What's new
By:
Filters

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria Cuervo said:
I hope this does not offend but unfortunately the entire baby, from comm course, to TRs, to OT levels, to Ethics. All of it is basically messed up, damaging, and is not a baby. It can call be thrown out with the bath water, at least for me. In fact, to do otherwise, in my humble opinion, is to put oneself at risk. I can't think of one iota worth saving.

Like others I invested time in it, and money. So it hurts to admit I wasted both. But I have to admit it.
Click to expand...
Now tell us how you really feel!

attachment.php
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

LAKEY
So, BT's have a sex assigned to them, very interesting!?

TERRIL
In this case I assumed this being decided her own gender.
That I'm opposite made me look at the idea of "Twin Flames"
that was suggested to me. Unfortunately I never found another
example of people who recalled an initial splitting despite asking
on a few twin flame forums.


LAKEY
What is a good theory? Your theory is only that there are theories about (how) the pre OT attracts BT's Since no real OT's have yet to be produced in COS, your theory has not yet had a chance to be verified.

TERRIL

Not being an academic here is a description of a good theory

http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/researchmethods/section2.rhtml

Note a pre OT is not necessarily a real OT. Also pre clears presumably
attract BTs. Also its not my theory. Others including Ralph Hilton IIRC
have put such a theory forward and may have demonstrated it to be true
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

I have no idea who Ralph Hilton is.

:roflmao:


Terril park said:
LAKEY
So, BT's have a sex assigned to them, very interesting!?

TERRIL
In this case I assumed this being decided her own gender.
That I'm opposite made me look at the idea of "Twin Flames"
that was suggested to me. Unfortunately I never found another
example of people who recalled an initial splitting despite asking
on a few twin flame forums.


LAKEY
What is a good theory? Your theory is only that there are theories about (how) the pre OT attracts BT's Since no real OT's have yet to be produced in COS, your theory has not yet had a chance to be verified.

TERRIL

Not being an academic here is a description of a good theory

http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/researchmethods/section2.rhtml

Note a pre OT is not necessarily a real OT. Also pre clears presumably
attract BTs. Also its not my theory. Others including Ralph Hilton IIRC
have put such a theory forward and may have demonstrated it to be true
Click to expand...
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

ILove2Lurk said:
Now tell us how you really feel!

attachment.php
Click to expand...


You asked and so I will answer! I think that CoS and all it's pseudo babble tech is darth vader-esque, satanic, evil, useless, illogical, inconsistent, dogmatic, failed, has nothing whatever to do with any knowledge Ron thought he copied but obviously MISUNDERSTOOD completely, has nothing to do with Buddhism, Christianity, Semantics, Rhetoric, philosophy, science, logic, spirituality, religion, is childish, simplistic, abusive, did I say evil, stupid, condones crimes, is harmful to human beings, produces drones, its tech dictionary may well have been written by censors in 1984, is a black magic spell a la Crowley, only exists to enrich a handful of people who own it, is a Psyop, is merely a form of suggestion combined with force, mind control, its sole purpose is control, not just of the mind but of bodies. I should stop before the list gets too unwieldy....

:omg:
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

lkwdblds said:
Oh Goody, this is one of my favorite topics! Back in 2009 Vinay Argawala had a bid thread on this subject. Vinay was raised a Hindu and came to the USA from India and he obtained a Masters degree in engineering in from MIT. He is also an ex Scientologist. He used a lot of Hindu terminology on his thread called Oh, God!. Sometime in 2013, I hooked up with him again on Facebook. He was writing about the velocity of light and Einstein's special theory of relativity and also origins of the Universe. I got involved in these discussions on Facebook. Vinay had evolved quite a bit on the origins of the universe between 2009 and 2013.

By 2013 he was starting out with "Before the beginning there was a Cause....", I believe this got morphed into, "Before the beginning there was potential Cause ....." At that time we were talking that the potential for both cause and effect existed in the Universe but nothing else. Our first concept was that something had to exist to enable potential cause to become actual cause and create the first effect.

