Class XIIs and Class 12

[Vinaire]

Let me start with evaluating the performance of Class 12 on this board.

Class 12 wrote his first post on ESMB on 8 Sep. As of now, He wrote his last post on 10 Sep. In all, he has written 18 posts on ESMB.

His first post was in response to Tinsy’s post about BTs. It was an interesting post and made sense to me. It exuded certainty. His criticism of upper level processing in CoS sounded quite rational. His post did include a bit of self-promotion, but it didn’t startle me. It was normal.

His second post was in response to Alanzo’s post about OTs who went crazy. His did answer the question and it made sense to me. There was some self-promotion, but I didn’t notice anything odd.

In his next post Pierre referred Tansy to his essay on the HCOB PAIN AND SEX. I remember reading that essay sometime back, and thought it was interesting and contained good insights.

Next, his response to a query by TI was quite specific and to the point.

Next, his response to Div 6 about L-11 wins was quite sensible.

Next post was an origination by Pierre, where he commented on “fanatical views about Scientology,” and provided his own viewpoint and operating basis. I see nothing wrong with this post. It was not an attack on any person. But, this post may have ticked off some critics on ESMB.

[To be continued…]

.

 

[Div6]

Let me start with evaluating the performance of Class 12 on this board.

Class 12 wrote his first post on ESMB on 8 Sep. As of now, He wrote his last post on 10 Sep. In all, he has written 18 posts on ESMB.

His first post was in response to Tinsy’s post about BTs. It was an interesting post and made sense to me. It exuded certainty. His criticism of upper level processing in CoS sounded quite rational. His post did include a bit of self-promotion, but it didn’t startle me. It was normal.

His second post was in response to Alanzo’s post about OTs who went crazy. His did answer the question and it made sense to me. There was some self-promotion, but I didn’t notice anything odd.

In his next post Pierre referred Tansy to his essay on the HCOB PAIN AND SEX. I remember reading that essay sometime back, and thought it was interesting and contained good insights.

Next, his response to a query by TI was quite specific and to the point.

Next, his response to Div 6 about L-11 wins was quite sensible.

Next post was an origination by Pierre, where he commented on “fanatical views about Scientology,” and provided his own viewpoint and operating basis. I see nothing wrong with this post. It was not an attack on any person. But, this post may have ticked off some critics on ESMB.

[To be continued…]

.

Pierre is a tech terminal extraordinaire.....
I actually was surprised he posted here at all, given how busy I know he is.
As Alan posed on the BT's thread..."who would want to stop that?"


I leave you to your own conclusions.

 

[Vinaire]

Pierre is a tech terminal extraordinaire.....
I actually was surprised he posted here at all, given how busy I know he is.
As Alan posed on the BT's thread..."who would want to stop that?"


I leave you to your own conclusions.

My purpose is to look at the responsibilities of Class XIIs in this rapidly changing environment where even the Scientology philosophy is being severely criticized.

I believe that there is a lot in Scientology philosophy that is good and should be preserved.

I also believe that the theory underlying Scientology processes, and its correct application, should also be properly communicated so people may benefit from it. Not to do so would be a terrible waste.

.

 

[Veda]

Pierre is a tech terminal extraordinaire.....
I actually was surprised he posted here at all, given how busy I know he is.
As Alan posed on the BT's thread..."who would want to stop that?"

I leave you to your own conclusions.

I'm not a Scientologist. Div6, you are a Scientologist. We do share some views, but in important ways, do not think alike. Scientology is inherently - despite its PR - anti-free speech.

This is a Message Board. Its foundation is freedom of speech, the freedom to express ones views. Without that, what is there?

I have the right to express my views and to challenge and criticize anyone.

I believe in free speech.

 

[Zinjifar]

My purpose is to look at the responsibilities of Class XIIs in this rapidly changing environment where even the Scientology philosophy is being severely criticized.

I believe that there is a lot in Scientology philosophy that is good and should be preserved.

I also believe that the theory underlying Scientology processes, and its correct application, should also be properly communicated so people may benefit from it. Not to do so would be a terrible waste.

.

This is the *ex* Scientologist Message Board. As it happens, it's far more than that, and, includes *still* Scientologists and even (probably) still 'Church' Scientologists and never-been Scientologists.

That's a good thing and has resulted in one of the most free-wheeling discussions of Scientology on the net. Not that there's anything wrong with that (unless you're the 'Church' or, apparently, some flavors of ex-church-scientologist)

It's not unusual for 'ex-scientology' discussion to include 'Tech' discussion, since even most 'exes' still maintain an appreciation for *some* of the 'Tech' although, the various elements may differ.

However, it's rare to see as many 'ex-church-scientologists' as liberated as they are to 'verbal tech' and 'squirrel' and even 'tech degrade' while discussing the kinds of 'high mystery sandwich' in a forum where the worst they have to suffer is the occassional offhand sneer (however friendly) or back-handed 'invalidation' they may 'suffer' here.

