for the purpose of war. Could happen, but it’s unlikely. And if it does, I would expect it to be in a limited context. (Israel versus the Arabs, North versus South Korea, Iran versus the entire world.) All About Radiation made the excellent point that it’s not the blasts or the fallout that make nuclear war so dangerous. It’s the state of mind (panic, desperation, depression) that it produces in a population that is its most deadly legacy. If you get a chance and can find a copy of this book, read it. It’s relatively short and well worth it.

              Financial collapse is far far more likely, and relatively easy to produce at this point. But that has definite down sides that even the international bankers can see.

              Perhaps the most likely scenario is the super-controlled space opera society. We’re definitely moving in that direction, and quickly. This could follow or be coincident with a financial collapse.

              Interestingly, that book about the alien interviews I mentioned in an earlier comment speaks to why there is so much conflict on this planet. The alien explains that on most planets, the population is more or less homogenous– one race, one history, one language etc. etc. Things are relatively uneventful and a lot quieter than they are here. But because this planet is an amalgamation of people dumped in from a lot of places (hence the number of races here), with different histories, customs and origins, we get a lot of noise and conflict. Add the fact that most of us were dumped here because we refused to follow the rules. So you can see, having a super-controlled society elsewhere is a lot easier than it would be here. “Herding cats” and all that.

              I assume that Ron’s concern was based on his extensive knowledge and research into older, now collapsed societies. Their trajectories should be relatively easy to map, and should be more or less similar all down the line. From the XYZ Alliance, 7 trillion years ago to the Romans, Persians, English, and now the Americans, they’ve all failed in similar ways, I’m sure, and it’s easy to see that our current society is failing or has already died and just doesn’t know it yet.

              So yeah, we’re still racing against the clock, just like we were when LRH expressed his concern on the matter. Nothing’s changed there.

              Paul

              • Paul: Like 4a’s (who did not receive a personal invitation to interject, by the way – but is welcome no less) point about time, you make an equally interesting point.

                You may have noticed that humanity is now in complete obsessive mode on the subject of UFOs and aliens and intergalactic you name it. Movies, theories abound.

                It’s all rather fascinating what just the next 10 – 20 years might bring to town.

                R

    • Ren:

      I wondered if anyone would bring this up. It’s quite instructive to look at the general state of art and entertainment at any particular time to gain some insight into a civilization’s frame of mind. Currently, we seem to find ourselves preoccupied with the undead– zombies, werewolves, vampires. We have as routine fare on TV a policeman who is also a serial killer, a housewife who is also a drug dealer. Some apocalypse or another appears to be in the offing, no matter which way we turn.

      While this kind of thing says quite a bit about the tone level of our society, I’m not sure if it has any other meaning. Are we looking at a group recall, an echo of a civilization like this one, but from long ago? Is this how that society ended? (Yes, I realize the direction I’m speculating is quite depressing. But then, so is the current state of art in our culture.)

      Like you said, it is indeed a carnival. Sometimes I wonder if the author of this particular carnival isn’t Ray Bradbury, Rod Serling or Edgar Allen Poe.

      Paul

      • Paul: You pose an interesting question. And the way I see it all is oversimplified, perhaps. But doesn’t LRH make it pretty clear that the game is about raising tone levels. Yours, mine and the residents of Earth.

        Art and aesthetics more generally is that powerful. It can bang one up or down the pole, even an entire society/planet.

        The good news is that the upside of is so very poweful it can serve the greater purpose on a grand, fast, effective scale. So personally I am hopeful rather than discouraged, in spite of the degredation todays societies embrace so compulsively.

        Man at his/her best will rise up to song, dance and cherished activities with friends and loved ones. It’s natural for an uptone Being to do so.

        As for the authors let’s do keep in mind that within our sphere of influnce that author is always YOU and me respectively. Thus, “THE JOY OF CREATING” is highly workable and valauable tech in every aspect of all 8 Dynamics. With that there is hope, I say.

        R

        • Ren:

          Well, at some point, every stat graph, no matter how dismal, must rise. I hope we’re coming to that point.

          Sometimes I’m buoyed by art, like the “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie. Wonderful movie, and well received. The fact that Hollywood can produce such a film at the same time as all the low-toned crap they churn out gives me hope. It also makes me wonder if there isn’t a disconnect between the artists and the public they serve.

          I’ll say this: to you artists out there, I know there’s a temptation to ride the wave and add to the apocalyptic trend. But if you can see your way clear, please don’t. Try to find a way to contribute something positive and uplifting. You never know how much it might help.

          Paul

  2. Beautifully written Ren, and so true, I can think of several examples where I thought a subject had died or gone way underground, only to become more accepted than ever. The subject of gays after the aids epidemic is one.

