I recently read a blog post from an older gentleman who, I guess, envisions himself as an armchair philosopher. He was trying to draw a link between ethics and admin scales. The problem with his post (and frankly, all his posts) was that, while it sounded erudite, it was actually poorly thought out. Moreover, it contained significant disagreements with LRH tech and alterations.

For example, this person had added three items to the structure of the admin scale, based on the say-so of some Class VIII who had a lot of "experience" and who had read a lot in the OEC volumes. I registered a comment about this regarding the post. I cautioned against casual alterations of LRH tech, and urged suspicion of those who forward them.

He also argued that LRH was wrong-- there are absolutes in this universe. I didn't mention this in my comments, but it is an argument which we could have had.

I could probably have spent 50 pages criticizing this post. For example, the second admin scale starts with the goal of "Knowledge". That's just silly; it would never have gotten past AVC if it was included as part of an eval (that is, it would never pass the severe scrutiny of the Authorization and Verification authority of the Church). How much "knowledge" is there in the 7-11 across the street from me? A near infinite amount, depending on how deeply you want to go. Then there's the knowledge in every auto that parks in front of it all day, similarly infinite. Then the knowledge contained in the lot it sits on, the city it's in, each person in the city. "Knowledge" is so specious a goal as to be completely unworkable for any purpose, unless you're looking for a job as God. And that invalidates the whole rest of the admin scale. The rest of the article is similarly obscure and poorly thought out, with admin scale items which don't properly align in subject or magnitude to what they should be. It all sounds esoteric and wise, but is in fact drivel.

There were those in the comment section who went along with this garbage and thanked the poster, including one commenter who posted a similarly esoteric (and lengthy) reply.

Oddly enough, the original poster thanked me for my comment. I effectively whacked him on the head, and he thanked me. I suspect he misread my intent.

Don't get me wrong here. I have nothing against armchair philosophers. I'm one myself. Though I must say, when I write something, I try not to make it sound as though I'm the smartest guy in the room. I try to write in such a way that the point I'm making should only require a modicum of obvious observation and simple logic. Hopefully, I succeed, as least most of the time. No, my beef is with people who choose to alter LRH tech and/or disagree with LRH without doing all the research he did. LRH went to great pains to carefully observe and research his discoveries, and generally reported them in a way which was accessible to anyone. He wasn't interested in being thought of as the smartest guy in the room. He wasn't interested in having people stand in awe of him. He just wanted to get the word out on what he'd found.

So let me restate what I said in my comment. If we want LRH tech to remain workable over the foreseeable future, we need to be alert to alterations to it, and suspicious of people who alter it. Just because someone sounds like they're smarter or better read than you doesn't mean they are. And even if they are, it doesn't mean they're right. Save your awe for the Grand Canyon or the amount of sea life which inhabits deep sea vents.