Taking it from there, the first effect would cause a reaction or kick back which impacted on the first cause and would prompt the first cause to cause another effect. From that point this circular reaction between cause and effect would continue indefinitely. Essentially, those actions represented the beginning of the Universe.

After examining things further, Vinay came up with what I thought was an absolutely brilliant concept, the idea that cause and effect are not opposites, rather they are the same thing or more accurately, they are two different sides of the same coin!

This revelation that cause and effect are the same thing had such a positive action on me that I believed that this had to be true and I believe Vinay felt that as well. For example, we often assume that cause comes first, a man gets hungry first and that causes him to locate and eat food, However, it could be the other way around. A man would plant crops in the Spring, even though food was plentiful then, knowing well that unless he did that, he and his family would starve in the winter. In this cause, the cause comes later on and planting the crops comes first.

In any case, agreeing that cause and effect are just different sides of the same coin was very liberating for me in freeing up my mind to get out of the box I was in, thinking as I did that cause had to precede effect.

Hubbard was saying that "Before the beginning there was a Cause...." Vinay came up with "Before the beginning there was potential cause and effect but that cause and effect were two different names for the same thing." Hubbard defined cause as "a potential source of flow" and he defined effect as a "potential receipt of flow". These were pretty good starting points but Vinay, pushed it further and made it simpler by stating that "cause and effect were both potential sources of flow as well as potential recipients of flow".

I believe that Vinay made a major improvement on Hubbard's work. Hubbard's work seemed to us to be on the right tract but Vinay simplified it and made it more powerful and understandable all at the same time.

This is a complex and taxing subject so I am going to stop it right here. I won't right anymore on this unless someone shows an interest in what I just wrote
Lakey.
Click to expand...
The only way, according to Aristotle that an effect is a cause is as a potentiality. This is the relation of matter to form (Platonic forms). That matter is an effect, that it chases form. Matter is a lack that finds its fulfilment in form. To that extent, matter is a potential cause since once it unites with form, it resembles a cause. But I am being a bit free with Aristotle to make this fit........

As far as I can gather the entire concept of causality begins in Plato and Aristotle. Since then Physics of course makes strides since Plato and Aristotle are metaphysicians and so they are often just plain wrong. But I can admire their effort. Since I am not a physicist I am very limited here to respond.... And I doubt I could keep up with Vinay. :biggrin: I will say though that I sure hope he did not 'improve' Ron's work since I don't find there is anything there of any substance so it would be hard to imagine anything Vinay could do to save that situation. But I will stop myself since I can't say I would be able to understand Vinay's findings / calculations / formulas /theorems...only concluding that in these anything worthwhile is most likely due to his non-Scientology education.

I am often disappointed that I have to stay in the realm of philosophy and literature and that I was never able to master mathematics and physics. And now I am just too old to bother spending all the time to do so, especially since I'm not sure how I'd put that to use.
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Maria Cuervo said:
What you describe seems to be not really scientology. Lots of businesses keep graphs and stats. For example, during elections there are tabulations and numbers filling the screen. As for helping others, since time began humans have asked, 'what's wrong?' and since most folks really do know what bothers them, there was often an answer. Difference is that Scientology USES that response for their own gain and takes advantage of people. That is their con.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly true, Scientology USES the person's response for their own gain and takes advantage of people but a well meaning person who wants to help someone will use it in order to help the person. Often on this thread, even recently, I've using the adjective, WELL MEANING, and I am talking about a person who has a concern, often a strong concern to want to help another person.

Even running a touch assist, or running a scientology process. If it is done with love, for lack of a better word, the result will always be superior to when someone does it for stats, money, or in an effort to control and take advantage of the person.

It's similar in a way to playing fine music. It's not just the notes, it is the carrier wave which the music is on which determines the effect which the music has on a person, In painting, take a painting by numbers set from a game store. One person can fill in the colors perfectly and come up with a painting but if a master artist paints the same scene, even using the same colors, the master can achieve a masterpiece while the paint by numbers painting has very little artistic worth.

