From Miss X - About Annie Broeker

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

I am with Jim in this discussion.

I find some critics are unable to separate Scientology form its misapplication, and just want to condemn all of it.

LRH himself was not above misapplying Scientology.

.

Veda, you should be reading what Vinay has read. To wit, the Veda. Alan's sign off is accurate as well, what is? For some the realization that LRH was in fact in the time stream, subject to the very principles he was working at delineating, or that he 'touched his own pee-pee' is disconcerting and throws them into a tailspin where they then discount or discredit an entire subject. What do they do about Einstein's out-2D, or Newton's alchemy and Masonry? Does that mean balls don't drop or mass can't be converted to energy? Jeepers creepers.

Here's one to mull over. For the basis of argument, assume that the axioms of as-isness, alter-is and so on are the premise. In order to gain persistence, or maybe say 'smash one's name into history', then one would seriously alter-is and foster not-is, of the identity of L. Ron Hubbard. So, lie, lie, lie, about that identity. What do you get? It's persisting so hard for some that they can't shake it. Then look at the phenomena of electromagnetics and how you gain a difference of potential and extrapolate those ideas up into 'what you resist you become' and there may be a diabolical subterfuge on LRH's part to actually foster hatred of him so you would become him....holy cow! LRH created this message board!!

For anyone intelligently considering these subjects and willing to go through what it really takes then there are joys aplenty. Personally, I'm having an outrageous blast. I'd love to see lots of you guys in the same, 'different responses' type freedom. However you get there, it's sooo much fun. Jim

 

[Vinaire]

Will a Scientology principle that appeared in another philosophy prior to Scientology, will still be abhorrent to you just because it later appeared in Scientology and was expressed using scientology terminology?

.

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

I do NOT want a society ruled by Cof$! - I don't CARE what MU's I might have. I don't give a flying fart about all the subterfuge and rationalizations for SCN failing. I will NOT give it yet another try!

I judge the whole shebang of $cientology as one can of worms. I look at what comes of it... The existence in the orgs. In the RPF. In the news that Cof$ tries to quelsh.. The fair gaming..

That is the stat!

Success stories.. That is not a stat!

$cientologys justice system. Someone pulled that in! - The RPF and the Introspection RD. Just how gullible are you? - That gullible? - Kids are adults in small bodies, eh? - LOOK for Gods sake!

What was the use of learning about the 'dynamics' when only the particular 3'rd called $cientology matters?

That looks like a taunt to me.. Poetry like only Hubturd could do it! An artful description of $cientology! - And those hard working people in the SeaOrg.. Well, Hubturd talked about 'Arslycos'! - Very space opera that! - Those guys PRODUCED!

Sure your'e not an Arslycker?

Well, it's not like the cult of $cientology actually matters or mean anything in the big picture. Humanity doesn't want it. It'll remain a little obscure group... Maybe the terrormidget does a 'Jonestown'... Would it really surprise you if he did?

.

Seems to me, aside from the BPC, that there must some sort of 'anti' school that has its own GAT patter drills. I don't think it resolves the issues any more for them than it did for their oppterm. Do you guys do it to a rock just to stay in character on the GPM? (Goals Problem Mass, covered on various websites, books, etc. and I am lauging out loud as well. Hope some of you are cause that is freakin' hilarious).

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

Will a Scientology principle that appeared in another philosophy prior to Scientology, will still be abhorrent to you just because it later appeared in Scientology and was expressed using scientology terminology?

.

Now that is a really good question. I'd like to hear from some of the heavy hitters on this one. Come on guys, that's a pretty big mozza ball hanging out there.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Then look at the phenomena of electromagnetics and how you gain a difference of potential and extrapolate those ideas up into 'what you resist you become' and there may be a diabolical subterfuge on LRH's part to actually foster hatred of him so you would become him....holy cow! LRH created this message board!!

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

Since I mentioned it, re: GAT. From the Class VIII tapes; there is NO substitute for understanding. Jim
And for Alanzo, know thyself and the truth shall set you free, a life unexamined is not worth living, be rid of 'self' and you are free of samsara and so on.

 

[Zinjifar]

Thanks. Something to work with. So, the elements are; perception, a sensing or 'picking it up' along some channel of some sort and eternity, 'forever' an 'infinity'. What I'm getting is that I am viewing a limited part of infinity when I look at 'time'. That would seem to me to be 'present time', or a 'moment' of 'time' and I still need to get what 'time' is. That is, what are all these moments? How the heck did they get here and how come they gotta march on. Seems to me 'karma' enters the picture here as well.

In any event, thanks Zinj. Now if I could just get how this 'time' is going to aid me to figure out Scientology is bad. Jim

As a 'movement', 'Church', 'organization' Scientology can only be judged within 'time' as a perceptual framework. I would certainly judge it 'bad'.

