Life After the CoS series - Mike Goldstein

Due to the popularity of his first series of articles, Mike wrote and published a second series of articles that pick up from where "The New Regime Takeover" series left off. In this second series, "Life After The CofS", Mike discusses the formation of the "independent" Scientology field, as well as the history and development of IDENICS.

The "Life After The CofS" series was originally published in 2004 on and alt.religion.scientology and was later picked up and archived on several websites.

Part I: Beginning of the Free Zone

It’s not as if no one left the CofS prior to 1982-1983. But the mass exodus that occurred after the RTC takeover was unprecedented in the history of Scientology. People who had been the backbone of CofS delivery and administration, many of whom had worked closely with LRH, exited in droves. What’s more, lesser members of the CofS echelon who had been vital components in the organization, such as org and mission staff, also left in large numbers.

The CofS prior to the RTC takeover certainly had its problems, but the majority of the people mentioned above would not have left under previous circumstances. Before the regime change, people put up with all manners of organizational aberration and injustice without seriously considering leaving. They wholeheartedly believed in the total validity of Scientology technology and LRH as their spiritual leader. Even the greatest of problems in the CofS were viewed as glitches that would be corrected in time. But as the New Regime took power, it soon became apparent to a large portion of the devoted membership that their old CofS was gone and would never return.

After the brief revolution that culminated in 1982 was effectively squashed by the RTC, loyal members who had devoted their lives to the delivery and expansion of Scientology, left a life they had been completely dedicated to and re-entered normal society.

Even though their old haven for practicing Scientology had disappeared, dedicated members of the old CofS were unwilling to give up their life’s work. Their only alternative was to establish delivery facilities outside the CofS. In effect, the revolution which had been dampened by the New Regime was forced out into the field.

For the majority of highly trained people exiting, there was an unwavering belief in a continued standard delivery of the tech. Since the disagreements with the CofS were limited to management and administration, this was the area subject to dramatic change. But the administration of these new centers did not revert back to the pattern existing in the CofS prior to the RTC takeover. Previous administrative practices were reformed, with freer and more ethically administered delivery units established. Most of the heavy ethics and cult mentality that had been practiced in the CofS for years was eliminated. The high costs of services that had put the bridge out of most people’s reach were replaced by a more realistic price structure.

When word of these new centers reached the Scientology public, large numbers of these people began leaving the CofS to get their services in the field. Even those who didn’t leave began questioning their continued involvement with the CofS. Thus began what was to become known as the “independent movement” or “free zone”.

The CofS was ill prepared for such a movement. Not only were they losing millions in potential business, but many public Scientologists were demanding the return of advanced payments they had on account. Their usual tactic of threatening the exiting public was ineffective, so the CofS turned their attention to attacking the independent delivery centers and personnel operating these centers.

The first stage of attack was to discredit those people running independent centers in an effort to deter the CofS public from leaving. A massive campaign was launched against these free zone leaders. They were inaccurately blamed for all sorts of past problems in the CofS. Vicious lies were circulated regarding their history and character. But the most powerful deterrent was telling Scientology public that they would not receive a standard or competent delivery of tech in the independent field. Moreover, they were told that they would be thoroughly damaged by this free zone delivery.

The second stage of attack was unleashed upon people who were delivering the technology outside the CofS. Without concern for expense, the full arsenal of black ops of the old Guardian’s Office was brought to bear upon independent delivery people.

The intelligent independent centers were structured so as not to infringe on any copyrights or trademarks of the CofS. So aside from what the CofS continued to preach about these violations to their existing members, such legal attacks on the independent field had no real merit. But this didn’t stop them from engaging in a number of dirty tricks and tactics. A no-holds-bared effort to disrupt their delivery was loosed on free zone practitioners, who now carried the CofS labels of “squirrels” and “suppressives”.

Anyone involved with a successful independent center from that time has his or her own horror stories depicting CofS attacks. After leaving the CofS, I opened and operated a large center in Colorado. I, too, had my run-ins with the organization of Scientology.

Part 2: Surviving the First Attack

When I was leaving the CofS, a mission from the RTC was sent to Denver to "handle" me. This confrontation was described in Part 17 of the New Regime Takeover series. I told the missionaires that I would be starting an independent center in Denver. Right after that meeting, I left the CofS.

The next action of the RTC was to initiate an attack using Scientologists still in the CofS who were on our Book One correspondence course. These Scientologists were ordered to contact me, demanding that I refund them for the course. We had people from all over the US and Canada on our course. Probably, because Denver was where I was located, the RTC used this area to test their initiative.

To begin with, students called me demanding that I refund them for the course. During the breaks when these students were on course at the local org and missions, they would call me, one after the other, with their refund requests. Since I had never promised a refund, I told each student that I would not return money for a course that they had started. Next, I began receiving nasty, registered letters from the students stating that I must refund their money immediately. I just filed the letters without responding.

The RTC's next action was to have the individual students take me to small claims court to get their money back. I was informed by mail by my city's small claims division that four or five people had initiated cases against me. I assumed that, once again, the RTC was testing the water with these few court cases. If successful, they would probably have the rest of the students take me to court. Not only would they tie me up in small claims court suits, but also, if I lost, I would be ruined financially. Very concerned, I went to my lawyer for advice.

My lawyer informed me that attorneys were not allowed in small claims court. He went on to say that if I wanted him involved in a court proceeding, that I would have to have the cases kicked up to county court. However, he strongly cautioned me against going this route. He said that this was probably just what the CofS wanted me to do. In addition to the high legal fees, if the case went in their favor, it could set a precedent for future refund claims. In a small claims case, no precedent can be set for future legal claims. His advice was to leave the cases where they were and take my chances. He would advise me on how to handle myself in the proceedings, which would cost me very little in legal fees. I took his advice.

The lawyer's main suggestion was that I deal with each case from strictly a business owner's point of view, and not mention anything about Scientology or the CofS. If anything were to be brought up about Scientology or the CofS, it would be the plaintiffs who would do it. Such arguments would probably be irrelevant to the proceedings and make the plaintiffs look bad.

I wrote a statement in which I said that the plaintiff had paid for and started a correspondence course. I had continued to provide supervision by mail, but it was up to the student to send in his lessons. If the student failed to send in his lessons, that was his decision. I was fulfilling my part of the bargain and would continue to deliver the course if the student wished to continue. There was more written, but this was the gist of the statement.

I was nervous going into the first case. At the start of the proceedings, I handed the judge my written statement. The judge read the statement and then called on the plaintiff to make his case. The student got up and made the argument that when he started the course, I was a member in good standing with the CofS. Now that I was declared, he could no longer participate in a course delivered by a squirrel because this was against his religion. He, therefore, wanted his money back. Things went back and forth for a short time, with the student making a fool of himself and me calmly taking the position of a businessman.

It didn't take long for the judge to render his decision. He stated that all the information about Scientology and the CofS was irrelevant. Furthermore, he said that there was an apparent value in my service when the student started the course, and that that value would not change just because I was no longer a member of the CofS. He found the plaintiff's arguments completely without merit, and found in my favor, without even a partial refund required from me. The student and the Scientologists who had accompanied him in court were visibly shaken.

Over the next couple of weeks, there were two or three more similar cases. Each one was in front of the same judge. Since a win in small claims does not set a precedent for future cases, the judge just handled each case on its' own merit. But each case pretty much went the same way. I would start by handing the judge the identical written statement. The student would get up and basically make the same stupid argument. The judge would make a similar statement in his ruling and find completely in my favor.

Going into the final case that had been filed, I was feeling extremely confident and cocky. But to my surprise, this case was presented differently. The plaintiffs were a couple who had purchased the course almost a year prior. Accompanying them was the ethics officer from the local org. After I had submitted my usual written statement, the couple presented the judge with couple of feet of documents, all labeled as specific exhibits. The primary exhibits were a set of docs from me to re-incorporate my company, Survival Services, as a Dianetics Counseling Group. I had forgotten all about these documents!

Two years prior, in order to keep the Guardians Office off my back, I had agreed to re-incorporate my company as a Dianetics Counseling Group. I had my lawyer draw up the papers and had sent them to GO Worldwide for their approval. The docs, probably being lost up lines, were never sent back to me. This incident was described in Part 7 of my New Regime Takeover series.

Up until this point in the small claims cases, I had maintained a stance of a businessman, rejecting any connection with the CofS as irrelevant to the proceedings. But the incorporation documents showed my intention to place what I had been doing under the CofS. There were also other exhibits showing a connection to the CofS and my Book One program, including dispatches I had sent to Diana Hubbard. These plaintiffs had made good arguments, unlike the previous ones. This couple had obviously been well briefed. As I was surprised by the whole affair, my arguments clearly demonstrated that I was completely unprepared for their presentation. After arguments were made, the judge wanted to take some time to look over the exhibits before ruling. He took maybe fifteen minutes to scan through the material. During this time I was quite nervous, while the plaintiffs and ethics officer sat smiling and looking very confident. When finished, the judge announced that he was ready to make a ruling in the case.

The judge made a lengthy summation before rendering his decision. He said that the exhibits obviously demonstrated an extensive working relationship between me and the CofS, also showing my intention of incorporating my business under them. But since the docs were never filed, the legal connection between us never occurred. He made the analogy of Jell-O powder and water. The possibility for Jell-O is there, but without mixing the two, Jell-O is never made.

He went on to compare this case to a man who buys a lawnmower that he later wants to return. There's nothing wrong with the lawnmower, but the man wants his money back because the salesman was a Buddhist or a Jew. He went on to talk about religious freedom in this country. By the end of his summation, the judge had made the plaintiffs and CofS look like bigots.

During the judge's summation, you couldn't hear a pin drop in the courtroom. Everyone there was listening intently to what he had to say. When the judge gave his ruling in my favor, the entire courtroom (except for the CofS members, of course) burst into an enthusiastic applause that went on for a few minutes.

Afterwards, the court recorder came up to me and asked if I wanted a taped recording of the summation. Excitedly, she told me that she had never seen that judge so enthusiastic about a small claims case and that she had never heard him give a summation like that in small claims. As I left the courtroom, people who were not even Scientologists came up to congratulate me.

On my way out of the courthouse I saw the CofS members slinking away with their heads down. I went up to the ethics officer and put my arm around his shoulders and said, "Now that's a great example of our legal system at work!" Looking completely devastated, he slowly walked away without saying a word.

The judge's summation and final ruling put an end to any further refund demands from members of the CofS.

Part 3: Survival Services International

In an effort to discourage Scientologists from coming to me for services, the RTC sent Heber Jentzsch to Denver to put on an event disparaging me to the public. I don't know exactly what was said at this event, but I did hear about an amusing tactic that was used. Every time Jentzsch mentioned me in his talk he would say, "Goldstein!", in a guttural and disgusted tone. On cue, staff members dispersed throughout the audience would respond by saying, "Ooh", with a nauseated inflection in their voices. However, during this period of time, Survival Services International re-opened for business as an independent center.

