I am an unstructured, rather chaotic person. Ideas and thoughts all over the place. I do manage to collect the ideas and bring many to fruition. But the process is often marked by improvisation and experiments. I try, I fail, I succeed, I fall and I get up again. More structured people may find this hard to follow, annoying or even hopeless.
Ever since I was a child I have looked at ways to structure my processes. HyperList is a culmination of this efforts, but there have been many more or less structured efforts at collecting my thoughts and ideas into neatness. It is a kind of self-therapy.
Maybe that is how many if not the majority of methodologies are created. It has been argued that L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology to handle his own issues. Just like many may opt for studying Psychology to straighten out their own mind. It may reveal a lot about the person’s own problems by looking at the methodology he is selling to others.
Maybe Christ was insecure about his own faith in God? Maybe Buddha struggled with chock from his first encounter with pain and suffering? Maybe Freud had deep sexual issues? Etc.
And precisely because of this one should be well aware of one’s own issues, what one wants to handle, if anything, before one adopts a specific path. Maybe a certain path is not the right one for you, or not just now. It may be the right one for it’s originator. Maybe even for millions of others. But there may be another, better path for you. And if not, then you could just create your own.
And when you sell the right path for you to other people, be aware that it may not be what they need or want.
I will continue to sell the most eminent descriptive system, HyperList, but I do realize it is not for everyone. Nor is my take on the connection of Will and Reality, or my upcoming work on Anchorbreaking.
I believe that no one possess the key to unlock every door. You have in your hand the key to unlock yours.
As for my own; I can warmly recommend the book “A perfect mess“.
Geir Isene - uncut 
… or what APPEARS to be an inconsistency to someone may in fact be fairly sane and that perception of inconsistency may be a result of other inconsistencies.
eg. one feels he must be right in a certain circumstance – he insists on his viewpoint and views others’ viewpoints as ‘inconsistencies’.
This viewpoint of viewing others’ viewpoints as inconsistent could really be a result of one’s own insistence on being right – an inconsistency in itself.
Once that asserted rightness if dissipated, other’s viewpoints will be easier to view and may not seem so inconsistent after all.
Wow … how did this end up under here… this should be under Assumption … I must have had too many windows open 😉
Dear Geir,
Good post there. In fact it agrees very well with what I have been saying for some years. Here is one of my small essays where I say the same:
There is ONE aspect with Ron’s and Bill’s tech which has been
coming up now and then. Both of them “found” their tech working
with their own cases and then assumed that since they found what
they found on their own case, they would find it on every other case.
This is an actuality, not my idea. I have seen quite a few cases (not in
my own) where they were NOT stacked the way Ron or Bill suggested.
They were different. Some tended more in the direction of the description
in other theory issues like A History of Man for instance.
Then again I have seen cases where similar stuff to Ron’s and Bill’s ran
very real because the person had mocked it up himself first. And yet
again cases where nothing like it could be found, but other stuff handled
made the PC – Pre-OT attain very similar states to those Ron and Bill
had predicted could be obtained when those case phenomenon were
handled.
This shows various degrees of suggestibility. Persons, also those who
has a higher level of awareness, has a high level of ability to create
whatever you ask them to create, directly or via a solo C/S instruction.
That they can do this is not an invalidation but an observation of an ability
demonstrated in order to obtain a promised level of freedom/ability.
I have seen this at a very subtle level too where the client would create it
unconsciously at my suggestion, just by asking if it’s there. Being a very
“nice” and obedient client, again without invalidation, creating what is
being asked for right away, consciously or subconsciously. It was NOT there
before I asked for it, and would NOT come up if I ran whatever the client
offered to run.
So there are all kind’s of levels of reality based on these observations.
I find it therefore to be my most important job to find out what to run on
each case without ANY evaluation as pr. the auditors code. This can be
quite a task, but so far, to me, it has been the most valuable task.
Some clients come from the Church or from elsewhere and have heard
about these case phenomenon’s and got them so solidly mocked up already,
and with such a wish to run it, that it is not possible for me to negate it in
any way, but they also get great gains running it the way they have already
mocked it up.
Therefore it is my experience after all these hours in the chair and C/Sing
(40.000 hours) that you really have to observe and handle cases individually
and not assume anything beforehand. This means auditing the case in
front of you and not some postulated or imagined case which you assume is
there, just because the previous one was like that.
Why are there so many technologies or practices? Why aren’t there just ONE?
One which all cases would follow and gain from? In my opinion this is because
different cases unfold and open up in different ways. Different clients need
different approaches to their cases.
The biggest gains obtainable pr. auditing minute I have found by using PTS-handling,
Power Auditing, NOTs and Op Pro by Dup. (Book and the bottle) for different cases.
Have fun with this.
Love
Per
Exactly. The points presented are very real to me.
.
This shows various degrees of suggestibility. Persons, also those who
has a higher level of awareness, has a high level of ability to create
whatever you ask them to create, directly or via a solo C/S instruction.
That they can do this is not an invalidation but an observation of an ability
demonstrated in order to obtain a promised level of freedom/ability.
I have seen this at a very subtle level too where the client would create it
unconsciously at my suggestion, just by asking if it’s there. Being a very
“nice” and obedient client, again without invalidation, creating what is
being asked for right away, consciously or subconsciously. It was NOT there
before I asked for it, and would NOT come up if I ran whatever the client
offered to run.
This is a very very important observation for anyone who has ever received Scientology auditing.
There is a term developed in the 1990’s from psychology called the False Memory Syndrome where this phenomena was explored and detailed very clearly. Out of this process many rules emerged for ethical approaches to therapy which sought to avoid the conditions necessary to generate and run false memories.
This is also why I believe that Hubbard was an extremely unethical therapeutic practitioner. I believe he knew these vulnerabilities existed and that he intentionally instilled exploits for these vulnerabilities into Dianetics and Scientology practices.
Here is more on the False Memory Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
Please see
https://isene.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/assumption/#comment-18583
.
Except that False Memory Syndrome has never been accepted as a legitimate diagnosis by most psychologists and psychiatrists. That’s right there in the article you linked.
LOL!
Dianetics and Scientology have never been accepted as legitimate subjects by most pyschologists and psychiatrists, too. Since when do you use what most psychs tell you are legitimate diagnoses, Valkov?
Since Alanzo wrote something?
I don’t. You are the one who posted the link about False Memory Syndrome. I merely pointed out another aspect of the article you linked to, that the concept is controversial and not generally accepted by many in the therapy business.
Well, instead of letting the majority of psychs tell you what to think, or L Ron Hubbard for that matter, (or Alanzo) what do YOU think?
What do you think about Per Schiøttz’ point?
Do you think there could be varying degrees of suggestibility, as Per points out, and if so, should there be safeguards to ensure they are not abused or exploited in therapy?
The only good safeguard would be, in my opinion, is to have therapists who are familiar with the concept of suggestibility and observant enough to notice that a person they are working with is suggestible, and second to be ethical enough to abstain from exploiting it when the person they are working with, is suggestible.
Factually, an Auditor’s Code is necessary, and this has been recognized by some since before Scientology, going back to the early psychoanalysts. However, those guys violated the principle pretty much from the beginning, by using “interpretation” as a basic tool of psychoanalysis.
“Interpretation” is evaluating for the person in treatment and telling him why he thinks, feels, and acts as he does. It is the standard approach of psychoanalysis.
Per has lots of experience as an auditor and I’m sure his observations are valid. I think he takes it for granted that one does not evaluate for the person you are processing, if you want to be really helpful to the person in resolving his own case.
That is the best safeguard anyone has yet devised, that I know of. I consider it to be the essential safeguard.
Are there other ways for a therapist to exploit the vulnerability to suggestibility than evaluation?
Valkov –
Here are some other phenomena regarding suggestibility that Per mentioned.
Persons, also those who has a higher level of awareness, has a high level of ability to create
whatever you ask them to create, directly or via a solo C/S instruction.
That they can do this is not an invalidation but an observation of an ability
demonstrated in order to obtain a promised level of freedom/ability.
I have seen this at a very subtle level too where the client would create it
unconsciously at my suggestion, just by asking if it’s there. Being a very
“nice” and obedient client, again without invalidation, creating what is
being asked for right away, consciously or subconsciously. It was NOT there
before I asked for it, and would NOT come up if I ran whatever the client
offered to run.
I believe that Per is very familiar with the Auditor’s Code, as well as evaluation and invalidation, and what he is talking about here are not covered by those two “safeguards”.
So do you think it might be possible that there are ways to exploit suggestibility that LRH did not have any “safeguards” for?
Yes, subtle differences he is describing but making a world of difference. I might fall into that category of “client.” It is fun and validating to perform for the auditor.
About suggestibility, here is what Otto J. Roos ( the LRH class XII snr c/s for his personal FES and Auditing ) has to say on LRH: ” Folders came in from all over the world, going back to 1948. Most of the old stuff were often scraps of paper. Solo Research data went as far as what he called then OT 19 “. And finally what happened: ”
A few days later I was called up to his Office and upon entry was hit, kicked screamed and shouted at. (Even the Aides were not in sight, hiding as he was really mad!)
He just blew his stack on finding the references to the “discreditable” reads and the contents of some of the personal folders.
He shouted that he had never had such reads and screamed at me to check this with the auditor, MSH, who was also in the room “. Otto J. Ross is now SP declared as David Mayo ( snr c/s int ) and Jeff Walker ( snr c/ int too ). Frightening isn´t?
ref.:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html#fes-approval
Armed with the experience that I now have, it is not frightening. But as a naive young man, at 22 years of age, I was bright but very suggestible. I have always leaned toward the gullible until I have experience in an area. People today know me as someone who is not gullible; however, I know differently. I feel this as I study physics. I am enthused but green (inexperienced) and susceptible to beautiful suggestions.
Please note, that what I call PTS-handling is totally different from the PTS handling done in the Church where the client is seen and handled as effect of the big fat SP. I handle it with the client at cause. Makes a huge difference. You can read about it on this link:
http://www.ivymag.org/WebIVy/PerSchioettz.htm
I looked at your link on “PTS” and it seems much more workable to me. I never did like the PTS tech in the church and after getting out, I decided it was useless. I have never met an SP, if they even exist, which I doubt. I believe that everyone is somewhere on the continuum of good and evil and the labeling and disconnection aspect is destructive.
About being overwhelmed in the past and then turning into an SP, I would like to share my experience. Right before I left the CofS, I WAS overwhelmed in an ethics cycle to the point where I started to LOVE big brother. I stopped fighting and started to believe that I was very wrong. I was on the precipice of becoming one of “them”. This just scared the crap out of me and startled me enough that I woke up. But because of this experience, I can very easily see how, in the face of overwhelm, one can lose their sense of self and take on some different personality.
Maria: was great to read your reply – thank you very much.
Everlove
Per
Per — I am delighted that you are posting here! I found and read your series on PTS shortly after exiting the C of S. Great article — it resolved several issues I had been grappling with for some time — that if all beings were basically good, then how could there be SPs? And if some beings were “bad” then how in the hell did the suppressed person rundown work? And it did work as advertised for me when I had the rundown, with the “SP” making uninvited friendly overtures apparently right out of the blue. Your entire series was very validating for me, with two concepts in particular being very true from my perspective — your entire article on capaciousness and this paragraph, which made all the difference:
“Everybody are members of ‘fields’. Spiritually connected by similar attitudes, ideas, experiences etc. If you handle a person’s negative contribution to a field, the others, being connected to the same field, will lose the negativism too. The field will turn more positive. This is the reason that you will have the PTS clients ‘SP’s turn to him again, but this time in a positive way. This is one of the EPs I see daily and which was promoted in the ‘Church’ but I never saw it there. Now it is available to anyone and everyone who wants to recreate the freedom, or rather to live the freedom again, because freedom is the NATURAL state, not being PTS.”
I love that concept “capacious”!
Thanks!
Per, I read your SP-PTS series #1, and I like the datum that there are no SPs. I always felt that SP-PTS tech was being used to justify some technical deficiency in Scientology. Why couldn’t SPs be handled with tech? I have seen people declared SP and PTS for “political” reasons. That destroyed for me some of the credibility of Tech.
.
Per, I read your SP-PTS series #2, and I like the concept of Capaciousness. I see your “Figure 1” as the willingness to examine what appears as inconsistency more closely. I like the use of these figures because they make it much easier to communicate the point.
In “Figure 2” anything appearing as inconsistent with one’s viewpoint is immediately rejected. I can see that such people may appear as “difficult to handle,” because they are totally unwilling to look at anything inconsistent with their viewpoint. Under certain circumstances such a person might appear as an SP.
“Figure 3” presents a new scenario for me. I didn’t consider it up till now. It is very interesting. Such a person replaces his old viewpoint with the new one without evaluating it. Most probably he hadn’t evaluated his old viewpoint either. It is interesting to note your explanation how this person would appear as PTS, and he wouldn’t be connected to any SP.
This an excellent presentation. Thank you.
.
Per, from reading your SP-PTS series #3, I do see that there are no SPs as such. The situation with a PTS is more like he has internalized some external viewpoint that makes him feel smaller. I am really interested in understanding how a person can be made aware of this situation. I can see how this situation takes priority in helping a person.
.
Per, what I am getting from your SP-PTS Series #4 is that a PTS person doubts his own opinion or judgment, and so he accepts the opinion/judgment of another over his own. This may be the case specially when he feels that the opinion/judgment of another has broad agreement. He has a fear of looking and experiencing something directly. So, he looses his freedom to the degree he stops looking, and starts to DEPEND on the opinions/judgments of others. Furthermore. he loses his freedom completely when he starts to look THROUGH the opinions/judgments of others.
As a remedy what you have suggested is great. My take is that the person should then look at where the opinion/judgment (that he is using) came from. If it came from somebody else, he should thank that person in his mind, and then look at how he responded to that opinion/judgment when he first received it. If a source of the opinion/judgment cannot be located then the person should simply acknowledge that opinion/judgment as his own, and make sure he understands it fully.
I agree with you that this should be done as a priority right at the beginning. Then the person should be encouraged to look and experience directly for himself.
.
I am looking at this situation of PTSness from KHTK point of view. An opinion/judgment should be taken up when it shows up by itself as an inconsistency during the practice of Looking (Vipassana).
.
Per, now I am wondering how many scientologists and ex’s are using LRH’s viewpoint to look through. If not, then to what degree they are depending on LRH’s opinions or judgments.
From the viewpoint of SP-PTS Series #4 such people would be PTS.
.
I believe that most scientologists within the church would fall into that category.
I agree – but not PTS to LRH or his viewpoints. To the C of S.
I would agree with Vinaire’s point of view here that a replacement of own viewpoint (for whatever reason) constitutes PTS-ness – hence I would, in my experience, say that most scientologists I know are in fact PTS to LRH’s viewpoint. Most have not really, actually, factually experienced for themselves what the somewhat compulsively agree with when the read/study LRH’s works.
There is a lot to what you say about the compulsive agreements – I will admit to having been there too, for sure. Weren’t you ever? Curious about that.
But I wonder if you give enough credit to the other side of the coin. That is to say, much of what LRH wrote was invaluable, and you have said too. I just tend to speak up when people let the pendulum swing too much in the other direction, away from compulsive agreement. I guess this is the same old argument and we’re all still trying to correct each other’s perspective. 🙂
It is beside the point whether LRH’s work was all truth or all lies or anywhere in between. The whole point is that any – any and all – uninspected agreement will leave the person with less of himself, with less abilities… as PTS to that extent.
I happen to see around 90% truth in the tech that LRH wrote – that which I was able to myself inspect and relate to my own experience. The other 10% I see as wrong. The Admin Tech… well, I gave you my percentages earlier (ditch it). But as I said – my view on this is irrelevant for Per’s take on PTS’ness.
As for me compulsively agreeing. Yes, I have been there, too. Fortunately much less so than the other scientologists I have had deep discussions with.
Agreed – truth or not truth is beside the point. I wasn’t clear what point I meant – it was to say that one can get stuck on believing whatever LRH said just because he said it OR (the opposite) stuck on discounting whatever he said for the same reason – just because he said it. And not you but some people are so intent on pointing out the compulsive acceptance of anything in Scn or its outpoints that they tend to compulsively deny anything and everything positive.
Yes – any replacement of own viewpoint is a slippery slope downward.
Where you said that “replacement of own viewpoint (for whatever reason) constitutes PTS-ness” it sounded like one could not simply accept a viewpoint after personally viewing it, accepting the truth of it and taking it as his own – without then being considered as “replacing own viewpoint” and being PTS.
