The Major Flaw in Knowledgism

[lionheart]

!!

you are changing the topic from the flaws of knowledgism to the flaws of alex and scientology!

Do you think it is wise, and in the interests of the entities that are receiving processing from a person, for them to be gathered into teams? Do you think that the teams would be composed of entities that would have chosen to come together of their own will, without the influence and gratitude they feel for the team leader?

Shucks! You noticed my distraction technique! Seriously, I think it is important to point out skepticism in taking you at face value due to scientologist's tendency to lie in order to further the cuase. Buit I am happy to take you at face value for now.

No, I think it is better to rehabilitate an entity's freedom of choice! Isn't that what knowledgism does or tries to do?

I get your point about gratitude or perhaps altitude assigned to the processor by the entitiy. I understand you are saying this may plant a feeling of obligation on the entity.

Perhaps a knowledgist will answer this.

Do you think there is a possibility that OTIII and NOTs might also do that to the entities so "processed"?

Actually I no longer think "processing" any being is a good idea! It always has the potential liability of transference.

"In a therapy context, transference refers to redirection of a client's feelings from a significant person to the therapist. Transference is often manifested as an erotic attraction towards a therapist, but can be seen in many other forms such as rage, hatred, mistrust, parentification, extreme dependence, or even placing the therapist in a god-like or guru status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Do you think an entity being told they have incidents I and II on their so-called track and this is the reason they are stuck to the processor's body, is a good idea? Isn't that hugely suggestive and evaluative? Do you think that creates a dependency in the entity on scientology and on the processor?

Remember, Ron believed "elemental spirits are your slaves" in his Admissions. This raises the question over what exactly he was trying to do with his OTIII evaluations!

Then of course, there is also the question as to whether the entities processed in scientology or in knowledgism are mocked up by the client/processee.

Seems to me that real or mocked up, the most liberating thing would be to allow the enitities or mock-ups to be exactly what they are rather than tinkering (processing) with them!

 

[lionheart]

deleted - duplicate post.

It seesm ESMB is lagging badly at the moment.

 

[Blue Spirit]

CONFUSED

ALEX, reading your posts is just too Confusing.
A waste of my time.

I wonder if your crotch is sore from all of the fence straddling ?

 

[alex]

ALEX, reading your posts is just too Confusing.
A waste of my time.

I wonder if your crotch is sore from all of the fence straddling ?

The fence is in your mind. I am not straddling any fence, but apparently am of a viewpoint that is between two terminals in one of your dichotomies...

Truth is not a pair of opposing goals.

Truth is not defined by opposing goals.

When you think in terms of opposing goals you are at the effect of your past creation of those goals and thus somewhat out of the present.

If it is a waste of your time, I wonder why you reply, except perhaps in an attempt to make yourself right.

I think I have some interesting ideas, worthy of consideration, you are welcome to them, or not as you choose.

 

[alex]

Shucks! You noticed my distraction technique! Seriously, I think it is important to point out skepticism in taking you at face value due to scientologist's tendency to lie in order to further the cuase. Buit I am happy to take you at face value for now.

No, I think it is better to rehabilitate an entity's freedom of choice! Isn't that what knowledgism does or tries to do?

They say they do, as does scientology. I contest that letting the entity "blow" is superior to adding it to a team....and it is a seeming common misconception that the solo nots auditor blows the entitiy, rather than the entity blowing....in ot3 and nots in general the entity is brought to the realization of their situation and then it leaves of its own accord. Although there are more proactive procedures, theta hand, blowing ridges by inspection etc....but considering that sometimes entities get their grades and ex dn.....it seems they are being liberated rather than tossed off as a bit of spiritual garbage.

I get your point about gratitude or perhaps altitude assigned to the processor by the entitiy. I understand you are saying this may plant a feeling of obligation on the entity.

Perhaps a knowledgist will answer this.

I think dart did attempt....
http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=253853&postcount=36 and http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=253844&postcount=32

Do you think there is a possibility that OTIII and NOTs might also do that to the entities so "processed"?

