A Shift in Viewpoint

Beginning of the Free Zone

It’s not as if no one left the CoS prior to 1982-1983. But the mass exodus that occurred after the takeover was unprecedented in the history of Scientology. People who had been the backbone of CoS delivery and administration, many of whom had worked closely with LRH, exited in droves. What’s more, lesser members of the CoS echelon who had been vital components in the organization, such as org and mission staff, also left in large numbers.

The CoS prior to the takeover certainly had its problems, but the majority of the people mentioned above would not have left under previous circumstances. Before the regime change, people put up with all manners of organizational aberration and injustice without seriously considering leaving. They wholeheartedly believed in the total validity of Scientology technology and LRH as their spiritual leader. Even the greatest of problems in the CoS were viewed as glitches that would be corrected in time. But as the New Regime took power, it soon became apparent to a large portion of the devoted membership that their old CoS was gone and would never return.

After the brief revolution that culminated in 1982 was effectively squashed, loyal members who had devoted their lives to the delivery and expansion of Scientology, left a life they had been completely dedicated to and re-entered normal society.

Even though their old haven for practicing Scientology had disappeared, dedicated members of the old CoS were unwilling to give up their life’s work. Their only alternative was to establish delivery facilities outside the CoS. In effect, the revolution which had been dampened by the New Regime was forced out into the field.

For the majority of highly trained people exiting, there was an unwavering belief in a continued standard delivery of the tech. Since the disagreements with the CoS were limited to management and administration, this was the area subject to dramatic change. But the administration of these new centers did not revert back to the pattern existing in the CoS prior to the takeover. Previous administrative practices were reformed, with freer and more ethically administered delivery units established. Most of the heavy ethics and group mentality that had been practiced in the CoS for years was eliminated. The high costs of services that had put the bridge out of most people’s reach were replaced by a more realistic price structure.

When word of these new centers reached the Scientology public, large numbers of these people began leaving the CoS to get their services in the field. Even those who didn’t leave began questioning their continued involvement with the CoS. Thus began what was to become known as the “independent movement” or “free zone”.

The CoS was ill prepared for such a movement. Not only were they losing millions in potential business, but many public Scientologists were demanding the return of advanced payments they had on account. Their usual tactic of threatening the exiting public was ineffective, so the CoS turned their attention to attacking the independent delivery centers and personnel operating these centers.

The first stage of attack was to discredit those people running independent centers in an effort to deter the CoS public from leaving. A massive campaign was launched against these free zone leaders. They were inaccurately blamed for all sorts of past problems in the CoS. Vicious lies were circulated regarding their history and character. But the most powerful deterrent was telling Scientology public that they would not receive a standard or competent delivery of tech in the independent field. Moreover, they were told that they would be thoroughly damaged by this free zone delivery.

The second stage of attack was unleashed upon people who were delivering the technology outside the CoS. Without concern for expense, the full arsenal of black ops of the old Guardian’s Office was brought to bear upon independent delivery people.

The intelligent independent centers were structured so as not to infringe on any copyrights or trademarks of the CoS. So aside from what the CoS continued to preach about these violations to their existing members, such legal attacks on the independent field had no real merit. But this didn’t stop them from engaging in a number of dirty tricks and tactics. A no-holds-bared effort to disrupt their delivery was loosed on free zone practitioners, who now carried the CoS labels of “squirrels” and “suppressives”.

A Shift in Viewpoint

Not being deterred by CoS attacks, the independent field continued to grow and flourish. Without the heavy ethics and high prices that existed in the CoS, independent Scientologists progressed quickly up their bridges. Over the ensuing two years after the independent field’s inception, large numbers of people completed the entire bridge of services, including the upper levels.

Unlike in the CoS, people in the independent field were free to question the technology and the results that they were getting. Although most of these people were pleased to finally make it up the bridge and although they did get wins, they realized that they hadn’t gotten what they had expected or what had been promised to them for so many years. Additionally, many people completing all processing levels still had unwanted conditions that had never been resolved. The difficulties mentioned above were not limited to the independent field. They also occurred in the CoS but were not voiced as openly, and when they were mentioned, they were handled in a manner to keep the person continuing on the bridge.

The CoS always had a great response to any concerns expressed about not achieving a desired result. If not sent to review or ethics, the complaining pc would be told, “That will be handled on up the bridge”. If the person complaining had completed the entire bridge, a gimmick that I refer to as the “constant carrot” would serve to keep the individual’s hopes alive. It went something like this: “There are at least 40 levels above OT 7 that have not yet been released. Only when there are enough full OT 7s will the next level be forthcoming.” I remember first hearing this from a Class 9 auditor named Rocky Stump at an event at ASHO in 1971. But anyone on the inside track of technical development with LRH knew that such a statement was not true.

