What about doubt?

It has been covered elsewhere pretty well, but I do not see the "conditions" getting much play here. Like most, I've done those "lowers" to a huge overrun if nothing else. Early on I sorta knew in the recesses of my mind that if I REALLY did "doubt, the formula" HONESTLY, that I'd have to walk my SA (Sorry Ass, for those who don't know) out the nearest door and go home and "eat Crow"! It's pretty easy to gloss that one over and then pretend like you're really suffering on "liability" - which is, actually, pretty easy. (did I get that right? signatures and grovelling? it has been a while...)

But, dammit to hell! I still wanted to see for myself! So there.

I think it would be fun to have an ongoing "I DOUBT IT" game going constantly. Perhaps limiting entrys to one or two per posting and penalising duplications - results to be alphabetized and tabulated elsewhere.

For example, looking at the wall of videos extolling the virtues and magnificence of the one himself - It is just TOO much! I DOUBT IT!

On and on...

IMHO, anyone "in" who has done a few ethics cycles has to have some attention units still stuck on "doubt" because it is not resolveable, actually.

Would this be useful and do-able? Might be fun.

As an afterthought - can anyone still say the alphabet backwards? Was that a COS (crock of shit, not the other!) or what?! KTL, was it not?

How about a big poster (if not already done)

Crock
O
Scat
!!!!!

Then they'll have an MU and have to look up scat. Tough!

[James McGuigan]

Just about to post a reply, when I came across an interesting link to "Hubbard's Affirmations" in

From the reports I have read online, getting a suppressive person declare is a common side effect of picking the wrong side as part of a "doubt" condition.

As its insightful and potentially important document in its own right, I've posted it as a separate thread:
http://exscientologykids.com/eskforums/ ... hp?p=10044

Yes, Creed's doubt formula is excellent as well as his "silentology" site where he tells his story and more.

As to a "declare" should choose the "wrong" side you are, I'm sure, correct.

That said, it is my belief that we all, in the back of our minds, run something similar to the "doubt formula" as a natural thing. I seem to recall that Ernest Hemmingway said he had a really finely honed "CRAP DETECTOR" and that was the key thing that made his writings work.

As I recall, ethics is supposed to be for YOU, the individual - and in my universe it is not necessary to write it all down and get it approved by some child in hco for me to implement and act.

I suspect not for you either. Am I right?

Lots of travellers out there right now. This is getting interesting!

Cultivate and exercise your CRAP DETECTORS. START!

[James McGuigan]

[astra]

I can't tell you how many times when I was the Dir I&R (Director of Inspections and Reports) that I had to handle someone who wanted to leave and I got stuck with the Doubt formula problem. The person wanting to route out would bring me their formula showing how it would be the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics for them to leave. I would secretly agree with them, but I would always be told that their doubt formula was wrong and get them to clear their misunderstood words on the formula and re-do it. I would get in trouble if I accepted a doubt formula that did not come up with the right answer. So, at least in the sea org, scientology ethics is certainly not a personal matter, it is a way of ramming the sea orgs' opinion down sea org members' throats.

[James McGuigan]

Astra, what you have just said is actually very interesting, and actually quite damning of the whole nature of the system.

Was the pressure for this coming from any one level of the church specifically, or was it simply a case that each level was responsible for making sure the level below them stayed "on purpose"? What sort of trouble could you get into if the person didn't clear their "MUs" on doubt sufficiently?

[astra]