Up for discussion is The Code of Honor, formulated by L. Ron Hubbard in 1954.
What is good and right about this code of conduct. What is wrong or flawed?
“No one expects the Code of Honor to be closely and tightly followed.
An ethical code cannot be enforced. Any effort to enforce the Code of Honor would bring it into the level of a moral code. It cannot be enforced simply because it is a way of life which can exist as a way of life only as long as it is not enforced. Any other use but self-determined use of the Code of Honor would, as any Scientologist could quickly see, produce a considerable deterioration in a person. Therefore its use is a luxury use, and which is done solely on self-determined action, providing one sees eye to eye with the Code of Honor.”
- Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble.
- Never withdraw allegiance once granted.
- Never desert a group to which you owe your support.
- Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.
- Never need praise, approval or sympathy.
- Never compromise with your own reality.
- Never permit your affinity to be alloyed.
- Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.
- Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.
- Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.
- Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.
- Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.
- Don’t desire to be liked or admired.
- Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.
- Be true to your own goals.
Let the comments roll.
Geir Isene - uncut 
I used to share some…strange view of it, but now I really really like it all. Just better don’t give your allegiance to the mafia 😛
The thing is, if someone does apply the code of honor, he doesn’t join the mafia in the first place. And even if he did, he wouldn’t be allowed to apply it.
Al wouldn’t like back-chatting, no-communicating, self determined, or disobedient members. And he certainly would like a member who would kick his ass for being an asshole 😛
It’s absolute; trying to even live by it’s basic tenets is going to get you in trouble with yourself – life is just not so cut and dried that you can put “never” at the beginning of your personal rules. What happens if you DO need to desert a comrade in need, as there is a different comrade who also needs help, and his need is the greater?
#12 is especially open to abuse, witness the Squirrel Busters. I’m sure they had their reasons for wearing dorky cameras on the ir heads all worked out in their heads and it was a “just cause”.
The main problem with this code is that it has no real use at all – those who understand and can use it, have no need of it in written form, and those who don’t understand it will abuse it. So why does it even exist?
It is an ethics code, not a moral code. One doesn’t have to do it, to get the approval of another. If those squirrel bastards applied it, they wouldn’t be members of a suppressive group, nor would they withdraw their allegiance from their fellow Scientologist, because their boss told them to.
It needs to be understood and then left alone.
Willie T
I made that comment 3 years ago, a lot has changed since then.
I’ve now come to realize that the Scientology Code of Honour is not a Code of Honour at all.
It’s really on of that sneaky bastard L. Ron Hubbard’s ways of getting his devotees to do what L. Ron Hubbard wanted them to do – obey what he says.
The Scientology code of Honour is live everything else in scientology – worthless.
The best way to evaluate the scn code of honor is to compare it to all other existing codes of honors in the known universe.
Then chose the best and most workable ones that do the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
Here is one that i got when I searched “codes of honor”:
http://tstrain.com/CodeofHonor.html
Some of the various Greek letter societies have good codes of honors.
There are quite a few different ones.
I was checking them out a while ago and saw at least one very good impressive code of honor.
I don’t have time to search them out now to find it.
Here is one example, though I don’t see a good code of honor on this website.
I only posted it as an example of what i mean.
Delta Sigma Theta
Dio
‘No problem can be solved from the same level of conciousness that created it’
(Einstein)
An individual ‘you’ was created by a ‘you as a whole’. So it will be solved only at the level of playing the you as an individual to full extent, in which case the ‘individual you’ ceases to be individual and we get the whole, non-divided YOU.
The code of Honor is a tool for that.
‘No problem can be solved from the same level of conciousness that created it’
(Einstein) <—- I think there's only one level of consciousness that can create –that of the creator. One may perceive as a monkey, but he can't create as such.
…which means that through it’s perceptions, the construct can’t as-is anything. If you can, it’s because you’re the creator.
Spyros,
Every level of consciousness can create. But it creates after its own kind.
That is what Einstein meant.
Dio
I ‘changed my mind’ about what I said before. Consciousness is about perceiving creations. Doesn’t have to do with potential to create.
Spyros: One may perceive as a monkey, but he can’t create as such.
Chris: What cannot the monkey create? What can the monkey create? What cannot a man create and what can a man create?
I think nothing. If human or monkey or other bodies were meant to perceive, there wouldn’t be any universe. Visio for a body is reflection, it is not an actual form that is perceived. Sound also the same and tactile etc….Those are ‘translated (altered) perceptions. They can create, based on what they perceive. They use the past (that translated thing). So they create nothing original.
And a man?
a man and a woman too 😛
Yes, I validated neurosciences recently. I think man is an animal, and stimulus response etc –but only for as long as his thetan is being a man 😛
LRH described the paradoxes of being ethical as far back as 1952, in *A History of Man*:
“You can, at your own choice, go on living with and processing this composite known as Homo Sapiens and create Homo Novis. You can use Dianetics to make hitherto impossible strides. But be advised that in this choice you are living with paradoxes which no philosopher in all the ages ever reconciled—the injustice of death, the depravity of human beings as in Plato, the penalty of assisting another, the impossibility of having good ARC and survival too, the liability of being kind and merciful and every “unanswerable” religious paradox known. You, by persisting in yesterday’s reality are persisting then in problems which have never been resolved with the factors accepted. You are demanding of a MEST-theta composite that he be self determined when every zephyr from a hard universe contains death for him and can turn him like a top; you are demanding that he be “careful” when his only salvation is to be carefree, you are saddling him with all the unanswered riddles of an aberrated life in an aberrated world. And you are condemning a preclear to the dwindling spiral— for the theta being as part of the composite decays fast and soon dies forever in the rigid apathy of MEST.”
.
And in the chapter that follows, “Capabilities of the Theta Being”, he describes a state of being beyond “Homo Novis”.
Hubbard: You can use Dianetics to make hitherto impossible strides.
Chris: Please give a verifiable example.
Chris,
“Chris: Please give a verifiable example.”
That is a ridiculous statement.
I am living proof of the workability of Dianetics.
I doubt if I would be alive today, were it not for Dianetcs.
I have posted my story before here, maybe more than once.
When you criticize something see honestly and be objective.
You seem to be just talking through your hat and making stuff up.
I wonder if you really know anything about Dianetics and scn?
Are you just like some member of some mob group, who are against everything, whether they know anything about the target or not?
Dio
The Dio we have learned to know.
This, Dio, is why I have you (and only you) on permanent moderation.
At least try to behave civilized.
Geir,
1. What is not true about what I said to Chris?
Only the truth will solve any problem.
2. Just because you and some others do not necessarily agree with me, and you have me on moderate, does not mean you are right.
It is very evident to me that you and some others have a very poor understanding of what truth is.
And what is right and what is wrong.
That is by scn terms or other terms or standards such as the bible.
You people have not done your homework.
When the devil’s dogs are barking at me, I know I am on the right track.
So there is no real problem with me or for me if the devil’s dogs are barking at me and biting my heels.
Be sure to answer question number one.
That is:
What is not true about what I said to Chris?
Please explain in full detail.
Dio
It is no the content, it is your recurring bad form.
Geir,
What is wrong with the form?
Dio
I have tried to describe this to you before. And I failed. I will invite others on this blog to attempt an appropriate explanation.
Dio, I think it’s a shame that although many of your comments are very knowledgeable and insightful, they are not appreciated because of “bad form”, which is defined as follows:
“Behaviour which is contrary to social expectations, which is inappropriate or rude.” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bad_form
And from HCOPL 30 May 1971 “Manners”:
“The original machinery developed by man to oil the machinery of human relationship was good manners.
“Various other terms that describe this procedure are politeness, decorum, formality,
etiquette, form, courtesy, refinement, polish, culture, civility, courtliness and respect.
“Good manners sum up to a) granting importance to the other person and b) using the two-way communication cycle. ‘
[…]
“People who do…discourtesies are mentally rejected by those with whom they come into contact.”
Dio,
The “trick words” in Chris’ statement are “verifiable example”. It is how he invalidates and nips in the bud any potential discussion of what a person subjectively feels he got from scientology or dianetics. It’s typical “scientism”. If it’s not somehow “verifiable” to his (unspecified) standards, then it’s not “real” and not worth talking about.
He is actually a trained solo auditor and thus must have done a lot of the (MIscavige’s squirrel version of) Bridge, because he was in the Sea Org, in CST I believe he said.
No, I don’t think he’s a trained solo auditor. I was told Elizabeth hatted him on the simple use of rudiments. I don’t believe he has done any other auditor training either.
Well I guess I don’t know then. I had assumed he was at least Clear and I heard he was doing some solo auditing on, I assumed, some OT level or other.
I was surprised at the time, because I had the impression Sea Org staff got squat as far as Bridge auditing went. I explained it to myself as “Well, maybe if you’re working for CST you get the auditing you are supposed to get….” Possibly not, eh?
Maybe he’s lucky he didn’t get that much auditing from those squirrels…… I’ve heard there are some pretty dangerous, destructive auditors in the Sea Org these days.
I think he is Clear, but from what I know he wasn’t solo’ing any OT levels, just rudiments – like what Elizabeth does.
OK thanks for the head’s up, marildi.
Btw, Chris used to rave about the auditing he got. So, go figure.
Dio: “I am living proof of the workability of Dianetics.”
Chris: Enough said. You’ve made an excellent point.
Hubbard: But be advised that in this choice you are living with paradoxes which no philosopher in all the ages ever reconciled—the injustice of death, the depravity of human beings as in Plato, the penalty of assisting another, the impossibility of having good ARC and survival too, the liability of being kind and merciful and every “unanswerable” religious paradox known.
Chris: Truly, sir? Because mankind has its problems does this prove that no philosopher in all the ages never personally reconciled them? What evidence is there of this? Furthermore, if you resolved these paradoxes for yourself, how did this benefit your life? What evidence of your attainment of spiritual freedom is there?
Chris, it seems to me the only relevant question is whether or not you perceive or feel any of these paradoxes operative in your life, and whether you have been able to reconcile any that you need to reconcile.
That is really the only point to philosophising about it all that I can see.
Valkov: ” . . . and whether you have been able to reconcile any that you need to reconcile.”
Chris: Yes, resolving paradoxes are mainly what I have been doing and using as a tool. This has given me the best auditing questions of all, the best traction, and the best resolution of inconsistencies. I have been making good progress to my own satisfaction.
Valkov: That is really the only point to philosophizing about it all that I can see.
Chris: I agree Valkov and I find that if I relax my fixed ideas that a paradox will fall apart if I let it. If I write with a little drama or comedy it is to try to inflate the inconsistency so it is easier to see.
Marildi: And in the chapter that follows, “Capabilities of the Theta Being”, he describes a state of being beyond “Homo Novis”.
Chris: How does Hubbard know what the capabilities of a thetan are? What evidence other than anecdotal evidence is there?
Given there is no RWOT, all evidence is anecdotal evidence.
We’ve been over this before. Physicists postulate a particle, and then it appears.
VK: Given there is no RWOT, all evidence is anecdotal evidence.
Chris: Leaving the works of Hubbard where?
Are they not the anecdotal record of one man’s observations?
Valkov: Are they not the anecdotal record of one man’s observations?
Chris: Uhh, yes.
This collection of ambiguous, absolutist, and mostly absurd statements that supposedly serve to make one honorable is a perfect example of a set of principles I rejected (remember what is true for you and all that?).
What I did not understand or grasp the significance of, was that others I was interacting with bought this lock, stock and barrel and actually attempted to live these principles — an impossibility, but reading it over I see that it will push an individual in the direction of winning at all costs, being loyal no matter what, and fighting the good fight to the very death and even beyond that. And all that because you once pledged allegiance????? Pure unadulterated craziness.
Even re-reading it today, I can feel the dissonance it produces with its clashing concepts. Alanzo often brings up the concept of cognitive dissonance. IMO, this code is a classic study in cognitive dissonance.
Honor is about integrity. How can you have integrity when you attempting to apply a code that is impossible to apply and is supposedly the measure of your honor and worth?
‘Honor is about integrity’. I see it that way too. Integrity: the quality or condition of being whole or undivided, completeness.
I guess in that condition one is naturally acting in a honorable way. Self-determinism or even pan-determinism are not issues any more as one is then in an undivided, non-dual state of being.
Maria, it seems to me you are speaking of the Code as a moral code. It is not a code one ‘applies’ nor is it a ‘measure of your honor’ in anyone else’s eyes but your own. One either violates herself, or does not. That is one’s own judgement
But it is an interesting subject. Here is another, quite traditional, ‘code’ or set of promises individuals make to each other:
“….to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”
Is this code now passe’, in this day and age? Do folks think this through, before they speak these words?