In addition to John Galusha and me, many highly trained and experienced technical people and some administrative staff were brought on board. Among these were my ex-wife, Rebecca Jessup, and an old friend of mine from LA and the ship, Russ Meadows. Rebecca was one of the first one hundred Class 8s trained at AOLA, bilingual auditor at AOSH DK, and Qual Sec at Flag. Russ was one of the original twelve Class 12s trained by LRH.

We operated out of a beautiful, 5000 square foot office that was built to our needs, in a prestigious business area in Denver. Most of our clients were from Colorado, but having one of the best technical units in the entire independent field, we also got a good share of people who came to us from other areas.

There were groups of Scientologists who had left the CofS in many locations without independent delivery facilities. Some of these people came to our center for services. We arranged with these clients to set up events for us in their area with other former CofS members attending. I usually brought two technical people with me to the area. We went over what we were doing and described our service potential. We offered the people a free, on the site case evaluation and a free session to handle upsets. These trips brought us a lot of clients from various parts of the country.

We were different from most other independent centers in that we didn't just service Scientologists leaving the CofS. We worked with a lot of people who hadn't previously been involved with Scientology. Executing programs to enlist interest in the general public, we had success with several actions. When I was running the org in Denver, we had a thriving public office located on the main street in downtown Denver. We tried most successful Division 6 programs at that office. The best one was OCA testing. At the time, we were using the original OCA materials that were designed by Raymond Kemp. Ray was the person who wrote the OCA testing materials for Hubbard, and actually held the copyrights. In addition to the test, he had written a manual for evaluating the completed tests, which was an extremely effective part of the entire OCA process.

When Ray was declared, the CofS changed some of the OCA questions and put Hubbard's copyright on the test. They also forbade further use of Kemp's manual in Scientology orgs and missions.

I was interested in using Kemp's initial OCA materials at Survival Services. I managed to track him down without too much trouble. I asked him how the CofS was legally able to change a few questions and then put their copyright on the OCA. He told me that they just did it, but that he hadn't had the resources to pursue the matter. But he still had the original materials, on which he still held the copyrights. For a small fee, he licensed me to use this material and sent it to me.

I published the OCA test in a large local newspaper. People would complete the test and call our office to schedule an appointment to have the test evaluated. The biggest problem with the OCA test line in the org was the time involved with properly preparing the evaluation. We solved this problem at Survival Services by writing a computer program using Kemp's manual.

The potential client would bring their completed test into the office. The answers were punched into the computer that then spit out the evaluation. The whole process only took a few minutes. The client quickly received a good evaluation of his test and was sent to a sales person where he was signed up and sold services. Our OCA program was extremely successful and efficient.

Different from that of the CofS, the technical staff was allowed to do their jobs without the constant interruption and pressure from management. The delivery quality and efficiency was therefore very high. Clients progressed through their training and processing levels without the stops created by high prices and heavy ethics. There were only as many administrative personnel as necessary, and the admin staff who were there were extremely effective.

The years that I ran the independent center were both rewarding and enjoyable. This was much different from the stress involved when working in the CofS. In the CofS, I spent as much time dealing with the insane aspects of the organization as I spent doing my job. It was a real pleasure being in a situation where clients and staff were winning, and where there wasn't the constant flack from people who were supposedly part of the same team.

Part 4: Independent Field vs. CofS

A war raged between the independent field and the CofS. I kept in good communication with other independent delivery facilities, but I didn't get involved in these battles. I had engaged in my share of skirmishes with the suppressive elements of the CofS while I was a member. Now that I was out of the CofS, I was no longer interested in having any involvement with them.

I could certainly understand the field's upsets and had sympathy for their cause. But when I'd been a member of the CofS, I fought with the purposes of correcting the organization and being allowed to do my job. Failing to accomplish these purposes, I left that group and continued my work elsewhere. I had no interest in wasting my time further with the CofS.

I kept Survival Services away from what I considered to be unproductive distractions that didn't forward our current activities. In or around 1985, many independent centers and their clients were launching their own offensive against the CofS. They had teamed up with a lawyer by the name of Michael Flynn, an old nemesis of the CofS. They were putting together a class action suit and were trying to get as many independent people and groups involved as they could.

People working with the lawsuit contacted Survival Services with a heavy push for our involvement. We were told that the CofS would eventually be taking legal action against all the independent centers. And, since we could never hope to fight the CofS alone with our limited resources, we would have to join together with the other centers in this class action suit. Only together could we survive, because individually, we'd surely be destroyed.

Feeling isolated and scared, many members of my staff met with me, asking what we were going to do. I was certainly concerned about our survival, but there were points in the lawsuit that didn't sit well with me. For example, the suit sought back wages from the CofS. When in the Sea Org, we were only paid $10 per week, which was far below minimum wage. It was true that I only made $10 a week, but I had gone along with that while in the Sea Org. I could have left because of this, but I chose to stay. I didn't feel right asking for more money now. The only reason that I would do such a thing would be to keep Survival Services from going under.

As I paced around the room, with members of my staff waiting for a decision, I felt as if I was between a rock and a hard space. All of the sudden, something quite amazing occurred. In mid-stride while pacing, I seemed to "go somewhere else". In this other place I was not confused, and calmly assessed the situation.

I knew that getting involved with this class action suit was not right for me. True, my refusal to go along with the lawsuit could mean that Survival Services might not survive. LRH use to take actions that on their own merit were unethical, but put in the context of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics", these actions were justified. This was just another way of saying, "the end justifies the means", a common justification for all sorts of atrocities committed throughout history.

All of the sudden, I knew that the statement, "the end justifies the means", was just not true. The end does not necessarily justify the means. If I had to compromise my integrity in order to keep Survival Services afloat, then Survival Services should not continue. Let it die. At that instant, all my confusion was gone, and I knew exactly what I had to do.

An instant later, I knew that Survival Services would be fine.

When I turned my attention back to my staff in the meeting, I realized that no time had passed during this strange incident. The entire event had occurred during the time it took for one of my feet to hit the floor! I told the staff that we would not be participating in this lawsuit and why. I then assured them that Survival Services would not go out of business. My staff accepted my decision.

It turned out that Michael Flynn left the lawsuit after the CofS paid him off for other legal suits he had brought against them. The class action suit was later dropped. It is interesting to note that all of the centers involved with the lawsuit eventually disappeared, and only Survival Services remained.

During our operation as an independent center, we didn't get a lot of flack from the CofS; certainly not as much as other independent centers. A few spies were sent into the center, but they were easy enough to spot. There were a couple of break-in attempts that were foiled without incident.

When the form of our independent center ended, it was not because of anything done by the CofS. It was a necessary evolution, which I will explain in a later series.

Part 5: A Shift in Viewpoint

Not being deterred by CofS attacks, the independent field continued to grow and flourish. Without the heavy ethics and high prices that existed in the CofS, independent Scientologists progressed quickly up their bridges. Over the ensuing two years after the independent field's inception, large numbers of people completed the entire bridge of services, including the upper levels.

Unlike in the CofS, people in the independent field were free to question the technology and the results that they were getting. Although most of these people were pleased to finally make it up the bridge and although they did get wins, they realized that they hadn't gotten what they had expected or what had been promised to them for so many years. Additionally, many people completing all processing levels still had unwanted conditions that had never been resolved. The difficulties mentioned above were not limited to the independent field. They also occurred in the CofS but were not voiced as openly, and when they were mentioned, they were handled in a manner to keep the person continuing on the bridge.

The CofS always had a great response to any concerns expressed about not achieving a desired result. If not sent to review or ethics, the complaining pc would be told, "That will be handled on up the bridge". If the person complaining had completed the entire bridge, a gimmick that I refer to as the "constant carrot" would serve to keep the individual's hopes alive. It went something like this: "There are at least 40 levels above OT 7 that have not yet been released. Only when there are enough full OT 7s will the next level be forthcoming. " I remember first hearing this from a Class 9 auditor named Rocky Stump at an event at ASHO in 1971. But anyone on the inside track of technical development with LRH knew that such a statement was not true.

LRH had nothing substantial developed after he had released the old OT levels. In the late 1970s when he came out with NOTS (New Era Dianetics for OTs), he soon replaced the old OT levels with new ones. Anyone working with Hubbard on tech lines after that period of time knew there were no levels researched beyond that point. But the CofS kept promoting that fully developed and unreleased levels did exist.

By 1985 there were a great number of people in and out of the CofS who had completed everything that Scientology had to offer on the bridge through OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. Independent delivery facilities openly communicated to their public that what they had finished was the extent of existing levels. Having completed all the existing bridge yet still having issues they wanted to handle and abilities they wanted to attain, many in the independent field started looking outside of standard Scientology tech for answers and results. The blind acceptance that LRH was the only source for mental and spiritual development began to fall away, and a shift in viewpoint occurred in the independent field.

Other methods and systems were explored, from other forms of therapy to channeling and eastern teachings. Some continued to use parts of the technology of Scientology while discarding other sections of the tech. New systems were developed that utilized a portion of Scientology tech in conjunction with other methodologies. The true believers who had left the CofS two years prior, were now looking in many different directions to achieve the results they desired.

The highly trained and more technically knowledgeable people in the independent field began researching the next step after OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. David Mayo came out with his version of Advanced Level 8, as the CofS came out with their OT 8. However, David's Advanced Level 8 was not too effective as a next step. According to people leaving the CofS after completing OT 8, this level produced mediocre results. But field research into the next step on the bridge continued.

Based on all available data, there were several valid directions of research explored in the effort to come up with the next level. At Survival Services, our research took a different path than the paths other independent researchers were taking. This unique research line was possible because of the knowledge and experience of John Galusha.

Part 6: John Galusha's Research line

The majority of the research and development of Scientology was done in the 1950s. Much of the research data leading up to new developments was never published. People involved with Scientology at that time were aware of what was being developed, but only those directly involved with the research were aware of all the information.

Hubbard's research auditor and primary technical assistant in the 1950s was John Galusha. In 1952, John had started working with LRH in Wichita. He followed Hubbard to such places as Phoenix, Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, and England. Additionally, John was LRH's director of training, director of processing, and supervised the congresses where many new technical developments were released.

In the early 1950s LRH came out with creative processing, also known as mock-up processing and positive gains processing. Hubbard felt that this form of auditing made all other forms unnecessary. His rationale for this was as follows: What a being is doing is mocking up. If you get him mocking up on purpose what he's mocking up compulsively, that should handle any aberration.

All of the primary sources of published data on creative processing came out prior to 1953 or 1954; the Philadelphia Doctorate Tapes, Creation of Human Ability, and Scientology 8-8008. But few people know that there were several more years of research done that was never written up. Being the research auditor during that period, John Galusha had knowledge of this research information.