Contrary to Scientology perspective, *invalidation* is not a crime, nor is 'criticism' nor is the failure to 'agree'.

Which is one point where I'm seeing a problem.

Despite this being an 'Ex' Scientology Message Board, there are any number of scientologists who, per dogma, consider *any* objection to Scientology on any level (or, more especially on *their* level) as improper. And, as a first resort, jump to personal attack and slur.

Often, apparently, under the impression that their target is too stupid to notice.

Now; that's some slimy ARC

Zinj

 

[Terril park]

My purpose is to look at the responsibilities of Class XIIs in this rapidly changing environment where even the Scientology philosophy is being severely criticized.

.

The responsibilities of Class XIIs is delivering superb tech on any part of
the scn bridge. To be senior C/Ses, to upgrade the abilities of other auditors.

It is not their hat to handle critics and the critical field. Even if they dip their toes in that water. In fact they, in the FZ, are free to take any hat they like, as are we.

Their prime responsibility is the tech.

 

[Div6]

I'm not a Scientologist. Div6, you are a Scientologist. We do share some views, but in important ways, do not think alike. Scientology is inherently - despite its PR - anti-free speech.

This is a Message Board. Its foundation is freedom of speech, the freedom to express ones views. Without that, what is there?

I have the right to express my views and to challenge and criticize anyone.

I believe in free speech.

I am NOT a Scientologist. Ex yes. But I turned in my badges to that group a long time ago.

No one is stopping free speech. I too share that view.
I have been trying to think of a metaphor for this.....so please forgive me if this is not quite a correct model. The right to Free Speech is NOT absolute, under current US law. There are laws against slander, and commercial speech, and what is termed "hate" speech. This is a product of the society we live in. The NFL for example also has a "taunting rule". It is somewhat explained here.

In part it says: "Any flagrant acts or remarks that deride, mock, bait or embarrass an opponent are considered taunting. This includes, but is not limited to, spiking the football near a defender after a touchdown, shoving the ball at an opponent, or repeated finger-pointing. Remember, if you spike the ball near an opponent after a play, you risk being called for taunting even if you don't mean to taunt."

I would suggest that if we truly wish to foster an environment in which there is a meaningful exchange of ideas, etc, that we check taunting at the door.
That does NOT mean cease to be critical. I guess the Admins would have to be the refs on it.

Otherwise things just devolve into flame baiting.


imho

 

[Vinaire]

... I'm seeing a problem.

Despite this being an 'Ex' Scientology Message Board, there are any number of scientologists who, per dogma, consider *any* objection to Scientology on any level (or, more especially on *their* level) as improper. And, as a first resort, jump to personal attack and slur.
...

I think any dogma suppresses rational thinking. Let’s take an example of a dogma:

ANY objection to Scientology on any level is improper.

I don’t think that the above derives from Scientology Axioms or Logics. It is actually contrary to them. So, any person following the above dogma is a squirrel.

The Scientology principle is that underlying any disagreement there is a misunderstanding, which comes primarily from OMITTED or FALSE DATA, but there can also be some other type of outpoint, such as ALTERED IMPORTANCE, coming from viewing something in a wrong context.

So, what should a Scientologist do in the face of a disagreement? The correct response would to narrow down the area of disagreement as much as possible, and then thoroughly examine the narrowed down area for possible outpoints. As one becomes aware of outpoints, one’s observation becomes sharper, and all of a sudden the whole disagreement falls apart.

Jumping to personal attack and a slur may be some cope emergency action under some dire situation, but it is a squirrelly action from the viewpoint of Vedic Scientology.

.

 

[Vinaire]

The responsibilities of Class XIIs is delivering superb tech on any part of
the scn bridge. To be senior C/Ses, to upgrade the abilities of other auditors.

It is not their hat to handle critics and the critical field. Even if they dip their toes in that water. In fact they, in the FZ, are free to take any hat they like, as are we.

Their prime responsibility is the tech.

And the tech includes all dynamics, because Scientology Axioms and Logics apply to all life.

To think that a Class 12 should be operating as a Class 12 only in an ivory tower, and as a jerk otherwise, is not my ideal scene for a Class 12.

.

 

[Alanzo]

And the tech includes all dynamics, because Scientology Axioms and Logics apply to all life.

To think that a Class 12 should be operating as a Class 12 only in an ivory tower, and as a jerk otherwise, is not my ideal scene for a Class 12.

.

I like the analysis you started out this thread with Vinaire. There were a lot of positives with Class12's first postings.

Continue your eval....

 

[Zinjifar]

And the tech includes all dynamics, because Scientology Axioms and Logics apply to all life.

To think that a Class 12 should be operating as a Class 12 only in an ivory tower, and as a jerk otherwise, is not my ideal scene for a Class 12.