LRH had nothing substantial developed after he had released the old OT levels. In the late 1970s when he came out with NOTS (New Era Dianetics for OTs), he soon replaced the old OT levels with new ones. Anyone working with Hubbard on tech lines after that period of time knew there were no levels researched beyond that point. But the CoS kept promoting that fully developed and unreleased levels did exist.

By 1985 there were a great number of people in and out of the CoS who had completed everything that Scientology had to offer on the bridge through OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. Independent delivery facilities openly communicated to their public that what they had finished was the extent of existing levels. Having completed all the existing bridge yet still having issues they wanted to handle and abilities they wanted to attain, many in the independent field started looking outside of standard Scientology tech for answers and results. The blind acceptance that LRH was the only source for mental and spiritual development began to fall away, and a shift in viewpoint occurred in the independent field.

Other methods and systems were explored, from other forms of therapy to channeling and eastern teachings. Some continued to use parts of the technology of Scientology while discarding other sections of the tech. New systems were developed that utilized a portion of Scientology tech in conjunction with other methodologies. The true believers who had left the CoS two years prior, were now looking in many different directions to achieve the results they desired.

The highly trained and more technically knowledgeable people in the independent field began researching the next step after OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. David Mayo came out with his version of Advanced Level 8, as the CoS came out with their OT 8. However, David’s Advanced Level 8 was not too effective as a next step. According to people leaving the CoS after completing OT 8, this level also produced mediocre results. But field research into the next step on the bridge continued.

Based on all available data, there were several valid directions of research explored in the effort to come up with the next level. At Survival Services, our research took a different path than the paths other independent researchers were taking. This unique research line was possible because of the knowledge and experience of John Galusha.

John Galusha’s Research Line

The majority of the research and development of Scientology was done in the 1950s. Much of the research data leading up to new developments was never published. People involved with Scientology at that time were aware of what was being developed, but only those directly involved with the research were aware of all the information.

Hubbard’s research auditor and primary technical assistant in the 1950s was John Galusha. In 1952, John had started working with LRH in Wichita. He followed Hubbard to such places as Phoenix, Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, and England. Additionally, John was LRH’s director of training, director of processing, and supervised the congresses where many new technical developments were released.

In the early 1950s LRH came out with creative processing, also known as mock-up processing and positive gains processing. Hubbard felt that this form of auditing made all other forms unnecessary. His rationale for this was as follows: What a being is doing is mocking up. If you get him mocking up on purpose what he’s mocking up compulsively, that should handle any aberration.

All of the primary sources of published data on creative processing came out prior to 1953 or 1954; the Philadelphia Doctorate Tapes, Creation of Human Ability, and Scientology 8-8008. But few people know that there were several more years of research done that was never written up. Being the research auditor during that period, John Galusha had knowledge of this research information.

People being audited with creative processes had fast and amazing gains. But as most individuals continued with this processing, their auditing stalled and they bogged down. The reason for these difficulties puzzled Hubbard, and a lot of research went into resolving this situation. After years of trying to discover the reason for limited success with mock-up processing, LRH just came up with a reason why people were stalling. He concluded that that form of auditing was too high-level for people, and that they needed to approach creative processing on lesser gradients. Therefore, creative processing and all the unpublished research information was put on a back burner, and Hubbard started constructing a bridge of gradient auditing services.

John really didn’t feel that LRH had fully proven his hypothesis regarding the stalled cases, but went along with it, believing that Hubbard knew what he was doing. It’s interesting to note that the idea of a bridge for Scientology was something LRH was excited about long before the difficulties with creative processing arose. The last line in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is, “For God’s sake, get busy and build a better bridge!” The problems with mock-up processing certainly gave him a good reason to build the bridge himself.

Prior to the development of the bridge, auditors just had a big barrel of processes. They reached in and grabbed processes according to the situations they were handling. When his work on building the bridge began, LRH started organizing processes into a gradient scale of auditing. A decade later he came out with OT 3. This level signified to Hubbard the end of the negative gains processing.