    The other thing is that I keep seeing data pop up in the sciences that LRH was talking about decades ago. I remember LRH saying how this universe could all be measured by mathematics, this information was in the 50’s-60’s and never made sense to me because the universe was so seemingly chaotic. I just found out about a relatively new science called, Fractals.

    That “chaos” turns out not to be chaotic, but basically shapes on shapes on shapes that can be measured. It is just a matter of time before some bright spark puts 2 and 2 together and realizes this was mentioned many years before. There are many examples of this, as LRH said, the tech will trickle down into the society, and it does!

    Here is some gossip about Elvis from his band members as told in a tv interview of them. As we all know, young girls would watch mesmerized, screaming away at Elvis on the stage while he gyrated. I could never get the the big deal with this, but apparently Elvis didn’t wear underwear on stage, causing bits of his body to gyrate, in a fashion some parents didn’t approve of, but which young girls did.

    I also found out today, it is true about the Scots and their kilts 🙂

    • 4a:

      LRH was right on the money. Math is the language of the physical universe, as some very bright scientists throughout history suspected and have tried to prove or demonstrate.

      Here is a simple but revealing video on that subject, for those who are not familiar with your reference to “fractals.”

  3. A word of caution to those who might consider mathematics a way to knowledge or wisdom. It isn’t. At best, it can merely measure what is. It cannot predict the shape of reality, a duty into which Einstein and others pressed it. A devotion to mathematics is a large part of what has stagnated our physics for the last 100 years. Moreover, a great many of the concepts or stable data upon which any calculations might be based are false. Do you know which ones those are?

    Fractals are a certain type of geometric figure which turn out to be useful in modeling certain structures (and are used quite a bit in video games). But remember, the model isn’t the thing. You can only really model something once you know how it works. And we don’t (on this planet) know how the universe works. If you think we do, look at how many tracks are predicted for each hurricane which travels from the north coast of Africa to the Caribbean. We’re not even entirely sure what the inner parts of this planet look like. We also don’t know what’s at the center of the gas giant planets.

    I’ll give you an example: “red shift”. From Wikipedia, “the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance.”

    … and thus to distance. Who the hell stuck that part on there? Red shift has something to do with distance, but the relationship is by no means as straightforward as described above. Moreover, the wavelength shift has a lot to do with cosmic dust and energy particles in space. Physics considers space more or less completely empty, which it most decidedly is not.

    “C” is the speed of light and is constant? Nope. Wormholes? False. Curved space? Negative. Dark matter? Not so much. Most sub-atomic particles postulated by the Unified Theory? Non-existent, though they can sometimes be fabricated or simulated under ideal conditions. I can fabricate golf balls, too, but they aren’t part of all collections of balls you find on this planet.

    Do what you like, but remember what I said.

    Paul

    • P:

      Wow, you have done some homework, I see.
      So I must ask, “Do you do Taxes?”

      You want to talk about math that not even Einstein could understand. Talk about black matter Dude.

      R

      • Ren:

        I’ve been doing that homework for nearly 50 years. Like LRH, I never believed that just because a teacher or authority said something, that meant it was true.

        Actually, I should be more direct about math and physics. Many of the goofy false things I mention above stem directly from scientists assuming the model is the thing, and believing that the math is the universe.

        For example, a famous experiment (the Michelson-Morley experiment) was conducted to discern the existence of an “ether” which was supposedly the medium on which light traveled. The experiment failed, but then the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was a bit of math used to salvage the experiment. The supposed ether was never found, but the math of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction indicated that any mass pushed to the velocity of light would have infinite mass and zero length in the direction of the object’s motion. Towards the end of the curve it described, the numbers were asymptotic (rising almost vertically toward, but never achieving a limit). Thus the idea that no mass could go the speed of light. That’s all math talking there, and all of it is untrue. But it shaped physics to this day. And this is what happens when there is a misplaced devotion to mathematics in physics. Likewise with much or all of quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc.

        Another example related to math. Because of the red shift mentioned above, it has been posited that distant objects are moving away from us, and that the farther away the object, the faster it is moving away. This is an unwarranted and false conclusion, but it has lead to the “Big Bang” theory of this universe’s origins: that there was a bunch of energy stuck together at the very beginning which exploded outward and formed our universe. Problem is, that’s not what happened. This universe was built in place, a little at a time and then added to. There was no grand beginning explosive event. But that’s what you get when you start from false assumptions, assisted by mathematics.

        So while math is great for measuring bust sizes and tire widths, it is not particularly good tool for exploring the universe. In fact, used in that way, it is a trap, as can be seen from just the few examples I’ve given.

