I believe I've just been called out for failing to regularly cite source on my blog. This was on a different blog, where I made the point that a poorly performing field auditor was not the same as a squirrel, and left the reader to work out the difference.

Someone, who has from time to time been all but banned in the past on that forum, rushed to the rescue with definitions from the Tech Dictionary on the subject. For what it's worth, their definitions proved my point. But then he sniped at someone unnamed for regularly avoiding such scholarship on their blog. I didn't engage this person, because there's usually no point with him. And he could well be talking about someone else. But I'll put up my hand now and volunteer to be his target.

The Tech Dictionary Sucks

I'm sorry, but it does. I get why it was written the way it was, but it's hard to read, and quoting the full context of lectures just to illustrate the meaning of a term is, in my book, silly. Instead, read the references, summarize the meaning as one would with a regular dictionary, cite your sources, just like you'd cite the etymology of a word in a regular dictionary. If someone wants to go look up the original source material, they can.

Not to discount the hard work which was done by those who compiled the dictionary. That was a monumental chunk of labor, and was sorely needed by the Scientology community long before it actually appeared. And perhaps LRH even intended for it to be done that way. But I wouldn't have done it that way, and I think it kills the readability of the book.

I admit, I'm lazy

I'm lazy. And I don't have all the source material for everything I say to hand. When I'm making a point, I don't want to kill my momentum by stopping and spending an hour or two looking up references, just so I can cover my butt when it comes to "verbal data". If I turn out to be wrong (and I'm normally not), then I'll be more than happy to own up to it and correct whatever I've written. I don't have to be right.

Real life example

Let's say I start out an article with a description and explanation of the ARC triangle. We all should know this triangle. We all should know what it's composed of and how its components work together. Affinity, reality, communication. Raise or lower one, and you get a corresponding movement from the others. A pretty elementary and fundamental part of much Scientology theory.

Now, should I be tasked with then digging around to find the source for making these statements, or can we agree that what I've described is in fact conforming with the truth? I mean, come on! Insisting on a citation for something as elementary as this strikes me as just goofy. Bear in mind, I'm not trying to be Source and claiming I came up with the idea. I'm happy to cite Ron, where I need to. And if I don't cite Ron specifically, you should assume he originated the idea anyway. If you're unsure, just ask me and I'll be happy to give him all the credit.

But let's face it, if I shouldn't need to cite sources on something like this, where do we then draw the line and say, yes, sources are needed?

The laws of listing and nulling

I'm not an auditor, and I don't know what the laws of listing and nulling are. I'd have to look them up and do research on them if I were to write something about them. And you can rest assured that if I were doing an article like this, I'd give you at least some references on where you could find them.

So what's the difference between the ARC triangle and the laws of listing and nulling? For one thing, the ARC triangle is part of the theoretical underpinnings of Scientology, and quite a vital part. You should already know all about it. The laws, not so much. And the laws are part of the technical practice of Scientology. You can know nothing about the ARC triangle, but if you sit down to null a list on someone, you'd better know the laws about it cold. It's important that you not take my word for what they are. You should get the info straight from the Old Man. I might reserve the right to tell you what they are, rather than quote the original work. But I would still feel obliged to cite the source work on them so you can check what I said and make sure I'm right. I don't claim to be perfect.

Don't be silly

I think Scientologists have gone too far with this "verbal data" thing. They appear to be absolutely paranoid about having a reference for everything and being able to rattle it off. With items of a technical nature, this may perhaps be understandable. You get in the depths of Qual and start having a discussion about how to handle rudiments on a PC who's just red tagged, you'd better get it right. And you'd better have your references around to defend your position. It's for sure the Qual Sec and Senior C/S will.

But when we're talking about the Tone Scale and where a person sits on it, now we're talking about something fundamentally different. Now we're talking about philosophy, not technique. Not that this philosophy business doesn't have its origins in solid research. But it's not like you have equations about it that have to be right or the bridge will not support the weight of those traversing it. The technical aspects of Scientology must be correct, or the PC doesn't get well. With the Tone Scale, it's a much different matter.

My method

My approach, when I discuss something, is generally to proceed from something we can agree on. Then I try to reason toward whatever conclusion I'm trying to make. In the end, I want you to see that the point I'm making is rather obvious if you just use your noggin. You shouldn't need LRH to draw the conclusion for you. It otherwise makes sense if you just follow the reasoning out. And that's usually the point I'm trying to make. Over the years, I've found that if you can go from fundamental law and derive the answer to a question or problem, you'll remember the course of thought you took and not forget the conclusion you drew.

When I was in math class (and physics, for that matter) I spent hours deriving things like the quadratic equation, so that if I ran into a need for it on a test or something, I'd know what it was, not because I memorized it (which I probably also did), but because I spent time deriving it for myself. And when needed, I could do it again. The quadratic equation had passed from something I just sort of read about to something I could mentally work with as a tool. So when it came time to take a test I was far more prepared than someone who had just memorized the thing. The wisdom belonged to me because I'd worked it out.

And so it is with most of Scientology. Scientology isn't full of stuff that doesn't make sense, stuff that takes all sorts of left turns logically. And it's not full of a lot of stuff where you need LRH to summarize everything for you. A lot of this stuff you can work out for yourself, and your conclusion will match LRH's, because somewhere back in the mists of the past, he went through the same reasoning process. He wasn't a god or something. He reasoned this stuff all out, and you can too. And once you do, it won't be some chunk of wisdom Ron gave to you. It will be a mental tool you can work with, because you derived it yourself.

Besides, it's good mental exercise to work these things out. And Lord knows, with all the blatant illogic circulating these days, having some wisdom in your life that you worked out for yourself (which also happens to conform to what LRH said) is a grand thing.

Ron wasn't the only Source

When it comes to Scientology, Ron is Source. Period. There is no other. Not me, not Sigmund Freud, not Aristotle. LRH may have grabbed concepts from older bodies of wisdom. We don't have to know from where or when. He brought it all together in one place for us. Now we don't have to wade through the huge mass of Buddhist scriptures to find the most fundamental pieces of wisdom. LRH, after studying that material himself, will have deemed whatever pieces of it worthwhile to include in Scientology. Thanks, Ron. You just saved us a lot of time and trouble. I don't have to read the Vedas unless I just want to.

But let's not forget that you are capable of coming up with your own wisdom. Ron's not the only source for philosophical wisdom. I'm afraid there are too many Scientologists who take the position that if LRH didn't specifically say something, it can't be true. That's just silly. Of course it can. You're perfectly capable of reasoning a lot of things out yourself. And chances are, if you've reasoned them out properly, they'll correspond to something LRH said. But because you reasoned them out, they belong to you. LRH made the point that the wisdom of philosophy didn't belong to some educated elite. It belongs to the people. Just because LRH said something, doesn't make that statement or that fact or that piece of wisdom belong to him. Wisdom is for everyone. LRH may have told you about the ARC triangle. But once you've worked with it and seen how it operates, that triangle is your wisdom. Ron may have been the guy to first mention it to you, but that doesn't make it belong to him. Once he's explained it to you, it's now your wisdom, too.

And by the way, Ron didn't work with power plants or trash collection or painting techniques. So there's plenty of room for someone like you to move in and formulate some wisdom about those things. Remember the Joy of Creating. Splurge on it!