Seemingly beautiful words, but like the 10 commandments of Judeo-Christian lore, the entire list could be shortened without diminishing its overall effect and intent.
Chris,
Tell me how the 10 commandments could be shortened without diminishing it’s overall effect and intent.
Since you seem to have spontaneously achieved such an extraordinary authoritive enlightened state, with such words, please do it.
And also do the same for the scn code of ethics.
I am very much looking forward to some new and genuine revelations on this troubled planet.
I will bet it is more likely an ejaculation of a circuit of the bank.
Dio
LOL!
How to ensure that you are always acting within the “luxury” of the self-imposed Code of Honor:
1. Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble: Simply assign that individual a condition, or label them PTS, SP or DB.
2. Never withdraw allegiance once granted. Make sure that you are the one to whom the allegiance is given and do not give allegiance to anyone yourself. Any past allegiances you might have made are covered by #11.
3. Never desert a group to which you owe your support. Simply do not join any groups. Only participate if you are the one who makes the group and make damn sure they know that what they contributed has no worth compared to all the work you do. That way you have no obligation to the group.
4. Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power. This means making very sure that no one ever brings your actions under scrutiny or into question so that you would have to recant.
5. Never need praise, approval or sympathy. Simply set things up so that it is required from anyone in your group. Hip hip hooray, special office maintained in every building, your photos everywhere. Who needs it when you can get group members to enforce it for you?
6. Never compromise with your own reality. Position yourself as the sole source of truth that has appeared in 276 trillion years. No one will argue with you any more so you won’t have to compromise anything. Anyone who does attempt to get you to compromise is clearly insane.
7. Never permit your affinity to be alloyed. Affinity for what?
8. Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it. Surround yourself with a cadre of individuals who will keep undesirable communications from you. Disconnect immediately if someone attempts to give you an undesirable communication.
9. Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life. It’s better to go down in flames and fighting than to work out how to actually participate and co-create with others.
10. Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body. Really? What the hell is integrity to yourself???!! Oh I see, one should always apply the earlier points because they are much more important than being alive? How exactly does this work?
11. Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you make your tomorrow. Yep. There’ll be none of those amends for me thank you very much.
12. Never fear to hurt another in a just cause. Fear? Oh I see, if you have no fear then its okay.
13. Don’t desire to be liked or admired. Of course not. This is different than requiring people to have sec checks because they don’t like or admire you. You don’t “desire” it, its simply insane for someone to refuse to like or admire you.
14. Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions. Best way to do this is to be the boss and never participate in any team activities.
15. Be true to your own goals. Easy peasey. Everybody else’s goals are implants so you don’t have to take them into consideration. Ever.
Maria: 12. Never fear to hurt another in a just cause. Fear? Oh I see, if you have no fear then its okay.
Chris: hahaha OR just never fear to hurt another.
Yes, you can follow that, as long as you are willing to also “never fear to hurt”.
VK: Yes, you can follow that, as long as you are willing to also “never fear to hurt”.
Chris: Why so? I see no reason to make that a corollary.
It is based on the parallel ongoing discussion about whether the laws of the physical universe can be broken. It maybe that one inevitably becomes the effect one’s own cause.
That would resemble “the karma view”. It is only speculation, but I am not about to make a career of torturing small animals to find out. Or maybe I already have, and that’s why I have all these aches and pains in my old age? 🙂
Yes, I see what you mean and understand the sense of karma. Good karma; bad karma. It is a nice thought but I’m not particularly a believer in that. The physical reason that I see no reason to for that good/bad equation to balance is that the karmic reaction is circular and energy is ultimately lost from that circle by the rules of entropy. I could be wrong, that is just how I see it for this example.
There is no reason to make it a corollary. That does not prevent it being a corollary for many people. Why? Because the RWOT is just some agreements that are upheld(recreated, re-agreed upon) moment to Planck moment. Therefore ‘entropy’ does not really exist,unless it is agreed upon to exist. What is true is what is true for you, as long as you do not have uninspected agreements you are unaware of,because of which you continue to create some kind of RWOT.
That’s why to me, most of these discussions are moot.
Valkov/Hubbard: “What is true is what is true for you”
Chris: More of my tautological universe, eh? Funny to me that such a simple and self-evident statement could be so loaded with potential bullshit. On the one hand, it is fine, it says what is says (haha) and it can lie dormant and benign until activated by identification with one’s own ego and then watch out. If one becomes very literal in its use, it can become nonsense and destructive by leading one down a primrose path toward a surprisingly sudden and abrupt ending of not only truth but of everything.
Because the RWOT is just some agreements that are upheld(recreated, re-agreed upon) moment to Planck moment. Therefore ‘entropy’ does not really exist, unless it is agreed upon to exist.
Shall we be complete, or consistent? Or maybe shall we just be bullshitting?
Our abstraction (my word for the week-from korzybsky) of any RWOT seems to be what we should be calling into question. Pass the reefer.
IAV: That’s why to me, most of these discussions are moot.
Chris: Well, if a person pre-knows the answers to the questions about life and has no particular intention to learn and to change, then these discussions can become moot. On the other hand, I don’t look at them in that way and search every day not how to prove my own points in discussion but to sift out the inconsistencies in my positions and to make them more consistent and relative to truth for soon I will come back around again and dredge them all up again and one by one sift them for their next order of magnitude of inconsistency. I find that I not only change but cannot help but change whether anyone else thinks they do or not. If we can change toward more consistency then I feel these discussions are worthwhile.
Chris – One good ad hom deserves another, don’t you think?
So let me preach back at you –
I do not need to “have an intention to learn and change”. It is built in – I learn and change as I go along.
What I have learned on this blog, among other more positive things, is that the same discussions and viewpoints are iterated and reiterated over and over again, for 2-3 years now, with occassional fresh ideas introduced. I suppose it could be viewed as the fractal unfolding of each person’s beingness or ‘personality’, if you prefer a non-scientological term. After all, I wouldn’t want to trigger a defensive strike here towards me, would I? The fractal unfolding is of course endless reiterations of the same basic stances.
‘
In fact I do not feel that even half of my viewpoints are duplicated or understood by even half the people here; this is perhaps my own fault, perhaps not entirely. I’m not sure this matters; it is likely a ‘normal’ state of affairs on a Internet blog, especially in the case of ‘drive-by’ postings such as I do. Or perhaps my posts are simply murky and obscure or to idiosyncratic or whatever.
I find that people read into what they read, meanings the original poster did not actually mean or intentionally in his/her post. And this is OK; it is ‘normal’ for human beings to project the contents of their own minds onto what they perceive. It is another aspect of the idea that there is no RWOT. It is the foundation of psychological ‘projective testing’ such as the Rorschach blot test.
But don’t pretend to me that, when this is happening, that much ‘learning’ or ‘growing’ is happening; when you are doing it, I may be learning something about how your mind works; when I do it, you may learn about how my mind works; but there is not necessarily any ‘growth’ taking place,is there? Do you have any verifiable proof that there is? Isn’t it just one fractal aspect triggering a fractal response? Each person trotting out his version of his own fractal catechism…..
Maybe!
But even if preaching, my comment wasn’t directed at you but simply to discussion in general and there wasn’t anything derogatory written. Take another look. But as to ad hom in your direction, I think you write some brilliant things with genuine clever insights. Sometimes you write cranky and when you do I don’t pay as much attention. Maybe I should speak up more when I admire your ideas. You are way better read than I across the board of psychological topics. You bring a lot to the table.
LOL! Such a great spoof!
It wasn’t a spoof. Read it over again and you will see that it is exactly what LRH did along the way.
I know. I thought of that after sending it but wondered if it would be caught…. Nevertheless, funny! hahaha!
Like the players of professional sports, the Samurai followed a code that was based entirely on where their bread and butter was coming from. Their loyalty was to whomever employed them at any given time. They were highly skilled killers so this code was laid on them to keep them in line. otherwise they could have all freely gone rogue. It was a supercontrolled society. At times situations arose in which samurai were forced by circumstances to kill themselves, which came about through no fault of their own, because it was the only ‘honorable’ way out.
“What is good or right about this Code? What is wrong or flawed?” are in my opinion the wrong questions.
Better to ask, “Do we really have any choice but to be affected by it?”
LRH saw it not as an imposed moral code, but as inherent in the existence of beings. He did not invent it, he believed he observed it. If so, it may not be something we have a choice about, anymore than we have a choice about following the laws of the physical universe.
Well, if he merely observed it, then he left out the part where failure to maintain the “expected” honor resulted in swift and immediate vengeance or backlash from others — typically a very degraded ending. Better to kill yourself than face the wrath and denial from your kin and your lord. That would justice. That would be a moral code. It is enforced. Just because one attempts to force on oneself before others get the chance does not make it self-determined! Neither one is inherent. And if it is indeed inherent, then there is no hope for anyone anywhere for it is not possible to participate in the process of living life after life without violating them.
Me, I think he’s full of shit. He never did apply it himself, routinely threw people under the bus, even his own wife who I am sure he made a promise and a vow to when he married her.
But see – she wasn’t a comrade when he threw her away. She had been labeled and so she was expendable as a rotten apple.
Clear, coherent, and hard hitting.
Speaking of which, have you read Marty’s new book yet?
Valkov: Speaking of which, have you read Marty’s new book yet?
Chris: Nope. Not going to. He warned me off of it and I am taking him at his word.
My question was directed to Maria. But you are wise to avoid it. It would leave you black and blue and with some probably broken bones. It is not an easy read.
No I haven’t read it yet. Looking forward to it though — I find that every bit of info about the events that happened along the way really helps me to sort through my puzzles and concerns.
Maria, it is worth reading, but much of it is not an easy read. The second half unfolds with the inexorablility of a Greek tragedy, ending with LRH’s death. Much of it is the story of Marty’s descent into ever lower circles of Hell.
Be sure and read all the way through the Epilogue, as he does survive and eventually emerges alive and with some valuable insights.
Good review. This should be printed on the inside jacket cover together with a photo of Marty in a herringbone jacket with one leg propped on a stool, elbow on knee, hand holding a pipe and looking meaningly into the camera lens.
I found this book very insightful. It puts bits and pieces of data into perspective of their correct time frame and significance. It also shows how LRH was also the effect of the very scenario’s he had warned others of. There was also some valuable data about many legals losses and wins. What appears to be a losing case at times became a win later. Some apparent wins came back to bite in the butt. IMO this would be good for anyone who has stepped out of the bubble and wishes to understand more of the how and why.
Maria – yes, this will help sort out many things.
Valkov – I didn’t find it hard to read but then I already had some experience with part of it. I can see how one not aware of many of these actions would have a harder time. But I would still feel it was worth it for you to have read. I expect you are tough enough to survive as usual.
This is a personal memoirs and he opens up and says it how he finds it. As it ends: “I finally came to appreciate the wisdom of a saying by the ancient Zen Master Pai-chang: One is not different from who one used to be; only one’s course of action is different than before.”
Did you know that in the ancient worlds of Rome and Byzantium, the Norsemen were the most desired for personal guards, by the rulers of those times?
Norsemen were seen as virtually incorruptible. Once they pledged their allegiance, they could not be bought to commit a betrayal. More so than warriors from any other race or culture, they were seen as ‘honorable’ in that sense.
I believe the whole code can be reduced to one simple principle:
Be true to what you believe is truly right at any given point in time.
…or some such wording.
The ones I find really odd is #2 and #3 (Never withdraw allegiance once granted. & Never desert a group to which you owe your support.)
The lock an individual permanently to a past decision. It inevitably solidifies a person, sticking him in his past.
Apart from that, it smacks of a setup, a Scientology trap – Hubbard seem to want people that have given him allegiance to adopt this code so that they would never desert Him or the newly formed Church of Scientology (1954).
I read those differently, then. I read then as “Continue to be the same good person you were when you gave them your allegiance, regardless of the possibly changing circumstances you may find yourself, or them, in.”
This is one of the chief betrayals the CoS indulges itself in. Enforced disconnection is a direct violation of this part of the Code.
Hubbard said quite plainly this Code is unenforceable, that it is a ‘luxury code’ a person may act upon as he sees fit to, that enforcing it degrades it and the person it is being enforced upon.
It is part of “Ethics” which is no-one’s business but your own. I know this has been confused and reversed no end, as your previous post about Ethics gradients shows. That Hubbard is responsible for some of this confusion there is no doubt. He conflated and commingled and confused Ethical issues and morals and Justice horribly, after initially clearly differentiating them. I don’t care what he did, there is a right way and a wrong way to understand these things.
My previous post goes into what I believe is the right kind of question to ask about it. If, as may be the case, this code is an inherent or inborn part of the nature of a being, then the questions of what is right and what is wrong about this code, are moot. It maybe a simple fact of existence, like sex, eating, socializing, and the weather.