He then felt that people completing OT 3 were now able to do creative processing. But, he didn’t re-institute creative processing in the researched form of the late 1950s. Over the previous ten years, Scientology had grown significantly with the marketing of a bridge, and LRH did not want to abandon this format. He therefore re-packaged creative processing in a level format, coming out with the old OT levels, 4 through 7. This level format was not as effective as the straight creative processing, but it allowed the successful marketing method to continue.

As OT 3s started doing OT 4 through 7 they began bogging down, just as people had done in the 1950s with creative processing. Hubbard then believed that the reason for these bogs was that there must be more to be done with the subject of OT 3. He then came out with OT 3X (Expanded), and anyone OT 3 or above was put on OT 7, a level having to do with intention. When completed with OT 7 they went directly onto OT 3X. When they had finished OT 3X they were then put onto OT 4 through OT 7 again. But even with the re-vamped OT levels, people continued to bog down on the positive gains levels above OT 3.

In the late 1970s, LRH came out with NOTs (New Era Dianetics for OTs). Even though NOTs was a negative gains process, Hubbard felt this was the necessary next gradient after OT 3. He therefore took the old OT levels 4 through 7 and put them on a back burner, just like he’d done with creative processing in the 1950s. Anyone OT 3 or above was just put onto their NOTs.

For the next couple of years there was no bridge after OT 3, just NOTs. Then, wanting to maintain the bridge format, LRH re-designed NOTs into the new OT levels 4 through 7.

In 1985, when others were taking diverse research paths to come up with the next step on the bridge after OT 7 or Advanced Level 7, John Galusha and Survival Services took a unique research route based on the information and history described above. The logical action with people completing all their advanced levels was to now see if they could run creative processing. But this delivery would not be in the watered down version of the old OT levels. It would be done in the original, researched form of the late 1950s.

Creative Processing

Most people know very little about creative processing. What is known comes mainly from the Philadelphia Doctorate Tapes and a couple of books. Creative processing has never appeared on the bridge, as the formation of the bridge was a response to the bogs people had developed in undergoing this type of auditing. The closest it ever came to being on the bridge was the watered-down format of the old OT levels, 4 through 7. After OT 3s had been stalling on these levels for a decade, LRH discontinued their usage after his introduction of NOTs auditing in the late 1970s. His reasoning for their removal was the same as it had been for putting creative processing on a back burner in the 1950s and constructing a bridge of gradient auditing services. Hubbard determined that creative processing was too high-level, and that lower gradients of auditing must first be accomplished before one could succeed with a positive-gains form of auditing.

In 1985, many people were completing the new OT or Advanced levels and looking for their next step. Survival Services’ answer was to see if these people could now successfully run creative processing. Fortunately, we had John Galusha, the one person who probably knew more about creative processing than anyone in the world.

Not only had John supervised the first Philadelphia Doctorate Course in Phoenix in 1953, but he was also the research auditor for LRH over the next many years trying to resolve the bogging difficulties with creative processing.

We started promoting creative processing to people in independent field who had completed their bridge through OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. We had a fairly good response from people at this case level. Many came and received creative processing from John. At first these clients did very well and had excellent results. However, as the clients continued with the processing, they would hit a point where they bogged. This was the same phenomenon that had occurred with OT 3s on the old OT levels and with people in the 1950s with creative processing. And this was now occurring with people who had completed the entire existing bridge of services!

One of two things could have been happening: either there were more gradients to be done, according to LRH’s original evaluation, or Hubbard had come up with an incorrect reason for the cases having stalled. The second of these two possibilities turned out to be correct; LRH’s original “why” for people bogging on creative processing proved to be wrong.

LRH’s initial premise regarding creative processing was valid. It stated that what a being is doing is mocking up. If you get him to mock-up on purpose what he’s mocking up compulsively, that should handle any aberration. Done properly, creative processing can produce incredible gains. But past a certain point, the person bogs. John discovered that the bogging had nothing to do with gradients. He found that the effectiveness of the process depended on what identity the person was in when he was being audited! John defined an identity as a way of being in order to accomplish something. When the client was run past the limitations of the identity that he was auditing FROM, no matter how good the process, the person bogged.

From this discovery, missing pieces started to quickly fall into place for John. Questions that had arisen during the 1950s research suddenly cleared up. Case difficulties that had baffled technical people for decades suddenly appeared solvable. With a few more rudimentary discoveries, John’s auditing of the bogged clients began producing astonishing results.

Within just a couple of sessions, the bogs were resolved and clients began experiencing significant gains. Conditions that had not been resolved throughout their entire passage on the bridge were handled in a matter of hours. In short order, a whole new form of processing began to emerge.