If a person is really trying to help another person, the recipient of the help can sense that. They pick up the sincerity, the caring, the love which the one doing the helping is exuding. If the person is helped by someone who only wants to gain control over him or her, the one being helped will NOT pick up things such as being caring and sincere.

I would go so far as to say that one reason people who were in COS feel they got gains from touch assists and from processing was the fact that a lot of good and well intended people were fooled by Hubbard into believing in Scientology and sincerely believed that they were there to help people. What workability was achieved applying LRH "tech" came not so much from the tech itself but rather because the people delivering the tech were caring and wanted to help other and believed that they were actually doing so.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria Cuervo said:
You asked and so I will answer! I think that CoS and all it's pseudo babble tech is darth vader-esque, satanic, evil, useless, illogical, inconsistent, dogmatic, failed, has nothing whatever to do with any knowledge Ron thought he copied but obviously MISUNDERSTOOD completely, has nothing to do with Buddhism, Christianity, Semantics, Rhetoric, philosophy, science, logic, spirituality, religion, is childish, simplistic, abusive, did I say evil, stupid, condones crimes, is harmful to human beings, produces drones, its tech dictionary may well have been written by censors in 1984, is a black magic spell a la Crowley, only exists to enrich a handful of people who own it, is a Psyop, is merely a form of suggestion combined with force, mind control, its sole purpose is control, not just of the mind but of bodies. I should stop before the list gets too unwieldy....

:omg:
Click to expand...

Quit hemming and hawing, when are you going to get to the point? Just kidding!:thumbsup: .....Lakey
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Maria Cuervo said:
The only way, according to Aristotle that an effect is a cause is as a potentiality. This is the relation of matter to form (Platonic forms). That matter is an effect, that it chases form. Matter is a lack that finds its fulfilment in form. To that extent, matter is a potential cause since once it unites with form, it resembles a cause. But I am being a bit free with Aristotle to make this fit........

As far as I can gather the entire concept of causality begins in Plato and Aristotle. Since then Physics of course makes strides since Plato and Aristotle are metaphysicians and so they are often just plain wrong. But I can admire their effort. Since I am not a physicist I am very limited here to respond.... And I doubt I could keep up with Vinay. :biggrin: I will say though that I sure hope he did not 'improve' Ron's work since I don't find there is anything there of any substance so it would be hard to imagine anything Vinay could do to save that situation. But I will stop myself since I can't say I would be able to understand Vinay's findings / calculations / formulas /theorems...only concluding that in these anything worthwhile is most likely due to his non-Scientology education.

I am often disappointed that I have to stay in the realm of philosophy and literature and that I was never able to master mathematics and physics. And now I am just too old to bother spending all the time to do so, especially since I'm not sure how I'd put that to use.
Click to expand...

Maria, I think it is just fine that your expertise is in philosophy. Your viewpoint blends in well with theories of the universe discussions. Philosophy seems like it is pretty universal, you can make informed comments on almost any topic if you have a strong background in Philosophy as you do.

Speaking of philosophy, I am going to take this opportunity to rant a bit against modern progressive thinking. Correct me if I am wrong but modern politicians, especially of the extreme left seem to write off our heroes from the past such as the US Founders and besides people they are also writing off the USA Constitution. The reasoning seems to be that all the founders were white males and what is more their product, the US Constitution, sucks.

They rant and rave that some of the founders owned slaves and that the USA wantonly killed Indians, stole land from Mexico, condoned slavery and when slavery was removed gave us another hundred years of Jim Crow laws. The bottom line is that they want to de emphasize our founders and walk all over the US Constitution. There is some kind of hidden computation which the far left Progressives have but they can't come out and say what they believe because they know that if they do that, they won't be able to get elected to political office. Basically, however, they believe that White Men are a deeply flawed group which has wreaked havoc upon this Earth. They believe it so bad that our founder names no longer even are mentioned in many modern school books.

Their main goal is equality for all and inclusiveness. Also, they believe that getting older leads only to senility and that young kids today have more wisdom than older white men. What is amazing to me from all your various quotes from philosophers is that almost all of them were white males and most of them lived in the middle ages or in antiquity. Also most of them philosophized deep into their old age.