Valkov, good post. It reminded me of this portion of the introduction to the Code of Honor:
“If you believed man was worthy enough to be granted by you sufficient stature so as to permit you to exercise gladly the Code of Honor, I can guarantee that you would be a happy person.
“And if you found an occasional miscreant falling away from the best standards you have developed, you yet did not turn away from the rest of man, and if you discovered yourself betrayed by those you were seeking to defend and yet did not then experience a complete reversal of opinion about all your fellow men, there would be no dwindling spiral for you.
“The only difference between paradise on Earth and hell on Earth is whether or not you believe your fellow man worthy of receiving from you the friendship and devotion called for in this Code of Honor.”
“If you believed man was worthy enough to be granted by you sufficient stature so as to permit you to exercise gladly the Code of Honor, I can guarantee that you would be a happy person.”
This is such nonsense. GUARANTEE????? Sure, it is easy to make a guarantee on something that no one could possibly ever exercise all the time, gladly or not.
standards you have DEVELOPED???????? Oh I see, its not inherent. Its developed.
no dwindling spiral??????? How in the hell could he even know that, other than simply believing it to be true?
Fact is, these are beautiful, flowery phrases that are meaningless.
It sounds wonderful, It sounds meaningful, its oh so emotional and moving. But in the real-time practicality of the Church and the Sea Org under LRH himself, it meant NOTHING, especially when there needed to be a head on the pike.
His mouth was full of marbles on this one and anyone who attempts to apply this as written is going to feel miserable because it is not possible to live this way even as a luxury, even if unenforced.
Maria: “Fact is, these are beautiful, flowery phrases that are meaningless.”
Chris: Well written. I want to chime in but it would only come out sounding like “@#$%^&*!” — Less eloquent than yours.
I didn’t make clear that enforced disconnection actually forces a person to violate, potentially, both #2 and #3. Otherwise, what difference would it make, if a person disconnected from those he had sworn to be loyal to?
This code is the heart of what people used to call “conscience”, which seems to be a largely forgotten word these days.
“Be true to what you believe is truly right at any given point in time.”
Depends on how this is interpreted. It could be interpreted as a promotion of “situation ethics”.
As long as that means you are truly true to yourself, then be it. It is folly to be true to who you were, or who others want you to be, etc.
Be true to you as you are (implies present time).
Gier and Valkov,
How do you guys know that what you know, is true or not?
By what standards or criteria do you determine what is true or not?
Dio
situation ethics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
A system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.
sit′ua′tion eth′ics
n.
a form of ethics according to which moral problems cannot be solved without reference to the contexts in which they arise.
Also called situa′tional eth′ics.
According to situational thinkiing, it may be OK to throw former comrades under the bus in some situations.
In fact it may as Chris posted, possibly anyone acts situationally. It depends on a person’s monitoring consideration. If Money is King, then one might be willing to do anything for money – e.g. sell his own sister or his child into sex slavery, etc. and feel quite ‘ethical’ in doing so.
Valkov,
Does believing in something make it true?
Dio
Geir: “The ones I find really odd is #2 and #3 (Never withdraw allegiance once granted. & Never desert a group to which you owe your support.)
The lock an individual permanently to a past decision. It inevitably solidifies a person, sticking him in his past.”
Me: Interesting, your conclusion. I listened to a tape once from LRH (don’t remember which one) where he described that very similar like you did. It was something about having to stick absolutely to his promises (when it is demanded from someone) and about not having freedom of decisions and thus being stuck (like it being a trick). I was remembering at the time also theses points from the code of honor; it was one of the contradictions I came across.
‘be true to what you believe is truely right at any given point of time’
YES.
YES. Decision, the codeless, timeless.
Marianne,
Does believing in something make it true?
Dio
Dio
Not believe IN. There is no ‘in’ in the original sentence.
Believe=to credit with veracity (trust truthfulness), right= in accordance with fact, reason, truth, correct, fitting
The above can so read like:
I am true to what I trust to be truthfully reasonable and fits the situation correctly.
(there can be a better wording but the way I mean it is this, in essence).
Also, when I act from my ‘core’ (static) and just perceive without using the mind,
a spontaneous, kind of knowing, fitting respond arises. No thinkingness, just action.
Marianne,
Your dissertation on believing is granola.
A belief is nothing more than a confession of ignorance.
To believe means to accept something as true without proof.
It means you lack intellectual integrity.
It means that you do not know.
It means you are raising an assumption or an opinion to the level of a truth or a fact without proof.
That is intellectual dishonesty.
Ex: The CIA and the President Bush administration believed IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction.
And it turned out they did not have such.
Dio
Now, Dio: Go straight to the dictionary and clear the logical fallacy called “Argumentum ad Hominem” three times to beyond conceptiual understanding. Make sure to use the term in at least thirty sentences that you make up. Then use a demokit and demo the term at least 10 times. Then make a clay demo of the concept. Five times to full Flag standard pass. Send pictures of it all to me and I will give you a pass if you have demonstrated 101% conceptual understanding.
Or just top AdHom’ing.
Actually, Dio, the word you need to clear is believe (and belief). Marianne gave you the definition she is using, which you have always rejected.
“A REJECTED DEFINITION: A rejected definition is a definition of a word which the person will not accept. The reasons why he will not accept it are usually based on emotional reactions connected with it. The person finds the definition degrading to himself or his friends or group in some imagined way or restimulative to him in some fashion. Although he may have a total misunderstood on the word he may refuse to have it explained or look it up.” (HCOB “The Misunderstood Word Defined” 17 Jul 79 I)
Miraldi,
Everything you know is wrong.
You have to think for yourself and honestly word clear the word believe and belief yourself.
Believe and beliefs are the worst words in any language.
The words have to so many ambiguous and slippery and deceptive and wrong meanings.
It’s only correct meaning is “accept something as true without proof”.
It means you do not “KNOW”.
It means an assumption at best.
All other meanings are wrong.
Beliefs and believing are what keeps the world in perpetual conflict and war.
They are mind traps.
When everyone one in the world stops believing and learns how to know the truth of things, we will have peace on earth.
No person who did scn needs to believe anything.
If a person who did scn and still “believes” and has “beliefs” , s/he failed scn.
Use Hubbard’s key datum technique, on how to find the cause of an area of chaos and confusion, and apply it to language.
Dio
Dio: “Everything you know is wrong.”
Me: What the fuck am I going to do with you?
Come visit me in Canada and I will buy you coffee.
Dio
I’d love to.
Well then, email me and I will give you full details.
Dio
I will give you a post graduate degree in scientology.
I will teach you everything you needed to know about scn but did not know enough to ask.
Dio
Sigh
ROTFL
Dio
hahaha!
See? I told you…
Chuckle. He’s not serious. No one would write that shtick seriously, would they?!? hahaha
I was mostly sure but now I’m sure you are yanking our chains! hahahaha Be careful though, some of us have no sense of humor!
p.s. I should have included the examples and the handling. Here they are:
“Example: The person refuses to look up the word ‘mathematics’. He doesn’t know what it means, he doesn’t want to know what it means, and he won’t have anything to do with it. A discussion of why he refuses to look it up discloses that he was expelled from school because he flunked with violence his first month of his first course in mathematics. If he were to realize that he flunked because he didn’t know what he was supposed to study he would then be willing to look the word up.
“Example: The person refuses to look up the definition of asterisk (*). On discussion it turns out that every time he sees an asterisk on the page he knows the material will be ‘very hard to read’ and is ‘literary’, ‘difficult’ and ‘highbrow’.
“Discussion of why he won’t look it up usually reveals and releases the emotional charge connected with it which he may never have looked at before. Properly handled he will now want to look it up, having gained an insight into why he wouldn’t.” (HCOB “The Misunderstood Word Defined” 17 Jul 79 I)
Actually, Dio – clearing the word “belief” will only (perhaps) handle this one instance of acting disrespectful to others. Clearing and understanding “AdHom” has a minute chance of handling your presence on this blog.
Geir,
I did clear the word ad hom.
And any idea is only as good as it works.
And addressing the idea often does not work.
Many people cannot be reasoned with or have their viewpoint challenged and corrected.
Because it is a circuit or demon talking.
There is no one home. It is a GE. A neanderthal.
Quite often the messenger has to be institutionalized or shot by police in worst case scenarios.
Brevik and the Tsarnov brothers and Miraldi are a few examples.
Dio
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˈad ˈhämənəm/
Adverb
(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
Attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
And you think you are dealing with any Neanderthals here on this blog?
Dio: Many people cannot be reasoned with or have their viewpoint challenged and corrected.
Chris: You are funny Dio! This is a spoof right?
Chris,
You: This is a spoof right?
Me: I can’t imagine that you are questioning such an obvious fact.
Look at all the crazy republicans and tea partiers that can’t be reasoned with.
Look at all the NRA members like Ted Nugent that cannot be reasoned with.
Look at all the mobsters/terrorists/ anarchists around the world that cannot be reasoned with.
About half of all the people in the world cannot be reasoned with.
Then there is Alonzo and Miraldi.
Look at yourself.
I presented good reasoning and you questioned if I was spoofing?
Take an honest look.
Do your homework as per “How to study a science”.
If you don’t do that to the fullest degree, you will never know how to reason properly.
There is a right way to reason and a wrong way to reason.
Dio
May I inject that the article you are pointing to is not named “How to study a science”?
Geir,
If not “How to study a science”, what is it called?
Dio
“How to study Scientology”. I suspect that is the article you are referring to?
http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/how-to-study-scientology/
Geir,
“How to study scientology” is what DM called it in his revisions.
Before DM got his hands on it, it was called “How to study a science”.
And furthermore, to be honest, I would rewrite it to a higher standard, to a higher level of truth.
But that would take some time and who would listen.
The data in it is sufficient if you read it to get the “spirit” of it, rather than the letter of it.
When Hubbard says; compare it against the known universe, he means to study all subjects of comparable magnitude to scientology.
That means all subjects in the known universe, that help man solve the problems of the mind and life.
All subjects that help man fulfill his full potential.
All subjects that make the lame walk and the able more able.
All subjects that help man raise his I. Q.
All subjects that help him understand the 8 dynamics and his relationship to them.
It means to build a better bridge.
And if you can’t build a better bridge and do it in your own words, you flunked scn.
In oreder to do you have to study all religions, all spiritual teachings, all philosophies, all self improvement stuff, all personal and professional development stuff.
All health and wellness stuff.
All how to cure diseases stuff.
These are all subjects of comparable magnitude to scn.
Because that is what Hubbard wanted to do.
And the amount of data accumulated in those fields since Hubbard did his research has increased exponentially.
Dio
Dio: You are wrong. The original title of that article – as it was published in Ability Issue 90 M, was indeed “How to study Scientology”.
As for the rest of your post: Here’s a nice warm hug.
Geir,
1. I am terribly upset, that you made me wrong.
2. All the “Scientology; A new slant on life”, books which contain the article, have it named “how to study a science.
So that is where I got my data.
I have not seen any ability mags.
As for the nice warm hug, now when you come here, I will buy you two coffees.
When do you plan to come?
Dio
PS> WordPress is acting up. It is aberrated.
1. I will come somewhere in the future.
2. WP had a maintenance spree
Dio, how about a nice group hug! ((HUGs))
haha right. Gotcha.
PS:
I have to make a correction.
I see Alonzo has found some theta units lately.
He is coming along not too badly.
Dio
You guys are acting just like Scientologists, trying to correct Dio by applying “ethics” and “justice” tactics to him a la L Ron and the CoS.
What will happen if he doesn’t knuckle under and ‘reform’, change his style or whatever.
Will he be ‘expelled’?
“You guys?”
If Dio continue to act disrespectful to others on My Blog, even after numerous attempts to help him be more respectful, and then having been put under permanent moderation, I will continue to blast him in public view until my patience is worn out, after which I will kick him out of my blog, yes.
Probably. You cow-tow to people who are rude to you without a word?
One thing I’ve learned living in many different places is that standards vary a lot. Sometimes it is better to simply respond to the content. Sometimes it is best to also query if the person is even aware of being rude. To a midwesterner, a person from New York or Rome can seem rude. Whereas a Chinese orJapanese can seem maddeningly polite.
Geir
The answer of the ‘me guy’: excellent posts and relevant advice to clear some words! As it would also apply in anybody else’s case who looks to have MU(s).
The Ad Hominem is not an issue in my case, as there is ‘no person to be attacked’.
(no ‘ I ‘ ).
Dio wrote:
I see Alonzo has found some theta units lately.
Thank you, Dio!
I see you have, too!
Alanzo
Alonzo,
You: Thank you, Dio!
I see you have, too!
Me: I have always had them theta units. But it just took more theta units on your part, for you to recognize them.