People being audited with creative processes had fast and amazing gains. But as most individuals continued with this processing, their auditing stalled and they bogged down. The reason for these difficulties puzzled Hubbard, and a lot of research went into resolving this situation. After years of trying to discover the reason for limited success with mock-up processing, LRH just came up with a reason why people were stalling. He concluded that that form of auditing was too high-level for people, and that they needed to approach creative processing on lesser gradients. Therefore, creative processing and all the unpublished research information was put on a back burner, and Hubbard started constructing a bridge of gradient auditing services.

John really didn't feel that LRH had fully proven his hypothesis regarding the stalled cases, but went along with it, believing that Hubbard knew what he was doing. It's interesting to note that the idea of a bridge for Scientology was something LRH was excited about long before the difficulties with creative processing arose. The last line in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is, "For God's sake, get busy and build a better bridge!" The problems with mock-up processing certainly gave him a good reason to build the bridge himself.

Prior to the development of the bridge, auditors just had a big barrel of processes. They reached in and grabbed processes according to the situations they were handling. When his work on building the bridge began, LRH started organizing processes into a gradient scale of auditing. A decade later he came out with OT 3. This level signified to Hubbard the end of the negative gains processing.

He then felt that people completing OT 3 were now able to do creative processing. But, he didn't re-institute creative processing in the researched form of the late 1950s. Over the previous ten years, Scientology had grown significantly with the marketing of a bridge, and LRH did not want to abandon this format. He therefore re-packaged creative processing in a level format, coming out with the old OT levels, 4 through 7. This level format was not as effective as the straight creative processing, but it allowed the successful marketing method to continue.

As OT 3s started doing OT 4 through 7 they began bogging down, just as people had done in the 1950s with creative processing. Hubbard then believed that the reason for these bogs was that there must be more to be done with the subject of OT 3. He then came out with OT 3X (Expanded), and anyone OT 3 or above was put on OT 7, a level having to do with intention. When completed with OT 7 they went directly onto OT 3X. When they had finished OT 3X they were then put onto OT 4 through OT 7 again. But even with the re-vamped OT levels, people continued to bog down on the positive gains levels above OT 3.

In the late 1970s, LRH came out with NOTs (New Era Dianetics for OTs). Even though NOTs was a negative gains process, Hubbard felt this was the necessary next gradient after OT 3. He therefore took the old OT levels 4 through 7 and put them on a back burner, just like he'd done with creative processing in the 1950s. Anyone OT 3 or above was just put onto their NOTs.

For the next couple of years there was no bridge after OT 3, just NOTs. Then, wanting to maintain the bridge format, LRH re-designed NOTs into the new OT levels 4 through 7.

In 1985, when others were taking diverse research paths to come up with the next step on the bridge after OT 7 or Advanced Level 7, John Galusha and Survival Services took a unique research route based on the information and history described above. The logical action with people completing all their advanced levels was to now see if they could run creative processing. But this delivery would not be in the watered down version of the old OT levels. It would be done in the original, researched form of the late 1950s.

Part 7: Creative Processing

Most people know very little about creative processing. What is known comes mainly from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and a couple of books. Creative processing has never appeared on the bridge, as the formation of the bridge was a response to the bogs people had developed in undergoing this type of auditing. The closest it ever came to being on the bridge was the watered-down format of the old OT levels, 4 through 7. After OT 3s had been stalling on these levels for a decade, LRH discontinued their usage after his introduction of NOTs auditing in the late 1970s. His reasoning for their removal was the same as it had been for putting creative processing on a back burner in the 1950s and constructing a bridge of gradient auditing services. Hubbard determined that creative processing was too high-level, and that lower gradients of auditing must first be accomplished before one could succeed with a positive-gains form of auditing.

In 1985, many people were completing the new OT or Advanced levels and looking for their next step. Survival Services' answer was to see if these people could now successfully run creative processing. Fortunately, we had John Galusha, the one person who probably knew more about creative processing than anyone in the world.

Not only had John supervised the first Philadelphia Doctorate Course in Phoenix in 1953, but he was also the research auditor for LRH over the next many years trying to resolve the bogging difficulties with creative processing. Since the data on this research was never written up, John might have been the only person other than Hubbard who had full access to this information.

We started promoting creative processing to people in independent field who had completed their bridge through OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. We had a fairly good response from people at this case level. Many came and received creative processing from John. At first these clients did very well and had excellent results. However, as the clients continued with the processing, they would hit a point where they bogged. This was the same phenomenon that had occurred with OT 3s on the old OT levels and with people in the 1950s with creative processing. And this was now occurring with people who had completed the entire existing bridge of services!

One of two things could have been happening: either there were more gradients to be done, according to LRH's original evaluation, or Hubbard had come up with an incorrect reason for the cases having stalled. The second of these two possibilities turned out to be correct; LRH's original "why" for people bogging on creative processing proved to be wrong.

LRH's initial premise regarding creative processing was valid. It stated that what a being is doing is mocking up. If you get him to mock-up on purpose what he's mocking up compulsively, that should handle any aberration. Done properly, creative processing can produce incredible gains. But past a certain point, the person bogs. John discovered that the bogging had nothing to do with gradients. He found that the effectiveness of the process depended on what identity the person was in when he was being audited! John defined an identity as a way of being in order to accomplish something. When the client was run past the limitations of the identity that he was auditing FROM, no matter how good the process, the person bogged.

From this discovery, missing pieces started to quickly fall into place for John. Questions that had arisen during the 1950s research suddenly cleared up. Case difficulties that had baffled technical people for decades suddenly appeared solvable. With a few more rudimentary discoveries, John's auditing of the bogged clients began producing astonishing results.

Within just a couple of sessions, the bogs were resolved and clients began experiencing significant gains. Conditions that had not been resolved throughout their entire passage on the bridge were handled in a matter of hours. In short order, a whole new form of processing began to emerge. This was the beginning of what we would eventually call IDENICS.

Part 8: The Beginnings of Idenics

With this new form of processing, John discovered that much of the creative processing was unnecessary, and only a small portion of it was incorporated into this new format. Additionally, our perspective on the necessity of the bridge began to change with John's breakthroughs. If Hubbard's formation of the bridge had been based on an incorrect "why" regarding gradients, then how much of that bridge was now necessary? We would soon have an opportunity to get this question answered.

Our initial clients were people who had completed OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. But as the word of our successes got out, we had individuals who had not completed the existing bridge who wanted to receive our new service. The first of these people were clients who were on their NOTs but not yet finished. In fact, two of these NOTs clients had stalled, stuck in a NOTs case phemonenon called, "over-restimulation". People had serious upset and overwhelm in this state, and the NOTs handling for such cases was extremely delicate. Before being taken into session, the person had to de-stimulate. Only then was he taken into session and carefully run on certain NOTs processes.

We had not yet coined the name "Idenics", and simply called what we were doing, "identity processing". Even though it was still in a very rudimentary state, we decided to try this new processing on these NOTs-restim cases. Within a couple of hours of identity processing not only was the "over-restimulation" handled, but also there was no more NOTs-type phenomena to be addressed! Similar, fast results were accomplished on other people in the middle of their NOTs.

Next, we started getting clients in the "non-interference zone" coming to us for our service. These were people between Clear and OT3. It was called the "non-interference zone" because the only major actions permitted by Scientology tech on these people were OT 1, 2 or 3. According to the tech, such cases would be messed up if handled otherwise. However, processing these people with our identity processing produced the same fast, high-quality results as we had gotten with those clients who had completed OT 3.

When we started getting the same magnitude of results working with individuals who had only done part of their lower bridge and people never having had any Scientology auditing, we began to realize the scope of John's breakthroughs and discoveries. In looking for a "next step", John had actually come up with something that "undercut" the entire Scientology bridge.

During most of the period between 1985 and 1987 when John was delivering creative processing and developing identity processing, the rest of our technical staff was still delivering other services. While our new service was still in its' development stages, John was not yet able to do the necessary codifying with his research to properly train others in what he was doing. As my attention was primarily on John's work, most of the other technical staff became disillusioned and left Survival Services. Without the additional delivery I had to let all but one of my administrative personnel go.

When the development of John's work made the delivery of other forms of processing obsolete, I felt that it was no longer ethical to continue to deliver anything but identity processing. In an effort to maintain the viability of the company, John wrote up what he could on his new techniques and trained the few technical people who had remained. However, this training was ineffective.

To a large extent, John was still improvising in the sessions he was delivering, and coming up with questions as he worked with clients. Even though the other practitioners had years of experience working with people, they were not able to achieve the same kind of end products as John was getting. Obviously, there were things that John did in session that the other practitioners were not doing, but we were not yet able to discover what these actions were.

Unable to get the quality of results John was accomplishing, the other practitioners started reverting back to old techniques with their clients. When these clients started complaining, the practitioners became frustrated and quit. Survival Services staff was now only John, one other administrative person and me.

This was a very difficult time financially for Survival Services. Not only did we have just one person delivering service, but also the identity processing worked so fast and effectively that individuals didn't need too many hours to achieve their desired results. To be viable, we had to have a volume of clients coming for service. But getting the volume also presented its difficulties. Identity processing was so new that we hadn't yet had enough clients to produce a large enough word of mouth. Additionally, promoting our service was difficult, as I had not yet developed an effective way to communicate what we were doing to others.

Aside from the financial problems, this research and development period was very exciting. The clients we were getting were doing extremely well. As John's guinea pig, I was receiving a lot of processing and handling things that I'd never been able to handle on the bridge. John's development of the subject was progressing well. And, I was learning all I could about identity processing.

Unlike what many other groups in the independent field were doing, our work was not a re-hash of Dianetics and Scientology. Ours was a new subject that had evolved out of our earlier knowledge and experience. But the name "identity processing" was very limiting, as it seemed to only connote some kind of auditing rundown. Feeling that we needed a better name, we racked our brains trying to come up with a proper designation. Finally, a client coming out of session with John made a suggestion that really grabbed our attention. With a minor adjustment in the spelling, we finally had a name for our subject: IDENICS.

Part 9: Identities

The initial development of Idenics dealt with the subject of identities. Interest in this area is not new. Identities have been discussed and worked with for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Nine hundred years ago they were called "elementals".

Hubbard also touched on this subject from different angles. His work with this subject can first been seen in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, where he talked about a valence, which he defined as somebody else's identity assumed by a person unknowingly. He also viewed identities as the opposing "items" in his theory of GPMs (Goals Problems Mass). One of the most radical ideas that he gave the most credence to was that identities were not even generated by the person, but were separate "beings" that affect the individual adversely.

Yet no one had viewed the subject of identities with the clarity of John Galusha. John's insights into the make-up and generation of identities, as well as their importance in the arena of therapy, were groundbreaking. Phenomena observed and addressed by previous complex theories and methods were not only explained, but also easily resolved with John's innovations and techniques.

John defined an identity as simply a way of being in order to accomplish something. An identity is composed of beliefs, ideas, decisions, intentions, etc. In other words, an identity is a whole package of rules and laws of how to be in particular circumstances.