The Beginnings of Identity Processing

With this new form of processing, John discovered that much of the creative processing was unnecessary. Additionally, our perspective on the necessity of the bridge began to change with John’s breakthroughs. If Hubbard’s formation of the bridge had been based on an incorrect “why” regarding gradients, then how much of that bridge was now necessary? We would soon have an opportunity to get this question answered.

Our initial clients were people who had completed OT 7 or Advanced Level 7. But as the word of our successes got out, we had individuals who had not completed the existing bridge who wanted to receive our new service. The first of these people were clients who were on their NOTs but not yet finished. In fact, two of these NOTs clients had stalled, stuck in a NOTs case phemonenon called, “over-restimulation”. People had serious upset and overwhelm in this state, and the NOTs handling for such cases was extremely delicate. Before being taken into session, the person had to de-stimulate. Only then was he taken into session and carefully run on certain NOTs processes.

We had not yet coined a name for this processing, and simply called what we were doing, “identity processing”. Even though it was still in a very rudimentary state, we decided to try this new processing on these NOTs-restim cases. Within a couple of hours of identity processing not only was the “over-restimulation” handled, but also there was no more NOTs-type phenomena to be addressed! Similar, fast results were accomplished on other people in the middle of their NOTs.

Next, we started getting clients in the “non-interference zone” coming to us for our service. These were people between Clear and OT3. It was called the “non-interference zone” because the only major actions permitted by Scientology tech on these people were OT 1, 2 or 3. According to the tech, such cases would be messed up if handled otherwise. However, processing these people with our identity processing produced the same fast, high-quality results as we had gotten with those clients who had completed OT 3.

When we started getting the same magnitude of results working with individuals who had only done part of their lower bridge and people never having had any Scientology auditing, we began to realize the scope of John’s breakthroughs and discoveries. In looking for a “next step”, John had actually come up with something that “undercut” the entire Scientology bridge.

During most of the period between 1985 and 1987 when John was delivering creative processing and developing identity processing, the rest of our technical staff was still delivering other services. While our new service was still in its’ development stages, John was not yet able to do the necessary codifying with his research to properly train others in what he was doing. As my attention was primarily on John’s work, most of the other technical staff became disillusioned and left Survival Services. Without the additional delivery I had to let all but one of my administrative personnel go.

When the development of John’s work made the delivery of other forms of processing obsolete, I felt that it was no longer ethical to continue to deliver anything but identity processing. In an effort to maintain the viability of the company, John wrote up what he could on his new techniques and trained the few technical people who had remained. However, this training was ineffective.

To a large extent, John was still improvising in the sessions he was delivering, and coming up with questions as he worked with clients. Even though the other practitioners had years of experience working with people, they were not able to achieve the same kind of end products as John was getting. Obviously, there were things that John did in session that the other practitioners were not doing, but we were not yet able to discover what these actions were.

Unable to get the quality of results John was accomplishing, the other practitioners started reverting back to old techniques with their clients. When these clients started complaining, the practitioners became frustrated and quit. Survival Services staff was now only John, one other administrative person and me.

This was a very difficult time financially for Survival Services. Not only did we have just one person delivering service, but also the identity processing worked so fast and effectively that individuals didn’t need too many hours to achieve their desired results. To be viable, we had to have a volume of clients coming for service. But getting the volume also presented its difficulties. Identity processing was so new that we hadn’t yet had enough clients to produce a large enough word of mouth. Additionally, promoting our service was difficult, as I had not yet developed an effective way to communicate what we were doing to others.

Aside from the financial problems, this research and development period was very exciting. The clients we were getting were doing extremely well. As John’s guinea pig, I was receiving a lot of processing and handling things that I’d never been able to handle on the bridge. John’s development of the subject was progressing well. And, I was learning all I could about identity processing.

Unlike what many other groups in the independent field were doing, our work was not a re-hash of Dianetics and Scientology. Ours was a new subject that had evolved out of our earlier knowledge and experience. But the name “identity processing” was very limiting, as it seemed to only connote some kind of auditing rundown. Feeling that we needed a better name, we racked our brains trying to come up with a proper designation. Finally, a client coming out of session with John made a suggestion that really grabbed our attention. With a minor adjustment in the spelling, we finally had a name for our subject: Idenics.