If you keep it up, Alonzo, you should do ok.
The goal of man is to climb up the scale of intellectual and spiritual evolution.
Dio
I will help you along the way to more intellectual and spiritual evolution, Dio. Just keep posting here and I will (perhaps a bit more) nudge you in the right direction.
Geir,
You have it backwards.
I will help you towards higher intellectual and spiritual evolution.
I already taught you everything you know.
Dio
Oh, I forgot daddy.
Thank you.
I am glad you remembered.
LOL.
Dio
Dio
‘Does believing in something make it true?’
Yes, it can happen. I believe (have faith, trust, confidence) in my student’s ability to
pass an exam. And he passes it, so it has come true.
(from the human perspective)
Isene: Be true to what you believe is truly right at any given point in time.
Chris: It seems to me that this is what people do anyway — even when performing atrocious behavior. Once again naive set theory can assist in modelling it.
Chris
Can it happen that a person, from a ‘gut feeling’, intuitively knows what the right action is but at the same time a thought arises which says ‘do something else’, also, fear may arise and the person follows the thought. It turns out later that the ‘gut feeling’ was right.
@Marianne, Yes this routinely happens. “Buyer’s remorse” is a classic. So we ask, “Then how does that happen?” My opinion is that decision making is a build-up of mental forces until a tipping point is reached. A decision moment is a quantum jump resulting in a leap in the weighted average of those forces to a different mental state than before. So the weighted average includes all raw data, fixed ideas, bias, desires, the counterpoints, the gut feelings and misgivings which one has and can later remember and use to berate themself with, “Oh why didn’t I listen to my gut feelings?” Well, I say that one does listen. But the gut feeling may not carry the preponderance of energy needed to tip the decision in its own direction. I always have “gut feelings.” This sensation does not prove the feeling is true. I have gut feelings in the non-optimum direction as well. Sometimes I don’t listen to my gut and things turn out fine. Not all gut feelings are intuitive. Some are indigestion.
Nope. I have sooo many times Not been true to what I really believe or stand for. Those were the times that I got into the most trouble.
We may mean the same thing. By ‘gut feeling’ I meant someone who is not yet conscious enough to ‘identify’ his gut feeling as the ‘truth’ ‘in’ himself.
So when a thought arises (e.g.conclusion based on past evaluation, fear, etc. ) he follows that instead of listening to and acting as ‘truth’ (himself).
My comment was directed to Chris.
I believe what you say. But a close look at one’s decision process, being sure to include every salient point of that process can be illuminating.
Did you ever gamble or buy stock on a gut feeling and have that turn against you? Or not buy and the stock goes up? I have and so I’ve been looking at how my emotions influence my decision making process. I know what everyone means when they ask “Oh why didn’t I listen to the little voice inside me?” For my own part, the little voice should be listened to and given a much weight as we want. That’s fine, just don’t whine about the resulting scene after doing so. I had many moments in Scientology when listening to my gut instinct got me into and out of trouble…caused me to both join the Sea Org and to leave the Sea Org.
Maybe that gut sensation occurs just at the moment when the build up of mental forces has reached the tipping point when suddenly a fixed idea; a bias kicks in and overrules the decision in favor of the bias? Possibly this is what is wrong about fixed ideas, they are disproportionately weighted in a direction in such a way as to cripple the decision making process.
me toooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The trick is (for me) be true to self but allow other to be true to themselves too! 🙂
Geir and all who are talking about “gut feelings” and the like.
All this stuff you refer to as gut feelings is only data that you acquired along the way in some way, shape or form. It was learned or heard or picked up osmosisly some where.
It is just a mish mash of unevaluated unorganized data.
But you never learned to evaluate it and organize it.
You never applied it, tested it against everything else you know and against the world around you to figure out how many problems it solves.
And where it fits in with relative truths
You never classified it and stored it in your operating data banks.
So when you are in need of it, you do not know what it is, that you want and it is somewhere in the heap of unorganized data in your mind.
Like a garage stuffed full of your stuff and you know you have something but have no clue of where it could be.
That is when you revert to gut feelings to guess where it could be.
Gut feelings is an attempt to guess where the thing might be.
Gut feelings is an attempt to guess what the answer might be when you don’t “know” the answer.
Because you did not do your homework.
That is why gut feelings and believing are the functions of flakes, fruits and nuts.
And all those who argue that they have such a right to be that way.
Like “that is my story and I am sticking to it”.
Dio
Of course it is everybody’s right and story, Dio. To know, to guess and to evaluate are different things. And if you evaluate mud, mud you will have.
🙂
Point 3 and 2 stick you to SCN for the rest of the universe.
Clever clever Hubbard. No2 is basicly a Sea Org rule. The billion Year contract.
WHO defines, or says to what group I owe support ?
Such a great idea for a discussion, Geir.
Without a cult social structure to enforce “right” thinking on this, these parts of the tech can truly be evaluated. For some, possibly for the first time.
Alanzo
And there may be more of these.
By the way, what do you think about other social values, out of SCN? At least you are not sent to prison nor executed for not following this code –unless of course, you are in the Church, or some outside-the-Church church.
How many have gotten de-brainwashed and escaped from the do-as-I-say-or-the-law-is-after-you cult?
Spyros wrote:
By the way, what do you think about other social values, out of SCN?
Here’s a Stoic Code which is very interesting to me. The Stoics had/have a very interesting and constructive code of honor which I think is much more internally consistent than Scientology’s.
http://zenstoic.wordpress.com/the-stoic-code/
Alanzo
I remember the stoics from school (being greek and all), but I dont remember what they stood for. Were they post platonic? I dont remember. Anyway, by ‘out of scn’ I meant the values one perceive out of SCN –the mainstream values.
You mean like The 8 fold Noble Path?
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html
Or just “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?
There are a lot of codes we all follow as human beings. The Code of Honor worked for me for a little while, but soon became unsustainable.
Like pretty much all of Scientology for me.
Alanzo
I mean mainstream ethics, morals like make money, trash PR etc. Not necessarily spiritual/philosophical stuff. But yeah depending on where one lives, religion too. Jesus ideas about solidarity aren’t followed though (here), so it isn’t mainstream.
mainstream=promoted by media, school etc
There are a lot of good morals in “mainstream society”. In fact, it’s what mainstream society runs on. “Do unto others,, is one of them.
So is “Don’t break the law”.
So is “Be kind to children.”
So is a lot of very good and very moral things. Are you missing these? Have you been third partied against your own society?
Alanzo
Be kind to children? you mean treat them as inferior because they have small brains and enforce education (in older glorious days they were beaten too….being inferior and all) on them and force them to obey and always be kind to the elderly because they (the elderly) are always right? This is how you raise dogs…if you disrespect them enough. So the law is always right, and I should always be nice to people that aren’t nice to me because do unto others….
Tell me more…
Objection Your Honour! Counsel is presenting facts not in evidence.
Spyros, how you got to that from Alanzo’s post doesn’t make any sense.
Tell us more how that link works…
I don’t know what society you are from. But “Be kind to children” means none of those things where I’m from.
Hi Splog, it was this: Al: “Without a cult social structure to enforce “right” thinking on this, these parts of the tech can truly be evaluated. For some, possibly for the first time.” <——- which implied that out of the cos there is no cult social structure nor enforced 'right' thinking. I explained how it isn't like that.
Spyros –
The outside world is not a cult. It has culture, and society, but these are not cults.
By summing up some of Alanzo’s posts the world was flowers peace and love and light until L. Ron Hubbard came along and ruined it all. I guess now that I’m not in his cult, it’s all fine for me then –people are ethical and all….give free hugs etc. Well, it can be like that, or not but certainly not because I escaped LRH’s evil nets 😛
Dude,
You have a *serious* case of dub-in going on.
Either that or you are smoking the really good shit in which case I want some.
Spyros: the world was flowers peace and love and light until L. Ron Hubbard came along and ruined it all.
Chris: Ron is Xemu.
Chris: Ron is Xemu.
SP: and so am I 😛
Splog: You have a *serious* case of dub-in going on.
SP: Nevermind Splog, it has nothing to do with you.
You’re right Alanzo, the word ‘cult’ means something else. If SCN conquered the world through a crusade or two, then if you were a christian, materialist and something else, you would be a cultist, and for them SCNists evil for sure.
Lets not stick to a word, or whether im on pot or possessed by Hubbard’ s spirit. My point was about ethics. Ethics mainstreamly means fault, guilt, punishment, enforcement. Personal ethics is not acknowledged. There’s only social ethics (ethics imposed by the leaders of a society) a thing that I don’t find ethical at all.
Generally, I don’t think anybody needs to get taught ethics. He may need it if he forgets his own sense of ethics, and if he is given ethics from the outside that may only serve as a temporary solution, and not a too ethical one. The solution, from my view, is de-brainwashing, not further brainwashing with enforced ‘education’. Isn’t brainwashing enforced education?
“Ephesians 6:5-8
New International Version (NIV)
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.”
aHhahAHAhaHAhaHAaH
HAhAHahaHAhaHAha
HahAHAhaHAhaHAhAHAhAHAha
NO CHRISTIAN SHOULD EVER COMMENT SCN AGAIN
AhAHahaHAhaHAhaHAh
I’d rather write down O/Ws I never had, be assigned a treason condition, work without pay, and run RTCetics than be like that. Hahahahaha you can’t possibly get any worse….
Alanzo: For some, possibly for the first time.
Chris: Scientology is a large subject filling pages of books. The scope of the subject and the hard-back bindings lend credence to the subject as a whole. Even now, I find myself holding back from examining the “true” parts of Scientology. However, these last few months have been a gloves off time for me thanks to you and Geir and several others who have posed hard questions and sponsored looking into these vestigial sacred cows of my ideology. It has really been enlightening. Not only towards Scientology but towards recognizing and examining the sacred cows of any ideology. Watching my daughter walk in commencement of obtaining her doctor’s degree in medicine this past Saturday, buddy I was trippin’. Such a flood of memories of her growing up and of our days in the Sea Org and of the years afterward. Well, words might describe the experience but it would take a lot of them. I looked at my granddaughter, remembering her mother at the same age, and reaffirmed my conviction to help her live a mindful life, free from ideologies such as religion and to recognize ideologies when they present themselves. To be mindful that an ideology can lie benign and dormant until we attach ourselves to them. That is when they can become activated and destructive.
Chris wrote:
To be mindful that an ideology can lie benign and dormant until we attach ourselves to them. That is when they can become activated and destructive.
There’s a great book called “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haight which goes into this re-activation phenomenon you talk about here.
The author uses 3 central metaphors to present his ideas in the book. One of his central metaphors is that human beings are “90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee.”
Individual bees have a “hive mind”, and humans seem to be one of the few primates with a “hive mind” to activate, too.
I think that’s where ideologies come in for human beings. When you adopt an ideology and start letting it do your thinking for you, it is helpful to understand this as activating a “hive mind” within you where working for the group gives you the spooge-rush of working for something larger than yourself.
The feeling of working for something larger than yourself can really get the squirts going in the mind. You can justify almost any behavior by “working for the greater good” of some ideology. As spooge monkeys, I believe we really get our rocks off on this kind of thing.
I know I did.
Alanzo
I think you still do, don’t you?
Valkov wrote:
I think you still do, don’t you?
From one spooge monkey to another!
Alanzo
I am operating on the ‘a leopard cannot change its spots’ theory. But monkeys will also do.
I think most people only potentially have some degree of free will. There is no state of “absolute free will”. It is perhaps similar to Geir’s concept of ‘Clear’- that it is part of a gradation rather than an absolute state.
Jonathan Haight goes into your theory as well in his book, under the metaphor “the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant”:
http://books.google.com/books?id=U21BxGfm3RUC&pg=PR21&lpg=PR21&dq=the+righteous+mind+central+metaphor&source=bl&ots=kwg75P3ITT&sig=CkS1FZL6zIZKz9Hiy3sterhgC0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cBKtUd-sJaPVyQGBqIGoBg&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=the%20righteous%20mind%20central%20metaphor&f=false
Yes, I think it’s an old Hindu analogy, the Monkey on the Elephant, which is itself on the back of the Turtle. The 3 evolutionary tiers of the brain. The human has all 3, that makes for some fancy juggling of drives and imperatives. Hubbard tried to develop a system for separating out the 4th element, the Consciousness or Awareness of the person, and make that rule over the others. But of course that is not a new goal, t goes back to the Hindus at least. “God Realization”
Yes, and this was also what Plato and Socrates were trying to do – to make reason the highest part of the human and to bring it into control over the “baser” elements of a person.
Haight cites a lot of experiments, some from others and some of his own, which show that people react instantly to moral questions, and then explain themselves afterward.