I'm not saying to return to the days when the white men did most of the thinking of the society. I'm in favor of inclusiveness as well. Our society should be drawing on all of our citizens as sources for wisdom, not just white men. My point is don't go out of ones way to exclude white men's ideas just be cause they are white men. Keep them in the loop and bring in women and all the various racial groups as well.

Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

lkwdblds said:
Yes, exactly true, Scientology USES the person's response for their own gain and takes advantage of people but a well meaning person who wants to help someone will use it in order to help the person. Often on this thread, even recently, I've using the adjective, WELL MEANING, and I am talking about a person who has a concern, often a strong concern to want to help another person.

Even running a touch assist, or running a scientology process. If it is done with love, for lack of a better word, the result will always be superior to when someone does it for stats, money, or in an effort to control and take advantage of the person.

It's similar in a way to playing fine music. It's not just the notes, it is the carrier wave which the music is on which determines the effect which the music has on a person, In painting, take a painting by numbers set from a game store. One person can fill in the colors perfectly and come up with a painting but if a master artist paints the same scene, even using the same colors, the master can achieve a masterpiece while the paint by numbers painting has very little artistic worth.

If a person is really trying to help another person, the recipient of the help can sense that. They pick up the sincerity, the caring, the love which the one doing the helping is exuding. If the person is helped by someone who only wants to gain control over him or her, the one being helped will NOT pick up things such as being caring and sincere.

I would go so far as to say that one reason people who were in COS feel they got gains from touch assists and from processing was the fact that a lot of good and well intended people were fooled by Hubbard into believing in Scientology and sincerely believed that they were there to help people. What workability was achieved applying LRH "tech" came not so much from the tech itself but rather because the people delivering the tech were caring and wanted to help other and believed that they were actually doing so.
Lakey
Click to expand...

Love. How and when is love in any shape offered in CoS? First of all Mockingbird's repost of Veda's post is pretty cool because it discusses the role of love v. affinity in Scn. Basically, love is subservient to will. Affinity is a material, chemical thing. It's not something in the soul. Here is the post.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?870-ARC-and-KRC

Now a little story. I had a pc who was in severe pain that basically meant she spent most of her time in the hospital. It was a form of arthritis. Why the org took her money I don't know. I was not the c/s and so I followed the program. This is a person who was in excruciating pain every second of every session. And she was audited. And nothing that was run really helped her. And she ran out of hours. And she went back to the hospital. I mean Touch assist, and nothing else. Nothing helped her. She was in serious physical and chronic pain. She didn't complain and she tried to have wins. It's hard to have wins when you can barely hold the cans because your fingers won't curve around the cans because they hurt.

Nothing in her program came from love. There are only so many Touch assists that can be done. Her hours ran out so I guess so did the love. And yes, there were some good people trying to work with the 'tech'. But good people cannot make a bad apple into something other than it is.
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Maria Cuervo said:
So the problem of consciousness I responded to Terril about has to do with the fact that there is no way to verify if that lovely being who appeared was what Terril thought it was, at least for Descartes. That being could be loving but still decide that for Terril's sake, the lie of being a BT was ok for now. That being could appear as a beautiful being, mesmerize the subject, and suck it dry like a vampire, even letting it FN. The Cartesian point was NOT to figure out what the world is since this is a separate thing. The scientific issue there for him was that our bodies are like microscopes. Some see badly. Some have poor hearing. So how can we KNOW what we see. How do we know that the I is real at all?

If the I is real, then we can proceed from there to try and prove things about the rest of the world. His proof the I is real is "I think therefore I am."
Click to expand...

Like just about all who have commented its a pleasure to have
you here. :)

Especially as you have good knowledge of philosophy.

I have mainly my own experience and evaluation of that
experience. And am open to learning despite somewhat
advanced years, best I can.

You have here given much evaluation.

That the "lovely being" I perceived incorrectly, could
memorize me and suck me dry like a vampire. Even letting it
F/N. [I was F/Ning throughout OT 2 for what thats worth]

However you did not experience what I did and yet reject it.

I presume because of pre conceptions. They can be examined?