One can of course accept another’s viewpoint as one’s own given that one really has inspected it and found it true. That would not constitute a “replacement of own viewpoint”.
Geir: One can do anything one wants to with ideas. Including doing things that others think are wrong or foolish or silly or crazy or any other description. As opposed to what one SHOULD do. But SHOULD is a matter of opinion and one’s own intent.
Fully agree. They are also in betrayal of themselves and are operating in irresponsiblity, instead choosing to allow LRH to be responsible.
Exactly my sentiments.
I would have to say that they are likely to have a mix of duplicated data and unduplicated(accepted without inspection) data and viewpoints.
Per, your SP-PTS series #5 talks about mass-PTSness. It seems that the SP taps into some common aspiration of people, and derives power from it. He gets sufficient people to agree with his methods to build up a power structure. By the time people in general realize the craziness of those methods, it is too late to go against the power structure. He divides people by threatening their survival individually, so they cannot rise up against him as a group.
I believe that the SP is difficult to work with because he immediately rejects all viewpoints and consideration that are foreign to his own viewpoint and considerations. It is too simplistic to say that he is stuck in some incident. Like anybody else, he would like to unwind his mind, but he cannot recognize the inconsistency that everybody else can see. Looks like his whole knowledge is twisted to be in alignment with that inconsistency, so it doesn’t make itself felt.
This scenario needs to be looked at more closely. I wonder if Hubbard fits here.
.
I suggest you take a really good look at your own statement: I believe that the SP is difficult to work with because he immediately rejects all viewpoints and consideration that are foreign to his own viewpoint and considerations.
It seems to me that you spend considerable time and energy rejecting other viewpoints on this blog because you consider them to be inconsistencies. Does this mean that you are an SP?
I don’t think that everybody having that characteristic is an SP. But an SP would display that characteristic.
.
:)huge lol
How much opinion matters here, I don’t know.
.
I believe that there is no such thing as an SP as described by L Ron Hubbard. No real live person that has ever existed fits L Ron Hubbard’s description, not even remotely. LRH’s descriptions and all of his tech describing why they come about, are -at the most – some kind of model to use to “be on the lookout for” a “type” of person. And as we all know, there is no such thing in truth as a “type” of person.
There is only a person. There are only individuals.
This statement, of course, makes me an SP, per LRH’s descriptions of an SP.
And around and around we go.
I believe that the first thing a Scientologist must do to recover from the brainwashing of Scientology is to reject this type-casting, this cartoon model for other human beings, that Hubbard laid in to your world in order to control your mind, your loyalties, and your life.
Which, of course, makes me an SP.
Ironic isn’t it?
The only way to break free of Scientology, once you’ve become a Scientologist, is to become an SP?
Yes, Alanzo — that is ironic. Funny thing for me — one day I found all my certs were canceled. Then all the books I had read were canceled. Then I found out that friends of mine were being made to repeat the entire series of auditing processes from start to finish — and I knew I would be next in line. I was right, of course. And I realized that even though no one in the C of S had ever said I was an SP, these were the very steps required to regain admission after being declared SP. Fortunately for me, I was already 90% out of agreement with the idea of an SP so I just concluded that my best tack would be to just walk away. I also agree that there is only a myth of a “type” of person. As you know, I am not much for caricatures and stereotypes — people just aren’t one-size-fits-all in my experience. Yep, round and round we go. I am hoping that you will continue to post some more gem quotations like you did earlier. That was much more to my taste these days!
+1
It’s magical how you can turn into an SP overnight after you kiss the frog!
LOL
Alanzo: “The only way to break free of Scientology, once you’ve become a Scientologist, is to become an SP?”
Chris: Apparently so. Especially so if you are a strong or courageous person. More especially so if you have demonstrated value to the group.
Al, taken to it’s extreme, you are saying that people have nothing in common with each other, no common characteristics or traits, nothing, each is an individual unlike any other individual.
This seems absurd on the face of it. Unless you agree with Hubbard, that “thetans have different responses”. Are you sure you want to agree with Hubbard on something he wrote in, I believe, KSW #1?
(It’s OK if you do, you can trust me, I won’t blab)
I am not saying that people have nothing in common with each other.
I am saying that the SP, as described by L Ron Hubbard, does not exist. No individual on Earth has ever fit his description.
It is a model that Scientologists reify onto real life people, and this is a fantasy. Accepting Hubbard’s description of “SP” causes Scientologists to live in a fantasy world, and to be blind to the actuality and true, unique, motivations and situations of the other people around them.
To the degree that Scientologists accept Hubbard’s SP doctrine, they go out of communication with other people, themselves, and with life.
It is delusional.
Al, the problem is, what you say could be applied to any and all conceptualizations of experience and existence. Sociopath, cult, brainwashed, OCD, anxiety, love, friendship, work vs.play, etc etc can all be said to “not exist”. They do not exist in the same way as a tree, a rock, or a cow exists, to use your frame of reference. They are al l”mental constructs’, concepts, and to speak of them as though they are “real” is “reification” in your terms, is it not?
No individual on earth fits any precise description of a “sociopath” or any other diagnostic category. No group exists that precisely and exactly fits any precise definition of a “cult”.
Therein is the reason people have in the past responded with resentment to your attempts to label them as “brainwashed Scientologists” of whatever. That was a major reification on your part of your own mental construct, wasn’t it?
The construct of a “Brainwashed Scientologist” has as much truth as the construct “Suppressive Person” does.
That was the whole point.
There is only one person that I know of who got the point of this. He’s the guy who wrote this:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/i-am-not-a-scientologist/
Sure Al. So the difference is, I think there is truth to both of those concepts, and your posts seem to clearly be stating “there is no such thing”.
The issue here for me is, Do words refer to anything real?
The fact that Geir does not call himself a “Scientologist” is irrelevant to me. In life, there are any number of classifications/labels a person might apply to himself, or reject the application of.
I could insist you are a “Democrat”,you could say NO. I could then say you are a political Independent, and you could say NO.
But there could be some truth to my characterization of you as such, based on values and opinions you’ve expressed, whether you choose to accept being placed in those categories or not.
Words are(or ought to be) a means of communication. And communication can be about nothing but reality.
I guess I’d say that all the folks who objected to you labeling them in various ways, “got it” long before you did – if indeed you have “got it”. I think reification is just a new word you are playing with, is it not? Because the question still remains, what is the relationship between words and realities, maps and the actual territories?
I think I really make you angry, V.
Really, really angry.
Actually Al, no. You don’t make me angry. You used to, back in the Scientology Forum days. Now I find it easy to see the “inconsistencies” in some of your posts.
Anyway, how did you get from what we were discussing, to your assumption that you make me really angry?
Which was the relationship between words and reality, or maps and the territories they are supposed to represent?
That is the basic issue as I see it, inherent in your assertion that various words stand for “mental constructs’ only, and have no basis in reality. EG, “there is no such thing as an SP personality”.
If there is no such thing as “an SP”, then arguably there is also no such thing as a “sociopathic personality”,a “Narcissistic personality disorder”, or any of the other glut of diagnostic categories that abound. Arguably, there is no such thing as a Democrat, or a Republican either. All those kinds of words just stand for mental constructs, not real things like trees, houses, or cows.
To treat any of them as real is “reification” according to you. Are you sure? Aren’t all those words at least attempts to represent some sort of reality, however inaccurately?
I think what you are talking about is Empiricism:
em·pir·i·cism (m-pîr-szm)
n.
1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
2.
a. Employment of empirical methods, as in science.
b. An empirical conclusion.
3. The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience.
em·piri·cist n.
empiricism [ɛmˈpɪrɪˌsɪzəm]
n
1. (Philosophy) Philosophy the doctrine that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience Compare intuitionism, rationalism
2. the use of empirical methods
3. (Medicine) medical quackery; charlatanism
empiricist n & adj
empiricism
1. the doctrine that all ideas and categories are derived from sense experience and that knowledge cannot extend beyond experience, including observation, experiment, and induction.
2. an empirical method or practice. — empiricist, n. — empirical, adj.
But according to Empiricism, if there is a word for it, it perforce refers to something that is somehow real, because all knowledge is sense-based and if someone had not perceived it, there would not be a word for it.
I can see that you are having trouble with this.
The word “man” or the term “bowling ball” – linguistically – serve a different function than the term “Suppressive Person” or the term “Reactive Mind”. Also, the word “man” is not considered a mental construct, like the term “id” is.
Knowing this difference is crucial to understanding the concept of reification.
Can you demonstrate that you understand this difference?
Sorry Al;, but I am not having any trouble with this subject matter.
Linguistically, the kind of noun used is differentiated as “abstract” – A noun that names an idea, event, quality, or concept. It usually refers to something that cannot be perceived by the 5 senses.
The other kind of noun is a “concrete noun”. If you’ve ever fallen down and collided with some concrete, you know it can be perceived by the common senses.
However, all words are “mental constructs”
No path should be sold. Selling a path (e.g. conversion to Christianity) seems to be a Western concept.
.
This one gave me a challenge.
I wondered if I should reply with what actually came to my mind, or be soft about it or just lie. I also thought that the best would just be to disregard your comment. But I decided not to – as you are well into noticing 😉
I thought that I should write:
Firstly; Thanks for the good laugh.
Secondly; I know of no other person since I left the CoS who so diligently is pushing his own viewpoint and methodology as you are – hence the irony of your comment – hence my laugh.
Thirdly; Maybe your selling of LOOKING as the silver bullet could serve as an indication of the need for more self awareness.
Then I thought:
– Crap, if I write that, I will push Vinaire’s button on being right, of never backing down. He will be all worked up and start a tirade of fencing exercises that will lead no where. Then others will pitch in and come to his rescue or perhaps push him further. Then there will be all kinds of mess on my blog. In the midst of this he will be crying out for politeness and about AdHom and going on about inconsistencies. There will be no peace. Then he will rage quit or just take his toys and walk away or act so childish that I will be forced to ban him. Then Alanzo will be storming in on the scene to save his friend and there will be Ragnarök.
– No, I should definitely not push that “Reply” button now. Oh no!
– But there was this comment a while ago that said something about being more crazy. Geir should stop being so damn intellectually snobby and just throw out some crazy stuff.
– Pondering, pondering. What the hell. Here goes.
hehe, too late.
Thank you. Selling has to do with charging money, or converting one to a certain mind set without providing deep understanding. When there is understanding there is no need for conversion.
.
Here is the definition I use in the OP.
Mirriam-Webster:
5a : to develop a belief in the truth, value, or desirability of : gain acceptance for (“trying to sell a program to the Congress”)
b : to persuade or influence to a course of action or to the acceptance of something (“sell children on reading”)
All good sales techniques are engineered to develop an understanding in the mark of understanding why he should buy.
I should have put this here: All good sales techniques are engineered to develop an understanding in the mark of understanding why he should buy.
The association of “selling” with “effort to bring understanding” seems to be peculiar to the culture on this side of the divide.
.
I have to take you to the ring on this one; You seem to be of the opinion that your cultural and religious background is somehow superior to that of what you vies as “The West”. Am I correct?
No. I don’t think it is superior. There are lot of things in the Western culture that are admirable and superior; and there are things in the Eastern culture that are admirable. I have spent considerable part of my life in both these cultures and I can say that I am intimately familiar with both of them.
It just seems to me that you often portray it as such, that’s all.
Non-sequitur. Nothing to do with geography.
Around the world, salesmanship is directed at getting the mark to purchase. The best sales technique helps the mark to understand why he should decide to purchase. Later, the mark may have second thoughts or get cold feet. This is the reason for the 3-day rescission laws in many states for door to door sales, etc.,. There is never a time when good salesmanship will include being weak and taking “no” for an answer. This is most especially true for products which may be fad-ish or have little intrinsic value or worse, be wholly worthless.
Crazy and amazing !
LOL!
Now I’ll tell you why I am LOL — I read what you wrote. My immediate response was to post LOL as response. Then I said to myself — oh no. Don’t do that. Best to just read it. But then, 20 minutes later I was back reading your comment. Debating. Should I? Will it seem like some kind of dogpile? So I responded to Per’s post instead. And here I am again. And that reply button was so inviting and I was laughing. Laughing at myself, at what you wrote, and my impulse to push that button! LOL!
Boy! Are we walking on egg-shells or what? haha
Chris in order to be accepted, to belong into any group, we have to be “Polite well-bred civil courteous gallant gentle moderate mannerly well-behaved obedient submissive respectful dutiful loyal devoted considerate well-trained”. if we dare to be different…. well…we know what we do to each other,[off with his head] and here I “apologise”.
I like that!
.
So true!
I was about to dive in with an AK-47, shooting in all directions. Taking all comers. But then I thought, “should I do that when there are really no comers to take on?” So I put down my AK-47 and unloaded the clip.
But then I thought, “What else is there to do?”
I Was about to hit “Reply” when I noticed my show was untied. As I bent down my forehead hit the “Enter” button and
Alanzo, Bringer of Ragnarök.
I like that.
I like that too.
I have never seen my efforts re KHTK as selling anything. I have always seen them as an effort to bring understanding. Maybe I am going the wrong way because the situation I am running into seem to be clarified by the following picture (borrowed from Per’s SP-PTS Series 2)
..
See the definition I use for selling. With that definition, you surpass most scientologists I know in pushing a viewpoint onto others. And yes, I believe you are going the wrong way.
I guess the answer would be to simply get people using and benefiting from KHTK out there. Last week I initiated another person on KHTK.
The first person I initiated on KHTK talked to another person about it, on her own. None of these people know anything about Scientology. No selling has been done to these people. They are simply looking at KHTK and liking it.
.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the definition I use for selling. ANY presenting of any idea is a sale.
I hate that word.
.
That makes sense. It sheds light on the inconsistency; You hate the word and still you are selling you’re opinions and methodology like there was no tomorrow.
I think associating trying to make something understood with selling is a culture thing. It is not part of the culture I grew up in.
.
.
It is a simple dictionary definition. You rejecting the definition is beside the point.
Vinaire: “I hate that word”
Chris: Good. Now you have your KHTK item to look at. Seriously. This is the way I use it. This is the way I find items and this is the way I decide on “what to audit.” The rudiments auditing should find their way into KHTK as “directed looking.” Running this solo after a little practice is very intimate and personal, only asks questions the subject is interested in and takes the null answers as null and only takes up the reading questions that the subject says to himself are reading. It is a perfect fit.
G wrote:
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the definition I use for selling. ANY presenting of any idea is a sale.
Don’t you mean ANY presenting of any idea that you do not hold, or agree with yourself, is a “sale”?
You have very particular ideas, too G. And you run them over and over on others as well.
So your stance regarding “selling ideas” is a strange one for a person who runs a blog where we all come and discuss our ideas with others.
I think you use the word “sell” or “sale” as a way to discredit others’ ideas without having to argue their merits or demerits. You can just label a person’s post as “selling” and we all know that it is “not worth buying” per Geir.
But of course, this method of argumentation avoids having to evaluate the actual idea.
Right?
Wrong. Read the OP again.
We all sell. All the time. Selling is good. Selling is trying to make others understand our viewpoint. Selling IS NOT BAD.
Overselling, on the other hand is what makes people reject ideas that perhaps should not have been rejected. And this is what Vinaire is doing and this is what so many scientologists are doing – and they learn to do it per the dissemination drill.
How is it that the dissem drill is overselling?
Not the drill itself – but it is a tool that makes it easier for someone to oversell ideas – especially if those ideas are not fully inspected and taken as “one’s own”. It is easy to sell a concept one fully believes in – but when one has deep doubts or uncertainties about the ideas (as when simply swallowing them as true), then the franticness in selling sets in and one starts to oversell rather than sell. The drill is a tool. A hammer is a tool. But a hammer in your hand makes it easier to crush stuff.
I would say that any GOOD tool can be used for opposite reasons than it was intended. That may be why much of Scientology – good tools – has been interpreted as being intended for purposes opposite to what it was, by people either having MUs or having those opposite intentions.
. . . and the PLs on “hard sell?”
“Big League Sales Closing Techniques” by Les Dane was personally endorsed by L. Ron Hubbard. This is one of many definitive manifestos on “overselling.”
Chris ,what I remember was said about “hard sell” was the idea of caring about the person enough to get him through the stops and barriers – a way of saying don’t let the person’s lack of push-through stop you or stop HIM – help him push through to get the service that is going to rehabilitate him. And in the days when the pressure didn’t include getting the guy into extreme debt, the vast majority were very happy they had pushed through.