Hubbard recommends a "neutral" attitude towards them, and I believe for just this reason, "transference".

Actually I no longer think "processing" any being is a good idea! It always has the potential liability of transference.

"In a therapy context, transference refers to redirection of a client's feelings from a significant person to the therapist. Transference is often manifested as an erotic attraction towards a therapist, but can be seen in many other forms such as rage, hatred, mistrust, parentification, extreme dependence, or even placing the therapist in a god-like or guru status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Do you think an entity being told they have incidents I and II on their so-called track and this is the reason they are stuck to the processor's body, is a good idea? Isn't that hugely suggestive and evaluative? Do you think that creates a dependency in the entity on scientology and on the processor?

I would say it is hatting, education, an r factor. Is it suggestive and evaluative? sure. But it is not the evaluation of the auditor towards the "pc's" originations but of the gestalt of the process, of the materials agreed to be addressed. And consistent with the goals and purpose of the whole exercise. I would not deny it could be a problem or abused.

Remember, Ron believed "elemental spirits are your slaves" in his Admissions. This raises the question over what exactly he was trying to do with his OTIII evaluations!

Believed? Or wished. I take his Admissions as a barely post adolescent attempt at goal recognition, not the definition of the man. It would be consistent with what he was involved with at the time, occult practices. You will note that he later disavowed such.

Then of course, there is also the question as to whether the entities processed in scientology or in knowledgism are mocked up by the client/processee.

It is my belief that some of them are. Not all, but certainly some are mental constructs...my reality is that there are connections though to live ones that are "on automatic" and need repair.

Seems to me that real or mocked up, the most liberating thing would be to allow the enitities or mock-ups to be exactly what they are rather than tinkering (processing) with them!

If they are causing problems for you? If they are part of what holds mass or ridges to your body that is causing illness or something unwanted? Or their thoughts are impinging and co-mingling with yours to your detrement?

I ran into an interesting quote by lrh today from History of Man , courtesy of Robert Ducharme on the IVY list....."We aren't much interested in auditing entities except when auditing one can reduce rapidly a physical somatic or physical ill, easily done for the entities hold these in present time and they will audit in present time."

...

 

[lionheart]

You answered most points, thanks.

Except this one:

Do you think an entity being told they have incidents I and II on their so-called track and this is the reason they are stuck to the processor's body, is a good idea? Isn't that hugely suggestive and evaluative? Do you think that creates a dependency in the entity on scientology and on the processor?

Remember, Ron believed "elemental spirits are your slaves" in his Admissions. This raises the question over what exactly he was trying to do with his OTIII evaluations!

Did you not answer this because your "church" forbids you to discuss it?

Also the "neutral" attitude that you say Ron recommends: what's neutral about telling a being the fairly detailed nature of incidents in their past? And evaluating that this is why they are stuck to the processor's body?

Evaluation and suggestion, if believed by the recipient, will always tend to create a dependency on the evaluator. This is how Hubbard stuck us to him!

There is nothing neutral about Ron's evaluations as to what must be run as the only hope for one's eternity! That is the major flaw in scientology!

In comparison, from what I know about knowledgism, there is much less direction and evaluation!

So on that point, knowledgism gets my vote!

 

[alex]

...

 

[alex]

You answered most points, thanks.

Except this one:

Do you think an entity being told they have incidents I and II on their so-called track and this is the reason they are stuck to the processor's body, is a good idea? Isn't that hugely suggestive and evaluative? Do you think that creates a dependency in the entity on scientology and on the processor?

Remember, Ron believed "elemental spirits are your slaves" in his Admissions. This raises the question over what exactly he was trying to do with his OTIII evaluations!

Did you not answer this because your "church" forbids you to discuss it?

Also the "neutral" attitude that you say Ron recommends: what's neutral about telling a being the fairly detailed nature of incidents in their past? And evaluating that this is why they are stuck to the processor's body?