You said:-

"The scientific issue there for him was that our bodies are like microscopes. Some see badly. Some have poor hearing. So how can we KNOW what we see. How do we know that the I is real at all?"!

This seems to me as inval? But as struggle for knowledge?

I look through my experience mostly. You look through your learning mostly [I guess]

I think both ways are usefull and probably others also.

Its a pleasure :)
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Terril park said:
LAKEY
So, BT's have a sex assigned to them, very interesting!?

TERRIL
In this case I assumed this being decided her own gender.
That I'm opposite made me look at the idea of "Twin Flames"
that was suggested to me. Unfortunately I never found another
example of people who recalled an initial splitting despite asking
on a few twin flame forums.


LAKEY
What is a good theory? Your theory is only that there are theories about (how) the pre OT attracts BT's Since no real OT's have yet to be produced in COS, your theory has not yet had a chance to be verified.

TERRIL

Not being an academic here is a description of a good theory

http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/researchmethods/section2.rhtml

Note a pre OT is not necessarily a real OT. Also pre clears presumably
attract BTs. Also its not my theory. Others including Ralph Hilton IIRC
have put such a theory forward and may have demonstrated it to be true
Click to expand...

Every one in the world is essentially a Pre OT because no one in the world has yet attained the state of full OT. I guess you are defining a pre OT as someone on OT levels 1 through 7. After doing OT 8 a person is supposed to be full OT but no one is so in what category do you place someone who has completed OT 8?

I can accept a theory that pre OT's attract BT's. I assure you that is not because one guy, Ralph Hilton, put such a theory forward. I doubt that he has demonstrated it to be true. It seems to me that rigid test conditions would have to be set up. People across the entire spectrum from WOG to OT 8 would have to be tested for how many BT's they attract. I guess one would have to test several categories maybe as follows:
Institutionalized Wog
Regular Wog
Pre OT 3
Pre OT's from OT 3 to on OT 8

How would anyone figure out and tabulate how many BT's persons of each category tended to pick up in a stipulated length of time? The sample size should be at least in the thousands. My guess is that Institutionalized WOGS would be among the highest when it comes to picking up BT's. Many of them are schizophrenic and are dramatizing multiple personalities. Pre OT's, OT3 and above should rank high on the list because they have been exposed to BT's and have learned something about them, at least in theory. The general public should be less adept than Pre OT's because they don't know about them but even there, as Hubbard tells us, ALL people are supposed to be packed with a huge number of BT's. All classes of people are supposed to have attracted them in large numbers so all people are pretty good at picking them up. And when most of them were picked up people were just ordinary WOGs since Hubbard hadn't yet discovered BT's. Hilton has a huge job on his hands if he ever attempts to scientifically prove your theory.

Anyway, since you are only claiming that this is a good theory, then that's your opinion. Fine with me, I.ve got no problem with that.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Maria Cuervo said:
Love. How and when is love in any shape offered in CoS? First of all Mockingbird's repost of Veda's post is pretty cool because it discusses the role of love v. affinity in Scn. Basically, love is subservient to will. Affinity is a material, chemical thing. It's not something in the soul. Here is the post.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?870-ARC-and-KRC

Now a little story. I had a pc who was in severe pain that basically meant she spent most of her time in the hospital. It was a form of arthritis. Why the org took her money I don't know. I was not the c/s and so I followed the program. This is a person who was in excruciating pain every second of every session. And she was audited. And nothing that was run really helped her. And she ran out of hours. And she went back to the hospital. I mean Touch assist, and nothing else. Nothing helped her. She was in serious physical and chronic pain. She didn't complain and she tried to have wins. It's hard to have wins when you can barely hold the cans because your fingers won't curve around the cans because they hurt.

Nothing in her program came from love. There are only so many Touch assists that can be done. Her hours ran out so I guess so did the love. And yes, there were some good people trying to work with the 'tech'. But good people cannot make a bad apple into something other than it is.
Click to expand...