Yes, I KNOW it was abused and that’s fine for everybody to point it out, but frankly I don’t really get why people have to re-iterate such things over and over. It’s as if it hasn’t been said in every which way already – and no one is even disagreeing! You talk about “iterations” LOL – these take the cake, IMO.
I don’t mean to single you out, except as someone with whom I might actually be able to have a productive comm cycle about it. .Either subject – Scientology sales techniques or the unending repetition about outpoints in general. Maybe I do have an idea about this phenomenon in terms of a tech explanation but if we get into that the next thing you know there’s another huge outpouring of the same old criticism and the same old defense in return – it just gives everyone their cue. Tell me your thoughts.
I understand your feelings completely. For me, if a person slipped over a cliff and you grabbed their hand but their grip was slipping and you were cajoling them to “hang on!” and you were going to pull them to safety, then I think not taking “no” for an answer is “helping them” and not over-selling them.
For myself, none of the money that I spent in Scientology, and not the life that I gave up to join staff made me better. I am better because of my intentions to be a better person. This would also have occurred if I had never heard of Scientology. I was a good person to begin with and I have become a better person because I wanted to be.
In my opinion, cajoling a person to pay money for services which are guaranteed to make them a better person is not help. Only well intentioned people pay these indulgences anyway. These people are the choir which is being preached to. My opinion may seem harsh but my eyes are opened and that opening has been SINCE my path took me through the forest of Scientology. It has occurred in spite of Scientology and not as a result of Scientology but as a result of myself.
You are a good and well-intentioned person. I posit that you are the good person that you are today regardless of your Scientology experience. I stand ready to be corrected by you, and will accept that correction if you make it.
Aw, Chris, now you are pulling my heart strings. I love that approach and it is really you. You are a big enough guy that I believe you when you say you are ready and can accept “correction”.
Not at all as correction, but just to communicate – the way I see it is that pretty much ALL of our experiences, good or bad, operate to assist us in the intended direction. Your “intention to be a better person” is probably the basic way to express anybody else’s intention too, when following a given path.
Scientology or not, I just know (and I’ve said this to you before) that in PT I’m free.That doesn’t mean I don’t have much to learn, it just means I am free to do so – and I am capable of that because I’m not pinned down or hemmed in by anything, including Scientology. Like you, I can “move around” in my viewpoints and beingness and evolve. And it seems very likely to me that the truths of Scientology were a big factor in where I’m at, even though the factor you bring up is valid too – the person him/herself.
There are some incredible truths and some incredible tools in Scn. These days you may be viewing things from a different frame of reference, but my hunch is that there are times when the frame of reference that Scientology exists in still holds what it always did for you and/or will do so again in the future. That’s not so much an evaluation of you as it is of Scn. 😉
Interesting post. I don’t particularly think about what I do in life in terms of Scientology. I’ve learned what I know and adhere to workable methods. I am sure that some of them I learned in Scientology. But I don’t use Scientology practices because they are Scientology nor because LRH said it. I never wonder when making decisions “what would LRH do?” I don’t wonder if I am applying “Standard Tech” to my activities. Except for communicating to Scientologists or exe’s about Scientology, I’ve tried to weed the Scientologese out of my language. It doesn’t communicate and the usual English language has plenty of language to describe what I want to say.
You’ve mentioned charge. I’ve taken a look at this and where I avoid Scientology, it is not because of charge but because of workability for me. Where I use Scientology such as solo auditing with an emeter, I don’t think of it really in terms of Scientology anymore. It does not particularly occur to me to think of it from that valence. I just want to take a look or to examine or am curious and so I look and it’s my mind and it no longer occurs to me that I need to be sanctioned to apply therapy to myself.
I think if you were to walk into a Scientology organization and just absorb the event, just talk to people, staff, etc., I think you might be surprised at the “gap” between how you think you would react to that situation and how you would actually react in that situation. You may think the anchor points are still there but I bet they aren’t. Not like you imagine. For this whole paragraph of evaluation I apologize. No bad intention. I know I can’t see your universe. My point is that I think that you’ve changed more than maybe you think you think you’ve changed, it sneaks up on us like aging. I can read this in your posts from the last couple years that we’ve been blogging together here. I sure know mine have! I can barely recognize myself from two years ago. Maybe even two months ago.
Chris, my pointing out that you had BPC didn’t have anything to do with your not needing to be “sanctioned” by Scn or your not feeling the need to give Scn credit for what you use of it. It was because you responded to a simple question about a Scn piece of tech (the question was what the alternative to it would be) by talking about some abusive applications of it and by criticizing LRH. It seemed to me like a reaction, a button, since I know you are quite capable of being clear-headed and logical.
Also, I can’t resist pointing out something – the fact that your disagreement with the “optimum solution” was based on a misunderstanding you had about it. It turns out you actually apply it and find it useful just the way it was intended to be applied, although you didn’t know it. I wanted to mention that because what I have seen as the basis of many criticisms (not just yours) is that very thing – an MU. Btw, the data I gave you about applying the “optimum solution” such that you only consider the dynamics immediately concerned (like you were instinctively doing) is from the PL “Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics”, and it’s in the new ethics book too.
One other thing. You said, “I don’t use Scientology practices because they are Scientology nor because LRH said it.” That is the very thing I’ve said which for some reason you won’t accept coming from me. Is it because I am still of the opinion that much of Scn works and say so outright? And because you disagree with that viewpoint you figure it couldn’t possibly be a rational one, but must be the result of my still being “brainwashed” (or whichever term you might use)?
You say, “No bad intention”, as regards your evaluation. I never had any doubt about the intention not being bad – rather, why you seem to be stuck in a certain perception of me regarding Scn, and at the same time you said in the comment above, “I think that you’ve changed more than maybe you think you’ve changed.” Why wouldn’t I be capable of knowing for myself how much I’ve changed? I would really like to clear up this flow I get from you on and off – of attempting to set poor, misguided marildi straight ;). That doesn’t mean to just shut up about it, now, I mean we should look at it.
Ok, I’m with you. My comment about perceiving how much you have changed is just a generality that I’ve noticed about myself. My perception of my body and other self changes insidiously. One day I am walking down the street,etc. when I notice my reflection in the store window. I think, “I can’t even recognize myself.” Sometimes my attitudes change this way as well. I write or speak and something that I wouldn’t have thought was going to come out, spills out. Different than my fixed idea of myself.
I don’t think you are “poor misguided.” My evaluation that gave you this idea is wrong and was wrong of me to evaluate in a way that gives you this idea. By my current creed, no one can know whats is in another’s mind and so evaluation of such is both a waste of time and harmful to the relationship.
Chris, thanks for that. No lasting harm done! Actually, I realized it’s probably pretty even sided between us. By that I mean, you tend to believe that I am still not totally my own person where Scn is concerned – I, on the other hand, tend to think your BPC on Scn doesn’t allow you to be truly free about it, either. 😉
Thanks for the comm. 🙂
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/an-aspect-of-freedom/
Do you feel this premise is valid?
Yes. Why do you ask?
Would you be pleased for a proper scientific experiment to prove Scientology principles correct?
I would be pleased to have a proper scientific experiment to determine whether Scientology principles were correct or not correct. (I may be dumb but I’m not stupid. ;))
And again it seems that you are talking to me in a patronizing way. And you know that’s hard on my pretty little head. (Were you raised in the South?) 😀
Wow. Lots of BPC on Scientology? Men? Evaluation? Civil War? Me? hahaha just kidding, no really. I am kidding.
You wrote a lot to answer yes or no to my yes or no question. Turn it around on me and the answer is no, I would not be pleased for Scientology to be proved correct. However, I would find that very interesting.
If Scientology were to be proven false, I would not be pleased. But I would be very interested.
There. I have answered my own patronizing (ad hom you to me) question and we are therefore net sum zero even-steven.
“Why do you think it is correct? and How would we successfully apply that principle to our extant conversation,”
Are you asking because you don’t know the answers? Or do you feel I need your help?
You wrote you wanted to talk over things between us and this is me doing it. I am not interested to get into repartee with you. You don’t have to play, we can just drop it.
It wasn’t meant as repartee and I wouldn’t be interested in that either. But I’m also not interested in a game that seems a bit condescending toward me. Was I wrong about that?.
yup.
Okay. Well, the way that principle applies to us is that I tend to defend Scientology and you tend to criticize it and that leaves us both less free in the area – as I had already said. But maybe you had something more in mind?
Nope. Is this useful to know? Will we use this in a constructive way? Is this related to Scientology theory?
Nope. Is this useful to know? Will we use this in a constructive way? Is this related to Scientology theory?
Yes, it does relate to Scientology theory. It’s the principle of “must-have/can’t-have” or “you get what you resiist”. It’s all in the mechanics.
But how come you get to ask all the questions? I left the other two for you.;)
Good points. The other two? Yes I find this ethical principle useful to know and to use. It reminds me to audit my rudiments. Like study tech, the physical manifestations impinge on my body and are noticeable to me. When the reaction occurs, it reminds me to be mindful.
Interesting, but I didn’t duplicate how it does that – reminds you to audit. ‘splain. (Ricky Ricardo)
” ‘splain ricky?” haha, — Ok, physical manifestations of the 3 barriers to study can be watched for during study to remind me to clear words, balance significance with mass, and to retreat to where I understood what I was trying to learn and to begin again. Likewise, I can be mindful of ARCx’s, defensiveness, overselling, and also the direct feeling of something causing me a “loss of freedom.” When these manifest, I can take corrective action. For me, a rudiments session amounts to a corrective action. The beautiful thing about a simple rudiments session is that the slight upset that I might feel about even a mildly harsh day to day interaction, a rough comm cycle, something didn’t go right; this provides me the little string to pull that may uncover mental treasures and lead to personally important epiphanies. Even without huge cognitions, when my rudiments are “in,” my thinking is more focused, aligned, purposeful, and best of all, I walk around feeling like life is the punchline of a good joke that has me giggling.
Chris: “…be mindful of ARCx’s, defensiveness, overselling, and also the direct feeling of something causing me a “loss of freedom.”
I have a similar “system” in that I try to “look” at any perceived charge and that usually brings up my awareness and can blow it. It definitely allows me to handle the situation in front of me better, even if that means simply putting in TR 0 in spite of the charge. But I like your more descriptive breakdown of charge into all those things you mentioned – Chris’ “correction list”. I might roughly categorize them as perceived charge and/or efforting.
Of course, with your auditing you probably also have more cognitions than with simple looking, even on “mere” rudiments. I don’t recall that I particularly had cognitions on rudiments – it was “just” a matter of charge blown. For some of the more major cognitions you’ve had I would imagine you had gone a good bit into the CDEI scale and earlier similars.
Marildi give yourself credit for these pieces of tech that you apply. If your TA moves it is a significant breakthrough for you.
Never give me credit “for the tech” as I’ve learned all of it. The tech is a tool that if you are clever enough to practice with and to move your own TA, you are off to the races. A person could maybe carefully define and partition off each and every aspect of the theory of what I am doing but that won’t add to nor will it take away from its impact in my life. If anyone wants to call what I do illusional or delusional, that’s ok but it will be illogical for them to do so as they cannot see what I am looking at nor understand its importance with respect to my own mind.
This bit about rudiments auditing. Don’t make it into more or less than it is. Keep it simple. Understand that I am handling my own misunderstanding of some aspect of my world. I am never swinging for the fences. I am never going for a hole-in-one, but I am going for TA. My goal for a session is to locate and look at an inconsistency, to see that inconsistency in a new way, to locate and as-is something and maybe feel a little bit better or else feel that I’ve gotten a peak at a new point of view that I hadn’t had before. In my past, “flying 3-ruds” was just something to hurry up and get through so that I could get onto the “real” auditing. Elizabeth taught me to try flying ruds “in depth.” All this means is running what you don’t understand as a rudiment based upon the theory that ARCx=misunderstanding. Therefore to the degree that I don’t understand a thing is the degree to which I am ARCx’n about it. This is why asking “Is there an ARCX?” reads. It is my belief that there is a wealth of hidden knowledge woven into the “steel-wool” fabric of my mind and the BPC regarding my misunderstanding of things can be easily picked up, the string pulled and voila! (sometimes it is a Sherman Tank and sometimes it is a just a mouse. Never would the information there be of any consequence to anyone else but it is always interesting and usually of consequence to me. One more thing, it unravels the mind like a ball of twine — gently, like releasing the tension from a compressed spring. I have done quite a bit of this now and have suffered no ill effects. My own opinion is that charge off = case gain. I have not seen any ill effect or downside to my application of what I think I understand about looking at my own thoughts.
Big breakthroughs? They are big only to me and in my world. They are views that are real to me and have me continually redefining my own existence and my interaction with your existence. Is what I discover true? It is true to me for the time which is as true as it can be for the moment. Somewhere between lies all the hub-bub about “cause over” things. I don’t know very much about that any more — I used to (hahaha) but now am just a curious spelunker and I let my natural goodness and curiosity guide my exploration. I already acknowledge that I am cause over my own mind and view what I do as no more serious but equally important as cleaning house.
CDEI and earlier similars? Yes but not always and not necessarily. By the time I am looking at something it is floating up to me because it is important to me. The thing “I need to know” can be just “right here.” It doesn’t need to be millions of years and light years away from me for it to be important to me. A rule of thumb for me is that if it is not bothering me, then it must not be bothering me… regardless, practicing OTTR0 and TR0 in my daily life is akin to the boxer practicing by shadow boxing. I just confront things for practice like I play scales on the guitar. I don’t need a reason, it is just practicing for the game.
I am trying to describe my own way of applying self-therapy. I hope it paints a picture.
Chris, I was thinking more about those two tools – looking and TR 0 –probably the two most basic if not the most powerful tools of all. And looking could even be considered TR 0 (confront on one’s own mind in PT) together with some thinking or reasoning (except in the case of blowing by inspection).
I just looked up “reason” in the Tech Dict: “…ability to extrapolate new data from the existing data”. Do the instructions for looking in KHTK specify anything about reasoning or words to that effect? It should, if there is going to be a sorting out of inconsistencies. Right, Ricky? ’splain.
Our keyboards entangle. No reason for us both to write the same thing! I think we’ve typing at the same time and writing very similar.
KHTK uses “looking” but it stops short of exploiting the communication cycle in full.* *reference: “The Magic of Communication” (old red volume IX page 63).
Regardless, when I am solo auditing (I hesitate to give details as I am not interested in the evaluations of others but anyway…) I am talking to myself on a flow zero (self to self) fancy way of saying that I am talking to myself. But the talking is not rambling or maundering. It has a topic and like an “action-item” list, I stick to a subject for the duration of the session.
Regarding “reasoning.” This comes after the session as some new datum settles in and I get to think about it. In session, there is a question, mine read because I am picking charged items anyway. Not L&N. Another metaphor: You are sanding a piece of wood. It is rough. You are smoothing it. It gets pretty good. Now you are looking closely at it and picking up little rough patches and these are inconsistencies. But in my mind’s eye, I am matching the question to an answer and these little inconsistencies are floating up. In my mind’s eye, we look and the inconsistency shows up and we don’t reason with it (do that later with useful data) we look at it. We examine the inconsistency = lie, difference from the truth, BPC, etc., This examination, this duplication as-ises the BPC and levels the inconsistency so that the subject is now nice and smooth. In auditing the PC describes the inconsistency to the auditor which causes the PC to duplicate the anomaly to the auditor. This duplication this scrutiny is more than the MEST can stand and it vanishes.
Marildi, if you dont get this from Chris well, I look into “idiot” mode. I wonder when was the last time I have seen you and believed when you acted in that manner? :)Dont knock idiot since it is one of my favorite word [ i used to hide behind that concept so i would not be found out. good hinding place.]
Entangled keyboards? Yesterday it was dueling keyboards. ha ha ha 😀
Hey, American Idol is starting (family night) so I’ll have to get back to the substance of your posts later.
Here’s a video just for you, gets good at about 2:30.
Chris, you painted the picture of your auditing very well. The last part of this last post, what you describe as examining the inconsistencies I would have called reasoning, based on that definition I quoted. But as-ising by any other name is just as sweet ;).
You mentioned HCOB Magic of Communication and I decided to review it, remembering that it describes what’s going on with as-ising – a key subject in our physics theorizing. On the paragraph, about (1) reaching when speaking and (2) withdrawing when ceasing to speak, I remembered that line in the Factors – “The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing”. And I was thinking that the meaning of that Factor might relate to the “on-off” digital phase every Planck second. In that phase we might have (1) a collapsed particle and (2) a wave – these things correlating with (1) reach and (2) withdraw. In the same way that an auditor (or any person) is reaching when there’s a comm flow, the collapsed particle (dimension point) is reaching in terms of the light emanating from it; and in the Planck interim between all collapsed particles (which we “see”) is (2) the waves having gone back into the Higgs field and no longer reaching but withdrawing.