The elephant lunges and the rider then explains to everyone else why the elephant lunged that way. The rider has no control over whether and where the elephant lunges – he just uses ad-hoc, post-hoc arguments to rationalize to everyone else why the elephant’s lunge was the right thing to do.
And I don’t think using Hubbard’s reactive mind for the elephant is the right way to understand it, either. Hubbard’s reactive mind is NOT what Haight is talking about when he is talking about the elephant.
You are absolutely right. The ‘reactive mind’ does not correspond to the Elephant. The Elephant corresponds to what Georg Groddeck, an independent contemporary of Freud’s, called the “It”
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Groddeck
He wrote a book titled “The Book of the It” around 1923.
The word “IT”, in German, is spelled ID. That is the Elephant.
Valkov and Alanzo, Good discussion. I am learning.
Here is a brief description and synopsis of The Book of the IT:
http://www.enotes.com/book-99139-reference/book
I like metaphors.
Some metaphors can make you get pneumonia and die, though.
This seems reasonable.
From Volkov’s referenced wikipedia article:
They felt an atmosphere of implicit faith in nature and especially in your own inner nature. No matter what, there is a wisdom inside you which may seem absurd, but you have to trust it.” Watts mentions that Hermann Graf Keyserling, the Lithuanian philosopher, said that nobody has ever reminded him more of Lao Tse than Groddeck.
Very interesting. Yes. This is the elephant that Haight is talking about in The Righteous Mind.
When I was a drummer, this is the part of the mind that, if practiced enough and allowed to lead, would turn me into a genius on the drums. No thought. No “figuring shit out.”
I swear that if I was in a band that practiced enough together, and we simply improvised, we could read each other’s minds.
This is the elephant upon which the rider rides, and squawks, and justifies and rationalizes for everything so everyone else “understands”.
Is this what you are talking about Valkov?
Alanzo
Yes.
Well let me then ask you a question:
Do you believe that Scientology auditing was somehow addressing the elephant and making it more “known” to the rider, or what?
How do you reconcile this belief that a leopard can’t change his spots, with the elephant, and the reactive mind and Scn auditing?
How do these fit together? Are these not at all connected in your mind?
How does this work?
Alanzo
Al, thanks for asking. Here’show I see it: It really is all in DMSMH to start with. Using Chris’ metaphor of “pimple on the face of consciousness”, the pimple is the Monkey. Consciousness is the Elephant.
The AP (abberated personality) of Dianetics is the Monkey, or the pimple. BP (basic personality) is the Elephant or Consciousness, or one might say, the source of life and consciousness.
This dovetails with Buddhist concepts too.
What separates AP, the ‘pimple’ which thinks it is the boss of it all, from BP, the actual ‘boss’ and source, is roughly what Hubbard called the ‘reactive mind’, which is the collection of fixed ideas, musts, must-nots, shoulds, should-nots etc etc. Freud called these “the superego”. They are all the self-limiting factors of a person.
They are the limiting and controlling factors within the mind and personality of a person, the inhibiting and enforcing aspects and ideas a person holds. The things he gets spanked for, for not obeying them. Buddhists call all that “ego” or illusion or delusion, the world of appearances, caused by ‘ignorance’. ‘Ignorance’ in the Buddhist sense is ‘uninspected data’ in scientology speak. They are the “exterior world which is now interior” that Hubbard speaks of.
BP actually corresponds to the ID of Groddeck and Freud, but the 2 men viewed it very differently. Groddeck trusted the ID and saw it’s positive constructive and healing side, Freud tended to see it as dangerous and focused on it potential destructiveness to social norms. Thus Freud tended to justify the existence of the ‘superego’ and thought it was needed to keep the ID in check. He did recognize that a ‘superego’ could be too strict and punitive, not a good extreme.
The other part of the psyche in Freud’s construct was the “ego”, which roughly speaking corresponded to thinking, rationalizing, computing functions, mostly without any passion. Passion is in the ID.
Well this is long enough.
Al,
“Do you believe that Scientology auditing was somehow addressing the elephant and making it more “known” to the rider, or what?”
In a word, yes, that is what auditing was supposed to be doing. It was supposed to chip away at those factors which separated AP from BP, until AP realized that it was just a split-off part of BP and merged back into BP or at least was in good communication with BP.. This result has different names in different cultures and philosophies, but I see it as the basic goal of them all. Gnosis. That is what Hubbard started out doing, but he really blew it in the end, from one perspective. But from another perspective, perhaps no other result was possible, given his goal was to quickly establish a far-flung ‘church’ or ‘religion’. Perhaps any Gnostic movement will suffer a similar fate. But Hubbard was very combative about it, perhaps on a par with Mohammed. He was determined, apparently, to fight to the bitter end. I say this having read Marty’s book.
Valkov wrote:
Perhaps any Gnostic movement will suffer a similar fate.
This is a very interesting sentence, among the rest of your thoughts – which are also very interesting to me.
I always knew you were smarter than you appeared! )>
I will read and re-read your answer.
And I’m reading Marty’s book now, too.
You do know that others, besides Marty, have written books and blog posts, and given interviews, who have worked with Hubbard directly as well, right?
Alanzo
I have read a lot on ESMB.
Val wrote:
Al, thanks for asking. Here’show I see it: It really is all in DMSMH to start with. Using Chris’ metaphor of “pimple on the face of consciousness”, the pimple is the Monkey. Consciousness is the Elephant.
The AP (abberated personality) of Dianetics is the Monkey, or the pimple. BP (basic personality) is the Elephant or Consciousness, or one might say, the source of life and consciousness.
This dovetails with Buddhist concepts too.
I’m very interested with what you might have to say here – please elaborate.
Alanzo
The way it dovetails with Buddhist thought and practice is this. All self-development systems have a common element. That element is the application of attention, whether you call it ‘mindfullness’, ‘self-remembering’ as Gurdjieff-Ouspensky called it, TR0, or whatever.
The goal being to see how the mind and universe work in reality. In Buddhism, it is ‘ignorance’ of these realities that lead to a separation from ‘nirvana'(bliss) through the creation of delusional states and beliefs, like the existence of a permanent identity(ego), for example.
A good transitional between East and West ‘teaching’ is Gurdjieff’s view of the ‘state of man’. He said that humanity is generally in varying degrees of ‘sleep’, but each person believes he has an permanent unchanging ‘I’ or identity when actually he was an ever-changing flow of thoughts, feelings, desires, negations, etc which all had an “I” feeling” attached to them, when in fact each was quite fleeting and anything but permanent. In this sense, Gurdjief insisted that the common man had little if any “will” because he actually had little if any continuous consciousness.
This is well described in some of Ouspensky’s books such as “The Fourth Way” and “In Search of the Miraculous”. Or in a nice little introductory book titled “On the Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution”. Or perhaps just “The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution”.
Gurdjieff always stressed that there was no such thing as an automatic evolution to higher states – that in the universe we live in, in the end there was only devolution and decay, unless a person made an effort, he would not ever ascend to anything. This is clearly a restatement of Buddhas exhortation that “Strenuousness is the path of immortality, sloth the path of death. Those who are strenuous do not die; those who are slothful are as if dead already.”
This is in reference to the necessity for an unceasing application of ‘mindfullness’ in order to “as-is” the false beliefs and penetrate through the illusions to the true reality of one’s existence. In other words, keep your TR0 ‘in’ and you will be allright.
It’s not easy for the Monkey to do, but it can be done, we are told. Most monkeys aren’t really motivated. But I think that was one of Hubbard’s big contributions, to develop the “twinning” system for developing a more mindfull presence in those people who actually did it correctly, or actually, to a ‘correct end result’. Buddhists I believe call it ‘the witness’.
You clearly have achieved this presence of mind. Congrats, keep on truckin’.
Alanzo wrote:
You do know that others, besides Marty, have written books and blog posts, and given interviews, who have worked with Hubbard directly as well, right?
Valkov wrote:
I have read a lot on ESMB.
So what do you think about those people, who you’ve read on ESMB and elsewhere, who wrote and spoke about Hubbard, after reading what Marty wrote in his “Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior” book?
Do critics, and other people who have written prior to Marty, look differently to you now?
Alanzo
I have always seen a difference between analytical criticism or eye-witness accounts, and blanket dissing. Not having been in the church myself, I had/have no comment on what it was like for people who were. But having experienced some good results from some of the applications I have always looked at angry or hateful dissing as being off-balanced or biased opinions.
That hasn’t changed.
Valkov wrote:
I have always seen a difference between analytical criticism or eye-witness accounts, and blanket dissing. Not having been in the church myself, I had/have no comment on what it was like for people who were. But having experienced some good results from some of the applications I have always looked at angry or hateful dissing as being off-balanced or biased opinions.
What do you make of former ED Int Bill Frank’s story about Hubbard telling him and Mayo that people don’t leave because of overts and missed withholds, but from ARC Breaks – and not to tell anyone else lest he “lose control of orgs”?
Do you think that was “blanket dissing”, or analytical criticism from an eye-witness account?
Alanzo
That appears to be a first-person eyewitness recollection.
Not being that deep into ‘tech’ I have no opinion about whether it’s O/Ws or ARCXs that cause people to leave a scene. I think ARCXs might be a big factor, but I don’t even see why it would have to be one or the other.
From HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1959R
REVISED 9 FEBRUARY 1989 “Blow-Offs”
This was first written and issued in 1959. He told Franks and Mayo that about ARCxs in the 70’s. And then he told them never to tell anyone else or else he would lose control of orgs.
If Ron thought that ARC Breaks played a role in people leaving – don’t you think he had a responsibility to Scientologists to tell them that?
I believe that this is as close to a “smoking gun” as we are ever going to get to understand what LRH was actually doing with Scientologists.
If he really wanted Scientologists to be “free beings”, would he ever do something like this to them?
Alanzo
This could be a very long discussion so I won’t get into it here except to say in general my approach is not as judgemental as yours.
All I know is that for whatever reason(s), Hubbard thought what he thought and did what he did. In general delivery was better when he was in charge, than it has been since DM has been in charge. I’m not sure what he thought would happen if he didn’t act as he did; that’s why I look to understand partly through other books, like “Beyond Belief” ( the Pagels book about Christian history, not Jenna Hill’s book) to see if I can find analogies.
Clearly Hubbard hoisted himself by his own petard. Marty’s book does shed some light on the actual course of things.
However I have never been one to engage in vigilante ‘justice’, lynch mobs, etc or deciding what others “should have done” or had a “responsibility to do” etc. No offense intended, but that’s the CoS’ dirty make-wrong game and I don’t want to play.
I am still trying to figure out WHAT happened, much less WHY it all happened. At this point all I know is Hubbard was in a big hurry to establish an impregnable world-wide system of organizations. Whether he went about it in the best possible way, the worst possible way, the only possible way or whatever, is not clear to me.
It is clear from Marty’s book that the GO attacks on individual ‘critics’ were very pernicious and harmful to scientology and the CoS and that people were following Hubbard’s lead in attacking individual critics.
Well, blah blah, this discussion has been going on for years and assigning “responsibility” and “coulda, woulda, shoulda” is bound to be pretty subjective and really is not my bag. I see it as a waste of psychic energy. That doesn’t mean you can’t engage in it to your heart’s content.
Because so much is kept secret in Scientology, and because it is built on so many outright lies, and because it is potentially so expensive in terms of ruined families, ruined bank accounts, and ruined lives, I believe that it is important for people to have the information available to them that allows them to make informed decisions about their own involvement.
I understand that you don’t know very much about Scn tech. But without Bill Franks’ story, a person who got involved in Scientology would believe that Hubbard was telling the truth when he taught them that overts were the cause of blows, and that Scientology is the Bridge to Total Freedom.
A person without this information would follow its rules of disconnection and destroy their own families, they would mortgage their homes because they believed they would go “Clear” and “OT”, etc.
Unless they had the information that is available only outside of Scientology, the information that they would have to make decisions about their involvement in Scientology would be faulty.
That’s why it is important to discuss these things out in the open, Valkov: It is inconsistent with their freedom to lie to Scientologists like Hubbard did.
And so I understand that you don’t want to waste your psychic energy on coming to actual conclusions about L Ron Hubbard’s words versus his actions.
But I think it is very important to do that.
Alanzo
If you are referring to educating people to not believe the cult’s promo, I have no problem with that.
But if you fail to point out that a person doesn’t need to spend a bunch of money and can sit at home and do TRs for free with others, or use the Self-analysis lists etc, then I would say you are wrong and would suspect you have an ulterior motive.
My position hasn’t changed over the past 4 years, since we’ve been having this discussion.
But Hubbard himself told Sarge that he realized that he had failed, and asked Sarge to build a machine that he could use to commit suicide.