        And yes, dark matter is one of the latest silly results. The theory goes that the overall motion of matter in this universe (remember the Big Bang theory and the cosmic red shift) cannot be explained given the value of the “gravitational constant”. The only way it could work is if there’s a lot more matter out there than we think. But we aren’t seeing that matter. Answer? It’s there, but we can’t see it, which makes it a fundamentally different type of matter, “dark matter”. And apparently the universe must be full of it. This kind of silly, circular reasoning is part and parcel of today’s physics. Of course, there is no such thing as “dark matter”; if you find some, break off a piece and send it to me. I’ll give you my address. Same thing with the Loch Ness monster, if you find him/her.

        As for taxes, heck I just use my psychic powers on those. No math needed. (Er, um, Mr. IRS, um, just kidding there. No really, just kidding. In fact I use extra math on my taxes. Calculus, even. Seriously.) 😉

        Paul

        • Paul,
          The actual answer to the Michelson-Morley experiment was NOT the “Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction” ( a math trick Lorentz acknowledged) but the simplicity of the fact that the light beam was travelling a fixed distance on both arms of the apparatus.

          In other words, since the light beam traversed a fixed distance, i.e., it was in fact attached to the table and moved right along with the mirrors et al, and so it travelled the same distance and there could be no possible change in that, so zero need for any “adjustments” – ether or no ether.

          The analogy of two swimmers and the raft in the river, with the raft moving up stream and one swimmer alongside, going up and down the length of the raft and the other crossing at the end, going back and forth, if applied to the light table of M&M would be the swimmers were ON the raft, “swimming” up and down and back and forth. So, as in the light table, they had the same distance to travel so NO difference in time, no “shift” in the frequency pattern, etc.

          This utter simplicity seems to have escaped Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Einstein.

          • That is, since there was no difference in the fixed distance travelled by each light beam, there was no need to “contract” the table to account for this absence of space.

            The math to shrink the table that exact amount, in the direction of travel, was added-inapplicable computation. The table didn’t shrink, time didn’t ‘dilate’ and slow down to “account” for the no difference and there was no need of all this stuff that is in the Einstein Theory (taking his math from Lorentz).

            The rest of the Relativity Theory stuff about the absolute, non-relative velocity of light, time dilation etc., well, the guy that came up with the most accurate clock there is, Louis Essen, after actual observation of the most precise nature that exists at this point, says about Einstein’s assumption points in this theory “nah, that’s not how it actually is”.

          • JL:

            I’ll call you out on that. The MM experiment is as you described, yes, but the purpose of the experiment was to prove the existence of an “ether” or substrate on which electromagnetic waves traveled. Had that been true, there would be a difference in the arrival times of the two beams when they arrived at the sensors. The theory was that if the Earth was traveling through the ether, light would be retarded traveling in one direction and accelerated in the other. So the beams would have a measurable lag between them. But they didn’t. Thus, it was a failed experiment, as far as that went. It more or less (by its failure) proved the opposite of what it was meant to prove: there was no ether.

            Lorentz-Fitzgerald was dreamed up as a way to salvage the results of that experiment, to “fudge” the results, if you will. The equation(s) could be used to explain the result, and salvage the idea of an active ether through which the Earth moved and which conducted light. However, LF was used for much broader purposes, and the result is the mish-mash we have today.

            Paul

            • The ether would be the river in the swimmer analogy. The light beams the swimmers.

              If you put the swimmers ON the raft, then there is no difference in time to swim a fixed distance (they travel at the same constant speed).

              On the raft, the river is immaterial to the swimming. Whether it exists or doesn’t. Same for the M&M thing. Maybe there is some sort of “ether”, some fundamental particle field that things “wave” in. However, ether or no, if you have the light sources fixed to the table, and the table moves with them attached then there is no possible way to detect a difference in the distance travelled, since there isn’t any difference BETWEEN the mirrors. Ether or none. Same distance, same speed, no difference.

              • P.S. That whole nonsense about travelling “in the direction of the ether” and the earth’s (table’s) movement relative to it and then the adjustment of the LF factor to account for the absence of a shift for THAT specific motion of the earth measured leaves out the countless other motions relative to countless stars, galaxies etc.

                The whole LF contraction is an introduced arbitrary and all that followed it, including Special and General Relativity are more false, arbitraries in its train. The worst being the fixed and non-relative “speed of light” in no-ether.

  4. Re: “The Down is Up Theory”

    This article was written (April 2014) by Andy Porter, one of the most accomplished Div 6 people in the history of Scn.