Whaddoyouthink? And be nice, no more dueling keyboards. (kidding)
Your metaphors are meaningful for you. Mine are meaningful for me. The physics at this level of Higgs seems to be metaphorical since these conjectures remain undiscovered. Sometimes lay people like us mix our metaphors. Sometimes physicians become cult members.
For now, I see OT as limited to becoming “cause over” what we view. I write this because in my life as I have become “more able,” this ableness has extended to my view of my mind and of the way in which I view the world in which I live.
Maybe, as an individual, there is no more field of OT than this. As the ego dissolves I suspect that there is existence different than what we have guessed at. I suspect that there awaits a new Life Form. I suspect it is not analogous to an earthly superlative God. These are only a few thumb pins of mine in the idea of a field of infinite potentials. — But the ideas were uncollapsed and so fell out.
Your ideas collapsed nicely. 🙂
I’m an ultra dilettante when it comes to physics but I found some basics helpful in understanding the mind, and it seems more than likely that the reverse would be true too. You’ve said it and I’ve said it – the mind is part of the physical universe and operates on the same laws of physics What is actually happening when something in the mind is as-ised is undoubtedly explainable (’splainable ;)) in physics – and vice versa. Btw, a physics buff friend told me that idea I had in my last post could be seen to apply to the Dirac model (how ’bout that!). That no doubt means a lot more to you than to me.
Another intriguing datum in physics is the one about the laws of nature being nearly symmetrical with respect to particles and antiparticles. You can probably guess which LRH datum comes to mind on that one – the one that states aberration exists in a very delicate balance. Do you remember that?
“the one that states aberration exists in a very delicate balance. Do you remember that?”
No. It’s not coming up. Say it ain’t so… gonna ARCx if you pull up a tape or reference I haven’t at least heard of.
Get ready for your next ARCx session, I found one reference:
“Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is
difficult to maintain. It is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow
has to work at it.” HCOB 6 Dec 74 THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING From the LRH Tape 2 July 1964,“O/W Modernised and Reviewed”
If that’s a Level II tape this bulletin is based on, that might be where I remember LRH also saying something like practically all you had to do was blow on aberration and it would as-is.
The condition of a delicate balance seems to be strewn throughout the nature of things, from the whole cosmos to the ecology of life forms to the chemistry of love (thought I’d throw that in, only half kidding) to sub-atomic particles. Talk about fractals! 🙂
Good. I’ll review that soon. Just got home from kids piano recital tonight at a French restaurant. Loads of fun. Long day. Gonna call it but will answer back tomorrow.
Getting late. Talk to you tomorrow. (You better rest up. :D)
“I would not be pleased for Scientology to be proved correct.”
Why not? (This is a sincere question, not an inference.)
Because I have no interest in the reputation of Scientology.
Why do you think it is correct? and
How would we successfully apply that principle to our extant conversation?
G. is motivational speaker as well as a de-motivational one.
.
Please explain.
Please see
https://isene.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/self-therapy/#comment-18612
.
G wrote:
Wrong. Read the OP again.
We all sell. All the time. Selling is good. Selling is trying to make others understand our viewpoint. Selling IS NOT BAD.
Overselling, on the other hand is what makes people reject ideas that perhaps should not have been rejected. And this is what Vinaire is doing and this is what so many scientologists are doing – and they learn to do it per the dissemination drill.
I see what you are saying.
When you are in Scientology, and you begin to disagree, trying to make others understand your viewpoint can be one of the most frustrating, even humiliating, dirty needle drills ever. When you are a Scientologist, as long as you agree with Scientology – every single part of it – everything is fine. But the second you voice even the slightest disagreement you are handled and handled and handled.
This can result in “overselling”.
And overselling, overselling and overselling.
Good point, G.
Marildi wrote:
I would say that any GOOD tool can be used for opposite reasons than it was intended. That may be why much of Scientology – good tools – has been interpreted as being intended for purposes opposite to what it was, by people either having MUs or having those opposite intentions.
You are leaving out some alternatives here.
You have:
1. Any good tool can be used for opposite reasons than it was intended by people with MUs or by people with opposite intentions.
But you leave out another possibility
2. Any tool can be represented as a good tool when it is not. The tool can be designed for slavery, even though it is represented as a tool that was designed for freedom.
You leave out number 2 above as an alternative explanation for what you see as going wrong in Scientology, and so many slaves being created. Yet you also see so many people pointing out Number 2 to you and yet you can only seem to consider number 1.
Why is number 2 so impossible to you?
A challenge for Marildi –
I will name two tools in Scientology that were intended to free people:
1. The Learning Drill
2. The Three Barriers to Study
Can you name 2 tools in Scientology that were intended to enslave people?
No, Al, I can’t name any because I don’t know of any that were INTENDED to enslave. You’ve hit at the crux of my basic viewpoint – that the tools of Scientology were intended to free, not enslave. And where they have in fact enslaved it’s because they’ve been used with that intention. LIke Geir’s example of the hammer that can be used to smash, though it was invented as a tool to help.
I concur.
I can name examples where the intention was to stop “in the name of good”, but not intended to enslave.
What were they?
1. The auto-declare of a person having interrupted a session at two occasions.
2. Overboarding
. The auto-declare of a person having interrupted a session at two occasions. 2. Overboarding
Isn’t it true that there may be times when stopping something fast or “in the bud” is actually the greatest good? LRH stated somewhere that you might need to put the head of a particular individual on a pike – for the greater good – but that you always then go back and assist the individual too.
To put a head on a pike could be good for any business staffed by persons with common sense as true ethic gradients are used. But applied to the CoS this assumption have proven to be just an attempt to rip-off staff and public from his resources and promote fear to loose spiritual eternity if any requeriment is not allowed on an imediate basis.
Thanks, Rafael, but my interest is not in how tech or policy was abused. I don’t think anybody here needs to be convinced of that. The point of interest to me at the moment is whether there was any tech or policy that had originally been intended to harm rather than help.
marildi, I understand better now. My opinion is that the scientology policy and tech are an interrelated system and mutually dependant. You can´t study a single LRH policy or tech advance alone because this little piece of a whole will seem a little truthful but, which added to the rest makes a dangerous compound. A kind of frankenstein monster created with good human parts. but in this case a religious philosophy and psychotherapy created with workable bits from diferent places but not making a coordinated body of knowledge, a kind of ” collage ” with easyly agreeable social buttons. This is my basic assumption on the scientology topic. This show for me the why and the proper handling to make scientology a good tool for the society. I mean, lets make a well coordinated scientology policy and tech disregarding the LRH KSW # 1. The option B will be to ban the subject due his inherent morbid condition.
“lets make a well coordinated scientology policy and tech disregarding the LRH KSW # 1”
Rafael, Option A, above, is basically how I see it. But even KSW #1 has its uses, as it would with any technology – you can’t just start applying anything you want within a system that is claiming to use Scientology processes that have been proven workable. Using processes that haven’t been proven shouldn’t be allowed, obviously. Not that I see any reason that the tech shouldn’t be improved, and it could be argued that that idea goes against KSW #1, which is fine – but the main thing is that proven workability needs to be upheld. So at least that part of policy is valid.
marildi, you and me as ethics officers loved to apply on others meter checks, taylor made sec checks, Comm Evs, exchange by dynamics, hatting and various word clearings, the ISE book gradients, PTS handlings, etc,etc,etc……
This abuses were backed up by our seniors as on policy and assisting the greatest good to protect KSW # 1.
Let me tell you that we were in fact the tool for the political handling of disidence and protection of the international management business. True religion needs more understanding and less greed. True psychoterapy needs more lab studies confirmed by statistics and less fixed methods. And finally, as you can´t change KSW # 1 on these earlier conditions, this policy should be canceled as arrogant and anti-natura. Of course it will break the assumption of LRH as an all knowing god.
Again, I don’t disagree at all with the fact that tech and policy have been used and abused. My focus is on what was and is in the materials that can be used in a highly beneficial way – and include with that, as you say, more “lab studies”.
I didn’t get what you meant by – “as you can´t change KSW # 1 on these earlier conditions”.
marildi, what I mean is that CST will NEVER allow any scientific study and modification of scientology policy and tech as it is designed originally by LRH because the basic assumtion of CST is that LRH designed these materials without need of any revision or scientific study, it is currently a matter of faith. So RTC and CoS should agree with this or lose the concession from CST. Here lies the evil of LRH, he doomed the corporate scientology to never change and harm his parish. So the best solution will come from persons like you and me, the SP declared persons Marilyn. And the corporate scientology needs to be banned.
Rafael, IMO you are granting way too much beingness to the Cof S and everything connected with it. I do not see that they have as much power as you seem to believe. Are you still under their spell to some degree? 😉
And as for LRH being evil and dooming corporate Scn – here is a quote that applies: “The Structure of the Church Created by LRH Before His Departure Has Been Unmocked, Its Separation of Powers and Multiple Cross Checks & Balances Eliminated”
For more details see the website: http://www.savescientology.com/
marildi, the beingness I grant is the one that LRH granted to the CoS as per the CST bylaws , no more, no less:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html#specialdirforlife.
spell ? not really :-), nothing could care me less.
About savescientology.com. . It is just the cry of those who lose in the push for the power within the CoS,RTC and CST and aim to recover their lost status and priviledges without changing anything in LRH´s inconsistent scriptures.
Sure – but the two points I mentioned above is clearly (to me) waaay overdoing it – in fact squarely irrational and an admittance of defeat in handling people with ARC.
The idea I got about interrupting sessions was that it is potentially so harmful to the pc that making a very harsh policy for doing it had the purpose of preventing it from happening. It’s not likely that a person would do it twice unless he was actually suppressive or quite irresponsible and factually needs more discipline imposed on him.
Overall, it’s like that system of yours where you give a numerical weight to things in order to decide what the policy should be.
But as I said – it is a substitute for actually handling the person. And it is somewhere between 1700 and 3200 times as harsh has need be. Totally out of proportion – a reactive move by LRH IMO.
Geir, I actually stop thinking somewhere between 1700 and 3200, what it means ?
🙂 Very creative. I can agree that the handling per se was probably unnecessarily out of proportion to what would might have been needed to handle the individual. But in the bigger picture the purpose of the policy first and foremost was as a deterrent, so as to prevent a lot of harm.
LRH may have miscalculated this situation when weighing all the pros and cons. But that is a very different thing from intending harm or even simply “reacting”. There hasn’t been any objective study of the matter and probably neither you nor I has had the relevant experience to even make an educated guess.
The real question here is how much one should consider the rights of the individual and still not neglect the needs and rights of others – sometimes many others. LRH’s viewpoint was “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” and it seems to me that in this instance he was acting on that. In any case, I can’t think of a better approach than “greatest good”. Can you?
marildi, there is a better approach. The approach of protecting the human beings not the hallucinatory remaining 4 dynamics of 8. When LRH invented the 8 dynamics optimum solution formula was spiritually very bad indeed
You are speaking in vague generalities, Rafael. Let’s be realistic with an obvious example. The police have to decide whether to kill a sniper or let him go on killing more people than he already has. If circumstances were different, they might have had the option of capturing him and getting him rehabilitated (assuming there would be a way to do so). But circumstances do not give them the choice of “protecting all human beings”.
And I’m not sure why you use the word “hallucinatory” in referring to the dynamics.
mardi, kill a sniper? I guess we are going a little off topic, don´t you think. I am talking about religion and PSYCHOTHERAPY. There are legal issues regarding abuse over psychotherapeutic patients ( remember Lawrence Wollersheim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wollersheim ).
about generalities, give specifics please.
It’s not off topic since we are talking about the general principle of how to evaluate what one should or should not do as regards a particular individual – is it just his rights that we should be concerned about? That is the question. The sniper example was an extreme one just to make the point clear about this principle of solving things in terms of the greatest good.
What I meant about generalities was this: “the approach of protecting the human beings.” How so? How would you do that if not with the principle of the greatest good?
marildi, now I understand. In my opinion the ” greatest good ” as designed by LRH is just a control mechanism to get all the money you have and steal you family and friends with “one billion year contracts” without pay and social security. this formula is a criminal fraud by LRH and used today by dependant and independant scientologist alike to make a living and nothing more than that. About my proposed “approach to protect the human beings” I mean to have enough shame and decency to protect the persons of the parish and not rip off their living resources to bank them in the so called ” WAR CHEST ” of the S.O. as an specific example of much more.
“Greatest Good” is the war cry of every fascist regime including our current government. The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics for me is not the way to explain away violence. Do you see where I am going?
The “greatest good” is a cliche’ that I don’t agree with on its face. No one knows what the greatest good for all dynamics is because its too big. It’s a ridiculous premise to think with after about 1 or 2 levels deep.
“Spare the rod and spoil the child” — Really? Everybody assumes this to be true until someone says, no. This is bullshit. I can raise a sensible, happy, respectful, and productive child without spanking them. I’ve just done it 5 times in a row, and I was raised in poverty using the old school method of spanking, anger and violence.
No one that I ever knew in Scientology ever worked on that premise at all. They committed atrocious, abusive and violent actions towards their fellow staff and public, never mind the exe’s. There is no possible way that you avoided this violence at Flag. What did Rafael SN mean by you and he were ethics officers and did all these things, etc.?
Chris, a finance officer is a well trained ethics officer and sea org. mission school graduate, sec checked till a millimeter of his soul.
Cool. What do you think of the “greatest good?”
Chris, I Think it is as you say a cliche. This ” greatest good ” has been used before scientology as a political tool by the dictator in charge ( germany, japan, italy, etc. )
Because you and I can discuss this subject, I am discussing it further. Like you, I tire of the rhetoric, but I do not grow tired of You. It is my opinion that you have attachments to a subject that are not helping the Subject. It is my opinion that you worry for the future of the Subject. It is my opinion that you may be defending the Subject at a cost of your own freedom in the area. But other than my interest in You, I have no interest in this debate any longer. I am moved way on from this. But I do care about your well being and your ease about our shared staff history and study of Scientology.
Do you know of any examples where a simple “firing” would not be sufficient to handle an incompetent? Possibly a civil suit for a copyright infringement? Any example as extreme as your police and sniper example which did occur or needed to occur within the Church requiring an execution of the malcontent? Or any example where the utter destruction of the dissident would have been necessary?
Chris, you say that you tire of the rhetoric criticizing Scn but I’ve noticed that you too continue to originate such, here and there. And I don’t really get why. It’s not that I don’t think all the crap that’s gone on should not be confronted (the way Alanzo misinterprets it), it’s just that I don’t see the need to keep repeating the same old stuff all the time – as you say, it’s tiresome. And I would add unproductive, particularly since literally no one needs convincing.
As for your concern for me and my attitude – I believe you are sincere, but the opinion you have and have had for some time about my motives and viewpoints is just not how it is. Don’t you think it’s possible that I (or anyone) could actually believe that Scn has enough merit that attention should be place on THAT? To determine what is good just as it is, what is not good, and what could be improved?
For example, my bringing up the subject of the “greatest good” principle was to actually discuss it. I have gotten the idea even before now that there is disagreement about it and all I want to know is – what is the alternative? And, factually, no one has directly answered the question. What would you apply if not that to a situation where you have to make a choice and someone is going to be an unwanted effect – not of violence, but unwanted. Violence might have to occur in extreme cases, as with the sniper, but that should be rare.
I’m not necessarily trying to defend the “optimum solution”. I just don’t see how we can get around it – but I’ll listen to anyone who wants to actually take it up, instead of just reacting off of past bad experiences where it was misapplied. Is this too much to ask?
Nope. Not too much to ask. If I didn’t already address this post against your other posts, please remind me and I will re-iterate! 😉
“The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” is a very good public relation until your own dynamic seems to be in need of being suppressed to help everyone else. What do you think?
I think that I would agree to that along with everyone else doing so – we do that all the time when we agree to rules that we ourselves will have to face the consequences for if we break them. But none of you – Geir, Rafael, or you – has answered the question. What else is better than that as an op basis for handling situations, especially tough moral judgments?
mardi, tough moral judgments :-), how many years do you think you are allowed to live? AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE ? =) . In my opinion, life is short. What is supposed that you are going to do with it ?. Do something valuable for human beings, your group, close friends, family.
If you are wanting to look from the theta universe the suffering of your loved ones, you are mad.