That would have been in 1985-86.
Don’t you think it would have been nice if he told Scientologists, and all those Sea Org members working for free, that this was what he had concluded?
Think of the Fair Game that would NOT have occurred – because why Fair Game someone if you are not protecting man’s only route to total freedom?
Think of the bankruptcies that would NOT have occurred, because why bankrupt yourself for something that feels kinda good sometimes and gives you cogs, but isn’t going to make you an “OT” or anything.
All the ruined families, etc which would NOT have occurred if Hubbard had just told Scientologists the truth.
See Val?
It goes back to Hubbard’s ulterior motives, not mine.
Keep your eyes on the prize, Val.
Eyes on the prize.
Alanzo
“But Hubbard himself told Sarge that he realized that he had failed,….”
What puzzles me is that this quote does not seem to be in Marty’s book, only in Wright’s. I have looked twice now ,and Sarge does not quote LRH as saying he felt he had “failed”, to Marty.
I don’t get your point about the suicide machine? The older I get the more I support the “right to die”. I think assisted suicide should be legal. At that point LRH had been ill for sometime in a couple of different ways and was also trapped in that failed All Clear situation.
I don’t see what any of that has to do with what he thought or felt in the 1960s or 1970s.
“All the ruined families, etc which would NOT have occurred if Hubbard had just told Scientologists the truth.”
No,I don’t see. Told scientologists the truth about what? And when?
That he felt that he failed. That Scientology does not create Clears and OTs, that it is not man’s only road to Total Freedom, and so no one needs to be a fanatic about it. No need for Fair Game, no need to go bankrupt buying anything, no need for a Sea Org, etc etc.
Valkov: My position hasn’t changed over the past 4 years, since we’ve been having this discussion.
Chris: No it hasn’t and I would ask during that 4 years whether you’ve done TR’s or Self Analysis lists during that time.
No I haven’t. Mostly I have listened to LRH lectures and listened to and followed along with recorded LRH group auditing sessions, these past 3-4 years.
I have done quite a lot of TRs in my time as that was mostly what I did back in the day.
Anyway, it is entirely beside the point I was trying to make to Al, which you are smart enough to know, so go F yourself. 🙂
I think you know perfectly well what I was saying to Al, and that it was about new people who wanted to find out about scientology.
I guess I was getting worked up over a couple threads going nowhere from that troll Dio teaching Geir about Scientology to Marildi yawning over how our discussions of Scientology have become boring to your similar post and then the ones doing the least auditing making the biggest support for Scientology and I’m okay with you or Marildi doing Scientology, whatever. But like you wrote, “do it.” I understand the attraction of Scientology and the promises and hope it holds… When its a path a person yearns for, I surely encourage them to follow their predilections to walk any path. You are very forthcoming with your real experiences and travels and paths and readings… I like that about you. I guess I’d like Marildi to come out of the closet about similar things about herself. I’m sure her story would be interesting to read.
Al, it is quite possible that Hubbard’s personal goals and desires conflicted with the goal of “freeing beings”.
The fact that he codified a tech that could go a long way towards freeing beings, doesn’t mean he whole-heartedly wanted all beings to be free ‘right now’. Just like we live in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” BUT and EXCEPT WHEN we want to ________________. (Fill in the blanks, when we want to not pay taxes, go naked in public, have several wives or several husbands, etc etc. WE are ‘free’ but there are actually many lines we are not supposed to cross…..)
So it is entirely possible that he codified that could ‘free beings’, but was not in a big hurry to see everyone freed. This is complicated by considerations of “what would have happened IF”, for example, FAMCO or some government agency had gotten a monopoly on the materials and tech? Perhaps there would be no “freezone” and nobody would have been able to practice except secretly, at least in the USA? Would government agents be raiding any house where someone dared to audit others,or hold a study group?
This is common in many countries; it’s happening right now in China vis-a-vis Falun Gong or any ‘religious’ activity. like Buddhism or Christianity etc, the Chinese government deems a threat to itself. Echoes of “Beyond Belief”, no? It’s also complicated by the existence of some shysters who milk people of their money for ‘the movement’ (Falun Gong), which gives the whole movement a bad name, and justification for the Chinese government to suppress it…..
People say “It couldn’t happen here”, but that’s not true. It doesn’t happen as much because of the ‘freedom of religion’ in the United States.
valkov The fact that he codified a tech that could go a long way towards freeing beings,
chris – an assertion leading the way to assumption not a fact
Chris,
It may not be a ‘fact’ by your definition of ‘fact’, but it a reasonable assumption by the anecdotal accounts of many people who felt freer in various ways after doing some scientology applications.
Like Geir, for example. Why don’t you go discuss it with him? Or would casting doubt on his assertion that he benefited from virtually every step of going up the Bridge, not be your cup of tea?
I don’t recall you going “yeah sure Geir sure” when he put up that particular post….
I guess you think I’m an easier target, eh? I can think of some choice terms for that, but out of deference to Geir, I won’t use them here.
Valkov: I don’t recall you going “yeah sure Geir sure” when he put up that particular post….
Chris: I’d have to go back and search for it, but I’ve asked Geir hard questions about his auditing, results, etc.,. Nothing about this has to do with who is an easy target. You are braver than some and so stick your delicious neck out where it is tempting to chop at.
As for Hubbard personally, it was always pretty clear he had his good sides and his bad sides.
Valkov – Wow! I had no idea you had never stepped foot in a C of S. If you have access to a copy please read the Phoenix Lectures. There is a vast different between DMSMH and the rest of Scientology IMO. If you don’t have a copy please email me at 44sapereaude@hushmail.com.
I always appreciate your comments. No matter what you studied, or where you learned data – your viewpoint is valuable. Now enjoy the Michigan late spring, spend some hours at the East Market for me and have something to eat you have never tried before.
Thanks SA, but I may have inadvertently misled you about my scientology history. I meant that I was never on staff or associated much with orgs. I had a Life Repair done in 1972 by a Field Auditor in the Detroit area. Still in the1970s, an associate of his opened a field office/mission in Ann Arbor Michigan and I associated with them, mainly doing TRs and getting some auditing on Objectives from an HQS student. When the Purif was released I did that immediately and that was about it, as that mission holder was ‘massacred’ along with the rest in the early 1980s. The organization was reclassified as “the Ann Arbor org” but it was never the same. The good relaxed optimistic feeling was gone.
I did continue doingTRs and did the STCC at the “Ann Arbor org” too. So I tried to hang in there but then the IAS came along and regged me a few times and that was it for me. It was all out of my league by then.
I actually visited Flag for a short time right about when Lisa McPherson died there. Of course I knew nothing about that, but I can tell you the atmosphere there was pretty freaky.
And I had been to the Detroit org a couple of times, but never did anything there. So I don’t consider that I have ever been “in the Church”.
I do have the books and have read some of them. I should say, I have read parts of most of them, like Phoenix Lectures I prefer at this point to listen to lectures and use the books for reference. One of my favorite books is actually Creation of Human Ability. Oddly enough, I believe that all the basic concepts are right there in DMSMH. I guess the later books clarify certain things, and maybe I see things in DMSMH I wouldn’t see if I hadn’t read the later stuff like Advanced Procedure and COHA.
Valkov, don’t take this as a personal make-wrong. I’m just certain that to ‘make’ a person give up his illusions and stick with ‘reality’ is what psychology is for. The Objectives are entrance level –for those who cannot be in reality. Then personal universes are addressed to be enhanced over ‘reality’ –MEST.
OK, I’m not sure how this relates or derives from anything I have posted?
However, “psychology” is a very diverse field today and there is really no specific unifying “What it is for”. It depends on the psychologist. In the USA, most psychologists today practice some form of “Client-centered therapy”, more or less as defined by Carl Rogers, not procedures to ‘make’ the client ‘adjust to society’, reality, or anything else. I’m sure that kind still do exist, just as there are some that for the military helping them devise ‘better’ methods of torture.
There in fact “Christian psychologists, Hindu psychologists, Buddhist psychologists” etc.
Buddhism has its own extensive ‘psychology’, or study of the mind.
Where I live,many therapists are now incorporating “mindfullness” techniques into their therapies.
Then there are approaches like TIR, which since the 1980s has been adapting and incorporating dianetics principles into their therapeutic approach.
So I don’t think any broad generalization about “psychology” will be very valid.
Valkog – Got it. Now I understand. You always posted as though you understood so much it jumped out at me when you made that statement. COHA is also one of my favorites. If you like lectures then you might find it interesting that The Phoenix Lectures that was issued on cassette has some different lectures than the CD version. Not sure why. All still LRH talking but the actual lecture title and transcripts show they are different. Now, I will let you continue elucidating your thoughts as usual.
Valkov, if one more tells more he can’t relate what I said, and I’ll follow Splog’s advice and jump to medication to get normalized like him.
you said: “This is in reference to the necessity for an unceasing application of ‘mindfullness’ in order to “as-is” the false beliefs and penetrate through the illusions to the true reality of one’s existence. In other words, keep your TR0 ‘in’ and you will be allright.”…what are the false beliefs and what is the true reality attained by OT TR 0 and the Objectives?
Well, I’m tempted to say “You tell me and we’ll both know”. The ‘false beliefs and illusions’ I refer to are those that are explained in Buddhism, early Hindu beliefs etc, andin later Zen schools etc etc.
What does ‘mindfillness’ or meditation accomplish or try to accomplish? What does “self-observation” a la Gurdjieff accomplish? What happens,what is acomplished, when a person does TR0 to EP?
The only way to really know is to do it, isn’t it?
valkov The only way to really know is to do it, isn’t it?
chris thats what ive been writing for a while now and been called 1.1 for it. Both you and Marildi assert the helpfulness of Scientology but neither practice it. When a person feels as you both do, I recommend following to see where the path leads.
Chris, you seem to be forgetting the fact that Scientology is not just confined to auditing. This a big omitted datum and the reason why you keep giving wrong indications.
It is you who seems to not know that Scientology is basically auditing.
You have omitted auditing from your Bridge to Total Freedom, not I. Plus defending by pulling out your auditor’s code and showing it to me and saying I mustn’t say things to you because it will cause a wrong indication is . . . empty. What would be interesting would be for you to be forthcoming about your own experiences and motivations and goals for your future in Scientology. Now that you are free to practice carte blanche, you must have some good ideas along this path.
I’m not going to get into it with you Chris. You have had some kind of a weird thing going on since forever – trying to drive in my anchor points. Just a continuous attempt at a make-wrong. Every time you do this, you won’t get off it unless I slap you down. And then you lay off but just for a while. This time I’m just going to ignore any further comments from you.
For the record, I use Scientology all the time in my life. It’s your problem if you don’t even know what Scn consists of. And in any case, I’m a free being and can take it and leave it as I wish, and study other things too. And still talk about Scn as a very beneficial practice – which it is. So bug off.
Marildi says: You have had some kind of a weird thing going on since forever – trying to drive in my anchor points.
Chris says: I’m asking what you are all about — what you are up to.
If I pontificated daily-times-years on the merits of Ford automobiles, you would probably expect me to be driving one. And if you found that personally I avoid riding in cars then you might wonder at my fondness for Fords, that’s all.
I do not think it is correct for you to say that you use Scientology in your life if you don’t audit. That’s what Scientology is — auditing. It is a point of Standard Tech that the whole of Scientology organization exists to deliver auditing.
Maybe the reason this won’t go away for you has to do with this.
Chris, what do you mean by “practice scientology”?
If I practiced it the way they do today, I would simply ask you to send me money so I could “live a more Ideal Life”.
You are welcome to send me as much money as you wish, as often as you wish. I could set up a monthly subscription donation link for you on Paypal to put it on automatic. Would a small amount like $100/month work for you? That would about cover my gasoline bill, making my life much more “Ideal”.
Valkov: Chris, what do you mean by “practice scientology”?
Chris: Right, I should ask “why you don’t partake of the sacrament of auditing?” The lifeblood of Scientology is auditing. Without auditing, there isn’t Scientology, there is only bureaucracy.
You and Marildi are the biggest proponents of L Ron Hubbard and yet don’t practice what he preaches.
Yeah, but hao about setting up those direct donations to make my life More Ideal? You are not CI to that, are you?
Money cannot be the reason. I haven’t used money to do Scientology for over 20 years yet managed to do quite a bit of it on my own. Maybe at the center of this you don’t actually believe in Scientology auditing or in L. Ron Hubbard as you purport? My reason for getting into this is that we discuss Scientology quite a bit and the most consistent supporters of Scientology on this blog don’t actually do Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard said, “The work was free, keep it so.” I have found Scientology materials to be very available with absolutely no “hidden data line.” I cannot begin to match your depth of reading of psychology and religion. You are quite well educated into Scientology – I find no important flaw in your understanding compared to my understanding at all. Maybe that is your problem: You think like me.