As a 'philosophy', 'world view', 'belief system', 'cosmology' I'm not sure how important it is to 'time', or time to it. My own perception is from within 'time'. But, I wouldn't judge it 'bad' or 'good'. The correct criterium seems to me to be whether it's accurate, or, probably more important, *relevant* to reality, assuming some kind of coherent objective 'reality'. From all I've seen of Scientology, it's fataly unrealistic, and therefore, irrelevant to 'reality' as I perceive it. Naturally, since Scientology claims to be an *applied* religious philosophy, it must also be judged on that 'application' and, I would judge it as 'predominantly bad'. Certainly not *all* bad, but on the whole. Your mileage almost certainly varies

However, we'll also differ on *why* Scientology went bad and where, with you seeing an organizational divergence from the 'philosophy' and me seeing a living expression of the philosophy, with little difference between Ron's own and 'Current Management', except in flavor.

Zinj

 

[Div6]

Now that is a really good question. I'd like to hear from some of the heavy hitters on this one. Come on guys, that's a pretty big mozza ball hanging out there.

Only if "you can't handle the truth".

 

[Zinjifar]

I am with Jim in this discussion.

I find some critics are unable to separate Scientology form its misapplication, and just want to condemn all of it.

LRH himself was not above misapplying Scientology.

.

I see no particular reason to consider 'real existing Scientology' a misapplication. It's a stupid application and a counter-productive application, but, given the inherently self-contradictory nature of Hubbard's proclamations and mandates; I see nothing in what 'current management' does that does not have foundation in Hubbard's own creation and His own precedent. There might be some legitimacy in objecting to 'current' squirreling, but, nogody squirreled Scientology like Ron did, and, I think it's only fair to grant His successors the same leeway.

Zinj

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

Jim -

I counted at least twenty references to the work of L Ron Hubbard, and at least 7 direct uses of a phrase from LRH's work.

That means that you are very much "thinking with Scientology".

For a Scientologist, that's a pluspoint.

For a creative, independent individual, that's an outpoint.

Just so it's clear to all that tried and failed, all who still hang up on it, the gainsayers, just all: the entire aim of the exercise with Scientology is to make each of us able to act as individual, creative, independent beings. Thetans with different responses. If you haven't gotten to that point then I dare say you haven't done it. I have gotten pretty far on the route and as you can see, I can hold my position in space, as I choose, and I can generate power and I can have my own viewpoint and observe and I can say what I observe and so on and so on. I don't need anybody's license to be and act. I ain't lookin' for approval to have a thought. But I am a Scientologist, and that's where I learned how to do that. Do any of you honestly think LRH intended that you end up looking to him for your own truth? That he intended that you forever and anon go to him to come up with a thought? That you get his OK on something you create? Not a chance. It's independence for each and every one. If that means you have to reevaluate your experience as a public or staff or SO member and find those points where you denied self and recover your own ability to see and say what you are looking at then by all means, please, do just that. There is freedom on the other side. Sincerely, Jim Logan

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Dear LH,
OK, here's some things to evaluate re: your comments.
1. LRH is not an issue here, it is the policy, so whether he applied them or not is moot. At issue is whether we apply them. All policy is to be applied in alignment with the reason that is the premise, and that includes the full admin scale and that includes purpose. If Scientology as an applied philosophy is aimed at restoration of reason in individuals and thereby groups, then it is not rational that someone who is not an actual freeloader is treated as one and billed when he exchanged. I think it more to the point that those persons who paid when they had exchanged didn't find the actual references and make them known. It is unfortunate that the phenomenon of 'clay pigeon' exists but it does and if you don't know or aren't aware of your rights as a Scientologist, then you won't be able to see them enforced. The freeloader policy, as stated in the policy that is its inception, was to deal with freeloaders and was and is not intended to apply to those who exchanged. The one assigned the wrong condition has the onus on him, in Scientology ethics, to see that the illegal order is corrected. However difficult that concept may be to apply when the situation is way wide of an ideal scene, it still is on the person's shoulders to apply this material, else he won't succeed with it.

2. Forgive me if this seems patronizing, but the idea of LRH siphoning off, taking the 'skim', for his own inurement is by observation of his actual life, a contrary fact. He majorly lived in a bus in the later years, he drove and older model car, he ate cheeseburgers and so on. If he wanted to abscond with the money then he would have as there are plenty of places on this planet to live a life of luxury with no possible harassment. What actual evidence, facts, do you know exist to put him anywhere like that. Were you on the ship? Have you seen the quarters of comparable positions on comparable ships? Were you in NYC in the apartment? Was that 'Trump Tower'? Even Creston is a modest estate amongst the estates thereabouts.

So, not to beat this to death, but if he was in it for the money then he didn't seem to spend it on traditional luxuries so from the actual verifiable facts your polemic lacks substance.
Jim

Hello Jim,

I find your viewpoint refreshing. I would like to point out though, to answer your question, that there are many, many rich and miserly people. Ron called them "holders". Sometimes I think he was accumulating the monies for a power play, not for his own personal luxe and bling things. If I were a multi-millionaire, I am sure I would need only a couple million for my own creature comforts. Perhaps he was stashing it for his next life?????

