Originally posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology in September 2004
LIFE AFTER THE CoS
By Mike Goldstein
Part 14 of 25
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.
End of Part 14 of 25