.

And, I consider Scientology 'axioms' and 'logics' complete gobbledygook digestible only for those already Mindfucked into submission... but, if you can tolerate my saying so, and, if you're building your house of 'logical' cards on them, rejecting your entire edifice, then, I have no problem with you 'stating' them and even acting as if they make some kind of 'non-scientological' sense

Hell, I don't even care about your parochial and jingoist insistence that us 'semites' are inferior to your own (ideosynchratic yet superior) 'dharmic' beingness .

I don't even mind you choreographing BTs dancing on pinheads to dizzyingly complex levels, as long as you don't expect me to take it seriously.

But, I do think you should rise above your personal resentments sometimes.

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

I am NOT a Scientologist. Ex yes. But I turned in my badges to that group a long time ago.

No one is stopping free speech. I too share that view.
I have been trying to think of a metaphor for this.....so please forgive me if this is not quite a correct model. The right to Free Speech is NOT absolute, under current US law.
...

To my understanding, “free speech” has certain responsibilities associated with it, and those responsibilities should be spelled out and understood.

I would like the participants on this board to contribute to a CODE OF FREE SPEECH.

Thanks.

.

 

[Veda]

I am NOT a Scientologist. Ex yes. But I turned in my badges to that group a long time ago.

No one is stopping free speech. I too share that view.
I have been trying to think of a metaphor for this.....so please forgive me if this is not quite a correct model. The right to Free Speech is NOT absolute, under current US law. There are laws against slander, and commercial speech, and what is termed "hate" speech. This is a product of the society we live in. The NFL for example also has a "taunting rule". It is somewhat explained here.

In part it says: "Any flagrant acts or remarks that deride, mock, bait or embarrass an opponent are considered taunting. This includes, but is not limited to, spiking the football near a defender after a touchdown, shoving the ball at an opponent, or repeated finger-pointing. Remember, if you spike the ball near an opponent after a play, you risk being called for taunting even if you don't mean to taunt."

I would suggest that if we truly wish to foster an environment in which there is a meaningful exchange of ideas, etc, that we check taunting at the door.
That does NOT mean cease to be critical. I guess the Admins would have to be the refs on it.

Otherwise things just devolve into flame baiting.


imho

I was under the impression that you were a Freezone Scientologist.

In any event, you do promote the Commodore Hubbard/Emperor Xenu Bridge - and please keep in mind the explanation for that designation. It's done to separate the Sea Org-era tech from that which came before.

Came before 'Keeping Scientology Working'; came before "Implantology" as the mandatory only way, complete with "dangerous" secret words that only "Source" could discover, and upon which every ones survival depended; before the Fair Game Law; before the Guardians Office and Scientology "dirty trick" tech; before Hubbard became the Commodore and started the Sea Org; before the celebration of power for power's sake, and ruthlessness as a virtue, in the 'Bolivar PL' - well, you get the idea.

It's there - it's in the background. It is part of the subject of Scientology. The subject that you insisted - yesterday, or two days ago - does not need reform.

The most dubious parts of Scientology "tech," that I reject, are the parts that you regard as the pinnacle of its development.

And, by the way, I am also not into e-meter worship, do not believe that the "e-meter will tell me," or that the e-meter is a truth detector. I recognize that the e-meter is a useful device up to a point, but can also mislead, and be used to manipulate.

At the very least, the subject does need reform - at the very least.

Of course, no one is advocating shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but, within reason, freedom of speech is sacred, and there is no caste system, and I am not interested in any inspirational LRH PR quotes on the subject of "freedom" or "anti-authoritarianism."

ESMB is doing just fine as a free forum.

And these are my views.

And you are most definitely entitled to yours.

 

[Veda]

To my understanding, “free speech” has certain responsibilities associated with it, and those responsibilities should be spelled out and understood.

I would like the participants on this board to contribute to a CODE OF FREE SPEECH.

Thanks.

.

Vinaire - that's a bad idea.

Let freedom ring.

There is ESMB moderation if things get crazy - that's enough.

 

[Zinjifar]

To my understanding, “free speech” has certain responsibilities associated with it, and those responsibilities should be spelled out and understood.

I would like the participants on this board to contribute to a CODE OF FREE SPEECH.

Thanks.

.

I doubt it can be done 'cut and dried'.

As someone once said years ago, 'once you have 'rules' you'll have people shystering around to evade them without breaking them'.

Personally, I can go either way. Rules that are stuck to or anarchy with the concommitant, well, anarchy

What I *hate* are 'unspoken rules' or 'rules for some' that are different than rules for 'others'.

That's just crap.