Part 2

GPMS, Grades and Implants

Most people tend to evaluate a new subject based on their earlier understanding of things they are already familiar with. Idenics is not a rehash of Scientology, or any other subject. It’s also not a changing of terminology in an effort to disguise the delivery of Scientology as some other subject. It is an evolutionary step out of our earlier knowledge and experience. And Idenics is itself a new subject with its own philosophy basics and fundamentals. Idenics does not invalidate the workability of Scientology, but it does clearly undercut it.

In Idenics we describe an identity as a way a person decides to be in order to deal with or handle something. An identity is composed of a viewpoint from which one perceives. It also is composed of beliefs, ideas, considerations, postulates—a whole package of how to be within certain given circumstances. And unwanted conditions are simply the property of some unwanted identies. Now the identities we end up addressing in Idenics are ones that the person gets stuck in, or assumes unknowingly. There’s nothing wrong with having identities, its one’s connection with the universe, its how one plays the game. But, its the one’s one gets stuck in that end up giving them trouble. And these are the types of identities that we end up addressing within Idenics.

Now as far as the mechanics of how this all works, well, people are going through life and they’re trying to attain their goals. That’s what they are doing, whether short term or long term. Whether it’s how to be successful or “I’ve got to get to an appointment by 5 o’clock,” they’re goals, and the person is doing this, and their intention is to get to and achieve those particular things. Now in life one is going to encounter certain obstacles or barriers to these goals, certain counter-intentions to their intention to achieve them, which in Scientology is what we call problems. But not all problems leave a person abberated because of them.

But there are those types of situations or obstacles that are not quite like this, where a person is left later a little bit abberated, or maybe a lot abberated. And in Idenics we call these types of barriers “confusions.” Now a “confusion,” as we define it, is a “disruption of intention or expectation.” Its a little bit more than an interruption, like a traffic jam, it would be a disruption. Now what makes it a disruption, what makes it a confusion, is different from person to person. What is a confusion for one may not be a confusion for another. The person was being something, and they encountered this particular obstacle.

Now what they were being, as all identities, are limited. All identities have limitations. The being doesn’t, but identities do. And in this particular situation, what he was being was limited to the point where he could not, from that identity, handle what he was encountering. Therefore it was a disruption of that intention, and at this point a person changes. A person goes through a point where they pass certain rules and regulations of how to be, and come out the other end of this thing different, into another identity, and this is pretty much the cycle. And what happens is this whole package, what the person was being before, the confusion, the change, and what he was afterwards, this whole thing is all together in kind of a ball of worms. And what you’re getting with the individual when he’s coming in, is some particular unwanted condition, some particular tip of an iceberg. And you follow that down, and you take this thing apart, and you get quite phenomenal results.

In Idenics we found out that not all identities that people have are in pairs. They do come in pairs, but they’re not necessarily opposing. If you were determined on getting an opposing identity and there wasn’t one there, it would be like evaluating for the person that it should be there. For instance, you could have two identities where one feeds problems to another one, and the other one eats it up. That’s not really opposition, that’s more like symbiosis or something. These things could be put together. How they’re put together for the person you don’ know. You’ve got to ask. It is how it is. But I can tell you one thing: the pair is going to be what the person was before the confusion, and what the person was after the confusion. That’s the pair. If its opposing, fine, if its not, then its not.

Idenics is not a way of running GPMs. The difficulty with dealing with dealing with GPMs is the tech on it lends itself to quite a bit of evaluation: first of all, just the point as far as opposing and not opposing. In the GPM it is laid out this way, that you have this big Goals-Problem-Mass and it has various items or identities with opposing ones that crisscross, and each one has a goal and the whole thing is tied together by… you have it all laid out. It was another way of laying out “this is the way it is for people.” And if you lay things out this way for people, and get them really mocking it up, well then they can run it. But you can also mess them up quite a bit because they may be running something that isn’t…its close enough to the mark but it really isn’t what’s going on. Yes, people do have identities that they go into. And those identities do have some major purpose or goal involved with them, that’s true. But how they fit together, and what they’re connected to, and so on and so forth, it’s not the way it is laid out necessarily in some GPM.

The “case” a person has is really just mock-ups out of control or on automatic. The ideal scene in processing would be for the client to “let go” of these compulsive mock-ups, take them off of automatic and have a choice with regards to these things.

Unfortunately, in most therapies, clients end up adding more mock-ups.

Instead of just getting the client to look at and inspect what is already there, most systems, perhaps unwittingly, assist the client to take on more baggage through judgement, evaluation, suggestion, opinion and advice. When you “educate” a client about his/her case and how it’s put together clients tend to mock up what they are being educated into and fit what they already have into that mocked up structure. The client may have things of his/her own that are similar to what he/she is being educated about and therefore that system may “indicate”. At best the client may be able to let some things go, but in most cases, they just take on an explanation that only serves to give that client some temporary relief. But these explanations then just become added mockups to what they already have.

