Possibly Helpful Advice


Finding your way after leaving the cult of Scientology

Evaluating a Stable Datum – part 3 of a series

Now there are some who might ask, “Why would you want to evaluate a stable datum?”

Well, let’s say that your use of a certain stable datum was not reducing confusions and was causing your statistics to crash.

Another reason to evaluate a stable datum is that it is decreasing your ability to communicate with others and is therefore decreasing your income.

You choose a stable datum to hold off the confusions in life and to help you align things so they can be understood and managed.

A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned. (POW, pp. 23-24) — L. Ron Hubbard

Some people would like to classify stable datums as ABERRATED or TRUE datums with some stamp of authenticity from a supposedly reliable source. Unfortunately, stable datums are like most things in life. They are only as good as they promote survival of an individual or group.

You need to evaluate a stable datum for yourself to determine whether it promotes your survival. Having someone else tell you that some stable datum is the answer to everything makes you other-determined. Having someone force a stable datum on you and not letting you question how it came to be and how well it is working puts you at effect and limits your survival.

Thus, if you are prevented from evaluating how well a stable datum aids your survival, you are getting your first clue that this is indeed an aberrated stable datum.

Let’s take some real world examples of analytical stable datums:

  • Believe nothing until you have experienced it and found it to be true.
  • Compare what you have learned with the known universe.
  • Trust but verify.

You can evaluate them against your own experience and can exercise your power of choice regarding your use of these stable datums. If they do not aid your survival, you can inspect them and find out what has to be changed.

Lets look at some stable datums that resist inspection and evaluation even though there are ample amounts of contrary data available for scrutiny:

  • Carbon Dioxide is a poison and we need to reduce the percentage in the atmosphere.
  • L Ron Hubbard is the only source of Scientology technology.
  • David Miscavige is Scientology and the only source of Command Intention
  • Altering Scientology (called squirrelling by L Ron Hubbard) only comes about from noncomprehension.
  • Civilization faces a catastrophe because of Man-Made Global Warming.

People are exercising their power of choice regarding these and many other stable datums and you are welcome to do so also. You need to evaluate every stable datum for yourself to determine whether it promotes your survival.

If you are being prevented from evaluating a datum, that should give you a clue as to how aberrated it is. A true datum can be tested and will be seen to be correct if all the facts are available.

Number of views:13037

5 Comments

Scott  on September 23rd, 2011

It is important to distinguish between “altering Scientology” and using scientological materials in ways that LRH did not anticipate or explicitly endorse.

The, wise and understandable prohibition against “altering” what LRH wrote, spoke, lectured … issued from his own Authority, Point of View and Altitude is unquestionnable. No one but an SP, true blue and intending to sink us all for good, would “alter” what LRH wrote, spoke, said, lectured. And that is not because LRH was invariably right, or invariably issued the best “Route Out”. That is because it is important to know, critical to know, exactly, precisely, and without even the slightest alteration what LRH ‘said’ (in all forms) in order to be able to make a judgment about whether to follow him, or modify what he “said”.

I am not suggesting that people willy-nilly think “they know best” and go about changing LRH’s processes just because their “experience” seems to show that ‘LRH was wrong’. This is a recipe for disaster, absent great training, experience and dedication.

But, THE evil LRH was most concerned with was in not having a “Gold Standard Text” one could use to guage one’s OWN judgments against.

Therefore, I agree. All must use their own judgments, knowledge and experience in their use and adoption of LRH’s policies, tech and procedures. There is NO substitute for self-evaluation and judgment. But, even so, “altering” LRH’s statements is a vile, despicable and nearly unforgiveable suppression — which is why David Miscavige is deserving of ‘condemnation’ of the highest order.

OldAuditor  on September 23rd, 2011

Interesting comment! I think I see where you are coming from

I refer to Ron’s words almost every day and consider it essential that they stand AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN because they describe the evolution of the technology and the underlying purpose for which it was developed.

On the other hand, there are many aspects of the technology that were covered in some detail in the early days and were dropped in favor of different approaches to setting man free. Some of these have been useful in helping pcs and preOTs who could not get help from the Church of Scientology because of peculiarities of their state of case. These are pcs and preOTs who spent many years at Flag and never handled what they came into Scientology to handle. By going back to first principles and applying “Service” (HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 MARCH 1968) we were able to handle every problem that was presented to us.

Here is the essence of that policy letter:
The watchword is SERVICE. … I don’t care how many rules you break if they’re broken to give unselfish service to one another and the public. We live for service not for rules. … don’t worship our rituals.
Be as orderly as you can. Follow our rules as best you can. But a rule can be wrong and service and our mission can never be wrong. Use the rules until they prevent you from doing your job. But if these stop you, then to hell with the rules! Get the show on the road!”

Unfortunately, this policy letter is no longer in use in the corporate Church of Scientology. Any change to established procedure is expressly forbidden by KSW #1 regardless of the nobility of purpose involved.

I did not break out using scientological materials in ways Ron did not anticipate from the general concept of altering Scientology. I used the term “altering scientology” to mean adding technology, recovering lost or discarded technology and any change made to deliver service to those who could not get service from the Corporate Church of Scientology.

In my experience these did not require the alteration of Ron’s words. It did require thinking with the materials and applying them in ways that would produce the desired result.

Scott  on September 23rd, 2011

Nothing you say ‘offends’ me, or is contrary, in the slightest, to what I meant.

I am commenting from the point of view of the Archive Keeper. There is nothing worse, from that point of view, than muddying the Archive.

LRH’s policies had two, separate, and distinct, lines of thrust. One was to preserve his emissions. That is the line which I am suggesting be held inviolate, come what may.

Do what you wish with the Tech, once you confirm that the Archive has been kept true and clean. It’s your future.

But, keep the Archive true.

That’s all I suggest.

OldAuditor  on September 23rd, 2011

We are in complete agreement. Thanks for your comments.

plainoldthetan  on September 24th, 2011

I must add that the False Data Stripping steps of the Happiness Rundown allow one to examine stable data. And blow it.

Leave a Comment