A person moves in and out of these identities every day, without any thought. These identities, professional, social, familial etc., are mostly easily assumed and set aside. Additionally, identities that a person has ALL belong to that person, even if they were modeled after an identity of someone else. However, an identity can be generated without the input of any outside party.

They may have similarities, but identities are different from person to person. Still, the common denominator between all identities is that every one of them is limited. The most obvious limitation is the identity's purpose, or what it is supposed to accomplish. While operating from an identity, the individual is also limited by the scope of that way of being.

As mentioned above, most identities that a person assumes are easily set aside. The only liability is when a person gets stuck in some identity. By "stuck", I simply mean being without noticing. The liability is that the individual can continue to operate from the stuck identity in circumstances that are not appropriate. This observation led John to a very valuable discovery: any unwanted condition that a person has is simply the property of some identity. I can use an analogy here to demonstrate some of these concepts I've mentioned.

One can liken an identity to a suit of armor. When one is inside the armor, it's cumbersome and it limits the person's motion, but it's useful in certain circumstances. Now, imagine that once this person put on the armor they forgot that it wasn't them. In other words, in the person's mind, there was no separation between themselves and the armor. Let's say that they now think it is part of their skin. They walk down the road and come to a battle where swords and lances are being deflected by this heavy, metal covering. All is well, the armor is working. Later, this person comes to a lake where people are swimming. Hot and uncomfortable, the individual decides to swim too. They jump into the water and sink. Someone pulls them out, and as they lie on the bank they think to themselves, "Other people can swim but I can't". Here is the unwanted condition. The person then originates all kinds of unusual solutions of how to stay afloat, when all they'd have to do is take off the armor. Unfortunately, the person doesn't know that the armor is not part of them.

Numerous discoveries and processing techniques came about due to this initial understanding about identities. Case difficulties that had previously plagued auditors and case supervisors were now being resolved easily. For example, the "no case gain" who spent thousands of hours auditing with no results, was found in session to be sitting in an identity that resisted any form of case gain. Once the identity was handled in an hour-long session, the person thereafter had no difficulty making progress.

The kind of discoveries and processing techniques that I have been discussing I now refer to as the mechanics of Idenics. The mechanics that we now have are much more far-reaching than what John had developed during the initial years of Idenics. Still, in the beginning, he was able to get results with a speed that hadn't been imagined with previous techniques. As I described in Part 8 of this series, John wrote up these initial mechanics for the other practitioners at Survival Services, yet these other practitioners were unable to get the same quality of results.

After some inspection, John's secret of success was finally revealed. This secret turned out to be the most valuable contribution that John ever made to the subject of therapy or auditing. In my humble opinion, it is the greatest contribution that anyone has ever made to these subjects. The secret was beyond the area of mechanics. It had to do with the application of those mechanics.

Part 10: John's Secret

The techniques and procedures used in Idenics processing, as well as the basic underlying information and concepts, are referred to as the "mechanics" of Idenics. These mechanics are a vital component of the process, but are not the totality Idenics. The other part of Idenics, that at the very least is just as important, is the application.

By "application", I simply mean how the mechanics are applied to or used when working with a client. In Idenics, the application is completely non-judgmental, non-evaluative, and devoid of any suggestion, advice or opinion. In Idenics, we have no preconceived agenda for people or levels that they must do. We work only from the agenda of the client. In Idenics, our mechanics are not written in stone. The Idenics procedures are only a guideline with the primary focus being the individual client. In Idenics, the ONLY source of information about a client is that individual client.

In Scientology we prided ourselves on not evaluating for people. But all that that really meant was that the auditor did not VERBALLY evaluate for the pc in session. The registrars and ethics officers evaluated for the pc. The case supervisor evaluated for the pc, and the field auditor who case supervises in the chair is evaluating for the pc in his head. The Scientology Bridge is extremely evaluative and judgmental.

I will most probably ruffle some people's feathers with my explanation of Idenics' application. It is not my intention to make anyone wrong, and I wish that I could state our application in a completely positive manner. But it is virtually impossible to describe our application without the use of "negative contrast". In other words, the only way that I have been able to communicate what an Idenics practitioner does in terms of application is by describing what he DOESN'T do.

Due to its elusive nature, this application was overlooked in the beginning of Idenics. During this period of time, John's entire focus was on mechanics. Everyone at Survival Services, including John, was unaware of the subtle difference in John's application as compared to our other practitioners. It wasn't until the practitioners, who used the same mechanics as John, were unable to achieve the same quality of results that we suspected the existence of another element at work.

At first, we just chalked up the difference in results to John's improvisational skills and experience. However, upon further investigation, specific factors came to light regarding his use of the mechanics. It was not a matter of what he WAS doing that the other practitioners weren't, but rather what he WASN'T doing that they were.

John's non-judgmental application was not something that he figured out how to do. It was something that was part of his basic nature. Indeed, this approach was as natural as breathing to this man, and he operated this way both in and out of session. John had never recognized the subtle difference between his and others way of being while auditing. However, others had sensed this rare quality in Galusha.

When Hubbard's demanding schedule and workload prohibited him from continuing to work with his personal pcs, the one man that he was comfortable turning his clients over to was John Galusha. When organizational policy started limiting staff and field auditor activities, the only person that LRH exempted from these policies was John Galusha.

His numerous and unusually successful auditing practices were a subject of Flag's attention and evaluation. Anyone who had ever seen John audit, could not help but notice a unique quality in his auditing. During the years that he performed live Book One Dianetics sessions in front of audiences, many people, including Class 12 auditors at Flag, commented on and attempted to explore John's auditing "style" (Reference: Part 9 of The New Regime Takeover series).

As I mentioned earlier, the other practitioners at Survival Services became frustrated because they were not getting the same quality of results as John while using the identical mechanics. They reverted back to old techniques and their clients complained. Disillusioned, these practitioners left Survival Services. Several months later, John's secret of success began to emerge. When we understood John's application we felt that we could then train others to deliver Idenics.

John wrote up a pack of basic materials and we delivered our first training as a live lecture series and co-audit. With the videotaped lectures we designed and offered the first Idenics Practitioner Training Course. However, our initial training had limited success. Students learned and understood the mechanics of Idenics, but had great difficulty grasping and performing the Idenics application.

Part of the problem was the difficulties that we were having in communicating our application. Additionally, the concepts were so intelligible and the procedures were so effective, that people tended to focus all of their attention on these mechanics while overlooking the Idenics application. Students with prior auditing experience were the hardest to train. Their training and competency as Idenics practitioners required extensive "unlearning" of old habits, something that most of these people were unable or unwilling to do. Most of these practitioners took a narrow view of Idenics and incorporated our mechanics into Scientology-based practices.

Communicating an application that is so intangible is still difficult. Just as the unlearning of old habits is necessary in practitioner training, letting go of certain ingrained ideas and beliefs is required to comprehend the true impact and genius of Idenics application.

People wanting to handle their own cases have a much easier time understanding our application then do auditors and practitioners of other therapies. Aside from their clinging to old concepts that have apparent value, people with their own practice can have a vested interest in maintaining superiority over their clients. If a practitioner can convince his clients that he knows more about them then they know about themselves and also convinces clients that a preconceived agenda is necessary, than clients will stick around longer and the practitioner will have an easier and more stable auditing practice. To do otherwise, the practitioner would complete clients faster and have to depend on a high client volume in order to survive.

In this write-up I have only been able to provide a surface explanation of the Idenics application. More time must be devoted to describing this application and its ramifications in therapy. Therefore, the upcoming or parts of this series will be highlighted by Idenics' application.

Part 11: The Relevance of this Series

In Part 11 of this series I have decided to take a small side trip from the normal flow of this overall write-up to respond to certain readers who have questioned the relevance of this series to specific internet newsgroups.

My previous series, The New Regime Takeover, dealt with my personal history in the CofS. From my experiences, I relayed my viewpoints regarding organizational and management changes and activities. Since there are newsgroups where the primary agenda focuses on the administrative and organizational aspects and activities of the CofS, that series was obviously relevant to them. However, the bulk of this current series is dedicated to the subject of technology.

Readers of the above-mentioned newsgroups have wondered why I have chosen to post to their newsgroups a series that focuses on the history, content and ramifications of Scientology, as well as Idenics, and the comparison of these two, different methodologies. I believe that posting this current series to these newsgroups is appropriate, and I'd like to explain my reasons.

A large section of the people familiar with the CofS is aware of the demented aspects and activities of that organization. However, insane actions must originate from and be carried out by people operating from aberrated ideas and viewpoints. For such a brazenly offensive mentality to exist there had to have been deficiencies in the tech. Especially, since the purpose for the formation, existence and operation of the CofS is to forward and expand Scientology methodology. Without exploring the inadequacies of the technology, one can never fully comprehend the insanities of an organization built to advance those methods.

Questions then arise regarding my discussion of Idenics. Why not just discuss the technology of Scientology? Why bring Idenics into the mix? Doesn't your doing that, promote your activities? I would be lying if I said that I didn't want to promote Idenics. But there are definitely other reasons for my discussion of Idenics. Primarily, my understanding of the deficiencies of Scientology tech came from and is related to the development and delivery of Idenics, and visa versa.

There are people who through their bad experiences with and observation of the CofS have formed the opinion that the technology of Scientology has absolutely no validity. Many people with this opinion also vehemently belittle anyone who continues to pursue a path to resolve their personal unwanted conditions or improve their existing state of being.

Why would someone engage in activities that demean others who are seeking a path of personal discovery? The primary reason that I can think of is because of failures and confusions that that individual has had on their own path of personal discovery. Regarding the issue of the invalidity of Scientology tech: From the identity or viewpoint of the person, who states that there is absolutely no workability to Scientology tech, I am certain that that opinion is true. This person may also have never personally received any benefit or gain from the application of that technology. But for anyone who stuck around Scientology long enough, I would think that it would be extremely rare not to have gotten any positive results.

I believe that if one interviewed a large number of people leaving the CofS, one would discover that the majority did get results, even if those results were few and far between. We should also ask why so many people who had such horrendous experiences and were treated so unjustly would have stayed as long as they did in the CofS? Were they brainwashed? Of course they were, but there's more to the story than that.

A primary belief existing in most therapies, including Scientology, is that people get stuck in "losses". Something bad happens to an individual and they get stuck in the occasion because of that traumatic experience or loss. One can make the argument that LRH had some opinions and techniques that were contrary to this belief, but the overwhelming majority of his technology demonstrates an application that adheres to this idea.

One of John Galusha's initial insights was that people do not get stuck in losses, they get stuck in "wins". As he would to say, "We may be dumb but we're not THAT dumb. Why would one hold on to a loss?" It is the win that sticks people. The rest is just part of the package that will probably need to be looked at if one is trying to resolve an unwanted condition that that package is attached to. Furthermore, any unwanted condition has some apparent value; even though this value is probably not seen from the viewpoint that a person is looking from when they are trying to get rid it. Unless this value is properly inspected, the condition will probably persist. There are powerful ramifications to this insight that I'll address later in this series.