I do think I've seen a growing level of 'rules for some' here, in regards to 'personal attacks' and, I'd like a 'rule' to *NIP IT IN the BUD*

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

And, I consider Scientology 'axioms' and 'logics' complete gobbledygook digestible only for those already Mindfucked into submission... but, if you can tolerate my saying so, and, if you're building your house of 'logical' cards on them, rejecting your entire edifice, then, I have no problem with you 'stating' them and even acting as if they make some kind of 'non-scientological' sense

Hell, I don't even care about your parochial and jingoist insistence that us 'semites' are inferior to your own (ideosynchratic yet superior) 'dharmic' beingness .

I don't even mind you choreographing BTs dancing on pinheads to dizzyingly complex levels, as long as you don't expect me to take it seriously.

But, I do think you should rise above your personal resentments sometimes.

Zinj

A lot of my stance is tongue in cheek. and deliberately provocative, so don't worry. If it bugs you too much, then let me know and I shall sit down with you with a glass of lassi and sort it all out.

As I said, any disagreement is a symptom of some omitted or false data, or some other outpoint. So I would be happy to take up your first disagreement with Scientology Axioms and Logics any time as long as you lay it out in specific terms.

At least we may be able to reduce the disagreement to some very specific points of philosophy.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I doubt it can be done 'cut and dried'.

As someone once said years ago, 'once you have 'rules' you'll have people shystering around to evade them without breaking them'.

Personally, I can go either way. Rules that are stuck to or anarchy with the concommitant, well, anarchy

What I *hate* are 'unspoken rules' or 'rules for some' that are different than rules for 'others'.

That's just crap.

I do think I've seen a growing level of 'rules for some' here, in regards to 'personal attacks' and, I'd like a 'rule' to *NIP IT IN the BUD*

Zinj

I am looking for the broadest considerations which would qualify a speech as free.

Can free speech exist among whackos? or among hypnotized zombies? or among US politicians?

.

 

[Vinaire]

Vinaire - that's a bad idea.

Let freedom ring.

There is ESMB moderation if things get crazy - that's enough.

OK. So you are saying that ESMB rules should be enough to guide free speech on this board.

Very good. That is an excellent suggestion.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

I am looking for the broadest considerations which would qualify a speech as free.

Can free speech exist among whackos? or among hypnotized zombies? or among US politicians?

.

Yes.

Even there. But *society* has a word that describes the kind of lubrication necessary to successful 'free speech'.

It's called 'consideration', or 'politeness' (not the slippery, dishonest, backbiting kind) and, among sub-genii; Slack.

And, when somebody fucks up and begins personally attacking where it's not supposed to be, then, it's good for everyone to throw trout at him/(her) until they get the message.

Zinj

 

[Div6]

I was under the impression that you were a Freezone Scientologist.

In any event, you do promote the Commodore Hubbard/Emperor Xenu Bridge - and please keep in mind the explanation for that designation. It's done to separate the Sea Org-era tech from that which came before.

Came before 'Keeping Scientology Working'; came before "Implantology" as the mandatory only way, complete with "dangerous" secret words that only "Source" could discover, and upon which every ones survival depended; before the Fair Game Law; before the Guardians Office and Scientology "dirty trick" tech; before Hubbard became the Commodore and started the Sea Org; before the celebration of power for power's sake, and ruthlessness as a virtue, in the 'Bolivar PL' - well, you get the idea.

It's there - it's in the background. It is part of the subject of Scientology. The subject that you insisted - yesterday, or two days ago - does not need reform.

The most dubious parts of Scientology "tech," that I reject, are the parts that you regard as the pinnacle of its development.

And, by the way, I am also not into e-meter worship, do not believe that the "e-meter will tell me," or that the e-meter is a truth detector. I recognize that the e-meter is a useful device up to a point, but can also mislead, and be used to manipulate.

At the very least, the subject does need reform - at the very least.

Of course, no one is advocating shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but, within reason, freedom of speech is sacred, and there is no caste system, and I am not interested in any inspirational LRH PR quotes on the subject of "freedom" or "anti-authoritarianism."

ESMB is doing just fine as a free forum.

And these are my views.

And you are most definitely entitled to yours.

You certainly seem to have a pre-occupation with putting labels on things. It really doesn't matter to me....I am what I am, you are what you are. Our views diverge on some things, not on others. I did not have a terribly bad experience with Scn prior to the DM insanities. In fact I had some rather positive ones. Nor was I ever in the SO, so I avoided the extreme fanaticism of that group. You seem to have had experiences otherwise. Perhaps one day you will share them. And if you are JArmstrong, then I would be particularly interested, as that person was perhaps one of the most demonized individuals internally in the CoS in the early 80's. I recall one time being called up to the FOLO for a cycle, and watching a "DA" video taken in Griffeth Park. Needless to say, it didn't DA anything.

I think we kind of communicate to a point, and then reach a bit of an impasse. I am curious as to what parts of the subject you would reform...but we never seem to be able to get to that discussion. Perhaps some day.