The danger of inspiring others

There is a liability in inspiring other people, to sell them an idea or work them up to do something. The liability is that the will of the person suddenly has an external motivator supplanting the intrinsic motivation of the person. Such an extrinsic motivator inherits the responsibility for the outcome of the person’s actions. If the person fails to, let’s say stop smoking, the person could blame the external motivator for the failure.

Brendan has accused me of being a fantastic motivator for people who later deflates when I am not around. This is a valid and good point.

It is better to help the person find his own inspiration, his own intrinsic motivation. Work with the person rather than perhaps unconsciously supplanting that motivation with your extrinsic motivating.

(Hugh at

20 thoughts on “The danger of inspiring others

  1. Yes.

    Good point.

    The Oahspe book that you have, explains that matter very well.

    Did you read it?

    I do not remember exactly how it says that, but I think it says something to the effect that on a spiritual level you are responsible if you do not help a person enough and you are responsible if you help a person too much. I think it is for eternity.

    The idea ties in with the idea of helping on a gradient.

    And the idea of the highest degree of responsibility is responsibility for everything.


  2. “It is better to help the person find his own inspiration, his own intrinsic motivation”

    I believe you do that by yours Posts and comments. You give something to think about and all the commenter give viewpoints. Each person is responsible for their own actions or thoughts. You don’t force it. They’re will always be a small percent of those who blame others no matter what.
    You keep the comments going and give your view and handle upsets on your threads which is applaudable. It is good to have you around just to keep peace and have some fun too. 🙂

      1. Exactly and you are. That’s why I’m watching your blog more, because it is inspiring. Inspiration to look, see, know and communicate is most welcome!

  3. I see no dangers in inspiration. I’m here because I like what I read. I have many choices of blogs. This blog is very helpful and interesting to me.

  4. Inspiration. Generousity – giving, without a thought of reward. What can be given in this way?
    Attention, affinity. Presence, being there. Asking what is needed and softly guiding the other person to reach his/her goal. To me this is inspiration.

    Like what you write, Geir. Some time ago I became conscious of the dangers of “selling” – whatever. Idea, knowledge, even my “presence” (space and attention when accompanied by a thought of reward). There is that subtle danger too, that at least one of my viewpoints will get stuck (stay) with the other person….as I was who created that idea that I “sold”. So I devaluated another’s creative ability. Kind of stopped him/her.

    At a very subtle level: what can I “sell” another who is not different from me in the source (true nature)? When we both allow ourselves to create in the NOW, there can be a true exchange. Spirit playing with spirit diferent games.

    Very true what you write in the post. Honest, sincere.

  5. “It is better to help the person find his own inspiration”…I can add…if that person want to find his own inspiration…Some people are so dull sometimes…

  6. Geir: It is better to help the person find his own inspiration, his own intrinsic motivation.
    Exactly! I’ve had items thrown at me on several occasions, needless to say that wasn’t motivating. Your goal is _____. Now act on it. Quite common modus operandi in Scientology churches. And quite contrary to its preaching: Thy shall not evaluate.

    1. Anette –

      If you think about it, the whole Bridge is an evaluation. The idea that every single person who walks into scientology has the same case that has to be handled in the same sequence of “prurif, objectives, SDRD, Grade zero, etc.” shows that Hubbard made Scientology into a kind of Henry Ford Conveyor Belt to Spiritual Freedom.

      In the missions that I worked in, very healthnut type people would walk in who had never eaten anything but organic foods, never had any surgery, never taken any drugs at all, and even they had to do the purification rundown. This is evaluation. And you can see insult on their faces when they were told this.

      Also, because the Bridge goes UP, instead of ACROSS, and is not a smorgasbord where you simply pick and choose, you have “higher” level services and “lower” level services. This is evaluation.

      You don’t even have to get to OT 3 where you are given what incidents to run. You have been evaluated so much by that time in Scientology you don’t even notice that “Thou Shalt Not Evaluate” only occurred in the first few weeks of your recruitment – if it ever occurred at all.

      Reading “thou shalt not evaluate” in the Dianetics book was a great way to recruit people. It gave them a good feeling about how Scientology should be run. But it is not how Scientology runs at all.

      Scientology, as it exists with the Bridge to Total Freedom in it, is almost ALL evaluation.


      1. Typically, the evaluation starts with the Personality Test, or with “find the ruin” in any other dissem cycle. As you say, from then on it’s a conveyor belt. A really good CS could probably program a tailor-fit Bridge for each person, but if that option was ever in place it went out the window in a hurry once the movement reached a certain size. By then the really good CS pool was far outnumbered by the robots.

        1. Aeolus: Typically, the evaluation starts with the Personality Test, or with “find the ruin”.

          Wouldn’t it have been nice to have individual programs? I remember when I first went in and examined the Chart and was interested in what would be helpful to me or that I thought helpful. Then I did a test. One of my first negatives because they said I had to do the lowest course as everyone starts there. So the test gave me no benefit. A farce or gimmick to get my interest and made it look like they cared more than actual.
          Alanzo summed it up very well.

        2. The Bridge did not exist in Scientology until 1962 or 1963. Prior to that, Dianetics auditors and Scientology auditors would take any process from any of the books and PABs that they felt you needed to run for the thing you wanted handled.

          There WAS a Scientology without a conveyor belt in it.

          Hubbard got rid of that Scientology forever.


    2. Thy shall not evaluate, ja. Anette? Yes. In these times some important evaluations are needed. We have very special times at the moment… .)

      1. Rock,

        I agree with you.

        There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything.

        And a right time and wrong time too.


Have your say

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s