    The Golden Age of Dissemination

    The Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center, Mr. David Miscavige, has created one of the most workable Dissemination Processes in the history of Scientology.
    No, there has NOT been an international event where, with great pomp and hyperbole, the Golden Age of Dissemination was introduced.
    There is NOT a new series of courses or auditing levels suddenly “discovered” in the archives of LRH materials.
    Believe it or not, this fantastic new Dissemination Process was created, piloted and rolled out though the hard work and dedication of none other than David Miscavige himself!
    […]
    As you read this you are probably thinking that I am joking, (or joking AND degrading) but I honestly assure you that I am not.
    I know that you are dying to know what could you POSSIBLY say to a new person as an introduction to the subject of Scientology that would not cause them to immediately turn and run away from you? What could you say to this person that would cause them to reach and ask you to explain Scientology and how it works to them?

    Here is the process:
    1. Simply start a conversation with a person, establish some common interests you have, create some affinity, reality and communication with the person.
    2. Whenever the opportunity presents itself tell the person: “I spent many years in the Church of Scientology, but recently I was expelled and excommunicated from the Church, they have labeled me a Suppressive Person.”
    3. As soon as you say this, shut up! Don’t keep talking, just be quiet. You can look away, or maybe even change the subject, talk about the weather or Red Sox, something banal.
    4. Inevitably the new person will now question you about Scientology. Statements like “Tell me, what the fuck is Scientology all about???” “I always wanted to find out what that was all about”, “What IS Scientology anyway?” etc. are the norm.
    […]
    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/golden-age-dissemination/

    • This is absolutely true, I have done this myself, in fact it is kind of magical how the person you are talking to will side with you and the technology of Scientology, when you just tell them the truth, and any ridge just melts away.

      And the beauty of this is, no more justifying money hungry reges.

      Maybe down is up!

    • Hey Mabu: Thanks. Yet I have always wondered what the great fascination is in getting someone IN to Scientoogy, or INTO the org.

      What does that mean exactly?

      Why not just SHOW them Scn in action in some way in their own life, dificulties, interests, goals and purposes and actually create a new friend. Unless, of course, one was motivated by the FSM commission, admiration from some frantic, stat-craved Div VI terminal or the pretty girl at reception – what’s the big deal?

      I believe there are millions and millions of people who are being better Scientologists than at least 50 – 75% of all of the signed up “Scientologists” I have ever met in any “org” I’ve ever been in.

      By definition, these “non-Scientologists” are out in the world helping to improve conditions, raise tone levels (if only momentarily) foster love and compassion and help others with complete purity of heart.

      These wonderful, giving people always want some kind of help, validation and so on. SHOW them something they can use today (some little piece of Tech) and let them run with the wins it produces. They’ll be back asking questions.

      Sure, I know a real org needs new bodies and stats need to rise and Div VI people need to do their jobs, including FSMs. But who said their has to be FSMs, reging millions and making $200,000 a year getting people to mortgage their houses for the 3rd time. They are more MEST salesmen than the most lowly used car huckster.

      Purpose trumps tricks every time. And if helping one’s fellow Man is the purpose then there can be a straight A to B and cut out the bullshit on route too. The amount of theta, capable, talented, decent, honest, loving and well intended Beings out there in almost any 10 city block area is simply remarkable.

      Only a raving SP would try to sell the idea that we needed an ideal org, a MEST VIA to communicate with them.

      “I am a Scientologist” because I just signed up and did the Comm Course at XYZ address does not impress me much. They probably bought a bumper sticker at reception too.

      R

      • Ren:

        One thing I’d add to what you said. There is this persistent viewpoint that in the face of disaster and the breakdown of infrastructure, people go nutty and begin to act like animals. Witness books like Lord of the Flies. But if you look around you at times where disaster has struck, the opposite is the norm. Yes, there may be some isolated looting, but the more common result is that people come together and help each other to make it through the tough times. I think that echoes two things that LRH talked about: 1) Man is basically good, and 2) help is a very basic and extremely important button.

        Indeed Scientologists do not have a corner on the “help” market. They could be more effective than others, but they’re by no means the only ones who do and can help. (Sorry, Mr. Cruise, but you were wrong on that one.)

        Paul

          • Ren:

            Keep telling yourself, movies aren’t reality. I’ve been told by people who know a lot more about this kind of stuff than I do that the first time Maverick buzzed a tower at close range would be his last flight as a military pilot.

            I have my personal opinions about Tom Cruise which I’ll be glad to discuss privately or expose publicly on my personal blog. But I think it’s fair to say that he never did us any favors on the PR front.

            Here’s what Cruise did for us: “name recognition”. Positive or negative? Well that’s another matter altogether.

            Paul

What is your view?

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