That’s a good way of asking it Marildi. I wrote elsewhere that I thought the “greatest good” is flawed as a concept. I guess to answer your question, I will refer you to LRH who taught us that people are basically good. All you have to do is sort out the person in front of you, put that person on their own purpose line and get out of the way. They will take it from there and you won’t have to worry about them anymore. Same goes for ourselves. Geir said it well when he finished L-11? Always wondered what his purpose was. Realized that it’s whatever you want it to be.
That “greatest good” cliche’ was just a way of tricking us into believing that we were members of the only True Group, the one which always operates for the greatest good on every dynamic. That was really a crock.
The better solution to using the “greatest good” is to just be honest and then do whatever you want to. It will all level out regardless of what you decide. Maybe I just don’t think our individual decisions are really so very important. It is an inflated sense of ego that tells us they are.
Chris, can you see how you are still not answering the question? First you gave an opinion as to LRH’s intentions for the datum. And then you avoided the question again by stating an approach that doesn’t speak to it at all. It’s a question of having to decide among choices. For example, if a man’s wife was in the hospital in childbirth and the doctor told him that it was a medical situation of either saving the baby or the mother and the choice had to be his – a decision would be required byt the man.
Honestly, I see you guys as unable to just look at the question clearly and cleanly, because of allowing your charge to take hold.
Alright, I can be more direct.
I don’t use the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics because I don’t need to. I just take a look at what I think needs to be done. I don’t consider the first second fourth fifth sixth seventh or eighth dynamics when making a third dynamic decision. I consider the third. If it is about me, I might look at the 1st thru 3rd. Same for employees. I never ever consider mankind for decisions that do not directly affect all mankind. To date, none of the decisions in my life have had much effect on mankind. Also, it seems that the State of Arizona has barely noticed my existence except on April 15th when I pay my state income taxes.
If I was taking out the sniper, I would consider the safety of his hostages and then deal with him in the most humane way possible that preserved the rights of the hostages. I would not consider my own first dynamic nor my second nor my third nor my fourth or fiffth or sixth or seventh or eighth; nor his either. Just his first as played off the third he created with the hostage situation.
Granted no one is asking me to decide big policy decisions or anything. Maybe the President of the United States needs to consider 3 through 5 and sometimes 6th. But when he’s dealing with his children he doesn’t need to consider the 3 through 8. It’s unwieldy and unnecessary and ineffectual.
What difficult moral choices do we need to apply this to? When I hire a person, I am pleased if the job augments the guy’s 1st and 2nd dynamics. But truly, I never ever ask an employee what he intends to do with the money I pay him if I were to choose to hire him. I don’t ask if he tithes. Nothing. It doesn’t come into the equation because it’s his business and I respect that.
I think hard before firing someone. I try to understand what is causing the guy’s major malfunction at work, then I talk to him about it. I don’t really have much on talking straight talk to people that work at my business. I consider my business the networking hub for my working 3rd dynamic and for theirs as well. I rock on with people’s petty foibles or as they say in the Sea Org, their “frying of other fish.” Up to a point. Then if they can’t see their way clear to show up to work when they have agreed to, if they can’t perform in a way that they told me they would, if they make others angry and wreck the morale, I finally release them.
When grocery shopping, do you consider your 3rd through 8th dynamics? Do you only buy American? or what? The longer I grind on this, the more apparent it is to me that I don’t use the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics in my life to make decisions, although I think I thought I did. Thanks for bringing up the issue in a way for me to sort through my thoughts about it.
Chris, that was a great reply. Thank you for going to the trouble of such a full and appropriate answer to my question. And get this – that is the best description of applying the “optimum solution” (greatest good) that I could ever imagine. I can’t think of the reference at the moment but the fact is that you did it just like you’re supposed to – you considered the dynamics immediately involved. That’s right, you don’t take into account any that aren’t. You must have had an MU on that point, but obviously you weren’t lacking in intelligence about it.
You know, I was taking a loss on the discussion today and feeling like I just couldn’t make myself understood by anyone, but you have truly lifted my spirits again. Thanks, SOul brother. 😉
I’m glad it went that way. As I said, I know I use Scientology but I just don’t care to refer to it that way anymore except in context.
And no need to. Truth is truth – it isn’t more so because it’s Scientology. And it isn’t less so either.
great post:):) 🙂
Was a PC harmed by having their session interrupted?
I have had many sessions interrupted and look what that did for me 😉
Geir, you are an ot 8 already, and I am not. It seems that the world is alright 🙂
My point exactly.
One time at CST up at Crestline CA, I was doing some type of maintenance activity around a cabin. Unknown to me there was a session going on inside. My walking on a redwood deck made the usual clunky footfalls whereupon an auditor came outside storming at me that she was writing me up for the suppressive activity of interrupting an auditing session. I apologized and left saying “sheesh!” under my breath. Then I was called in and interviewed for this serious breech. Nothing came of it but I wondered who had interrupted the auditing session, me or the auditor’s gross out-TR’s? Fortunately that PC somehow recovered and lived to blow a few months later which I now realize writing this was my own fault for harming his psych-e with that session interruption.
Truthfully, picture the movie “Fight Club.” Picture the rain and flooded basement with bare light bulbs burning and circuits sparking and popping. I had such a building under my care and because it was unusable for storage, we used it for berthing. No joke. One of my auditors lived in this “house” and I wanted auditing so bad I braved freezing winter and leaking sparking popping fuses and if a circuit blew, I’d say, “Stay right there, I’ll be right back” whereupon I’d jump up, go handle the malfunction or put a bucket under the drip, handle the PTP, whatever was going on then soaking wet or freezing just wrap up in a blanket, pick up the cans and say, “Ok, ready.” My needle never failed to float. Later, much later, I learned how slick a session could run if my own physical rudiments were “in.” But that is fodder for another of my yarns and I don’t remember having a “bad” session under those primitive circumstances.
The way I just told this story is how my rudiments sessions always went. In fact, just now was the first time since that incident (the first one with the auditor yelling at me) that I’ve mentioned it or it has come up. It was a break in reality and it was a ‘curious about reality.’ My needle floated and I’m done with that. This is about as ARC breaky as I get. But hey, charge off is charge off, right?
Marildi –
Thanks for answering my challenge to you.
How about the Sea Org Billion Year contract?
To free?
Or to enslave?
I don’t consider the Sea Org to be “a Scientology tool” (your original subject). You might be able to fit it into admin tech, I guess. But don’t forget, Al, my focus is on basic Scientology philosophy and tech. I’m not interested in going into all the alterations of tech that came about, and not admin tech either, really.
Marildi wrote:
I don’t consider the Sea Org to be “a Scientology tool” (your original subject). You might be able to fit it into admin tech, I guess. But don’t forget, Al, my focus is on basic Scientology philosophy and tech. I’m not interested in going into all the alterations of tech that came about, and not admin tech either, really.
That’s an interesting focus, it lets you ignore some things completely. You can focus just on the basic philosophy and tech, and ignore everything around it.
Yes, any staff contract is going to be part of admin tech, and no, the Sea Org billion year contract was created by L Ron Hubbard and it is not an “alteration”.
So let me understand this: you are ignoring everything in Scientology that you do not label “basic Scientology philosophy and tech”.
Do you consider Hubbard’s 1959 HCOB “Blow-offs” to be basic Scientology philosophy and tech?
:-))
Yes, Al, I would consider that HCOB to be basic tech and my personal experience on different flows tells me it’s true.
You’ve already made the point that Bill Franks claimed that years later LRH told him the datum about overts causing blows wasn’t true. First of all, that’s hearsay, as far as I know. But assuming it’s true that LRH said that, I wouldn’t know what to make of it as there is too much missing data. And in any case, I don’t think it’s relevant what LRH said or what his motives were at that later date – that’s just ad hom. What matters to me is what I and others have found to be workable.
Marildi –
Since I believe that you do not have the intention to enslave yourself, I will say that one of the main points of the Bill Franks story is that overts and withholds are NOT the only reason for “unexplained departures”.
The story by Bill Franks shows this was Hubbard”s intention for that piece of tech as well. And again, if you focus ONLY on what Hubbard said about it, and reject all other data from any other source outside of Hubbard and of “approved” Scientology, then you will enslave yourself with this “tool”, if only by being single-minded about “unexplained departures”.
Is the only reason you left the Church of Scientology because you had overts against it? That’s what Churchies tell each other about you, and they do it per L Ron Hubbard’s tool, exactly.
Can you see in your case how this tool was designed to enslave?
That’s why I say that this tool, which does fit your narrow focus, was designed, by Hubbard, to enslave.
Is there something I have said here that does not add up to you?
I find it curious that you would conclude that the above example from Bill Franks MUST have been because LRH’s INTENTION was to enslave.
You totally disregard any other possibility. Isn’t this exactly what you are accusing Marildi of? Disregarding possible explanations?
Al, I do believe there is a level of truth to what LRH said in 1959 in HCOB Blow Offs, but LRH himself clarified the point and described it more precisely in 1965:
“ARC Breaks don’t cause blows. Missed withholds do…In short, the bottom of ARC Breaks is a missed withhold.” HCOB 4 APR 1965
So it’s not really overts, it’s the withholds of them – and then those withholds being missed. And it seems strange that LRH would have told Bill Franks in 1974 not to tell anyone that it wasn’t overts when in fact he had written the above years earlier.
Also, what LRH said in that later HCOB is also what Elizabeth has found by EXPERIENCE in her many years of auditing, as per her comment to you that she has found withholds, not overts, to be key.
As for what you call my narrow focus, I’ll say again that I’m not disregarding, denying or not-ising all the negative things that have occurred. I’m just choosing to put my attention on the positive – on whatever is workable.
I love your narrow focus, that thin line which we walk on is ones own universe.. been picking you up, care to have a gracious cat fight? boxing gloves an of course..
Sure, why not. Lately it seems everybody likes to fight with me. Whatcha wanna fight about, cat woman?
Ok… [it is you who should be provoking me].. But i have seen something and my dear which indicates that you dont have a sense of humor. those smiling faces you put after your comments means nothing, where is your real smile?
I should have told you that I loved your comment about my narrow focus and then you added “that thin line which we walk on is one’s own universe”. Not everybody sees that I do have my own universe and your comment made me smile – for real. 🙂
Now if that doesn’t come across as a true smile for you, maybe you need a session on me. (meow :D)
Good one… wimper..wimper… into session i go.
G wrote:
I find it curious that you would conclude that the above example from Bill Franks MUST have been because LRH’s INTENTION was to enslave.
From Bill Franks’ story:
We waited and waited and about 0300 hrs a messenger came down with a Despatch written by LRH. My memory does not recall any folders being returned. The despatch was entitled Very Confidential underlined. “He went onto say that if you or Franks ever reveal any of this information that I am about to reveal, the consequences will be severe for SCN.” He then wrote, “a person does not blow due Overts or Witholds. He blows only due to ARC BKs”.
“However, If any of this information ever became public,I would lose all control of the orgs and eventually Scientology as a whole”.signed “LRH”
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?22265-Bill-Frank-s-story-about-brainwashing-(thread-merge)
The above quote from Bill Franks’ story, along with many other data from Scientology, from studying mind control techniques and social psychology, is what makes me conclude that LRH’s intention was to enslave, and not to free Scientologists with every single tool he placed in Scientology.
This is an example of a tool in Scientology which was designed by LRH to enslave.
And this is why I brought it up to Marildi for her to look at.
I have also given examples, if you will notice, of tools in Scientology that were designed to free.
So what are the tools that were designed to enslave doing in Scientology?
Alanzo I read Franks story thank you. I do have a reality that there is nothing more there than ARCB’s. I been operating on that belief, solo auditing using Only the Rudiments since 1977. I have given up using the Overt question very long time back, but the Withold question has remained in use because under the withholds is our true, real thinking, our universe which we don’t want to reveal.
What I have found unusual that scientologist who has the recall of the past lives-track, not one investigated recalled from where LRH was coming from. HE too had a track and I did some investigating – recall. But of course that is only a “recall” how could be proved and who would believe it the first place?
But politics is not in my bag this life, but that not made me blind to see and asses for myself what I read. I also believe one should handle all ARCB’s that should include with the CoS and that would allow the person to be able to smell the roses or dance by starlight in space from planet Earth. In other word move on with the creation.
I find your reasoning very similar to what you accuse Marildi of. I myself refrain from speculations regarding people’s intentions as I find that a slippery slope.
G wrote:
I find your reasoning very similar to what you accuse Marildi of. I myself refrain from speculations regarding people’s intentions as I find that a slippery slope.
From “The Admissions of L Ron Hubbard”
Material things are yours for the asking. Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves. You are power among powers, light in the darkness, beauty in all.
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=466&Itemid=174
With so many people who have been enslaved by Scientology, and with so many examples of policies, practices and technology in Scientology that are used to this day to enslave, and with such a long track record of LRH refining these policies, practices and technology to get better and better at enslaving people, I believe I am on pretty firm ground when I conclude that it was L Ron Hubbard’s intention to enslave people with Scientology.
You may disagree.
But the preponderance of evidence is against you.
Says Alanzo 😉
That’s my new sig line.
Well this is a long string, let’s see where my post ends up. This is in reference to whether LRH developed any tech which he actually intended to enslave people with asanend result, rather than to free them with.
I see the issues Al is referring to as issues of controlling, rather than enslaving. They are tactics, rather than strategies. LRH said quite a bit about “control”, as well as about “slavery”. They are not the same. When you control a person, you are not necessarily enslaving him. Governments control people, employers control their employees, parents control their children at times, none of these are necessarily “enslavement”.
LRH was quite open about the necessity of the auditor “controlling” the preclear. And he stated right from the beginning that the reason and purpose of the auditor controlling the preclear was to return to the preclear a greater control of himself, to in the end restore his self-determinism.
So until proven otherwise, that is how I see LRH’s efforts to control people,when did exert such efforts. And so it is quite plausible to me that his intention was not to enslave, but to set free.
In fact, in many traditions that transmit “knowledge” whether Buddhist, Sufi, or Hindu the new acolyte or student is expected to allow the teacher, guru, or guide to control him. This is commonplace, even in martial arts schools, where the students bow to the teacher and call him “Master”. Yet the goal is for each student to himself eventually become a “master” by increasing his own self-mastery.
That’s my take on this issue at this time.
All right, V.
Do you know anything about indentured servitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
What if you took the term of indenture and made it into a billion years – functionally a lifetime sentence. And then you paid the servant $50 per week, but charged him tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars for the training required to do his job?
Here you have Hubbard’s Sea Org contract.
Is it just control?
Or is it slavery?
Al, about the “billion year contract”, it is for Sea Org members only, and probably has little actual reality for many new recruits.
I see little difference between that and the cosmologies of Christianity or even Buddhism, which try to convince people that they need to commit themselves to Buddha or Christ or face eternal damnation in one way or another.
Anyway Al, it “takes 2 to tango”. No slavery or indentured servitude is possible without methods of enforcement and the subject’s agreement to engage in them.
That’s what made early Christians so dangerous to Rome – their willingness to die rather than give in. It is also what makes today’s Islamic extremists so dangerous to today’s “Rome”(the US, Britain etc. And soon, China). They make “soldiers” who are willing to blow themselves up for “the cause”.
The picture is Figure 2 (Viewpoint Rejected). It is the old situation of “Eastern vs. Western” or “Brahma vs. A-Brahma (Abraham)”. It is the not understanding of the process of “neti, neti.” It is putting Thinking ahead of Looking.
It seems that this divide that has existed since eons cannot be patched easily.
.
Not really Vinaire. Lots of people look and see God. This is not even in question. It is an empirical social fact.
Could it be a visualization by the person?
.
I don’t understand. My answer is “yes, it is a visualization by the person.” . . .
What would not be a visualization by a person?
A small boy once approached his slightly older sister with a question about God. “Susie, can anybody ever really see God?” he asked.
Busy with other things, Susie curtly replied: “No, of course
not silly. God is so far up in heaven that nobody can see him.”
Time passed, but his question still lingered so he approached his mom: “Mom, can anybody ever really see God?” “No, not really,” she gently said. “God is a spirit and he dwells in our hearts, but we can never really see Him.”
Somewhat satisfied but still wondering, the youngster went on his way. Not long afterwards, his saintly old grandfather took the little boy on a fishing trip.
They were having a great time together. The sun was beginning to set with unusual splendor and the grandfather stared silently at the exquisite beauty unfolding before them.