Evaluation and suggestion, if believed by the recipient, will always tend to create a dependency on the evaluator. This is how Hubbard stuck us to him!

There is nothing neutral about Ron's evaluations as to what must be run as the only hope for one's eternity! That is the major flaw in scientology!

In comparison, from what I know about knowledgism, there is much less direction and evaluation!

So on that point, knowledgism gets my vote!

Actually I edited my post to answer those, but the server is funny today...

Ron saying something and the auditor evaluating in session are two distinctly different things. One allowed and the other prohibited. We could discuss that subtopic for pages, but please ack that you see the difference?

If you would have each person discover the already known data, you would deny them any sort of speedy progress. CAll it evaluation if you want, or consider it education in what is already known by many.... your choice.

So do some knowledgism and report back to us....ask about the Universes materials, they dont like talk about those!

 

[lionheart]

Actually I edited my post to answer those, but the serve is funny today...

So do some knowledgism and report back to us....ask about the Universes materials, they dont like talk about those!

Oops! did you see what you did there?

You didn't answer the questions about OTIII again. Is that because you are not allowed to discuss it?

Yes the server is behaving really oddly, but if you have the will you find a way tol answer the questions about the lack of neutrality in Hubbard's OTIII evaluations.

No I won't be doing knowledgism. Like I said I have concluded that "processing" a being is not a good idea. And in my opinion it is not necessary except as a control mechanism.

On that point neither scn or knowledgism get mey vote!

But on this point of nutrality and evaluations, I think knowledgism comes out better than scientology.

 

[alex]

Oops! did you see what you did there?

You didn't answer the questions about OTIII again. Is that because you are not allowed to discuss it?

Yes the server is behaving really oddly, but if you have the will you find a way tol answer the questions about the lack of neutrality in Hubbard's OTIII evaluations.

No I won't be doing knowledgism. Like I said I have concluded that "processing" a being is not a good idea. And in my opinion it is not necessary except as a control mechanism.

On that point neither scn or knowledgism get mey vote!

But on this point of nutrality and evaluations, I think knowledgism comes out better than scientology.

I am not allowed to discuss anything! Nor am I monitored or beholden.... I discuss at my choosing. I am sorry I missed your question on ot3.

I think that yes in fact the very existence of a subject such as scientology is an evaluation! And certainly the data in its materials is too. All recorded data is an evaluation that it is important, and implies that it should be considered to be true.

This is a different thing from an auditor expressing a consideration regarding a pc's origination in session.

The questions in the grades are an evaluation of what needs to be run. But the pc's answers are different from pc to pc. The auditor takes them as they come and doesnt say your wrong, or pc x said this... or I think that. That would be the kind of evaluation that is inconsistent with help.

If you dont want to follow an already explored path to a know goal, by all means find your own. Knowledgism is an evaluation just as much as scientology, just a different one to some extent. I am sure knowledgism processors do not evaluate in session just as scientology auditors refrain from it. But Alan has certainly laid out a path...you dont just walk in and talk about baseball.

 

[lionheart]

I am not allowed to discuss anything! Nor am I monitored or beholden.... I discuss at my choosing. I am sorry I missed your question on ot3.

I think that yes in fact the very existence of a subject such as scientology is an evaluation! And certainly the data in its materials is too. All recorded data is an evaluation that it is important, and implies that it should be considered to be true.

This is a different thing from an auditor expressing a consideration regarding a pc's origination in session.

The questions in the grades are an evaluation of what needs to be run. But the pc's answers are different from pc to pc. The auditor takes them as they come and doesnt say your wrong, or pc x said this... or I think that. That would be the kind of evaluation that is inconsistent with help.

If you dont want to follow an already explored path to a know goal, by all means find your own. Knowledgism is an evaluation just as much as scientology, just a different one to some extent. I am sure knowledgism processors do not evaluate in session just as scientology auditors refrain from it. But Alan has certainly laid out a path...you dont just walk in and talk about baseball.

Oops! did you see what you did there?