As far as other processes, other Bridge processes such as the Grades and so on, we do not use these or run these in Idenics. Not because we feel there is no validity in them, but because we have not found them necessary. I am familiar with some people that were, for instance, re-running Grades, on people that had completed everything on the Bridge, you know, maybe done their upper levels and now were doing Grades again, and the person was getting wins. Well one can understand how this happens if you are dealing with the subject of somebody who is moving in and out of identities.

Maybe when the person did their Grades the first time they handled it from a particular, say this lifetime identity that they were in, maybe did 100 hours of Grades and got some good wins, and really fixed up that identity pretty good. But maybe later on you could run them on the same processes and they’re in a different identity, and you could therefore run Grades on identities infinitely, improving identities and making them better. And the person’s life would get better, but it seems to be a lot easier just to handle the identities involved, rather than running 100 hours on some identity and improving it in that way.

So it’s not a question of, say, it didn’t work—it did work, the person did have some gains and so on, it’s just that what we are doing undercuts that, makes it easier, simpler, faster for the person, and gives them greater gains in the long run. And we’ve just not found it necessary to do these types of things, or any other types of processes in order to open up the person, or do it as a sort of a setup, it just has not been necessary.

As far as the implants, well, really, we’re not dealing with this type of thing in Idenics. Going back to the whole philosophy and application of the subject of Idenics, things are how they were for a person. A thing was a confusion for a person if it was a confusion for the person. If something is there, if there is an implant there that someone needs to run, then they will run it, then they will come up with it. This idea that one person has discovered this road that everybody else must follow because they’re so messed up, or they’re too abberated, I don’t buy that. And yes, you can also get people to mock up implants and run them, just like you could GPMs or any other type of set things if someone really believes that you know and they don’t, if they go into that identity. But it seems like the best thing to do is take what the person gives you. Take what the person is giving you, if there is something there to be run then it is there to be run. And in fact, as far as implant go, you can only implant an identity anyway.


Many people have asked me why I no longer use Dianetics technology, especially since I was once such a strong proponent of that method. They wonder if I now believe that Dianetics is unworkable.

For many years, Dianetics was state of the art in the field of therapy. However, with the advent of Idenics, Dianetics became obsolete. However, I would never say that Dianetics doesn’t work.

If one were trying to cut down a tree and only had a pocketknife, the knife would be workable in cutting down the tree. One may skim the skin off their knuckles and it might take a long time to accomplish the task, but a pocketknife would be workable in their endeavor. But if they had a power saw, why would a person continue to use the less effective tool? What it would take to accomplish in hundreds of hours using Dianetics would only require a few hours with Idenics.

There are numerous examples of less efficient ideas and mechanics used in Dianetics when compared to those employed in Idenics. In this write-up, I will describe the difference in a couple of the major concepts.

One of the main tenets of Dianetics is that the source of aberration is the engram, a picture recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. In other words, the basic kind of incident at the bottom of any unwanted condition would contain physical pain and unconsciousness.

John Galusha, a man who probably understood and could apply the mechanics of Dianetics as well or better than anyone, found that the above statement is not true. He discovered that there could be an incident containing physical pain and unconsciousness where an unwanted condition began, but that this was not inevitably the case.

There is an incident where any unwanted condition started, but it isn’t necessarily as described in an engram. In Idenics, we refer to this initial incident as a “confusion”, and define a confusion as a disruption of one’s intention or expectation. In life, a person is almost always operating from some identity. In an occasion when what the person is being is not capable of handling the situation, this incident would constitute a confusion. One of the most important understandings of this primary event is that what would be a confusion for one person is not necessarily a confusion for another person. In other words, what constitutes a confusion is an individual matter. This understanding exposes a great limitation in the mechanics of Dianetics.

Not all that dissimilar from the example given in Part 16 of this series of Hubbard’s insistence that there were incidents common in all people, LRH incorrectly assumed that there was a common TYPE of incident at the bottom of all people’s unwanted conditions. This incorrect assumption has caused great difficulty for many people. The application of the supposition regarding engrams has produced enormous hardship for numerous pcs.

