************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which is available to all those who subscribe to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
************************************************************************

Re: _A Piece of Blue Sky_
by Phil Spickler
16 Aug 00

        Good evening, and thanks to my amigo (friend) Kenneth of Clan Urquhart
for writing a review of the book entitled _A Piece of Blue Sky_ by
ex-(former) Scientologist Jon Atack.

        I think a book like _A Piece of Blue Sky_ should be considered a
valuable contribution to the history of L. Ron Hubbard and his creations,
Dianetics and Scientology and his Church.  I hope Ken is not shocked to hear
me say this, so let me explain further, and I think when I'm finished he will
once again have a smile upon his handsome face.

         Recently, a friend of mine made a copy of this book available to me,
and depending on what viewpoint I selected to look through as I read the
book, I was alternately pleased, disgusted, outraged, or couldn't stop
laughing.  Well, when I finally got all that smoothed out, someone had a
cognition about the book and its content.   It is, in my best opinion, a
marvelous description of the case of L. Ron Hubbard.

       By case I mean the bank, the reactive mind, all the things that make a
person behave and act sub-optimally on one or more of the dynamics.  And I
think it's a marvelous description, therefore, of Ron's case, and should be
appreciated for that.  Some of the critics of the book might claim that it
leaves out all the wonderful and super-good things that Ron did or created,
and that's absolutely true.  It is, first, last, and always, simply a
description of his case and how it manifested in his various dynamics.

          If one wanted to write a book about the good things that Ron did and
created, you could produce just as thick a volume, or perhaps even thicker,
than _A Piece of Blue Sky_, and you would realize, as difficult as it might
be, that we must never (or hardly ever) confuse the guy with his case.
That's been the problem of a lot of -ologies and _isms in the past, that they
could not separate the notion of case from the guy hisself.

        This is to make no excuses, 'cause there aren't any, for the harm, the
evil, and the damage that a person may cause through their case.  That goes
for all of us, and is magnified greatly in connection with Ron because so
much of his case ended up becoming the operating principles of the Church of
Scientology.  It's also apparent to those that knew Ron that once he left the
accessible world of land and became the Commodore, he ceased to get real
auditing with real case gain and real ethics handling as a staff member.  His
own responsibility or fault, you could say, since he kept putting himself
into titles and positions that forbade that possibility.

        And so, and sadly, his legacy is his case, and then mixed inside of it
but hardly visible anymore are what he was like and what he did when he
wasn't being a case.  How this will all finally and ultimately play out I
know not, but I would leave this note with high marks to Jon Atack for
producing such a topnotch description of one man's case; and high marks and
best wishes to Ken Urquhart, who I think could write the other volume or
companion piece about Ron Hubbard at his best.

       If the real tech could have been applied to Ron, and to that leftover
case construct called the Church of Scientology, the result would be the same
as it is for anyone who gets free of his case: something that is clean and
decent, somewhat purified, that is without enemies, and able to see one's
fellows as friends -- a condition that, sadly, Mr. Hubbard and his church
rarely experienced.

       All the best,
         Phil