Some people are just loving, at least just starting out. I know the subject is frowned on in COS. Some people will stay with a touch assist for well over an hour. I was like that, I took a personal interest in almost all my pc's. Of course I was kicked off of tech training and was told by my C/S that I lacked certainty. That quality of actually caring for one's pc might have seemed to him as lacking certainty. In any case, even though my auditing stats were out the roof, I was fitness boarded out of the Tech division into Treasury.

I guess that proves your point. Any one who comes in as a caring and loving person is either broken of those traits or offloaded. In the meantime, before they are kicked out, they execute scientology processing with some degree of love. Well, that brings up another point. LRH did order us to audit at a fairly high tone level of Strong Interes, Tone 3.5. When a person is at 3.5 he is really interested in that person's case and really wants to help them. He is ordered to be at 3.5 and he is ordered to get high stats, put those two things together and you conceivably can produce something which may pass for love in the eyes of a preclear. You know, a preclear could think, wow, this guy gave up a could job just to come here for $10 a week and audit people. He is so bright and high toned and so interest in my case and he wants me so badly to succeed. What a great and loving person this guy is.

I felt that way about a lot of my auditors all the way through my 31 years. A lot of very nice and caring people chose to work for low bucks to deliver auditing and I thought several of them were saints. I guess I am just naive but that's why I wrote what I wrote.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

lkwdblds said:
Some people are just loving, at least just starting out. I know the subject is frowned on in COS. Some people will stay with a touch assist for well over an hour. I was like that, I took a personal interest in almost all my pc's. Of course I was kicked off of tech training and was told by my C/S that I lacked certainty. That quality of actually caring for one's pc might have seemed to him as lacking certainty. In any case, even though my auditing stats were out the roof, I was fitness boarded out of the Tech division into Treasury.

I guess proves your point. Any one who comes in as a caring and loving person is either broken of those traits or offloaded. In the meantime, before they are kicked out, the execute scientology processing with some degree of love. Well, that brings up another point. LRH did order us to audit at a fairly high tone level of Strong Interes, Tone 3.5. When a person is at 3.5 he is really interested in that person's case and really wants to help them. He is ordered to be at 3.5 and he is ordered to get high stats, put those two things together and you conceivably can produce something which may pass for love in the eyes of a preclear. You know, a preclear could think, wow, this guy gave up a could job just to come here for $10 a week and audit people. He is so bright and high toned and so interest in my case and he wants me so badly to succeed. What a great and loving person this guy is.

I felt that way about a lot of my auditors all the way through my 31 years. A lot of very nice and caring people chose to work for low bucks to deliver auditing and I thought several of them were saints. I guess I am just naive but that's why I wrote what I wrote.
Lakey
Click to expand...

Wow. Fitness boarded. Well I certainly did care about people I audited. And even tried to intervene with the reges to no avail, so I know what you mean. I also gave super long Touch Assists....
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

lkwdblds said:
He is someone in a high technical post in the Freezone. I believe that he lives in Europe. He is also active on Facebook.
Lakey
Click to expand...

I guess I'd never find out since I am not active on FB these days. Just got out of the habit and was busy.
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Maria Cuervo said:
Thank you for your thread. I had never read the Dean Wilbur letter! While I have read the Burke text, it has been too long and I would have to reread it. But if you are interested in the sublime, Kant's text on that subject is very interesting and you could read and compare it to Burke's text here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1217. It's called the Critique of Judgment. I myself gave a talk at a conference on the subject of the sublime in Kant as it pertained to his idea of death. A feature of the sublime is that it is a human way of ordering an event or thing seen or experienced in the mind. The sublime refers to that which is beyond grasp, for example, a huge mountain, the terrors of nature, something in art that is uneffable. The mind attempts to define such moments and this is the sublime. Kant felt the mind could succeed in its desire to master such awe or terror, even the concept of death. I argued that he was wrong. Certainly a cult like Scientology deals in something that might be a cousin insofar as a person 'overwhelmed' by some aspect of their life will accept Scientology as the mode of defining such moments and mastering them. Scientology is thus there at the precipice with a life jacket and its rhetorical stance is the tech. That the tech can fix a person. This can be quite persuasive since once the object of ruin is identified the person is now in a state of 'effect' and ready to accept the subtle persuasions (hypnosis) of the CoS. I don't know if that helps or if it really relates to what you are asking, but that is what comes to me.