My purpose for bringing up the above data is to demonstrate that people stuck it out in the CofS because of the wins they had, and the hope that they would have more wins. It was only when these individuals reached their breaking points, or when they realized that they could accomplish their goals outside of the CofS, that they left that organization. However, the wins and the attachments of Scientology, LRH and the CofS can "follow" a person leaving this organization and/or subject.

Over the past 20 years I have encountered hundreds of people who have left the CofS, but who are conflicted due to an ongoing loyalty to the CofS, LRH, or Scientology. Many of these people had been out of the CofS or Scientology for years yet still had these personal conflicts. An accepted opinion that use to exist in the independent field was that people leaving the CofS who had been heavily involved with that organization, would take five years to re-integrate into normal society. Independent Scientologists spent hundreds of hours auditing these poor souls on their bad experiences in the CofS.

On the other hand, John focused on the wins that these people had had that they then completely credited to Scientology, LRH or the CofS. The CofS continually reinforced the idea of giving credit for your wins to them. For example, the activity of making a person whom has a win, get up in front of an audience and thank LRH for the win and then applaud Hubbard's picture.

Most of the people who John audited who were stuck as described above, resolved their conflicts in short order. Additionally, an action that John originated and that I have continued to do when processing a person with Idenics is performed to insure that the person doesn't get stuck with what we are doing or with us. When a client has a big win and is adamantly thanking us, we will get that person to look at various things like, who got them here, who did the effective looking in session, and who had the realizations. When the individual sees that he has done these things, we then get them to take the credit for these actions and results. If the person insists on giving us some of the credit, then we might say, "OK, but at the most I can only take 50%."

The exploration of technology in this series is not only relevant to these newsgroups, but it is a necessity in order to get the full picture. Furthermore, my discussion of Idenics is more than a focal point in this exploration. It demonstrates that following a path of personal improvement does not have to wind a person up submerged in a cult. Initially, one must have a technology that is based on sound principles that are effectively applied to only the goals and aspirations of the individual client. Then, those delivering that technology must insure that their organization and administration never compromise the integrity of those principles and methodology.

With the above in place, maybe the reasons why any of us originally got into Scientology, those specific and individual objectives that we each wished to accomplish, can be realized.

Part 12: Additives

In this series, I will talk about many themes such as unwanted conditions, identities and wins. Even though these subjects must be discussed individually, they also intertwine. Therefore, if one does not understand the relationship between these topics, as well as their singular characteristics, they will fail to grasp the scope of Idenics' mechanics and application.

People tend to cling to solutions that work for them. When the clinging is done unknowingly and automatically, it is said that the person is stuck in or stuck with these solutions. When they are done automatically, a person may unknowingly operate with these solutions in inappropriate circumstances, even though those solutions were workable in the past. This sort of habitual activity creates problems for the individual and is expressed as an unwanted condition.

An identity is a solution that a person generates in a confusion to somehow handle that confusion. Identities, which are composed of such things as beliefs, ideas, and decisions, are additive to the basic person. All of the parts of an identity are also additions taken on by the individual.

Unsuccessfully trying to resolve their unwanted conditions themselves, people have sought help from others. Unfortunately, most assistance is given in the form of answers to explain the individual's issues. For the most part, all these "answers" do for the person is to provide that individual with an opportunity to accumulate more additives. The following example will demonstrate my point:

Jane has a low self-image. She buys a book on "How to Improve Your Self-Esteem". The author says, "The reason you have low self-esteem is because of ideas your parents instilled in you when you were young." Jane thinks to herself, "Well, my father did tell me I was worthless several times. Yeah, that makes sense!" She feels better for the rest of the day, as the book's statement has explained her unwanted condition. The following day, some situation in life occurs and she falls back into the condition of low self-esteem. The explanation only provided temporary relief, but Jane holds on to it because it had worked. She still has the original condition, but also has the explanation, which is an additive because it adds on to the condition.

If you've ever spoken with someone who has spent years in therapy, you may have noticed that they could sit and talk with you for hours, explaining all the reasons why they have the conditions they do, even though they still have the conditions. What you were listening to were additives.

People seem to gravitate towards and even crave additives. What is at the foundation of the problem has become desired in the solution. For this reason, groups like the CofS, selling the most additives (pretended knowingness, pie in the sky, etc.), will continue to prosper. People leaving such groups wonder how the group could get rich while preying on the misery of others. But such groups wouldn't even be in business if they didn't fulfill some demand. In this case, the demand is for answers and solutions.

Auditing is supposed to assist the individual in letting go of their additives. Unfortunately, the subject of Scientology is fraught with explanations. In an atmosphere like the CofS, it is considered a crime to even question these explanations. Members blindly accept LRH's explanations as fact. Opportunities are constantly created where a person can take on more additives than they can let go of in auditing.

Hubbard's explanations are an integral part of the mechanics and application of Scientology auditing. It's true that the auditor doesn't verbally relate these explanations to the pc in session. However, the processes used and the questions asked the pc are based on these explanations. The following are actual examples of clients who came to Idenics for assistance after being mishandled in Scientology auditing. Only the clients' names have been changed.

Case History #1 – Joe came to us with an unwanted condition that he'd been trying to handle throughout his history in Scientology. He'd completed the entire bridge yet the condition still persisted. In his first Idenics session, his attention immediately went to an incident when he was seven years old on a playground. His first response was, "Oh no, not that incident again! That damn thing has come up 500 times in auditing, starting with my first session with Dianetics!" However, he was willing to take one more look at the event. In that occasion, a little girl had looked at him. She didn't do or say anything, just looked. There was no pain, no unconsciousness or loss, but for this person this incident was a tremendous confusion (defined in Idenics as a disruption of one's intention or expectation). His response to this confusion was something that he'd been stuck in ever since. In an hour and a half session, the unwanted condition that he'd been trying to handle for the past 25 years was resolved. Even though it had presented itself throughout his Dianetic and Scientology auditing, the incident had never been properly addressed. In that technology, that incident, without pain, unconsciousness or loss, could only be a lock. Additionally, there is the LRH idea that this lifetime is insignificant compared to dealing with past lives. Auditors adhering to these concepts brushed the incident off as a lock, and asked for earlier similar incidents that would contain loss, pain and unconsciousness. The pc, also being educated in the technology, went along with the auditors. Most of the auditing addressing this issue was spent running past lives. In actual fact, that condition DID start with that initial incident but was overlooked by pc, auditors and case supervisors. Due to Hubbard's explanations of how people are, the incident that needed to be run was always glossed over.

Case History #2 – Betty had done hundreds hours of auditing, with the majority of her hours spent doing review or repair actions. Beginning at a local mission, she'd continued at the local org, and eventually wound up in Clearwater. Her auditing had started bogging when she had insisted that she only had 15 years of time track. Being 35 years old, the Scientology tech people knew she had 20 years of track in this lifetime, as well as trillions of years of other existences. Case supervisors had racked their brains trying to figure out what was wrong with her, coming up with all sorts of auditing and qual cramming actions. When she arrived at Survival Services she had a list of conditions that she wanted to handle, most of which had never even been addressed in CofS auditing. But the first issue she brought up was not having any track before the age of 20. In her Idenics processing, she discovered that she had been firmly stuck in an identity that she had generated in confusion when she was 20 years old. Needless to say, resolving this issue was an enormous relief for this individual. Even though she had been questioned mercilessly during her CofS experience, she'd always been telling the truth. She had been in an identity that only had 15 years of time track!

Case History #3 – Roger contacted me, wanting to schedule some time to come for services. He had me reiterate many times that in Idenics we only go by the client's agenda, handling only what the client wishes to address. Once in the session room, he made sure of this again before allowing the practitioner to begin the session. Only when he was satisfied that John would take up his issue and not try to talk him out of doing that or make him wrong, would he allow the session to start. What he wanted to address was the subject of telekinesis. He wanted to be able to move objects around without touching them. He got into Scientology after having read some success stories in an Advanced Magazine. His only purpose in auditing was telekinesis, but when he questioned when this would be taken up, he was always told, "That will be handled on up the bridge." When he failed to accept that answer, the subject had been addressed, but only as a hidden standard. After he had completed his entire bridge, including his OT levels, he not only couldn't perform telekinesis, but the subject had never even been directly addressed. Extremely upset, he left the CofS. His beginning Idenics session was the first time he had been allowed to directly address this issue, and without being made wrong for what he wished to accomplish. Fifteen minutes into the session he came up with an unwanted condition that had been ruining his life, for which telekinesis had been the solution! Now his attention was on the unwanted condition. Following the client's interest, John worked with him on this issue. After a few sessions, the condition that had been destroying this person's life for decades was resolved. After work on the condition was complete, John asked the man about the subject of telekinesis. Roger's response was, "I don't care about that".

I've only mentioned three dramatic examples, but we have had hundreds of instances where additives from Scientology have gotten in a person's way from their dealing with their case.

In Idenics, we don't provide people with opportunities to take on more additives. Our non-evaluative and nonjudgmental application insures that this does not occur. Furthermore, this application is adhered to not only in session, but also when dealing with clients out of session. For example, the only things that I will do in the selling of Idenics services is to inform people about what we're doing and to answer their questions. Even when a person asks me if I think they should do Idenics processing, my answer is always, "I don't know."

I hope that this discussion about additives has provided a better insight into the application of Idenics.

Part 13: Application of Technology

Methods of Scientology Application - Standard Tech
In Scientology auditing, there are set ways of applying the technology to everyone. There is, as Hubbard stated on Class VIII tape No. 2, "the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT, the exact method of organizing them, an exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route". It is assumed that if one adheres to this standard application, they will achieve standard results with all cases. In other words, if one does THIS (standard application), then THAT (standard results) will occur. This procedure, as well as its tacit outcome, are what are known in Scientology as "standard tech". The term, standard tech, not only refers to the activity, but also the purpose and the hypothesized results of that activity.

This activity or application, as well as the promotion of its purpose and assumed results are extremely workable and beneficial for those who deliver Scientology technology. However, the benefits and workability of this application is very limited for those receiving the auditing. The limitation stems from the idea that Scientology's standard application will produce 100% standard results. This may be a nice idea, but it is completely unworkable, as people are not standard.

No two people view life or similar experiences from the same point of view. No two people respond in the same way to particular circumstances. People are each different and unique. Their viewpoints and responses are also different and unique. Yet in Scientology, it is professed that if one applies a rote auditing process in an identical manner, then all recipients of that process will accomplish the same results. It would only take a little observation by a rational person to see that this idea is not workable.