On seeing the face of his grandfather reflecting such deep
peace and contentment, the little boy thought for a moment and finally spoke hesitatingly:
“Granddad, I–I– wasn’t going to ask anybody else, but I wonder if you can tell me the answer to something I’ve been wondering about a long time. Can anybody – can anybody ever really see God?”.
The old man did not even turn his head. A long moment slipped by before he finally answered. “Son,” he quietly said. “It’s getting so I can’t see anything else.”
Anonymous
Beautiful.
This is a true story. The old man in the boat was me.
Are you both saying that God is a being?
Simple wonderment at what is there could be labeled as God.
.
I made a simple statement. I guess you don’t agree with it. You know what people can and cannot see and you know that they cannot see God. So the people who see God are wrong. You cannot fathom this seeing God and therefore it is wrong. I shall inform anyone who brings this up to me of the same and refer them to you for cramming.
@Chris: 🙂
LOL!
Smart!
A Perfect Mess sounds like the next step on my path. I just ordered it. Sometimes, I am not good at completing cycles of action because once I get into the “continue” phase, I get other ideas I want to “start” on. I have to really work at this or everything around me would be a perfect mess.
I have noticed that I have done this (trying to sell my path) in more than one area of my life. For instance, I have been on an evolving nutritional path for years. My path has changed many times, sometimes dramatically. In the past, I would “know” that everyone should be doing exactly what I was doing, but after changing so many times, it’s hard to continue being such a numbskull.
🙂
It is important to be aware of oneself selling a certain path to others. It may at times be hard to spot one’s own selling of such.
Thank god I get called out by my kids, as everyone else is too polite. I have to remind myself that even if you KNOW somebody is wrong, they usually have to take their own journey and discover it for themselves.
haha well this is where I excel. I am now so able that I can make the same mistakes over and over – forever.
You are a good person Geir, and I love you.
(I would always, anyway).
Big hug and see you around
Hug right back.
Ha ha. And now that I NEVER do this anymore, I can make sure to point it out to everyone who does. Wouldn’t I be admired then?
Oh yes! You will be a legend!
The OP speaks sooth. Although there was a long period of time where I thought Scientology was a technology that would work for nearly everyone, I am now open to other viewpoints – including my own – which would certainly be slammed hard in an org context.
For me, the most immutable datum I have from Scientology is the cycle of action, Start-Change-Stop. I believe that datum to be immutable because it fits all action from the quantum level on up. A true fractal datum.
That datum may be more of an articulation of an observation than a piece of “tech”, but it is often the articulation (for me) that allows it to be understood and added to the data set. By that I mean that I can have observed something countless times, but until I put it into words, or someone else does, what I’m “seeing” is sometimes invisible to me. (And just as an aside, the true wealth of Scientology is the articulation of those otherwise invisible data.)
So it is with S-C-S. Without that datum I would probably leave the bulk of cycles around me as incomplete. Being idea-driven I can easily conceive of tons more interesting things to start than I could ever complete. Knowing the mechanics of the cycle and the liability of incomplete cycles now heavily moderates what I start, and completion of cycles – or at least completely ending a cycle, complete or not – helps keep the order in my life.
The structure that best works for me is understanding the mechanics of a thing. Some people will understand by concept, but for me it’s mechanics. Whether it’s a process, programming language, machine (physical or mental), or elementary particle, I still like to take it apart and see what makes it tick. My path, and damn, the demolitions my parents had to endure while I went through it!
2ndxmr, you said that the structure that best works for you is understanding the mechanics, and I have come to that as well – since the universe is essentially a mechanical one, including the universe of thought. Even concepts I think of as abstract grasps of the mechanics involved.
I agree too about Scientology having articulated so much of “the invisible”. That’s why I keep going back to the basic books, etc. And I really like your idea of using fundamental observations, like that of the cycle of action, as a sort of lens to view reality through in order to make it all the more visible. The other incredible lens you mentioned is the fractal nature of things.
And btw, what you said about observing something “countless times but until I put it into words, or someone else does, what I’m ‘seeing’ is sometimes invisible to me” – that’s precisely the operating principle of these discussions, IMO. Good post! 🙂
Geir, you call yourself unstructured but it seems there’s a method to your madness ;). Within the “chaos” is a structure or within the structure is an allowed chaos. Even the HyperList system, which is a very precise and systematic structure, provides for flexibility with the Qualifiers part of it. I hadn’t put it together until now and you have just inspired me as regards a conundrum I’ve had about loving both order and spontaneity.
I like to think there is a method to my madness 🙂
I’m thinking you’re more methodical than you are mad. Just a guess. 🙂
😉
About time you showed. I liked your post and for me this balance you write about comes down to purpose. I ask myself what am I trying to build? If anything, then it needs structure to that degree. If not, if I am just goofin’ then no structure is required. I think alternating spontaneity and structure might be called art.
I know, Chris, I’ve been missing and remiss, and it seems that I was missed. 😉
“I think alternating spontaneity and structure might be called art.”
Good one! That would include the art of living. 🙂
Yes. Happy you are back.
Me too!
Marildi, I am waiting!!!!
What are you waiting for? Me? I’m waiting for you – you haven’t given me much to argue with you about. 😉
you want to argue about something, like being “polite” hiding behind polite? OK…OR lets talk about your reality you having huge botton about what is learned knowledge. Since that is what you have… I am open.. rattle my cage…
Are you sure it’s me who has the button? Tell me why you are against knowledge. I would say that the reason I think knowledge is a road to truth is because that has been my personal experience. You should try it.:D (Oh, that was mean of me.)
Gloves off kid! Who is reading who’s blog in order to COLLECT SOME MORE KNOWLEDGE AND THAT IS SECOND HAND AND YOU KNOW IT![in.s.I go}
Of course it is second hand. I’m not the one who has a problem with second hand knowledge, remember? 😉 Just think about it, if we weren’t able to share on a second-hand basis what others have discovered, we would have to re-invent the wheel all by ourselves, wouldn’t we? And almost everything else too. The BIGGEST part of knowledge is from others, those in PT and in all the past.
Yes, gloves off – tell me what is really going on in your mind because I can’t believe that you truly disagree that “second-hand” knowledge is valuable. Even calling it “second hand” (your word) is a put-down – but why do you do it?
Second hand knowledge is MEST. It is agreed exist through agreements. it has mass, going back to the same old invented crap you get the same old invented crap which is the MEST. I thought that as a scientologist you wanted to become free from all that old inventions.”old wheel, woof-woof”
Mean my dear? mean is OK in my book, being alway polite as you are that is a mask, hiding so never show a real face, the real self. Polite is pure bank, undiluted.
Yes, and I have a botton about learned knowledge or i call it second hand.
Elizabeth, you say “Polite is pure bank, undiluted.”
We may be getting down to the basic disagreement. You seem to think that because something is in the bank it is no good. And in fact you want to get rid of the bank and get rid of the whole MEST universe. That doesn’t happen to be my purpose or goal – I just want to play a better MEST game. Being polite may be in the bank and may have a lot of agreement, but it is actually very helpful if you want to play a better game.
You’ve said yourself that you are still “in the MEST” and I would say that your main purpose (maybe the only one) is to let others know that there is a way out of MEST– by solo-auditing. I am not even disagreeing with that viewpoint about getting out of MEST or about solo-auditing to do so. Both of those things might be the higher reality. But because of the fact that you ARE still in the MEST universe – and so is everybody you would like to hear your message – I think that you have to follow those agreed-upon rules. And I think that you know this yourself. But sometimes you seem to want to deny the truth of it.
Marildi, this was very good, hard to find item.
This should hold some interest. The theta universe holds no mass, nothing, where is no game condition existing vanished which the being has identified with and after a while the being believed that one has to create something which protects the self and keeps one safe for ever.
Hence build some invisible walls around self which are ideas thoughts agreement-consideration. Having one establish those protective invisible walls, that being-believing as “self” too have sustenance-energy and having that one feels safe, protected by those believes and those believes have becomes one home, one’s familiar surroundings one’s home base, to operate from.
Why one do that? Because in the theta universe there is no identity, no self, no I… no game condition.
Interesting, my dear, the walls are hiding place more than one way. They are used not only to protect self from harm, but to protect others from “Self”, and one of the major believes “if I have a wall around me than I can’t disappear vanish evaporate, dissolve die-out be wiped out or fade away .
“I am safe beyond my wall forever and a day and to continue play that game which holds safety”.
PS: you are not your wall and you know it. much love.
very good, regroup, than i be back![in.s]
Marildi: that was a grand communication, thank you! What a game we play..much fun!!
Absolutely, great fun! And I still haven’t stopped thinking about your last comment! I see it the same way you do, that we are not our beliefs or agreements or thoughts. That is taking it a step beyond not being our bodies. I would add that neither are we any of our personality characteristics at all, and I’m sure you would agree. Without any of those things there is really no “identity” – although one is oneself. I actually realized that a while back because of the wonderful second-hand knowledge 😉 from you and others here, including Geir, who described self/identity as all our creations, and Vinaire, who has been a “radical” (meant in a good way, Vin) about this since way back and Chris and Maria too (maybe others I’m not remembering at the moment). All of you got me to look at that and see the truth of it. And now I will have to think more about the “walls” you talked about in your post. Thank you for sharing your cognitions – as usual! Much love back to you. 🙂
“The process of finding the truth may not be a process by which we feel increasingly better and better. It may be a process by which we look at things honestly, sincerely, truthfully, and that may or may not be an easy thing to do.”
– Adyashanti, “Bliss is a By-Product”
Beautiful!
.
I really like that! thanks!
the above sounds fantastic and describes a good session too, how it is. .
Another way to put this is:
“The truth may set you free, but it may kick your ass every way to Sunday before it does.”
I wonder why you felt the need to explained It?
I wasn’t trying to explain it.
I was thinking up a clever, funny, haha, entertaining, alternative.
Thanks for the ack… but I am sure you realize, we the readers create our own alternative which depends on out own reality..
Joking, Elizabeth.
Just joking!
Remember joking?
Alanzo:
Alazo, I know a joke and I understand when I see the Joker too. And I know what is humor, please read this I have copied it from my blog just for you.
HUMOR what is…we all know laughter in session is on indicator of energy release. Good stuff.
Over the past two years I have had sessions on the subjects since I have noticed, some people have more laugh easily others less and some people none at all. I know somebody who have a very good one but after a while listening to it and to other considerations she have, just did not add up, the senses of humor and the rest of her considerations. They clashed. For nothing better to do i have had a session on HUMOR.
[Not only on one word but regular way of doing things. Do you have on ARC B-K? Naturally! If i don’t understand something, have no reality
than I do have one or more!!! ARC B-K that is! ]
Instantly the question has transported me and I have found a beautiful long band like the Milky Way, way out in the Universe.
That band of energy I loved instantly. It was mocked up from substances like ground diamonds all flashing reflecting each other in myriad of color. And they not flowed but swirled and bubbled like the bubbles in champagne, effervescence!!!
HUMOR, What a delightful Mock Up!! I loved it. I could see that beings have personality based on such beautiful muck up. That was the end of that item that session.
But what happens over the eons to such a beings?
Well, same as any other beings. Gets a past, in the form of collected stuff which he holds very valuable the so-called havingness, track filled with incredible amount of agreed upon considerations, huge amount of false data, like: life and death, living, learning, love, hate, solidity on all levels, [very valuable crap] lots of loss, since on loss we really can agree that we are small, helpless and lonely, all the consideration, those thoughts are a wonderful commodity which all beings hold so dear to heart etc….etc. so over the eons the lies piles up high= we must make solidity. That Magic what causes that need to be out lawed!!!!!.
So I had another solo session on “Humor’ And in this a one new reality comes to light in form of cognition.
Being who use the mock up “being very funny” they do it in order to push away, repel, divert, deflect, drive away, resists, reject the incoming energy flows.””” If I make fun of something which comes into my space than I change that something into lesser in weight in seriousness and that way it won’t hurt me, if I change it than I am in control”””” So, let’s make fun of it, that way won’t bite!!
In other words the beings confront is so low [lower than the frog’s bottom] and have to change everything, no matter what comes in. [ of course we too, who listen to the change being made to that concept we laugh too, since we too can see the difference of the two flows and the comedians representation is definitely much
better much lighter in weight of the communication and we definitely feel better having that thought, that changed, altered, concept in our space. Wonderful.
That being, the comedian, the person with great sense of humor have so much fear the only way can handle the so called “living”, in the MEST universe by constantly make “fun” out of everything and everybody. So there are many comedian out there and the comedy, the level of they produce to entertain is depends on the level of tone scale they are at. According to that level they pull in the listeners who are on the same tone level too.
Today I had another go on the same subject. HUMOR. But I also put in the withhold button. Who would ever thing there is a “withhold” on such a matter as humor? But there was one, so was the instant cognition.
Humans and other members of the Universe for the ones who have great need of solidity do not or cannot have a sense of humor, because in that band ” HUMOR” nothing can stay solid. Effervescence in the form of bubbling brilliant light where nothing will gel! Look out we can’t have humor, life need to be taken very seriously, so, the beings who have great fear, to lose, things will disappeared on them or even self in some way, don’t have or can’t have a sense of humor. Just can’t. BECAUSE_ Humor melts away ones worries, ones problems, when one have humor: one thinks positive.
To a serious person who is overwhelmed by fear, Humor is a very dangerous commodity, only the frivolous can be like that who don’t have a care in the world! Good God we must be very correct, serious, keep to the agreed rules, we must keep things as they are, tradition, formality, strong principles, keep things under control at all times, never change, we can’t let our hair down. We need to be solid citizens, or MEST universe will fall apart… Heavens forbid!
An apple a day, well OK, but The best remedy still remains the same Have a good belly laugh! That will loosen up the solidity of the MEST.!!!
And what happens when solidity is gone, good heavens, there will be magic and we will be dancing among the stars tonight! Alanzo shall we danc?
Alanzo,:
you have not acknowledged my reply and this is not your first miss. This time I thought I continue the communication even if it is one sided. [if I understand humor or not.] You had a Assumption that I don’t know humor. Assumption: supposition guesses theory idea possibility deductions and from where all that have originate? Do I know it or not? what is you conclusion now?
In session one can find out when one reaches the basic -basic postulate. When one cognate on the BASIC-BASIC on any item than one no longer assume but KNOW= understands, simple as that. There used to be blogging here a very smart brilliant in fact, a person who had given this blog new ideas brought up excellent points and those comments he made opened up new vistas to see, which expended ones reality too. I miss reading his comments here, his spicy sense of humor.
I have posted something about ” OT abilities” in this blog which not have drawn one acknowledgement Here was his comment in my blog[plus he had few more. Why I am writing this to you? To show you assuming about anybody or anything is just that and nothing more…I am learning that my assumptions are totally useless. And when it comes to soloing yes I take that very-very seriously.
PS, I’ have assumed about Marildi something and after I have looked deep into her universe I have seen something very different and changed my whole view- understanding of her as what she is as a spiritual being. Totally beautiful space she has or correctly said “she is”. And why I put Williams comment bellow? Let you figure that one out for your self.
Submitted on 2012/02/28 at 6:28 pm
Zen Master Dogen had the same thing occur to him regarding “enlightenment” the Buddhist version of “OT.” He wanted a “no bullshit” answer to what enlightenment REALLY was. Let’s contract his definition to yours.
Here is your summary of NO BULLSHIT OTness:
I wonder why not LRH has emphasised “Hey guys, it is incredible, whatever you recall in sessions those are your wonderful creations your abilities…”
And here is Dogen’s
“Zazen is enlightenment.”
In both of these definitions, two heroic individuals (one world renown Zen Master and the other the keeper of a small blog who is one gutsy bitch who is STILL hot) CUT THROUGH FALSE PROMISES to see the power latent in experience itself.
_/!\_ (gassho)
-Bunkai/Katageek
I’m sorry Elizabeth. I really don’t know how to answer you.
You two posts have confused me.
what was confusing if i may ask? I know my reality is not real for most, but i just wanted to let you know i do know what is a joke, fun and what they do.[ i used to be a joker, jester in court in one life, way back. so I know what jokers can do and why they stand by the kings throne. They the one who are doing smoothing over the harsh reality. ask anything you like, mystery we dont need.
Alanzo if the invitation to dance among the stars was the confusing bit, let me clear that up…. Dancing among the stars means just that.. drop the body-move, cut the anchor points[ go exterior] and waltz to the tune of the universe..
I see. Yes, that was probably it.
I don’t think like that anymore. Being a human being here on planet Earth is very much all I need these days. But you go right ahead.
The effort in A-brahma religions seems to be to stop endless looking by putting a God-being there.