Money cannot be the reason – for what? $100/month, with gasoline at $4/gallon as it is here, will buy me gas every month. That will make my life More Ideal. It has nothing to do with scientology. It has to do with making my life More Ideal. It works for Miscavige, it should work for me. I just need you to get the ball rolling, then perhaps others here will get on the bandwagon, and pretty soon we’ll have enough coming in to pay for my wife’s gas, too. She really likes to tool around in the summer, so there is an increased need for donations. She is actually the COB of the household, and she has a big situation going, as she already spends more on gas than I do! That’s why your donations are vital!
Lost me! LOL!
Valkov, perfect strategy. Return the pulling of your chain with like kind. 🙂
from my experience, the biggest proponents of Scientology, even with fanatical support, are the one’s who have done the least auditing. I attribute that to: In Scientology, hope has a greater value than the results it creates.
Don’t mess with people’s hopes – it can drive a person up the pole. The person will end up defend anything that supports that hope, anything.
Yes, I see that.
Geir and Chris, you two seem to be trying to pull people’s chains. I haven’t observed anything of the kind. My observation is that most of the proponents have received plenty of auditing. I’ve also observed that the biggest critics have the biggest misconceptions about basic Scientology. Both of these observations show up on blog threads that aren’t mostly frequented by critics, as well as the ones that are.
Another interesting observation I’ve made is that a lot of critics are obviously parroting each other and you hear the same “critics’ party lines” expressed the same way over and over. These people fit the description of being a cult themselves, with their own group think. Haven’t you guys noticed that? Look how Geir chimed in with Chris and then Alanzo chimed in with Geir. Typical. And I’m sure these figure-figure observations will be repeated
However, you two (Geir and Chris) are in a class of your own. Big-time critics who also rave about their auditing! Go figure.
Just my 2 cents. 😛
Marildi; I believe that some of your observation here is really spot on.
I see a high percentage among the most fervent and fanatic proponents and critics have had little Bridge progress. Most of those who have done much Scientology are more centered in their views.
My 3 cents 🙂
Well then, you must be a big exception to the rule. Lots of auditing – and still wanting more to complete your “Bridge” and make sure you don’t miss anything! That alongside being such a fervent critic that they’re recommending your blog over at Tony Ortega’s. I wouldn’t exactly call you “centered” in your views.
My 4 cents. 🙂
From your stand, my view could not possibly be called centered. I fully understand that.
But you incidentally described it well right there, if you noticed: On one hand seeing much positive in Scientology while on the other hand seeing much bad. Yeah, go figure 😉
BTW; I missed that anyone at Ortega’s linked here…
Oh, I don’t have a problem with someone seeing both a lot of good and a lot of bad. The problem I see with you is that you propagandize the bad to a far greater extent than the good, which you toss in only occasionally, seemingly just to show you aren’t biased.
Plus, on the one hand you praise it to the hilt for what it did for you and on the other you state that you suspect it is inherently harmful, even the basic, good parts. That isn’t “centered” in your thinking, per my 5 cents worth. 😉
One may suspect it is hard to keep a centered view on something that harms many people – even if there is an organization that seems to pervert the subject and are responsible for much of the harm – becuase, to me, their operation seems to be rooted in the texts. Their modus operandi seems consistent with much of the basics, even though they also pervert many parts of it. Buddhism seems quite different, and it may be easier to keep a centered view on that subject.
Re Tony Ortega’s blog, see the comment downstream. https://isene.me/2013/06/05/ethics-review-holy-shit/#comment-40561
Right – I just can’t find the link on Ortega’s. But nevermind.
marildi:I wouldn’t exactly call you “centered” in your views.
I call him “fair” and “honest” in his views and that’s what I like about this blog.
I can subscribe to honest. And that is on top of my priority list. I am trying hard to push compassion to the top spot, but I find that really hard. I do think Scientology has had a somewhat detrimental effect on me in that area.
isene: push compassion to the top spot, but I find that really hard. I do think Scientology has had a somewhat detrimental effect on me in that area.
OK you are fair to yourself and honest to others of what you think and feel. It is very hard to be fair for an ex scio in view of all he went through and found out about. Compassion for them can arrive more after they turn around and not hurt people. My hopes for that is nil since policy forbids it.
However, you do have a lot of compassion for your fellow ex or someone who has seen some of what you/we experienced as detrimental and why you are held in high regards by most commenters. Also you seem to hold truth as a special attribute, compared to smoke and mirrors or stuck attitudes.
Hey have a good trip and enjoy! 🙂
marildi: hear the same “critics’ party lines” expressed the same way over and over.
My 2 cents wrapped in this penny. The difference being that each individual does not have to agree to have group think, as most of it is real to the individual. Unlike Scn where you cannot disagree or speak out what you think about what one man said. A true Scio parrots one man only. Others are free to parrot or not parrot. Good question eh? 🙂
Marildi: :However, you two (Geir and Chris) are in a class of your own. Big-time critics who also rave about their auditing! Go figure.”
Chris: I actually understand and do not deny what you just wrote. The answer is not complex. We are dynamic and moving. I used to be there and now I’m here, no here, no here, aw, nevermind! You get what I mean. For me, this seems natural and less compulsive than trying to make space-time stand still, which we can’t.
It must be hard for any person with a set position on a subject to discuss with other that are fluid and moving.
Its metaphor is like fighting raging flood waters while clinging to a blade grass. Pummeled by inconsistencies, it seems a person will tend to give up after a time and extinguish. Regardless of whatever we imagine, whatever we abstract to be there (there is a disk; now there is no disk), the world is moving on, and we are too.
Chris:
“For me, this seems natural and less compulsive than trying to make space-time stand still, which we can’t.”
Is this so?
I have read accounts by folks who had the experience of perceiving reality as a series of still frames.
If implicate order is the case, then space-time has no motion in it. And our perception of it as moving is illusory.
Yes we see it that same way. That is not what I meant to Marildi. To Marildi I was refering to (your youtube video ?) of the disk-no-disk abstraction.
My “making things stand still” refers the abstraction of the disk when fact there is really a process going on in front of our eyes. Our abstraction is there is a disk on the end of a stick, but in fact there is a pinwheel spinning and a whole lot more. Seeing a disk is fine. Holding on tightly to the idea that there is a disk, there is a disk, there is a disk is problematic.
I wish I knew to answer to you V 😛 I don’t know if all those speak of the same thing. That’s all I know more or less.
I have encountered a few times ideas that imply that a preclear is somewhat like ill, then gets ‘cured’ by auditing and gets down to earth and agreeable with THE reality (MEST). That’s the ‘psychology’ I was talking about. But I guess I shouldn’t complained too much as LRH named that book “modern science of MENTAL HEALTH”, although he later on said he had regret it. Anyway, for me a Clear or a somewhat clearer than preclear has freer capacity to create –to mock up. And that is because he is less attatched to MEST. Fascimiles are some forceful MEST in his U. He handles that…he is freer. If he has to think in terms of MEST. he is more attached, and less free. And that’s the basic difference from ‘psychology’ that I said before. That psychology is about being one with the ONE reality, SCN is about one’s OWN truth.
I loved my Objectives EP. My TRs were mostly squirrel. I believe it is good to easily perceive MEST, but if that’s all one CAN (potential) do…he’s not as free. When we deal with abilities, we deal with abilities to create, imagine, mock up. On a human level would be the ability to operate a body better, but that’s also done through mock ups.
Geir wrote:
I attribute that to: In Scientology, hope has a greater value than the results it creates.
Don’t mess with people’s hopes – it can drive a person up the pole. The person will end up defend anything that supports that hope, anything.
This is a great insight.
I think Hubbard’s definitions of “Clear” and “OT” were what gave Scientologists their hope. And that hope caused them to be unwilling and unable to see the actual, real life results being attained by Scientology all around them every day.
For instance, David Miscavige grew up in Scientology. If Scientology worked, then he would either be sane, or not in his position at all and nowhere near Scientology – if Scientology actually did what it says it does. But a Scientologist will be completely blind to this reasoning, and will look away from this and simply dive in to their hope that Scientology will create these beatific states and gains, and this “better world”.
Great insight, Geir.
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Alanzo
And I think you are right in your extrapolations.
Perhaps we need to look at the definition of “sanity” and “sane”. Perhaps within his context, Miscavige is ‘sane’. (Possibly growing less so day by day, year by year, though)
I would totally agree with that, V.
Within the context and environment of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige is totally sane.
He is also the ultimate modern Scientologist – completely consistent with post-1965 LRH Scientology.
Alanzo
“I know I did. Alanzo”
Chris: Me too. With a few exceptions, many of us posting here did and do. Interesting too that many of our revelations arrive out of the mist while they have already been well worked out and published by others in books. This seems to support my idea that mankind has worked out and continues to work out its relationship to its existence since man first wandered and wondered.
Attaching oneself to an ideology and letting that filter do one’s thinking for them coincides with Hubbard’s use of the chemistry term valence. “in-valence” being closer to one’s native personality and “out of valence” being used to mean acting out the drama of one’s life using the personality of a previously known winning or overwhelming personality. Scientologists do seem to be out of valence in this regard by adopting and identifying with the closed-belief-system-ideology demanded of them by the winning and overwhelming personality of L. Ron Hubbard.
A fzner from Vancouver recently told me about this amazing book he was reading.
So I asked him to send me the link.
http://revelatorium.moorelife.nl/
In particular Chapter Stargram 18; The Fountain of Youth.
After only reading ch 18 and a bit more here and there, I have to agree, it is a head shaker of a reality check.
Read it.
To learn why unGody sexual practices maybe one of man’s worse, if not the worse aberrating factors.
Read it to learn, what the biblical statement : Gird up thy loins” really means.
Read it to learn the cause of homosexuality.
Read it to learn how to make certain sexual practices your fountain of youth.
Read it to learn why the survival of the human race depends on mankind changing to Godly sexual practices.
Dio
Dio: “Read it to learn why the survival of the human race depends on mankind changing to Godly sexual practices.”
So you want people to replace one arbitrary moral code that was sucked out of whole cloth (L. Ron Hubbard’s code, accurately summarized in HCOB Pain and Sex) with another arbitrary moral code that was sucked out of whole cloth (all the unknonw author’s of the Bible, apparently purporting to forward the Word of God but likely doing no such thing)?
Yes indeed, I can totally see why that is a most excellent good thing. I’ll get started right away, OK?
Splog,
You:
So you want people to replace one arbitrary moral code that was sucked out of whole cloth (L. Ron Hubbard’s code, accurately summarized in HCOB Pain and Sex) with another arbitrary moral code that was sucked out of whole cloth (all the unknonw author’s of the Bible, apparently purporting to forward the Word of God but likely doing no such thing)?
Yes indeed, I can totally see why that is a most excellent good thing. I’ll get started right away, OK?
Me: It is sure easy to determine your tone level, theta level, mental condition, I. Q. and character by your comm.
Dio
Dio; Your presence on this blog is one massive AdHom. Your comments are the best example of AdHom I have ever come across. How on Earth do you do it all the while you claim to understand what AdHom is?
I am baffled, befuddled, bewildered, beclouded, pothered, unsettled and perplexed.
There is nothing wrong with my posts or comm.
Your claim of ad hom is not relevant.
It is a mis understanding on your part.
I simply tell the truth.
If the truth is upsetting, that is because it is more than a half a tone level above your tone level and the same to anyone else.
The truth is the truth.
What can I do about it?
Only the truth will solve our problems.
There is no time to be pussy footing around.
You are welcome to correct me when I say something that is not true.
Dio
You, my dear Dio, is beyond repair.
You should be about the only person I know who would be able to perform a group hug on yourself. And I believe that would be a valid therapy for you.
Geir,
As an alternative…
I just had a nice two hour long deep digging session.
Then I went and laid in the sun for an hour and half.
That all feels pretty good.
Dio
Seems nice.
Your truth should be buried in the chemical waste sight.. it belongs there..
Elizabeth,
There are two ways to establish a reputation.
One is to be praised by noble men,
and the other is to be accused by rogues.
It is however best to secure the first,
because it is always accompanied by the latter.
Charles Caleb Colton. Paraphrased
For more words of wisdom visit:
http://www.quoteland.com/topic/Reputation-Quotes/503/
and here too:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/euripides.html
Dio
sorry Dio, I don’t bother to read quotes,
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Euripides
hehehe one only knows what is or who is a FOOL if self is one!
. . . And the most sophisticated troll to date! He was that red energy being on the original Star Trek who fed off the misemotions of others. The more attention you give him the more substantial he becomes. hahaha!