Standard application can be promoted, learned, enforced, and performed. The idea that standard results will be accomplished by this application is a complete fallacy. Scientology auditing, at its best, is only a "shotgun" technique. By firing enough figurative shot at a client, one is bound to hit that client where they live once in a while. In other words, if an auditor runs enough processes on someone, in time a particular question will get close enough to the mark to produce results. Such a procedure is workable, even though its workability is awfully limited. The following example will demonstrate the above statements:

Joe buys 50 hours of auditing. The case supervisor writes a program for Joe's bridge auditing. Joe goes along in his sessions without much happening. Then, 10 hours into the first intensive while being audited on Grade 0, Joe has an incredible result on a particular process, and gets a dial-wide F/N. That same auditor, running the same process and sequence of proceeding processes in the same way on a different person, would not necessarily achieve the same or even a similar result as Joe had gotten. Maybe, the results that Joe accomplished were not as stated in the end phenomena of Grade 0. In order to keep a semblance of standard results, the case supervisor may have Joe attest to some other EP, such as "Clear-OT".

There is no predictability regarding results other than this: if a person keeps auditing, they will probably, in time, get something done. I am not saying that people don't get results in auditing. I'm just clarifying what actually occurs in Scientology auditing when people do get results.

Wants-Handled Auditing
The majority of Scientology auditing is done according to a preconceived agenda of progressing levels. However, there are sections of the auditing that are done according to an individual's interest, or what the person wants to handle. Generally, the most substantial gains are made on the "wants-handled" types of auditing. Life Repair is a wants-handled action. Even though it's located on the bottom of the bridge, many people who have completed the entire bridge have stated that they got more gains from Life Repair than they had received from doing any other level of auditing.

During the years we delivered Book One Dianetics, I was amazed by how may Scientologists wanted to co-audit this form of processing because it addressed only what they wanted to handle. In some cases, even people who were Clear went so far as "unattesting" from that state in order to receive Book One auditing (Reference: Part 8 of The New Regime Takeover series).

Hubbard, even after he had a bridge laid out through OT 7, recognized the effectiveness of wants-handled auditing. Whereas Life Repair was limited to the auditing processes of Grades 0 through 4, LRH allowed a more expansive life repair where a case supervisor was free to utilize any process on the entire bridge to address what the person wanted to handle. But the only place in the world where people were allowed to deliver this style of auditing was at Flag. It was called the "Flag Case Completion Intensive". This is where the term FCCI, referring to a Flag auditing client came from. Limiting its delivery to only Flag wasn't because the case supervisors and auditors in the other orgs were not as capable as the Flag technical staff. Flag's ability to get results the other orgs couldn't added to the mystique of Flag as a "Mecca of tech perfection", and allowed them to sell their auditing at outlandish prices.

In summation, by addressing what the client wants to handle rather than working from someone else's preconceived agenda, the individual has a better chance of resolving their major case issues.

Methods of Idenics Application
In Idenics, there is no bridge of services. There is no preconceived agenda of levels to be completed or predetermined end phenomena that one works towards or measures their results against. The only agenda is that of the individual client, and results are determined and judged only by them.

At a superficial glance, the Scientologist will conclude that the only difference in Idenics' application compared to that of Scientology is that we only work on a wants-handled basis in processing. In addition to wants-handling auditing, Scientology auditors also deliver a bridge of gradient auditing levels. The independent or free zone Scientologist will point out that there are many Scientologists outside of the CofS who deliver Flag Case Completion Intensive style auditing on a routine basis. If this were the only difference between the application of Idenics and Scientology, then why, over the past 17 years, have the speedy and high quality results of Idenics clients so significantly surpassed those results of Scientology clients?

Aside from the obvious differences in mechanics (the processes being run and the questions being asked), there are subtle, yet powerful differences between an Idenics practitioner addressing a client's interest and a Scientology auditor's handling of what a client wants to handle. Furthermore, behind these above differences is a disparity in basic philosophy.

Part 14: Basic Philosophy Difference

Previously, I mentioned a philosophy that states that people are unique and different, and that the answers those individuals seek about themselves are within them. Any Scientology tech person would probably agree with this philosophy and assert that it is applied in Scientology. I would argue that only a qualified version of this philosophy is applied in that technology.

It doesn't take much investigation to see that people have aspects of themselves that they want to change, but are unable to do so by themselves. An alternative to remaining in these conditions is for individuals to receive outside assistance with their issues. Any modality involved with delivering this kind of facilitation has, as part of its system, hypothesized commonalties that exist in people.

Hubbard's research produced volumes of commonalties while Galusha only discovered a few. From these commonalties, both investigators designed mechanics (processes and questions) that could be applied to a person in order to assist that individual in the resolution of their unwanted conditions. The number of mechanics produced by Galusha pale in comparison with the volume of mechanics created by Hubbard.

In Scientology, Hubbard's mechanics are treated like law, with a demand that they be applied exactly and without the slightest alteration or variation. Whereas in Idenics, Galusha's few mechanics are treated only as guidelines, with flexibility in application that is tailored to the individual client.

In order to understand the difference between Scientology and Idenics, it is important to explore the reason behind the disparities in the volume and application of theorized commonalties and mechanics.

Both Hubbard and Galusha believed that people were different and unique, but Hubbard believed that individuals had much more in common than Galusha. Both men believed that the answers that people sought about themselves was within them, but there was a great divergence in each of their ideas regarding an individual's ability to access these answers.

I believe that the difference in the volume of commonalties and mechanics discovered by these two men, as well as their research methods, were a product of their diverging ideas regarding a person's ability to access. Furthermore, it is this disparity that most distinguishes Idenics from Scientology.

Hubbard had very little faith in an individual's ability to access the answers within themselves. He went so far as to believe that people could not confront or even know the proper things they should be addressing or direction that they should be going. Taking it upon himself, he would determine for the individual the proper path of self-discovery, and then guide them on that path to greater self-awareness.

From the early stages of Scientology development, Hubbard instructed auditors with the above ideas and attitudes. A good example of this can be seen in the early 1950s. Hubbard gave a Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture called The Goals of an Auditor, where he was addressing prospective auditors. In that lecture he stated that an auditor should not be interested in the goals of the pc, but should have his/her own goals for the sessions. To demonstrate his point, Hubbard gave an example of a pc, coming into session wanting to handle his baldness. In the example, the auditor doesn't verbally evaluate for the pc or make him wrong, but what the auditor knows is that he/she is going to make the pc a better person.

"Making the pc a better person" later translated in to a long list of EPs (end phenomena) that were determined by Hubbard for all people. The extent to which LRH built upon the basic ideas and attitudes described above is easily seen in his development of Scientology.

It took over 30 years of following the direction set by Hubbard for John Galusha to discover an easier and more effective way to go. While researching Idenics, John once said something to me that, at the time, I did not understand. Pointing at his bookcase filled with Scientology technical books he said, "I don't need any of that anymore. I've finally let go of my pretended knowingness".

John had a great faith in an individual's ability to access. With the origination of Idenics, he ALWAYS trusted that what the client wanted to address was the correct way to go. He trusted the client in these matters far beyond his own perception. Instead of proceeding down the same, old path of "trying to figure people out", something common to every therapy, including Scientology, Galusha simply got people to look and notice what was already there. He was able to develop a simple set of mechanics that assist a person in quickly accessing the things they need to know in order to resolve their unwanted conditions.

It took me some years to let go of my "pretended knowingness" and master Idenics' application. If I were attending the above mentioned lecture with my present viewpoint, I would respond to Hubbard's comments about making the pc a better person by saying, "Excuse me Ron, but a better person according to whom? According to you or the auditor? How would either of you know what's a better person for someone else!" Additionally, there would be a definite difference in application, if the pc in his example came to me for Idenics processing.

Even if that pc had a full head of hair, I wouldn't consider addressing anything other than baldness with him. How would I know what baldness means to him? How do I know what baldness is connected to? How do I know that five minutes into a session addressing baldness that that pc doesn't come up with a serious self-esteem issue? I don't know anything about the validity of the condition being addressed. But if I were to think to myself something like, "He has a full head of hair and wants to handle baldness! He must be delusional. I need to do such and such a rundown on him. I need to..." then I would be going down that same, old evaluative road of "pretended knowingness".

In Part 12 of this series, I gave an actual case history that demonstrates the above points very well. The example I gave was of a client who had wanted to address the subject of telekinesis when he got into Scientology. He had continually expressed that he wished to take this up throughout his 25-year trek on the bridge. Never directly addressing the subject, Scientology tech people either tried to get his attention off of this subject or made him wrong for wanting to address it. It wasn't until he came for Idenics processing that he was allowed to take this subject up. Fifteen minutes into his first session addressing telekinesis, the client came up with an unwanted condition that had been ruining his life, for which telekinesis had been the solution. Handling that condition produced life-changing results for the client.

In the above example, this client had presented for handling, for a quarter of a century, the most important item on his case, but no one trusted his perception. An important aspect of Scientology auditing is that the pc must learn to trust the auditor. In Idenics, the processing works because the practitioner has learned to trust the client.\

Part 15:What an Idenics Practitioner Does

I have divided Idenics into two main parts, the mechanics (the questions and processes used and the concepts they are based on) and the application (the way the mechanics are applied to a client). Only by understanding both parts can one hope to comprehend the scope of Idenics. When comparing Idenics to a song, the words of the song would be the mechanics and the music would be the application.

Even though these two parts are discussed separately, their relationship to one another is inseparable. The development of Idenics' mechanics was dependent on its application, and visa versa. The same dependency exists in their use with a client.

The practicing Scientologist or trained technical person will probably have great difficulty trying to understand Idenics. Concentrating on Idenics' mechanics, they will compare these mechanics to those of Scientology's. From this narrow viewpoint, they will make little or nothing of our mechanics, only seeing them as a small part in the great scheme of Scientology technology. Idenics' application will mean even less to the tech person or practicing Scientologist. Coming from a point of view that must defend the evaluative and judgmental aspects of Scientology tech, they will see Idenics' application as invalid and "theetie-weetie".

In an effort to explain our application I have made comments like, "the practitioner must trust the client" and "the answers someone is seeking about themselves is within them". It is not surprising to have a Scientologist take these comments out of context, viewing Idenics' application as "sweetness and light". Making nothing of our application justifies the Scientology approach of dealing with people, as well as the "answers" that Scientology thrust down the throats of its members.

However, the point that I was attempting to make regarding our application is simple and straightforward. The Idenics practitioner doesn't operate from any preconceived or predetermined ideas about a client when working with that individual. The practitioner's full source of information about someone that they are processing is with that person. This is all that I was trying to communicate when I talked about the practitioner trusting the client and the client having the answers about themselves within themselves.

Where else would the answers about you be accept with YOU? Who else lived your life or had your experience? How would anyone else know how you responded in some circumstance? How would someone else know the responses you got stuck with or the kinds of incidents you got stuck in? How would anyone else know the subjects that you should address?

A practitioner of Scientology professes to know these things, where a practitioner of Idenics doesn't. That's the difference, end of story.

Without being submerged in a quagmire of "pretended knowingness", the Idenics practitioner is not involved with all the speculative activities of a Scientology tech person. Without these encumbrances, a practitioner of Idenics can be completely focused on the job at hand.