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

I see no particular reason to consider 'real existing Scientology' a misapplication. It's a stupid application and a counter-productive application, but, given the inherently self-contradictory nature of Hubbard's proclamations and mandates; I see nothing in what 'current management' does that does not have foundation in Hubbard's own creation and His own precedent. There might be some legitimacy in objecting to 'current' squirreling, but, nogody squirreled Scientology like Ron did, and, I think it's only fair to grant His successors the same leeway.

Zinj

You've done your "anti-GAT" to a pass. (See my earlier hilarity on this.)

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

Perhaps he was stashing it for his next life?????

OK, following that train of thought, where is it 'stashed'?
(Hint, look at the wills and estate planning). We'll do this heuristically i.e. encouraging the student to find out for himself. And I am not being patronizing if it sounds like that. It's just that the answer to 'what happened to the money' is plain as day.

Oh, hello to you!

 

[Leon]

Time is the interplay of the two postulates: it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, ad infinitum, each time counter-postulating the postulate that one has just made.

 

[Leon]

Which then leads to the quanta packets that reality is supposed to come in.

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

Time is the interplay of the two postulates: it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, ad infinitum, each time counter-postulating the postulate that one has just made.

It's basically a lie. And then there are the mechanics of time; space, particle, position. See Zeno's paradox re: the shot arrow. Good on ya Leon.

 

[Jim Logan]

Jim Logan

Which then leads to the quanta packets that reality is supposed to come in.

Space, particle, position. And repeat to the beat, voila, 'time'.

 

[Zinjifar]

It's basically a lie. And then there are the mechanics of time; space, particle, position. See Zeno's paradox re: the shot arrow. Good on ya Leon.

Zeno's paradox isn't really a paradox, just a continuously sliding scale of perception. It's similar to saying an elephant can't be that big because you can move close enough to have his toenail fill your field of view.

In a way it reminds me of calculus; as the number of segments approaches infinity.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

Just so it's clear to all that tried and failed, all who still hang up on it, the gainsayers, just all: the entire aim of the exercise with Scientology is to make each of us able to act as individual, creative, independent beings. Thetans with different responses. If you haven't gotten to that point then I dare say you haven't done it. I have gotten pretty far on the route and as you can see, I can hold my position in space, as I choose, and I can generate power and I can have my own viewpoint and observe and I can say what I observe and so on and so on. I don't need anybody's license to be and act. I ain't lookin' for approval to have a thought. But I am a Scientologist, and that's where I learned how to do that. Do any of you honestly think LRH intended that you end up looking to him for your own truth? That he intended that you forever and anon go to him to come up with a thought? That you get his OK on something you create? Not a chance. It's independence for each and every one. If that means you have to reevaluate your experience as a public or staff or SO member and find those points where you denied self and recover your own ability to see and say what you are looking at then by all means, please, do just that. There is freedom on the other side. Sincerely, Jim Logan

Thank you.

And yes, creative, independent individual would be the ideal scene to strive for. I would add loving and understanding human being to that as well.

 

[Veda]

Veda, you should be reading what Vinay has read. To wit, the Veda. Alan's sign off is accurate as well, what is? For some the realization that LRH was in fact in the time stream, subject to the very principles he was working at delineating, or that he 'touched his own pee-pee' is disconcerting and throws them into a tailspin where they then discount or discredit an entire subject. What do they do about Einstein's out-2D, or Newton's alchemy and Masonry? Does that mean balls don't drop or mass can't be converted to energy? Jeepers creepers.

Here's one to mull over. For the basis of argument, assume that the axioms of as-isness, alter-is and so on are the premise. In order to gain persistence, or maybe say 'smash one's name into history', then one would seriously alter-is and foster not-is, of the identity of L. Ron Hubbard. So, lie, lie, lie, about that identity. What do you get? It's persisting so hard for some that they can't shake it. Then look at the phenomena of electromagnetics and how you gain a difference of potential and extrapolate those ideas up into 'what you resist you become' and there may be a diabolical subterfuge on LRH's part to actually foster hatred of him so you would become him....holy cow! LRH created this message board!!

For anyone intelligently considering these subjects and willing to go through what it really takes then there are joys aplenty. Personally, I'm having an outrageous blast. I'd love to see lots of you guys in the same, 'different responses' type freedom. However you get there, it's sooo much fun. Jim

There are six posts in the Web sites and links section that I've placed there.

I doubt if either you or Vin would do more than glance at this material at this time, nonetheless, it's there anyway.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=33&order=desc

Slowly, both you and Vin are learning the truth about Scientology - whether you want to or not.

One morning, with birds happily chirping outside your window, you'll wake up after a refreshing night's sleep, and, to your surprise, you won't be a Scientologist anymore.

As old "squirrel" Jack Horner was fond of saying, you will have "graduated from Scientology."

Look forward to the graduation party.