Rule #1 of the internets:
Don’t.Feed.The.Trolls
In this case; Don’t feed the Ettin
An ettin … interesting concept.
Sort of like Zaphod Beeblebrox without the funny bits, no?
Hence the solo group hug.
isene: Don’t feed the Ettin
Perfect!
Dio: “It is sure easy to determine your tone level, theta level, mental condition, I. Q. and character by your comm.”
Me: Hugs.
splog: Dio: “Read it”
Yes indeed, I can totally see why that is a most excellent good thing. I’ll get started right away, OK?
DeE: Me too. I love to be commanded to do something. Yes Sir!
deE,
You set a good example.
One of the biggest problems with most humans is that they can’t be told.
I am glad you are not one of them.
Dio
Splog,
You:So you want people to replace one arbitrary moral code that was sucked out of whole cloth (L. Ron Hubbard’s code, accurately summarized in HCOB Pain and Sex) with another arbitrary moral code that was sucked out of whole cloth (all the unknonw author’s of the Bible, apparently purporting to forward the Word of God but likely doing no such thing)?
Yes indeed, I can totally see why that is a most excellent good thing. I’ll get started right away, OK
Me: Two after thoughts came to my mind this morning, in regards to your response above from a couple of days ago.
1. I can see you do not understand scn. I can see you flunked scn.
When you see data that is something of comparable magnitude to something in scn, you are supposed to apply the data in “how to study a scientology”. Otherwise you just an aberrated parrot, according to Hubbard.
Common sense and good reasoning will tell a person that that same data applies to every subject in life.
You better read “how to study scientology”.
2. One person who can “be told” is better than ten people who can’t be told.
Dio
Dio: “Two after thoughts came to my mind this morning, in regards to your response above from a couple of days ago.
1. I can see you do not understand scn.”
Me: My first reaction is that you do not seem to understand the Auditor’s Code.
For someone who claims to understand Scientology very well and know how to practise it, you put a lot of inval and eval into your comm.
You do not attack people’s position, or their argument, their reasoning or their conclusions or their data.
You go straight for the person with heavy inval, and you do it consistently.
You then do not back up your attack with anything of substance, instead you resort to weak arguments along the lines of “the truth is the truth, go deal with it” or just pronouncing that someone is flat out wrong without ever saying why, or laying out why your position is valid.
You are the only regular here that does this, everyone else keeps the debate civil and on-topic and steers clear of attacking the individual, no matter how divergent their points of view might be.
If you are applying the “always attack, never defend” datum from Hubbard, then I imagine he and OSA would be very proud of you as all three of you appear to be very good at using it.
I should just point out that all the regulars here appear very much proofed up against your methods which are having little effect.
Dio’s consistent uncivilized behavior – and in accordance with the “always attack, never defend”-policy – keeps him on permanent moderation.
1. Understanding, does not automatically mean follow.
2. I think, evaluate and make my own rules as and where required.
3. I was not rude or uncivilized.
4. You are shooting at the wrong target. (As usual)
You should scold Splog for talking such aberration.
I only told him the truth.
Dio
With all due respect, Dio – I should avoid calling you a dickhead. I really should. Even though that would be the best description I could muster for your presence on this blog. And my advice for any person I would happen to call a dickhead is to start practicing hugging people. A lot. A very large amount of lot.
Well said, Alan. He doesn’t apply Scientology at all – neither the Auditor’s Code nor the issue on “Manners”, or ARC or word clearing. I’m not sure if he applies ANY of Scientology. If he does understand it he doesn’t seem to be able to control himself. But he can’t see that and it’s hard to know what the source of his blindness is. Crashing MU’s? False data? Ser facs? Other unhandled case factors? Even TR 0 might enable him to CONFRONT his own existence. But he has trapped himself in one way or another and seems to be an “only one” in opposition to all the other dynamics. Even if he’s completely psychotic, he could reach out for help if he had enough theta left to take that kind of responsibility. I hope he eventually does so.
marildi: “Well said, Alan. He doesn’t apply Scientology at all – neither the Auditor’s Code nor the issue on “Manners”, or ARC or word clearing. I’m not sure if he applies ANY of Scientology. If he does understand it he doesn’t seem to be able to control himself. But he can’t see that and it’s hard to know what the source of his blindness is. Crashing MU’s? False data? Ser facs? Other unhandled case factors? Even TR 0 might enable him to CONFRONT his own existence. But he has trapped himself in one way or another and seems to be an “only one” in opposition to all the other dynamics. Even if he’s completely psychotic, he could reach out for help if he had enough theta left to take that kind of responsibility. I hope he eventually does so.
me: I think he’s just a simple troll and enjoys trying to get people riled up. The internets out there have lots of such folk; we really shouldn’t feed them but I can’t resist poking them with a stick sometimes. Give trolls a taste of what it’s like.
What I really want to say though is I see a strong help flow in your reply. We usually disagree on technical details but we *do* agree on willingness to help being one of the most important things in life. That was nice to read and the world needs more of it.
Now go find your significant other and get yourself a big hug 🙂
Alan, you are a sweetie pie. 🙂
I think you’re right that Dio can be a troll and enjoys trying to get people riled up. No one could be that dense as to not see how utterly unacceptable his comm is. But he has a lot of knowledge and some intelligent things to say too and I think he sincerely wants to communicate. I’ve seen some good posts of his over at Marty’s, which have none of this obvious, off-the wall Ad Hom. It appears he knows he can’t get his thrills over there as Marty won’t post that stuff. Now, if he would just control himself here on Geir’s, I’m sure he would become part of the group and he and the rest of us could benefit.
Miraldi and Alan,
Neither of you are qualified to comment on anything.
Dio
“Miraldi and Alan,
Neither of you are qualified to comment on anything.”
Aha, I have it now!
Dio is a perl script. And it just flunked the Turing test.
+1
This whole subject of imposed moral codes from one’s leaders was a highly “charged” subject for me after Scientology. One of the things I realized when I was making my way out of Scientology was that the moral and ethics codes that were thrust upon me were done without my own self-interests at heart.
In fact, especially as a staff member for 7.5 years, my own self-interests were routinely targeted as “out-ethics” and “too first dynamic oriented” and “other fish to fry”. So as a Scientology staff member, the moral codes that were forced upon me were one of the things that made Scientology a cult for me.
Remember, my definition of a cult is “a group that uses socially coercive techniques to get you to work against your own self-interests.”
So when I re-started my study of Buddhism 10 or 11 years ago, I always dismissed their teachings on morality. No one, especially a religion which was developed 2500 years ago and from other cultures, was going to tell me how to be ethical. I also saw many highly exploitable things in Buddhism, things that were also exploited in Scientology, and I wasn’t about to fall into those traps again.
But as I continued to study different authors in Buddhism, I came across one guy, Thanissaro Bhikku who created the site http://www.accesstoinsight.org, whose teachings resonated with me. He’s an American monk in the Thai Forest Tradition. He looks like Lee Iacocca in a robe.
Anyway, he stresses often that the whole “Q” of Buddhism can be summed up in 4 sentences:
1. Stress should be comprehended,
2. its cause abandoned,
3. its cessation realized,
4. and the path to its cessation developed.
This guy continually stresses that suffering forms the basis of buddhism, and that its system of morality also follows this. What causes suffering is a mistake. What releases suffering is the correct teaching.
I realized that my rejection of Buddhist morality was based on the rejection of someone else telling me what was moral. I realized that this was not a productive view of what was being offered to me, and that it was inconsistent with suffering as the basis of Buddhism.
I now approach Buddhist teachings on morality as 1 to 4 above, where I, and only I, can determine what is moral and what is immoral, as that which causes stress (or suffering) and that which – when abandoned – realizes the cessation of stress and suffering.
So, what I am trying to say is that moral codes suck.
First, they exist in words. And once things have been put into words, they have already been alienated at least one step from its actual existence. A feeling, a sensation, an emotion, is not a word and never will be.
Second, they are fixed in time and place. They are often expressions of cultural values that were formed by people who have faced certain problems, and these are their solutions for those problems. I see The Code of Honor as mostly Hubbard’s solutions for Scientologists in order to keep his own stats up, and not for anything he would personally follow as a code – as Maria so eloquently pointed out.
Third, they are somebody else’s, not mine. And they can not possibly address the ineffable and unique causes and conditions which I find inside me.
When I first got involved in Scientology, the Code of Honor was helpful to me because no one had ever really got me to consider anything like a code before. This, along with my first introduction to ethics in Scientology where the idea was given to me “the more ethical you were, the happier you could be”, was transformative.
But as with everything good in Scientology, these things are later used against you. But when they were first presented, they were good.
So this is my write up on why I believe the Code of Honor has very limited usefulness, and is certainly not something one should base his life upon for too long.
The Code of Honor, like all things in Scientology, is something like kindergarten, something not to be re-tread over and over, but something to go through if you have to, and to graduate from.
Alanzo
Alanzo: The Code of Honor, like all things in Scientology, is something like kindergarten, something not to be re-tread over and over, but something to go through if you have to, and to graduate from.”
Thank you Alanzo. Excellent post! 🙂
Nice, Al.
What I can tell by personal case handling experience is that behind much of my important and complex trouble, I often find a simple breach of this code being the beginning of trouble. I find myself taking other people’s goals and making them my own, comming without really wanting, compromising etc. I think it’s a very accurate code. If one examines universes (plural), it can become clearer.
Marildi: Oh, I don’t have a problem with someone seeing both a lot of good and a lot of bad. The problem I see with you is that you propagandize the bad to a far greater extent than the good, which you toss in only occasionally, seemingly just to show you aren’t biased.
Me: ORLY? I bet you have not seen any post by anyone as concise and specifically positive on Scientology as this one: https://isene.me/2013/06/06/scientology-my-top-5-list/
And you think that very concrete summary is “only tossed in for balance”? This clearly shows how biased you are Marildi. I see no hope for your bias.
Are there good biases and bad biases? I think so. I also think you are just bullbaiting marildi on the word ‘bias’.
But you are biased towards bosons.
Right, he likes to pull my chain. I’m his favorite sparring partner. 🙂
Besides, no one could possibly write “I see no hope…” and still claim to have the intention to help people. Oh, but wait…his views are pretty inconsistent and paradoxical. Maybe he’s serious!
Never fear to hurt another in a just cause:
I understand that it would be a fair cause to hurt another to defend myself, my wife, my friend or something…now in PT you…to avoid an overt being made, now. But to hold on to hate for 5 years and seek revenge, or to organize attacks and counter attacks against this and that, is pretty messed up primarily for oneself. One could create a hate group like the Westboros in this fashion and create and perpetuate hate and fighting and such. Everything in SCN can be interpreted so as to serve hate and oppression. I think it shouldn’t as fighting doesn’t as-is case.
LOL, You’re not banging and blogging again are you Spyros!?! hahaha
It depends on what you mean by ‘banging’ 😉 😛
Before I suggest something to be/not be done in the blog or to some other person, I make sure I am/am not willing to do it myself anymore. And although I haven’t dramatized all that I have seen in SCN, I know much about SCN attitude by looking at what I thought/did myself. I would find it absurd in myself to do otherwise, and sometimes I did find it absurd.
*swap ‘willing’ with ‘intend to’
E. Hamre:
From Hubbard chart of human evaluation.
4 ETHIC LEVEL
HANDLING
OF
TRUTH
COURAGE
LEVEL
To n e Scale
4.0
Bases ethics on reason.
Very high ethic level.
High concept of truth. High courage level.
3.5
Heeds ethics of group
but refines them higher
as reason demands.
Truthful. Courage displayed on
reasonable risks.
3.0
Follows ethics in which
trained, as honestly as
possible. Moral.
Cautious of asserting
truths. Social lies.
Conservative display of
courage where risk is
small.
2.5
Treats ethics insincerely
but not particularly
honest or dishonest.
Insincere. Careless of
facts.
Neither courage nor
cowardice. Neglect of
danger.
2.0
Chronically and bluntly
dishonest when occasion
arises. At this level and
below: authoritarianism,
criminals.
Truth twisted to suit
antagonism.
Reactive, unreasoning
thrusts at danger.
1.5
Immoral. Actively
dishonest. Destructive
of any and all ethics.
Blatant and destructive
lying.
Treats truth like swine
trample pearls beneath
their feet in their manure.
Unreasonable bravery,
usually damaging to self.
1.1
Sex criminals. Negative
ethics. Deviously
dishonest. Perverts
honesty without reason.
Ingenious and vicious
perversions of truth.
Covers lying artfully.
Occasional
underhanded displays
of action, otherwise
cowardly.
0.5
Non-existent. Not
thinking. Obeying
anyone.
Details facts with no
concept of their reality.
Complete cowardice.
0.1
None. No reaction.