.
The key word here is SEEMS. For that is how it SEEMS to YOU. Perhaps you know very little of that which you speak and perhaps a little bit of respect for others would be useful. What is the point of denigrating others Vinaire?
Isene says:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/self-therapy/#comment-18596
“We all sell. All the time. Selling is good. Selling is trying to make others understand our viewpoint. Selling IS NOT BAD.
Overselling, on the other hand is what makes people reject ideas that perhaps should not have been rejected. And this is what Vinaire is doing and this is what so many scientologists are doing – and they learn to do it per the dissemination drill.”
.
Associating “Giving of knowledge” with “selling” is a foreign concept to me. It is not a concept that I grew up with.
KHTK is free. I am not forcing those ideas any one. My intention is to express Buddha’s Vipassana in modern language so we we can have a gress roots movement that is helping people free themselves from Dukkha. I was simply explaining Buddha’s ideas on this blog so they could be understood. I now see that these simple ideas of Vipassana have been running into the phenomenon explained in Per’s SP-PTS Series 2, Figure 2. G. is the only person I know of who is raising objections to these ideas. And he is the opinion leader on this blog. Others then follow his opinion.
I can see why G. calls himself a motivational speaker, because he has the ability to motivate others. He motivated me initially with KHTK and helped me start my blog. But for some reason he has turned against it. Now G. is doing his best to de-motivate me by telling me that I am “impolite,” I don’t know how to be “social,” I am “overselling,” etc.
I laugh at this reasoning from G., “Overselling, on the other hand is what makes people reject ideas that perhaps should not have been rejected.” People reject ideas because of the phenomenon explained in Per’s SP-PTS Series 2, Figure 2, or when there is a campaign against those ideas by some opinion leader. No amount of overselling will make a person reject ideas that are sound and which that person has understood. He will reject them only if he didn’t understand them in the first place.
Sorry G. You first motivated me regarding KHTK. Now you are trying to de-motivate me. Forcing this “selling” concept on me is itself “selling.” Forcing your “polite” concept and “how to be social” concept is also being oversold to me.
I seem to be the only person here who grew up in eastern culture. I am surrounded by many who are from a culture that has been philosophically at odds with the eastern culture. Well then, let’s have it.
As Elizabeth would like to say, “Let’s take the kid gloves off.”
Please explain why are you rejecting Buddha’s ideas of Vipassana?
.
Vinaire,
Oh wow.
I am amazed about how hard it is to actually get you to understand anything I say.
Let me break this down very, very carefully:
1. The ideas of KHTK is, I have stated several times, a stroke of genius.
2. #1 was and still is true.
3. The exercises, the training into Looking is fabulous. It is fuckin’ brilliant.
4. I restate #3
5. The WAY you sell those ideas (selling defined in Mirram-Websters above) is doing those ideas a disservice
6. …because you are almost completely a one-way-flow
7. You don’t seem to listen
8. Which is why your comment above is such a complete misrepresentation of my position.
9. My position on this is covered in this very list.
10. You try to push you viewpoints very hard – as you yourself say “in-you-face type communication”
11. That is the overselling.
12. You push your ideas harder than most scientologists I have known
13. Still you claim you don’t.
14. That is an inconsistency to me that I point out.
15. …and that you seem to be unable to grasp.
16. You have been slammed at many occasions for being rude to others – by me and other contributors
17. Your rudeness (“in-your-face” communication) is the FORM of your communication
18. …and the criticism of that FORM does not indicate disagreement with the CONTENT
19. I repeat #18.
20. Again
21. You seem to be unable to adopt to the social standards of this blog
22. You seem adamant that you will not in any way, shape or form show any change
23. …you will not admit that you are wrong
24. …or apologize for any rudeness.
25. … or even say that you will post here in accordance to very basic social politeness.
26. And when you are faced with any criticism, you go all defensive and offensive at the same time.
27. You claim Self is not important.
28. Still, in my view, you are extremely self centered, as evident by the way you (don’t) take criticism.
29. And lastly; I guess my predictions for you behaviour above is starting to come true.
And finally; You WILL commit to BASIC social politeness on this blog or you WILL NOT post here.
PERIOD (now that one was a joke – hope you got it)
Vin, I am more “eastern” than you are I was born in Manchuria and grew up as much in Korea and Japan as in the USA. My Russian family was 3 generations in the Far East, living among the real “Eastern” Asians, which you are not.
Speaking their languages and learning their customs, absorbing the essence of their being.
If Geir permits this post, I will say only that I see you not as an “Easterner”, but as a Hindu chauvinist responding from a “bapu” valence you are not able to perceive or break out of.
It’s summarized well here, in a blog post about Gandhi – “A man with an iron like determination, with a majestical personality like a glittering diamond. We call him “bapu”.
India has in fact been ruled for thousands of years by what Arthur Koestler termed a “bapucracy”
” Koestler traces the absence of individualism and independence, values integral to modern society, to the existence of a “Bapucracy” (Bapu-father)- a system of parental tyranny that carries over from domestic to political life.” The Father of a family in India is an absolute tyrant, who has absolute “Command Intention” as regards the members of his own family. The members of the family must have towards him, no “self”, no “will” of their own. He’s kind of like David Miscavige in the CoS. He is total cause, everyone else is total effect where he is concerned.
This has been institutionalized within the cultures of India for many centuries or even thousands of years. The father’s – bapu’s – word is law. And denigration and eradication of “self” is the key control operation which allows the bapu personality to stay in power.
Looking over my post, I see that it is one-sided and fails to acknowledge Vin’s positive contributions and frequently clear thinking on posted topics. It would be unfair to focus only on your shortcomings or limitations, Vinnie, as each of us has his own such – me especially.
So let it be known that I have noticed many good posts by you.
So that leads me to wonder, what kicks in the “bapu behavior” on your part?
To answer my own question, I suspect it has to do with imperfections in the handling of the Two Way Comm cycle on the part of other posters on this blog, in commenting on your comments.
Outnesses in their TRs 0-IV. I know I am very sloppy in this area myself and that it can lead to problems in understanding.
I’ve seen that too Valkov – outnesses in TRs used on Vin, by myself and others. And I’ve also seen all-out efforts to use them on him – to no avail. The cycle of communication simply does not get completed from his end.
Recently, I saw some effort on his part and improvements in his comm cycle, I really did. Unfortunately he also had to interject the snide and covert comments too. No matter who was the most right and who was the most wrong, Vin has to take responsibility for confronting the situation and handling it himself – it’s HIS situation.
The last time he decided to take off, like you everybody was sympathetic towards him but I think enough sympathy has been given. It’s really up to him. He could be cause over it if he decided to. Geir and everybody else has been rooting for him but it’s now jgetting a bit tiresome.
Sure, it’s the bapu valence he goes into. He may go into it no matter how well everyone here handled their Comm cycles with him. Hindus are notoriously chauvinistic, and now, since the British imperialism, even more resentful of “the West” and nationalistic about Indian culture. It’s only natural, having been regarded as “wogs” by the “superior” white man.
I think the best thing to do with him is to distinguish between his “originations” and his “comments”, in the sense we learned to distinguish them when we learned TRs. After all, it is true that we get an increase of whatever we put our attention on.
My problem with many of his posts is, I simply don’t understand what the H— he is talking about. And I should probably be more honest about that.
A second best thing may be to laugh at him when he does it, or just slap him around a bit. Which is actually what happens anyway.
Personally I see no other ways to deal with him without “addressing the man”. I mean, there’s so much to address there, at times! 🙂 He should take more unabashed pride in the amount of “self” he has. I think he feels proud, but then guilty about it because of his cultural indoctrination that “self is the root of all evil”.
Good point about increasing what we put attention on – we have granted a lot of “life” to his outpoints, that’s for sure. And I guess we’re still doing it right now, you and I, LOL. But I think we’re winding down, all of us.
For me, it really isn’t so much the impolite things Vinnie said as the fact that it was sometimes so hard to get him to actually complete a comm cycle – ack what was said, answer the question, etc. That is more frustrating than anything. And I shouldn’t speak for anybody else, but with Geir and sometimes others, what I picked up was that they really would have liked to have the comm with him! You know? Genuinely respected what he had to say because he has a uniquely valuable viewpoint too, like everybody here. That was the biggest irony, IMHO.
And Valkov, since we’re talking about personal things, I’ve told you before but it’s time I said it again. Your posts are very much appreciated, on a variety of levels. Keep ‘em comin’ with your knowledge and also the insight you shine on things. 🙂
Chris says:
This is a true story. The old man in the boat was me.
Vinaire says:
Are you both saying that God is a being?
Simple wonderment at what is there could be labeled as God.
Chris says:
I made a simple statement. I guess you don’t agree with it. You know what people can and cannot see and you know that they cannot see God. So the people who see God are wrong. You cannot fathom this seeing God and therefore it is wrong. I shall inform anyone who brings this up to me of the same and refer them to you for cramming.
Sharlee says:
This exchange is at the heart of the matter.
Hi Marildi, thanks for responding and your expression of appreciation for my posting. I know I fail to acknowledge such at times. Fact is, I am aware that some of my TRs are incomplete. I never attained the full EPs of some of them and need to do them some more.
OK,I wrote out this whole post and accidentally closed my browser which erased it!
About Vinnie, I think there is an automaticity going on with him at times. Whether we call it a valence, a computation or set of such, a circuit, a machine, a robot or whatever, it is of that ilk. When it comes into play, it is then that he fails to acknowledge, pontificates, lectures, seems condescending, etc. My point is that this is “case” we’re seeing.
I think of it as Vinnie is “not being himself”. Because in fact I have often seen him quickly acknowledge many posts from others, no problem, and that’s when he’s being himself. At other times that other personality is there and we all know what happens.
I have read Vinnie’s story, and what struck me was the illnesses he suffered as a child. And that he came to the USA with some serious physical conditions in play. From my own experience, this kind of background can set one up to be subject to the “weak valence” phenomena. Those allies who take care of one when one is indisposed can really lay in some seriously deep programming. The mother, sister, grandmothers, aunts, nurses etc who minister to one who is ill, read to him, tell stories, give encouragement, talk to one, tell cultural hero tales, inculcate ideals etc all that spoken bunk is 100% engramic and suppresses the basic personality when it activates
Additionally, I believe Vinnie is in the No-Interference area. Well, enuff said. It’s difficult to deal with in a blog setting. So I guess he is really the only one who can either come to grips with it, or not. Or we can just put up with a certain amount of “bapu spam”, if we can differentiate it from his genuine originations. But perhaps we should just boil him first, then skin him? I don’t know. Maybe he could just find someone competent he can trust and get it handled, instead?
So, do I think this evaluation from me about him, harmful somehow to Vinnie?
I think not. He can correct me if I’m wrong, after all.
You’re right, Valkov, Vinnie can always correct us if we’re wrong. He has every right to set us straight about one of the riskiest things a person can do – evaluate. If you’re wrong, the “wrong indication” can stir up some nasty charge. But sometimes you feel it’s the only shot you have, the only option that’s open. And you take it because you care and don’t want to just shrug your shoulders and turn your back.
You’re totally welcome for the expression of appreciation. 🙂
Hi Marildi –
I don’t know much, but I heard an LRH lecture today in which he mentions evaluation in the context of stable data.
Why shun evaluation at all? He says it’s because you might inadvertently invalidate some stable datum the person is holding on to which puts them into the confusion the stable datum was holding off.
In fact Vinnie is not our pc, we are not auditing him in a session, which is what the auditor’s code applies to. I think in life, between friends, the auditor’s code is still a good thing but is not the end-all. I think in life, two-way comm is king. Are Vinnie’s lower grades out? How about Grade O? If it’s in, I think he can handle reading some evaluation from me. If he went Clear before doing his Grades, then he might consider going back to them and getting them in somewhere along the line.
And in fact there are quite a few people on this blog that have judged Vinnie’s behavior or (conduct if you wish), and have communicated that to him for quite a long while now in various ways, without always being all that specific about their objections. That’s obvious because it hasn’t as-ised. It’s late so I may be skipping some details here myself, but perhaps you get my drift?
If I make a “wrong indication” I fully expect Vinnie to flash back and tell me I’m full of Sh*t, and we go on from there. How many years was he on ESMB? I’ve survived 2-3 years of ridiculously wrong indications from the likes of Al, and at times Vinnie, too. And an occasional right indication too, but those have been few and far between.
Valkov, glad you commented further on this subject of evaluation. You got me thinking more about it and I’m leaning even more in the direction of it being dependent on the circumstances. I think you have to evaluate the pc in front of you. LOL! That’s my hilarious paraphrase of “audit the pc in front of you”, but I think there’s something to it. You hit the nail on the head when you said 2-way comm is king, and that is the method whereby a person can work out and know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em, if you get my drift ;).
You mentioned in an earlier comment the “bapu valence” and it reminded me of the “South African Rundown”, developed especially for South Africans. It is very real to me that cultures themselves have valances or ser vacs or peculiar aberrations and if LRH had come up with an American Rundown I would have been interested to hear what it was. Maybe Vin will actually consider this cultural thing and use KHTK on it to see what’s there.
haha I don’t think I can agree with both your applications of evaluation. Not in an auditing session. You evaluate in public at your peril… We are talking about telling another what to think about his reality aren’t we?
No, of course not in a session. And evaluating in public may be even more perilous than out of session otherwise. But “no absolutes exist” would apply, perhaps. I was basing my conclusions partly on certain experiences of late that resolved just fine with 2-way comm ;). Besides, don’t you insist that your kids finish their broccoli? That kind of evaluation and reality I myself never pushed off on my kids, personally. But circumstances alter cases, I know too.
Making rules that people have to follow is not evaluating their personal reality. Whole other universe.
Chris, I’m not sure what specifically you are relating your comment too, but am interested. Please ’splain.
Marildi: “Besides, don’t you insist that your kids finish their broccoli?”
Chris: Yup. Just never considered that was evaluation of their reality for them. I never insist that my kids agree with my idea that eating nutritious food is important. I just insist that they follow the “Cider House Rules.” Gradually, I tell them reasons for following my rules. As they grow, and as they demonstrate a willingness and ability to assume responsibility for the consequences of their choices. I gradually back down from rules until there are no rules from me regarding themselves to themselves.
Got you, Chris. That makes a lot of sense as to what you’re trying to accomplish. Sorry that I sort of invalidated your rule about broccoli. Nevertheless, that kind of thing may be a good example – depending on the kid and how much he feels his own reality means nothing (although, knowing you, I would imagine that you yourself have put it in such a way that it doesn’t come across as such). There’s a lot in Self Analysis about being “controlled” by others, pushing-round kind of thing (I forget the wording, actually) and the effects of all that, and I don’t think it’s always an easy call between that and teaching discipline.
I was always trying to balance the line between helping my kids be more disciplined and letting them be in charge of themselves. Like, for example, I used to pay them a nickel to take their cod liver oil (when they were very young, LOL). And to that degree it was self-determined for them. Anyway, you are right about the need for rules too.
No worries about the broccoli.
I am not at all sure that our progeny are people for a while. When discussing abortion with “pro-choice” people, I usually give them my own twist on “A Modest Proposal” and tell them that I sympathize and am in complete agreement. Actually, I believe that it should be a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy until the 87th tri-mester (21st year), thereby giving her the chance to observe whether the fetus will become viable. Thereafter, only the father should have a choice. This usually draws blank stares.
You are hilarious. 😀
Hey, I remembered that you were questioning what exactly memory is, when I came across this website called http://www.themagicofquantum, no less. It explains how the energy of a memory attaches to a cell and becomes part of it. Remind you of anything? Like an engram being theta and MEST smashed together? Anyway, I’ve only skimmed it so far but enough to know I want to go back and duplicate it better. I think it goes into memory other than just cellular. The site includes the chapters of a book by the same title (The Magic of Quantum) and here’s the link to the chapter about memory. Scroll down to where you see a web-like diagram – that’s the section you want. Read the couple paragraphs above the diagram, and click on the diagram to see the changes that occur and the captions below them that explain how a memory (engram or belief) gets solidfied – that word is actually used – and how it can be dissapated (as-ised?).
http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter05.php
Valkov, in hungarian we use the word “Apu” for father.
Elizabeth, that is interesting because Hungarian and Hindi are disrelated languages according to the linguistic scholars.