Even though a practitioner doesn't try to figure out, analyze or evaluate a client, his role is far from passive. Knowing that all the "answers" necessary in an individual's case resolution are with that person, an Idenics practitioner's sole activity is to assist that individual to ACCESS those answers.

Accessing these answers on one's own is extremely difficult. The reason for this difficulty is covered in the mechanics of Idenics, more specifically, in the subjects of viewpoints and identities.

I define a viewpoint, simply, as a point from which one perceives. Two people in a room are viewing that room from different viewpoints. Even if they were crowded together looking out of a tiny window, there would still be some difference in viewpoint. Add to that the difference in tastes and evaluations of what is seen, and we get a great difference between the two individuals.

Even though each is unique, the common denominator between all viewpoints is that every viewpoint is limited. For example, you and I, sitting in chairs facing one another, are looking from different viewpoints. From my viewpoint I can see the wall behind you and you can't. From your viewpoint, you can see the wall behind me and I can't. Why? Because the points from which we perceive are limited as they only see within a certain parameter. This doesn't mean that WE are limited; we could turn around or switch chairs. But as long as we are in those viewpoints, we are limited to that degree.

Now imagine that you are sitting in a chair facing a wall. On the other side of that wall are some "answers", for your eyes only. From the chair, the limitations of that viewpoint prevent you from seeing those answers. All of the wonderful information that others give to you, such as what's on the other side of their walls and what the wall is made up of, is completely irrelevant. The only relevant action is for you to get up out of the chair, walk around to the other side of the wall, thereby shifting to a viewpoint that is appropriate in order to inspect those answers.

But if you were stuck in the chair, and didn't even know that you were stuck there, you could stare at that wall forever and not be able to see what's on the other side. All you would be able to do from the viewpoint, "in the chair", is think about, figure-figure, and speculate regarding what is on the opposite side of that wall. You might be very susceptible to others' explanations and answers, which are, at their best, only additional speculation. However, from the appropriate viewpoint, "standing on the other side of the wall", viewing and inspecting what is there is easy.

The above explanation provides another way of saying what an Idenics practitioner does. The practitioner assists the client in freeing themselves from certain viewpoints and assuming the appropriate one from which they can inspect information relative to an issue's resolution.

Not knowing what the appropriate viewpoint is for any client at any time, the practitioner must be extremely familiar with the Idenics mechanics and skilled in their application. By asking the client the proper questions, a practitioner will get close enough to the mark to where the individual will drop into the appropriate viewpoint. From there, the practitioner needs only facilitate the client's looking at and inspection of what is perceivable from that viewpoint.

Even though there may be more than one viewpoint or identity connected with a condition and needing to be worked with, complete resolution of the unwanted condition is usually very fast. As a bonus, one may resolve conditions not directly addressed that were somehow connected to the viewpoint or identity one was handling.

When someone would ask John what he did, he would usually respond with a simple answer: "I get the client to look, and keep their nose in it until they have fully inspected what is there. That is all I do". In truth, that is a good statement of what an Idenics practitioner does. The practitioner has lots of questions that they can ask. But every question is just another way of saying, "Have a look".

Part 16: Mock-ups & Additives

A mock-up is a picture someone makes of something that is real or imagined. For example, a person gets a picture of his father, someone who actually exists or existed. The person may also be able to envision an orange, put it out in front of them, put two wings on the orange, and have it do a little dance. That's also a mock-up, but this mock-up is imagined.

Everyone has the ability to mock-up, even though that ability varies from person to person. This ability, like any ability, can go on automatic, being performed unknowingly. When it goes out of control, the ability becomes an aberration. A person's "case" is composed of mock-ups that they cling to unknowingly. The "cement" that holds these mock-ups there, is some apparent value.

I have taken great pains to describe the extent to which an Idenics practitioner goes to not evaluate for clients. Evaluation, at its best, is only speculation. The odds on being able to figure out exactly how things are for someone else are astronomically slim. Certainly an evaluation may "indicate" to a person, but the liability of evaluating for someone far outweighs any possible value.

Having some ring of truth, a person can embrace the evaluation because it explains some condition that they have been trying to resolve. The person gets some temporary relief, but the condition persists. Because of its workability, even if only short-lived, the person tends to hold on to that explanation. Now they have the explanation that is additive to the unresolved condition.

In Part 12 of this series, entitled Additives, I gave an example of a woman with a low self-image of herself buying a book about improving one's self-esteem. In the book the author made an evaluation that peoples' low self-esteem came from ideas that their parents instilled in them when they were young. When reading that statement, the woman remembered that her father had, throughout her life, told her that she was worthless. After recalling this, she felt better, and continued to feel good for the rest of that day. The following day the woman's condition of low self-esteem returned. But since the author's evaluation had explained her condition, she held on to the explanation.

Continuing with the above scenario, we find the woman completely buying into the idea that low-self esteem comes from ideas that parents instill in their children. She uses this idea, operates from it, and teaches it to others. The idea becomes a valuable piece of knowledge for her. Any attempt by others to invalidate that idea is met with a vehement defense.

She defends this idea because it had "indicated" to her when she read it. She defends this idea because she had experienced some relief after reading it. But let's explore this example further and find exactly what indicated and how that relief came about.

A few years after reading the book, the woman went into an Idenics session and addressed her issue of low self-esteem. In the session, she discovered that her father had told her that she was worthless almost every day since she was able to walk. However, during her childhood, she never bought into that idea. Her father's statement had bothered her, but she just blew it off, thinking her father was a domineering lout. Then, when she was 15 years old, her boyfriend dumped her. Devastated, she returned home, sat at the kitchen table and cried. Walking into the room, her father asked her what was happening and she told him. His response was, "See, I told you that you were worthless!" This time, she bought into his statement as it explained why her boyfriend had broken up with her. This was the beginning of her condition of low self-esteem.

The ramifications of the above example are far reaching. People have cases that are composed of compulsive mock-ups and solutions. Instead of just assisting these people to let go of these things, many therapies provide opportunities for the individual to accumulate more mock-ups and solutions to explain their unwanted conditions. Scientology, as well as many of its offshoots, does this.

Take for example, the insistence that there is some incident that is common to everyone. In this scenario, everyone had this incident, and all responded to it adversely. I'll wager that I could make up such an incident, invent processes to handle the effects of that incident on people, advertise my service with certain newsgroups, and make money. I'll give it a try:

"I've just discovered the source of "somatics" in human beings! 75 trillion years ago, on the planet Zortch, all beings from this sector of the galaxy were implanted with a series of invisible train tracks that would continue to run throughout every body they would occupy thereafter. Invisible trains were also implanted to run on these tracks. Every time the trains cross in front of one another, the person gets a somatic. I am the only person who has ever been able to discover the secrets of undoing the horrible affects of this incident, and I broke my back three times during the research. But I have returned to write up these confidential materials for you. Now, for only $3000, you can purchase these materials and run out the Wall of Trains!"

I'll bet that if I created a more serious version of the above and published it, there would be people who contact me saying that what I wrote had indicated to them. You might think that it's ridiculous that anyone would respond to my advertisement and purchase my service. But I'll further wager that some people reading the above story actually mocked up a picture of it as they read it. One does have the ability to mockup something that is imagined. What if someone reading a seriously written account of the "Train Track Incident", had once been hit by a train. Maybe, when they read my account, they even got a somatic. If all they were aware of was that they had a somatic, accompanied by some negative emotions and feelings, they might feel that my story had indicated to them. With a bit of salesmanship, I may even be able to sell them the rundown for 3Gs.

If I had some good general processes on the rundown, people might be able to get some charge off. For example, if some process got close to some existing condition, the person might take a look and have some positive result. But look at all the additive nonsense that the person might take on while doing my rundown. They may end up taking more on than they let go of. Additionally, they could spend two years solo auditing those materials to get some wins. It would be much easier if they could just address their conditions directly, probably handling those issues in a much shorter time.

I could give many examples in Scientology and other subjects of the phenomena that I've written about in this article. But I'm certain that anyone, who reads and understands what I've written, can come up with plenty of his/her own examples.

If you are a well-intentioned practitioner who evaluates for or uses evaluative materials on your clients, please take a look at what you are doing. Just because what you do may indicate to certain clients who keep paying for more services, doesn't mean that you are doing the best thing for them. And if you are a client receiving this kind of service, please inspect what is actually indicating to you and what about the process is in fact workable.

Part 17: Obsolete Tech

Many people have asked me why I no longer use Dianetics technology, especially since I was once such a strong proponent of that method. They wonder if I now believe that Dianetics is unworkable.

For many years, Dianetics was state of the art in the field of therapy. However, with the advent of Idenics, Dianetics became obsolete. However, I would never say that Dianetics doesn't work.

If one were trying to cut down a tree and only had a pocketknife, the knife would be workable in cutting down the tree. One may skim the skin off their knuckles and it might take a long time to accomplish the task, but a pocketknife would be workable in their endeavor. But if they had a power saw, why would a person continue to use the less effective tool? What it would take to accomplish in hundreds of hours using Dianetics would only require a few hours with Idenics.

There are numerous examples of less efficient ideas and mechanics used in Dianetics when compared to those employed in Idenics. In this write-up, I will describe the difference in a couple of the major concepts.

One of the main tenets of Dianetics is that the source of aberration is the engram, a picture recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. In other words, the basic kind of incident at the bottom of any unwanted condition would contain physical pain and unconsciousness.

John Galusha, a man who probably understood and could apply the mechanics of Dianetics as well or better than anyone, found that the above statement is not true. He discovered that there could be an incident containing physical pain and unconsciousness where an unwanted condition began, but that this was not inevitably the case.

There is an incident where any unwanted condition started, but it isn't necessarily as described in an engram. In Idenics, we refer to this initial incident as a "confusion", and define a confusion as a disruption of one's intention or expectation. In life, a person is almost always operating from some identity. In an occasion when what the person is being is not capable of handling the situation, this incident would constitute a confusion. One of the most important understandings of this primary event is that what would be a confusion for one person is not necessarily a confusion for another person. In other words, what constitutes a confusion is an individual matter. This understanding exposes a great limitation in the mechanics of Dianetics.

Not all that dissimilar from the example given in Part 16 of this series of Hubbard's insistence that there were incidents common in all people, LRH incorrectly assumed that there was a common TYPE of incident at the bottom of all people's unwanted conditions. This incorrect assumption has caused great difficulty for many people. The application of the supposition regarding engrams has produced enormous hardship for numerous pcs.

A case history described in Part 12 of this series, demonstrates the extent of difficulty to which this assumption about engrams can cause for a person. In this example, a client came to us wanting to resolve a major condition that had persisted for most of his life. Even though he had addressed this condition many times throughout his 25-year trek up the entire bridge of Scientology, the condition remained. Every time the condition was addressed, starting with his first Dianetics session, the pc would come up with an incident where he was on a playground and a little girl had looked at him. Since the event contained no physical pain, unconsciousness or even loss, auditors had adjudicated that at the best, this incident was only a "lock". Therefore, according to the mechanics of Dianetics, the auditor would abandon the incident, having the pc look earlier for the elusive engram.