Since rhetoric has to do with writing/speaking and persuasion it does not surprise me really that LRH never taught that to Scientologists as a standard discipline. For one, he has a history of that, taking tech regarding sales for example and rebranding it. Rhetoric is sort of a meta-tech. Scientologists are trained to know how to teach/inspire with the tech, the proper way to steer newcomers. They are really supposed to apply his tech, not WOG techs, so to write something on their own about that tech that they can use to persuade others would probably be viewed as other practices. LRH simply incorporated elements of rhetoric into his own tech most likely without identifying the source.
Click to expand...

Ron had lots of sources for his 'tech', including rhetoric, which I did not know about; plus black magic and Crowleyism, Freud, and other things.
Click to expand...

I meant it more from Hubbard's use of Rhetoric unbeknown to scientologists. And Hubbards use of Rhetoric.

For example Huddard stating auditors are the most intelligence of people on earth. or something like that.
Here he creates credibility in the minds of people.
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

lkwdblds said:
He is someone in a high technical post in the Freezone. I believe that he lives in Europe. He is also active on Facebook.
Lakey
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he has a "post". He's a sole practitioner. Lives in Austria, offers FZ services on his own.
 
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"

Maria Cuervo said:
Thank you for your thread. I had never read the Dean Wilbur letter!
While I have read the Burke text, it has been too long and I would have to reread it.
Click to expand...
But if you are interested in the sublime, Kant's text on that subject is very interesting and you could read and compare it to Burke's text here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1217. It's called the Critique of Judgment. I myself gave a talk at a conference on the subject of the sublime in Kant as it pertained to his idea of death. A feature of the sublime is that it is a human way of ordering an event or thing seen or experienced in the mind. The sublime refers to that which is beyond grasp, for example, a huge mountain, the terrors of nature, something in art that is uneffable. The mind attempts to define such moments and this is the sublime. Kant felt the mind could succeed in its desire to master such awe or terror, even the concept of death. I argued that he was wrong. Certainly a cult like Scientology deals in something that might be a cousin insofar as a person 'overwhelmed' by some aspect of their life will accept Scientology as the mode of defining such moments and mastering them. Scientology is thus there at the precipice with a life jacket and its rhetorical stance is the tech. That the tech can fix a person. This can be quite persuasive since once the object of ruin is identified the person is now in a state of 'effect' and ready to accept the subtle persuasions (hypnosis) of the CoS. I don't know if that helps or if it really relates to what you are asking, but that is what comes to me.

Since rhetoric has to do with writing/speaking and persuasion it does not surprise me really that LRH never taught that to Scientologists as a standard discipline. For one, he has a history of that, taking tech regarding sales for example and rebranding it. Rhetoric is sort of a meta-tech. Scientologists are trained to know how to teach/inspire with the tech, the proper way to steer newcomers. They are really supposed to apply his tech, not WOG techs, so to write something on their own about that tech that they can use to persuade others would probably be viewed as other practices. LRH simply incorporated elements of rhetoric into his own tech most likely without identifying the source.

Ron had lots of sources for his 'tech', including rhetoric, which I did not know about; plus black magic and Crowleyism, Freud, and other things.
Click to expand...

I understand.

Here is the read which is simple to read:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/burke/edmund/sublime/index.html

In reading that by Burke, I concluded Dianetics and Scientology is modeled from that writing by Burke.

Don't know for sure. Hubbard claimed he was a writer at first. And Hubbard said the hardest outpoint to spot was the missing.

But, have you seen the not to long ago HBO Series called "The Game of Thrones"?

This Game of Thrones is a perfect example of "The Sublime and Beautiful", by edmund burke.

One can click on any of the table of contents and see after watching this Game of Thrones the usage of "The Sublime and Beautiful" as explained by Burke.

Shoot, once one reads this by Burke, one can see the Sublime in movies such as Star Wars, Shawshank Redemption, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top