Little over 1000 years back the tribe got separated part of it decided to stay in the Danube basin now they are the Magyars, the rest continued and went north where they have settled now is Finland This two langue’s has some similarity as in sounding some of the words , but that is that. We have lots of ciganys in Hungary, The cigany’s have originally come from India they could have bought it with them.] Apu is the gentle way to say father and Apuka is even sweeter sounding Apuka would be equal to Daddy. Apa =Father
We called ours always Apu, who was a gentle person, not domineering at all, very nomadic looking, 5’7’’ dark, high cheekbones and very slanted eyes.
Beautiful! . . . and in the same lovely way, please tell a little about your mother.
Thanks Chris,
Mother? She was tall for a Hungarian a great beauty, she could have had some Turkish blood in her, for anchor point she used a heavenly figure which was much more pleasing than Venus de Milos, flashing eyes, sparkling personality she was a fighter, strong willed. I should say my father was a man of few words but his eyes talked, he communicated through looks, when we were too noisy all he had to do is look into our direction! He never raised his hands in punishment. I never known more hard working people, but that was the must in the war years and after, yet we still never had enough to eat. My inheritance from them was the most valuable gift one could receive; I have learned how work, resilience and survive to get up no matter how many times circumstances knocked me down.
Thanks old kid… is it really true he said that? I lived on fairy tales as a kid, my mother said it will ruin my life because i will not be able to fit in with the real world. She have been right, just look at me now! in dust, nothing..[we share space and there is no doubt about that]
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
Elizabeth Hamre
http://elizabethhamre.wordpress.com
1
That seems very possible Elizabeth. The cigany(Gypsies, for you English speakers, also known as Rom, Romany, Roma) did come from India and their language is closely related to Hindi.
By the way, the reference is to Arthur Koestler’s somewhat dated book “The Lotus and the Robot” which he wrote after visiting India and Japan. It is from his own unique and uniquely Western perspective, but may spot some valid observations about the 2 cultures.
Arthur Koestler is probably best known for the autobiographic accounthe wrote for a book titled “The God That Failed”, which consists of personal accounts by6 people who were at one time convinced Communists, who became disillusioned with it and entirely stepped away from Communism over the course of time.
Also, I am baffled as to where you are coming up with this “A-Brahma” religion category. I realize that it is a play on words and as far as I can tell an inference that the Old Testament is some kind of derivative from Brahma, but you should know that Abraham was NOT the originator of the Old Testament. He is 20 generations down on the lineage traced back into time. And the Old Testament is actually a Christianized version of the Jewish Torah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament:_Timeline
Geir says:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/self-therapy/#comment-18601
“Not the drill itself – but it is a tool that makes it easier for someone to oversell ideas – especially if those ideas are not fully inspected and taken as “one’s own”. It is easy to sell a concept one fully believes in – but when one has deep doubts or uncertainties about the ideas (as when simply swallowing them as true), then the franticness in selling sets in and one starts to oversell rather than sell. The drill is a tool. A hammer is a tool. But a hammer in your hand makes it easier to crush stuff.”
.
So, according to you, Geir, someone, who glibly accepts ideas, tends to oversell them. Where did you get that datum from?
Do you think I have gibly accepted those KHTK ideas that I am “overselling” on your blog?
Now, I am not being impolite. I am simply challenging your accusation and the underlying specious reasoning.
.
Vin; “So, according to you, Geir, someone, who glibly accepts ideas, tends to oversell them. Where did you get that datum from?”
My experience.
“Do you think I have gibly accepted those KHTK ideas that I am “overselling” on your blog?”
No.
Please note: If A often leads to B, then one cannot infer that B often comes from A.
Does “leads to” in your note above mean “causes” or “correlates”?
I’m afraid I can not accept your note with such inexact wording.
leads to = causes
OK
If A often [causes] B, then one cannot infer that B often comes from A.
????
Vinaire: No amount of overselling will make a person reject ideas that are sound and which that person has understood. He will reject them only if he didn’t understand them in the first place.
That is not true. Let’s take the idea that one should clean the dishes one has used after dinner. This is a sound idea. It is not difficult to understand and most people understand that cleaning leftover food from plates is a sound,healthy practice. So the idea expressed is: one should clean plates after dinner.
Imagine there is a conversation going on about cleaning plates. Person 1 says they don’t enjoy cleaning plates. Person 2 says: one should clean plates after dinner. Person 3 says I don’t mind it if I can wait ten minutes. Person 2 says: one should clean plates after dinner. Person 4 says I buy paper plates. Person 1 says that’s a good idea. Person 2 says: one should clean plates after dinner. Person 3 says I like Chinette paper plates best. Person 2 says: this is irrelevant – what is important is that one should clean plates after dinner and people who don’t clean plates after dinner are stupid.
The problem here is that Person 2 keeps repeating the lesson as if no one understands the lesson, missing completely that the other 3 people do understand the lesson. Person 2 is annoyed because it seems to her that everyone is ignoring the important information and focusing on trivial details.
Person 2 has failed to understand that the other 3 people want to discuss the trivial details of cleaning dishes, how they feel about it, what they do about, what they think about and ways and means of addressing it, all within the underlying assumption that one should clean plates after dinner.
A little while later, Person 1 and 3 are at the kitchen sink cleaning dishes. Person 2 comes along and says: one should clean plates after dinner. Person 1 blows her stack and smacks Person 2 on the nose screaming STFU!!! Person 2 says to Person 5, I just don’t understand what the problem is with Persons 1, 3 and 4 — they just don’t get how important it is to clean dishes after dinner!
hehe.
Maria; I lean on you in the future when I want to get a point across.
🙂 I thought I would add some speculation to this — I’ve seem on various blogs and forums that a persons such as Person 2 isn’t even trying to communicate to Persons 1,3 and 4. Instead, Person 2 is repeatedly introducing a concept for the benefit of lurkers, lurkers who could be made aware of the concept. This goes along with putting links in comments so the lurkers can go and read additional material. Of course, the best time to do this is when the discussion between the participants on the blog has become very interesting, and often towards the end of the discussions. It annoys the shit out of the participants because they (rightly so) find their communication being ignored or dismissed and the discussion being shifted over to a discussion of what Person 2 wants the lurkers to know about, then to a series of comments about Person 2. Person 2’s effort is to be the final comment in the comment series, and because the other participants stop posting in disgust, that’s exactly what happens. Then Person 2 posts a “summary” for the lurkers with links to her own information and website.
What Person 2 misses about doing this is that this demonstrates to the lurkers that Person 2 doesn’t really care about the participants or the discussion. As well, Person 2 can find themselves subjected to out and out antagonism from the participants or the blog owner and that antagonism can result in the other participants pushing very hard back on Person 2, mercilessly dissecting their comments and generally being very rejecting.
Person 2 would be far better off to truly and really participate in the ongoing discussion and use a sig line in the comments as is generally acceptable means of promotion on most forums. If the lurkers like what they are reading and see Person 2 as being someone they’d like to be like, why then, they’ll click on the link. But if they have been offended by the repetition or contempt or dismissal of the other participants they will NOT visit Person 2’s website.
@Maria
Two solutions exist for “persons 2”
1) treat as a troll and don’t feed, despite all urges
2) ban
I am going to take a little vacation from this blog now, because I know what is going to happen.
.
That may be a good idea.
Yes, true. It is a fixed condition which you can do nothing about.
Why do you do this? Take a look.
Geir, I have been letting your OP bounce around in my universe for several days and have been paying close attention to just how it all rolls out for me. Conclusion: It was very messy for a while and I had to put the idea of Christ solving his own issues etc. on my stack of this is possible and does this fit anywhere — keep this it might come in handy later — but for now hmmmm. I think I might be a messy thinker though — I didn’t buy the book but I read a number of synopsis articles and noticed that I go through cycles on this — I will be very messy with stacks all over the place and thoughts unsettled and zooming away content to ride on where uncertainty takes me just in case I have an undetected blind spot or maybe I might get a new filter or shed an old one. Very uncomfortable but fun. I have ideas that really don’t fit anywhere. But then after a while I feel the need to sort through everything again and soon I have lovely neat stacks or things beautifully arranged. At least for a few minutes. My computer is a great reflection of this process — hundreds of downloads and documents and links often grabbed in a frenzy of discovery and then later on I go through them and sort/toss etc. If I go on a creative binge not only does my desk get messy, so does my whole house and even my universe as ideas swirl away. Inspiration strikes and knocks everything to hell in a handbasket. Oh no. But it works for me.
Usually when I post here, I take the time to sort and organize and at least try to make a somewhat understandable presentation. The above is more like what goes on all the time for me!
🙂 Nice insight into Maria.
The book I linked to basically says “whatever floats your boat”… 😉
Marildi: “if a man’s wife was in the hospital in childbirth and the doctor told him that it was a medical situation of either saving the baby or the mother and the choice had to be his”
Chris: “wife”
I knew dat. 🙂
(smiling)
One of the most liberating things about leaving Scientology (as the only thing of benefit) has been the freedom to actually look at viewpoints and not be looking through the fear that it is “other practices” or “open-minded”, etc. I AM OPEN MINDED! I have looked at many ideas and usually can take something helpful from each one. The last couple of months, I have been practicing mindfulness meditation almost every day. As others have said, this is essentially TR0, but what was very helpful to me and made a big difference is that I was directed to discipline the mind – when random thoughts enter in and I start thinking about what’s for dinner, to gently guide the mind back to the present. And when I keep doing that, I am present more and more in my life. Then I found that when I am present in the moment, I am more the creator and less MEST. Postulates work because I am creating the moment.
Scientology, as practiced by the thought police, causes more mindlessness. Since there is so much emphasis on what you think and what you might do wrong, you are kept in mindlessness. By focusing on random thoughts (and especially trying to prevent them so you won’t have to tell them to someone), your mind automatically produces more of them.
“By focusing on random thoughts (and especially trying to prevent them so you won’t have to tell them to someone), your mind automatically produces more of them.”
hahaha good one. Sounds like you are doing very well.
Grateful: I had the same experience as you did — and it just keeps getting better and better. Over time I`ve found that I rarely think in terms of one ideology or another and I find I don`t label things much any more.
I have also been practicing Metta Bhavana practice, which can be summed up by this excerpt that was translated and adapted by Bodhipaksa from the Pali Metta Sutta:
“May all beings be well and safe, may they be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be, whether moving or standing still, without exception, whether large, great, middling, or small, whether tiny or substantial,
Whether seen or unseen, whether living near or far,
Born or unborn; may all beings be happy.
Let none deceive or despise another anywhere. Let none wish harm to another, in anger or in hate.”
I have really enjoyed this website, with its offerings of several meditation techniques, including Metta and walking meditation:
http://www.wildmind.org/metta/introduction
http://www.wildmind.org/walking
I was really surprised to find these two meditations outlined as meditation practices – I had started doing walking meditation just as a natural outgrowth of being in present time, and Metta just started happening one day as a sense of loving people, the world, and myself. It was very validating to read that others too, including Buddha, had come to these ways of living in the world.
I know that had I remained in Scientology, I would not have even considered doing such things, for fear that I would be thought to be a squirrel. What is so utterly sad about that is that these things came to me as a natural outgrowth of the auditing I had as I became free to direct my life as I felt right to do not how others thought I should.
Good post Maria.
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” — Plato
For me, self-therapy can begin, and maybe it should begin in that mindful moment of realization that I am not doing — “very well.”
For some reason my posts are being moderated so I apologize to everyone if they seem to be very non-sequitor and out of order!
Okay. I take that back — I guess some posts are being moderated — that one wasn`t — so I don`t know if its a glitch or something.
Has anyone found that the concept of having various levels in Scientology make for dissatisfaction with the present? Always there is something you must get in order to be complete or to fully live. “After I’m Clear, I will be happy…” etc.
Yes, there was an element of that.
Good question to ask. I don’t remember feeling that way, but unlike Geir and others, I had only exhausted the Bridge up to Clear and was still very pleased after each step that I did. I can see how there could be a worry to be using up all my rope, getting to the end and having unresolved issues that I was waiting to “get handled.” Now the thought that there is a “carefully taped path” through what I have done seems less real to me.
Also, I did not enter Scientology to “handle” an unwanted condition. I just didn’t. I was a happy and extroverted guy with a spiritual bent. I was well grooved into the notion that life is temporal and I was curious to talk to people, any people about their thoughts about life and the meaning of existence. I just felt that there were people who knew more than I and if I talked to a fair number of them that I could find out more than I knew. Simple.
Ah! A kindred soul! I also didn’t enter Scientology to handle an “unwanted condition” — I was interested in the aspect of exploring terra incognito — a discovery process. I was already on a path of seeking enlightenment, wherever that took me! I repeatedly encountered Scientology along my path and finally concluded that it must have something for me to look at or it wouldn’t keep dropping in front of my feet. I was working on intuition and synergy at the time and was operating on the basis of going with my intuition and paying attention to things that kept falling onto my path. Of interest, it was the same intuition and synergistic thinking that resulted in me walking away from the Church of Scientology. Long before I had any “evidence” of abusiveness, I had a “bad feeling” and so I stayed away, only visiting when I felt “right” about it.
Chris — you said: Now the thought that there is a “carefully taped path” through what I have done seems less real to me.
There is a carefully taped path in the system called the Bridge, and I once thought there would be dire consequences for straying from it. But, having strayed (a LOT) I am not so sure that all that worry about straying had any basis. Every once in a while I get a twinge of oh no what if I am wandering aimlessly through the mirror maze and just don’t know it. But then I realize that if I am then perhaps it is enough to have already recognized that.
The “must” the compulsions will vanish as one continues as-ising those “must”[ thoughts-agreements- considerations]. Those gone, than one will have the free will to have or not.
The only thing that the “Be” as in beingness, the “I” will go too, Be anything just dont exist. No identity, since you will know that you are the creator not the created. But this is my realit
Yes I see this too — it is the compulsion which takes away free will. Its not just ignorance of what could be, it is the compulsion to be in a certain way. Yes, and the creator creates, not the other way around!
Very early on, I thought that I would be better off putting aside any major decisions about my life until I was Clear. It seemed to me that I could unwittingly make some very bad decisions. But then, after I did grade 3, I realized that I was making major decisions anyway, in the guise of making minor decisions. I understood that all decisions, big or small, made or not, have their own ripple effect and part of this event called life is the unpredictability of that ripple and the perpetual changes. I also understood that if I was going to have a life to my taste, I was going to have to create that life the way I wanted to create it and not fret over uncertainties. i.e. cross that bridge when I get to it.
Early on, I also had this notion that I was going to “escape” from the clutches of the dastardly MEST universe and its clinging, cloying and often annoyingly myriad, devious and sneaky ways of trapping an unsuspecting thetan. Then I found myself in a state of mind/being that I assumed was the state of clear. All of a sudden that whole escape the grotty world idea was gone and in its place was an absolute joy and wonder — the world was bright and full of life and joy I could see no reason why I needed to escape anything. I was in LOVE!!! There was never anything wrong with the world in the first place, but I couldn’t see it in all its richness and diversity, so of course, I wanted to leave it. I never left, for I understood that I was always going to be and there was no need to live in that sad, limited and grim state of mind and being that I had fallen into. That was 35 years ago. I still have that joy and wonder.
Maria I been thinking about what you have written.
Because of your posting I have reassessed whatever there was for me since 73. And I know I am not a scientologist I know that for a long time since I don’t go by their rules and don’t fallow their regulations since I had no desire to do so I have severed all connections when I walked out through those doors at Flag In Clearwater and I never been back not even for visit.
How I see it, I went to that Mission in Vancouver and I bought product [paid cash money]. Because I wanted that product and the only way I could get it if I accepted the sellers rules, I did that because it was the next step ””” the stepping stone””” in my journey and I went into agreement and for a while I too played their game.
But not those rules –regulations were part of my dreams, those rules are not in my bag now since I left those behind inside the Flags door.
My dreams and what I have found on my adventure -journey was not put there by scientology, by its tech or any agreement they are in, What I have found and what I discovered: I put there first place which is my own reality: my own universe.
.
“I accepted the sellers rules, I did that because it was the next step ””” the stepping stone””” in my journey and I went into agreement and for a while I too played their game.”
Yes, that’s how I saw it too!
🙂
Maria
“There was never anything wrong with the world in the first place, but I couldn’t see it in all its richness and diversity, so of course, I wanted to leave it. I never left, for I understood that I was always going to be and there was no need to live in that sad, limited and grim state of mind and being that I had fallen into. “
So well written, It is a wondrous place this Universe is. I wanted the magic back, the ability that action how magic become created, hehehe….how can get something back when it was always there? I never lost that ability, I simply had the agreement that” I don’t know, I can’t do it, I don’t have it, don’t exist.”[ and few hundred more. 🙂