In the first Idenics session addressing his unwanted condition, the client discovered that the incident that his attention had always first gone to was where that condition had begun. Even though it had previously been treated only as a minor event on a hypothesized chain of more important events, that incident WAS the confusion for that individual. Addressing that confusion properly with Idenics, the unwanted condition was quickly resolved.

Here's another dramatic case history of someone bogged down by the application of Dianetic theory. Only the client's name has been changed.

Bill had inherited a large and successful business that made outdoor, recreational equipment and accessories. Not having much interest in the business end of the company, Bill's passion and activity was focused on the testing and use of the company's products. His time was spent with activities such as skydiving, going on dangerous canoe and rafting trips, and racing motorcycles. During this career, he'd had more incidents of physical pain and unconsciousness than the average person would have in twenty lifetimes.

Exposed to Scientology, Bill went into a local mission for auditing. During his initial interview, the case supervisor discovered Bill's "Evil Kenevil-type" history. Bill's auditing program focused on handling his numerous engrams. However, Bill's auditing produced no results. Unable to get anywhere with him, Bill was sent to the local org for handling, where his lack of auditing results continued. From there he was sent to ASHO, and eventually to Flag for case handling. His "no-case-gain" response to engram running and all manners of repair and review auditing continued in all of these organizations. Because he trusted the auditors and case supervisors, didn't complain, and had plenty of money, the CofS continued auditing Bill for several years.

Finally, after over a thousand hours of auditing without any substantial results, Bill left the CofS. Coming to Survival Services, Bill relayed to me his unsatisfactory experiences with Scientology. During our meeting, the discussion turned to a less serious subject. We found that we both shared a common interest in motorcycles. While exchanging harrowing motorcycle experiences, Bill told me about a time when he was riding on the highway with his daughter on the back of his bike and had gotten into an accident. His daughter was miraculously unhurt, but he had almost been decapitated and had sustained serious physical damage.

A flight-for-life helicopter flew him to the nearest hospital while he went in and out of consciousness, barely surviving the incident. He underwent heavy, re-constructive surgeries and was in the hospital for many months. But during the entire ordeal, his attention was mainly on a big, upcoming motorcycle race, concerned that he might not get out of the hospital in time to participate in this important event. His story ended with him being released from the hospital the day before the race, qualifying for the race and winning it!

Listening to Bill recount this experience, it was obvious that the pain and unconsciousness that he had undergone had little importance to and created no adverse affects for him.

Later, Bill decided to try Idenics processing. It was quickly discovered that his incidents of physical pain and unconsciousness were not confusions for Bill. What he wanted to work on were difficulties he'd always had with relationships. These difficulties were what he had gone into Scientology to handle, but were never addressed. Within a few hours of Idenics processing, he was able to resolve these difficulties and was extremely satisfied with the results.

Another important part of the mechanics of Dianetics is the running of earlier similar incidents. Even though this technique is workable and does get charge off in most cases, we have discarded its use in Idenics. By asking for earlier similar incidents, the client tends to jump from one identity to another, leaving identities not fully handled, and thereby leaving unwanted conditions unresolved. Using Idenics' mechanics produces much more stable results in a much shorter period of time.

In this write-up, I have only discussed two obsolete aspects of the mechanics used in Dianetics. But with this discussion, I believe that I've answered the question of why, even though it may have its workability, I no longer use the technology of Dianetics.

Part 18: Entities

Many people have, in different ways, asked me about Idenics' position on the subject of entities. Answering these sorts of questions will take a bit of explanation, as within the Idenics technology there is not a specific position that we take regarding entities. I would give the same answer if I were asked about Idenics' position on past lives.

Entities and past lives are not subjects of Idenics' mechanics. There are no processes or questions where a practitioner directs a client's attention to either of these topics. However, this does not preclude a client from bringing up this subject matter. In other words, a client may have a position on entities or past lives, but the practitioner doesn't. Any issues the client wishes to address are taken up by the practitioner, but only with the use of Idenics techniques.

Over the years, we have had a lot people who came to us for Idenics processing who had previously been involved with Scientology. Prior to their involvement with Idenics, many of these clients had been on OT 3, NOTS (New Era Dianetics for OTs), or the equivalent of these levels in the independent field. These levels are exclusively concerned with the addressing of entities, or BTs and clusters, as they are referred to in Scientology. Even though a client may have brought up the subject of entities in session, all of these clients main attention was on specific issues that they wanted to handle.

Most of these clients' issues were resolved quickly with the application of Idenics technology. Any difficulties with entities connected to these issues were resolved by just handling the issues.

Some clients with a Scientology history of auditing BTs and clusters have come to us with a lot of their attention on entities. However, after processing these people with Idenics, any upsets difficulties or confusions regarding entities were cleared up for these clients. Most importantly, issues that clients had unsuccessfully been trying to handle on Scientology advanced levels that addressed BTs and clusters finally got resolved with Idenics processing.

I can recall a client who had a serious condition that he had been trying to resolve since he first got into Scientology. Having made it to OT 5, he had been making frequent trips to Clearwater to address his condition with NOTs auditing. When this condition would kick in on the man, he would go to Flag for auditing. As he had described, "I would clean up all the BTs and clusters connected with my condition and feel good. I'd go home but the condition would come back. I would then go back to Flag and find more BTs and clusters and run these out until I felt fine about the condition. But after I'd return home, the condition would sooner or later come back. I'd then need to go back to Flag for more NOTs auditing".

Frustrated, the man started looking in the independent field for assistance. Finding out about Idenics, he came to us for processing. During the week that he was here he resolved his condition. Additionally, there was no further mention of BTs or clusters by the client.

As far as what occurred in the above-mentioned cases, I can only speculate. I won't give my opinion on whether entities exist or not, but I will speculate on two possible scenarios. Various clients have originated both of these scenarios in different ways. In each case, the scenario that was voiced was true for that individual.

Scenario #1 – What the client had previously believed to be entities were in fact identities. Attached to the major identities were insignificant or "locked" identities that disappeared when the major ones were handled. Since identities are not the individual, they can appear to the person to be separate beings.

On Scientology upper levels, people are educated with the existence, characteristics, and activity of entities. As explained in my previous write-ups concerning additives, the individual can fit their actual case into the explained framework regarding BTs and clusters. Auditing levels such as OT 3 or NOTs, the person thinks they are auditing BTs and clusters when in actuality, they are handling identities and locked identities.

Since, on these Scientology levels the identities are not being properly or fully addressed, they don't always get completely handled. This is why people spend so much time auditing on these levels, keep coming up with more entities to handle, and don't always resolve their unwanted conditions.

Scenario #2 – Two questions have puzzled people who have audited on their NOTs levels. (1) How does a person get into a situation where other beings are attached to them and (2) how is it that they are adversely and unknowingly affected by this attachment? There are explanations available in the NOTs materials, but many people don't feel completely satisfied by these answers. They search for a deeper explanation, and some hope it would be revealed on later OT levels.

In the NOTs training materials, LRH said that it was an interesting fact that the aberration of the BT or cluster is similar to the aberration of the pc. Hubbard had his explanations for this statement, but the important point here is that he noticed a similarity that existed.

The similar aberration in the pc that Hubbard noticed is actually an identity. BTs and clusters having a similar or mutual-type aberration attach themselves to the identity. A pc can blow off BTs and clusters and get relief, but as long as the identity remains, BTs and clusters can later attach to it. This explains what happens in a case like the one mentioned above.

The pc has a condition they want to resolve, they receive NOTs auditing to handle BTs and clusters connected with that condition, feel better, but the condition comes back. The pc then does additional NOTs auditing on the condition and discovers more BTs and clusters attached that need to be handled.

Idenics undercuts NOTs auditing and renders it unnecessary. By handling the identity, anything attached to it leaves. Furthermore, there is nothing still there for additional entities to attach themselves to.

Some clients have expressed a reality that is made up of parts of both of the above scenarios. I leave it up to the reader to find his or her own reality. I cannot provide a definitive answer as to why Idenics processing works as it does in the above mentioned cases. However, what I do know is that it does work.

I can say with confidence that running levels that directly address the subject of entities, BTs, or clusters, is not necessary. What's more, many Idenics clients who had previously been heavily into the running of entities were more difficult to process than people not involved with entities. Clients believing that BTs and clusters were causing all of their problems have had a rougher time in session and have taken longer than clients without those beliefs.

Part 19: Epilogue

After much consideration, I have decided that for the time being I am done with this series.

As I was leaving the CofS in 1983, I witnessed the birth of the independent field. In this series, I have chronicled its beginning history as well as my unique involvement with this activity. I described the distinct shift of viewpoint that occurred in the independent field two years after its conception.

Free from the mental constraints imposed by a progressively decadent organization, the inconsistencies and limitations of Scientology technology started coming into view. The blind acceptance of Scientology tech gave way to a free questioning of this methodology and the exploration of new ideas.

Out of this independent movement, Idenics emerged. Even though it was born from the knowledge and experience of an earlier system, Idenics was a new subject and not just a rehash of its predecessor. The majority of this series has been dedicated to the research, development and description of this new methodology.

Addressing an audience of former Scientologists, I am satisfied that this series contains the best-to-date description of Idenics application and mechanics. Even though this write-up does not and was never intended to provide a complete account of Idenics technology, it does supply a comprehensive synopsis of this system. However, only those people who have taken off their "Scientology blinders" will see the value and impact of the data that I have conveyed.

Those blinded by an unquestioning acceptance of LRH as the only valid source of mental and spiritual development will see Idenics solely, as a watered-down and distorted version of Scientology tech. Therefore, I have refused to engage in discussions or provide additional information about Idenics to these people, as their only purposes in inquiry are to attack what I am saying and to assert the rightness of their position.

As stated above, my initial written description and discussion of Idenics technology is complete. Those who are interested in finding an alternative to the Scientology Bridge of services have a sufficient amount of data to decide if they wish to pursue further information about Idenics. These people's questions and requests for additional information are welcome, and I will personally handle all inquiries.

If, out of these individual inquiries, I discover new topics of discussion that are appropriate and necessary to communicate on a general basis, I will make this data available in future posts. As was the case with my previous series, I have not used all twenty-five of the parts originally anticipated for this write-up. Remaining parts will be used for any new discussion topics as mentioned above.

In describing Idenics to former Scientologists, I have found it necessary to point out the inconsistencies and limitations of Hubbard's ideas. However, I do acknowledge and appreciate the contributions that this man did make in the field of personal growth and improvement. Without his contributions as well as his mistakes, Idenics would not have come into existence. Just as Hubbard built on the discoveries and errors of his predecessors, so have we.