A case history described in Part 12 of this series, demonstrates the extent of difficulty to which this assumption about engrams can cause for a person. In this example, a client came to us wanting to resolve a major condition that had persisted for most of his life. Even though he had addressed this condition many times throughout his 25-year trek up the entire bridge of Scientology, the condition remained. Every time the condition was addressed, starting with his first Dianetics session, the pc would come up with an incident where he was on a playground and a little girl had looked at him. Since the event contained no physical pain, unconsciousness or even loss, auditors had adjudicated that at the best, this incident was only a “lock”. Therefore, according to the mechanics of Dianetics, the auditor would abandon the incident, having the pc look earlier for the elusive engram.

In the first Idenics session addressing his unwanted condition, the client discovered that the incident that his attention had always first gone to was where that condition had begun. Even though it had previously been treated only as a minor event on a hypothesized chain of more important events, that incident WAS the confusion for that individual. Addressing that confusion properly with Idenics, the unwanted condition was quickly resolved.

Here’s another dramatic case history of someone bogged down by the application of Dianetic theory. Only the client’s name has been changed.

Bill had inherited a large and successful business that made outdoor, recreational equipment and accessories. Not having much interest in the business end of the company, Bill’s passion and activity was focused on the testing and use of the company’s products. His time was spent with activities such as skydiving, going on dangerous canoe and rafting trips, and racing motorcycles. During this career, he’d had more incidents of physical pain and unconsciousness than the average person would have in twenty lifetimes.

Exposed to Scientology, Bill went into a local mission for auditing. During his initial interview, the case supervisor discovered Bill’s “Evil Kenevil-type” history. Bill’s auditing program focused on handling his numerous engrams. However, Bill’s auditing produced no results. Unable to get anywhere with him, Bill was sent to the local org for handling, where his lack of auditing results continued. From there he was sent to ASHO, and eventually to Flag for case handling. His “no-case-gain” response to engram running and all manners of repair and review auditing continued in all of these organizations. Because he trusted the auditors and case supervisors, didn’t complain, and had plenty of money, the CofS continued auditing Bill for several years.

Finally, after over a thousand hours of auditing without any substantial results, Bill left the CofS. Coming to Survival Services, Bill relayed to me his unsatisfactory experiences with Scientology. During our meeting, the discussion turned to a less serious subject. We found that we both shared a common interest in motorcycles. While exchanging harrowing motorcycle experiences, Bill told me about a time when he was riding on the highway with his daughter on the back of his bike and had gotten into an accident. His daughter was miraculously unhurt, but he had almost been decapitated and had sustained serious physical damage.

A flight-for-life helicopter flew him to the nearest hospital while he went in and out of consciousness, barely surviving the incident. He underwent heavy, re-constructive surgeries and was in the hospital for many months. But during the entire ordeal, his attention was mainly on a big, upcoming motorcycle race, concerned that he might not get out of the hospital in time to participate in this important event. His story ended with him being released from the hospital the day before the race, qualifying for the race and winning it!

Listening to Bill recount this experience, it was obvious that the pain and unconsciousness that he had undergone had little importance to and created no adverse affects for him.

Later, Bill decided to try Idenics processing. It was quickly discovered that his incidents of physical pain and unconsciousness were not confusions for Bill. What he wanted to work on were difficulties he’d always had with relationships. These difficulties were what he had gone into Scientology to handle, but were never addressed. Within a few hours of Idenics processing, he was able to resolve these difficulties and was extremely satisfied with the results.

Another important part of the mechanics of Dianetics is the running of earlier similar incidents. Even though this technique is workable and does get charge off in most cases, we have discarded its use in Idenics. By asking for earlier similar incidents, the client tends to jump from one identity to another, leaving identities not fully handled, and thereby leaving unwanted conditions unresolved. Using Idenics’ mechanics produces much more stable results in a much shorter period of time.

In this write-up, I have only discussed two obsolete aspects of the mechanics used in Dianetics. But with this discussion, I believe that I’ve answered the question of why, even though it may have its workability, I no longer use the technology of Dianetics.


Many people have, in different ways, asked me about Idenics’ position on the subject of entities, as are described in the book A History of Man. Answering these sorts of questions will take a bit of explanation, as within the Idenics technology there is not a specific position that we take regarding entities. I would give the same answer if I were asked about Idenics’ position on past lives.

Entities and past lives are not subjects of Idenics’ mechanics. There are no processes or questions where a practitioner directs a client’s attention to either of these topics. However, this does not preclude a client from bringing up this subject matter. In other words, a client may have a position on entities or past lives, but the practitioner doesn’t. Any issues the client wishes to address are taken up by the practitioner, but only with the use of Idenics techniques.

Over the years, we have had a lot people who came to us for Idenics processing who had previously been involved with Scientology. Prior to their involvement with Idenics, many of these clients had been on OT 3, NOTS (New Era Dianetics for OTs), or the equivalent of these levels in the independent field. These levels are exclusively concerned with the addressing of entities. Even though a client may have brought up the subject of entities in session, all of these clients main attention was on specific issues that they wanted to handle.

Most of these clients’ issues were resolved quickly with the application of Idenics technology. Any difficulties with entities connected to these issues were resolved by just handling the issues.

Some clients with a Scientology history of auditing enteties have come to us with a lot of their attention on entities. However, after processing these people with Idenics, any upsets difficulties or confusions regarding entities were cleared up for these clients. Most importantly, issues that clients had unsuccessfully been trying to handle on Scientology advanced levels that addressed entities finally got resolved with Idenics processing.

I can recall a client who had a serious condition that he had been trying to resolve since he first got into Scientology. Having made it to OT 5, he had been making frequent trips to Clearwater to address his condition with NOTs auditing. When this condition would kick in on the man, he would go to Flag for auditing. As he had described, “I would clean up all the entities connected with my condition and feel good. I’d go home but the condition would come back. I would then go back to Flag and find more entities and run these out until I felt fine about the condition. But after I’d return home, the condition would sooner or later come back. I’d then need to go back to Flag for more NOTs auditing”.

Frustrated, the man started looking in the independent field for assistance. Finding out about Idenics, he came to us for processing. During the week that he was here he resolved his condition. Additionally, there was no further mention of entities by the client.

As far as what occurred in the above-mentioned cases, I can only speculate. I won’t give my opinion on whether entities exist or not, but I will speculate on two possible scenarios. Various clients have originated both of these scenarios in different ways. In each case, the scenario that was voiced was true for that individual.

Scenario #1 – What the client had previously believed to be entities were in fact identities. Attached to the major identities were insignificant or “locked” identities that disappeared when the major ones were handled. Since identities are not the individual, they can appear to the person to be separate beings.

On Scientology upper levels, people are educated with the existence, characteristics, and activity of entities. As explained in my previous write-ups concerning additives, the individual can fit their actual case into the explained framework regarding enteties. Auditing levels such as OT 3 or NOTs, the person thinks they are auditingenteties when in actuality, they are handling identities and locked identities.

Since, on these Scientology levels the identities are not being properly or fully addressed, they don’t always get completely handled. This is why people spend so much time auditing on these levels, keep coming up with more entities to handle, and don’t always resolve their unwanted conditions.

Scenario #2 – Two questions have puzzled people who have audited on their NOTs levels. (1) How does a person get into a situation where other beings are attached to them and (2) how is it that they are adversely and unknowingly affected by this attachment? There are explanations available in the NOTs materials, but many people don’t feel completely satisfied by these answers. They search for a deeper explanation, and some hope it would be revealed on later OT levels.

In the NOTs training materials, LRH said that it was an interesting fact that the aberration of the entity is similar to the aberration of the pc. Hubbard had his explanations for this statement, but the important point here is that he noticed a similarity that existed.

The similar aberration in the pc that Hubbard noticed is actually an identity, entities  having a similar or mutual-type aberration attach themselves to the identity. A pc can blow off entities and clusters and get relief, but as long as the identity remains, entities can later attach to it. This explains what happens in a case like the one mentioned above.

The pc has a condition they want to resolve, they receive NOTs auditing to handle entities connected with that condition, feel better, but the condition comes back. The pc then does additional NOTs auditing on the condition and discovers more entities attached that need to be handled.

Idenics undercuts NOTs auditing and renders it unnecessary. By handling the identity, anything attached to it leaves. Furthermore, there is nothing still there for additional entities to attach themselves to.

Some clients have expressed a reality that is made up of parts of both of the above scenarios. I leave it up to the reader to find his or her own reality. I cannot provide a definitive answer as to why Idenics processing works as it does in the above mentioned cases. However, what I do know is that it does work.

I can say with confidence that running levels that directly address the subject of entities, is not necessary. What’s more, many Idenics clients who had previously been heavily into the running of entities were more difficult to process than people not involved with entities. Clients believing that entities were causing all of their problems have had a rougher time in session and have taken longer than clients without those beliefs.

By Mike Goldstein


To find out more about Idenics go to:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s