You didn't answer the questions about OTIII again, again!

Instead you diverted it to "all recorded data" and the grades processes!

Yes the grades are an evaluation, but of a different order to OTIII that outlines specific incidents and dates and tells the PC and the entities that they must run these incidents for the sake of their eternity! Bit different from suggesting that gains can be had from grades questions.

Telling a PC or an entity that incident 1 and 2 are what are sticking a BT to another being's body is a bit suggestive! Not the "neutrality" that you quoted Ron as advising!

Yes, Alan seems to have laid out a path. It is not one I wish to follow, neither is Ron's path.

I have seen some of Alan's processes and they seem on a par to the fairly neutral sort of questions that you find on the scn grades. I don't know that he ever tells people what incidents and implant items they need to run such as Ron did on R6 to OTIII. That is the major flaw in scientology, Ron tells you what incidents, implants and entities you have and need to run.

 

[alex]

Oops! did you see what you did there?

You didn't answer the questions about OTIII again, again!

Instead you diverted it to "all recorded data" and the grades processes!

Yes the grades are an evaluation, but of a different order to OTIII that outlines specific incidents and dates and tells the PC and the entities that they must run these incidents for the sake of their eternity! Bit different from suggesting that gains can be had from grades questions.

Telling a PC or an entity that incident 1 and 2 are what are sticking a BT to another being's body is a bit suggestive! Not the "neutrality" that you quoted Ron as advising!

Yes, Alan seems to have laid out a path. It is not one I wish to follow, neither is Ron's path.

I have seen some of Alan's processes and they seem on a par to the fairly neutral sort of questions that you find on the scn grades. I don't know that he ever tells people what incidents and implant items they need to run such as Ron did on R6 to OTIII. That is the major flaw in scientology, Ron tells you what incidents, implants and entities you have and need to run.

Well I think I did answer the question, you just dont seem to like my answer.

Sure Ron "tells you", and then when it runs, voila you know its true. Or not.

I dont feel it is a flaw. Its the way it works. Show me a better way. You seem all hung up on evaluation, like evaluation is wrong in any situation. Hopefully your mother evaluated for you and told you to look both ways before crossing the street...Yes evaluation expressed by the auditor to the pc in regard to their originations is detrimental. Other forms less so. And perhaps even helpful.

 

[alex]

It sure would be nice if one of the knowledgists were willing to discuss in a little more detail their concept of entity handling...

 

[degraded being]

My mother evaluated for me.

Luckily she wasn't a deluded paranoid with severe drug
problems.

BTW you started a thread to put down Knowelegism focusing on their "spiritual team mates".

All that concerned you, apparently is the details of how the madness is arranged and labelled. You have your own scientology- hubbard delusions about BTs which are not only silly (as in the "team mates" version), but dangerous.
Either way it's all quite loony.

 

[alex]

My mother evaluated for me.

Luckily she wasn't a deluded paranoid with severe drug
problems.

BTW you started a thread to put down Knowelegism focusing on their "spiritual team mates".

All that concerned you, apparently is the details of how the madness is arranged and labelled. You have your own scientology- hubbard delusions about BTs which are not only silly (as in the "team mates" version), but dangerous.
Either way it's all quite loony.

I like the part where you say "All that concerned you, apparently is the details of how the madness is arranged and labelled." That really sums up your position, and is just a nice turn of phrase too.

I rather enjoy discussing and contemplating what you consider madness. Even more than trading repartee with you....



(although I would contend that I didnt start this thread to put down knowledgism, but to bring to light what I consider its flaws. This may be a bit too subtle a distinction for some to understand though. It would seem to have some substantial similarities with my beliefs also.)

 

[Pierrot]

!!

you are changing the topic from the flaws of knowledgism to the flaws of alex and scientology!

Do you think it is wise, and in the interests of the entities that are receiving processing from a person, for them to be gathered into teams? Do you think that the teams would be composed of entities that would have chosen to come together of their own will, without the influence and gratitude they feel for the team leader?

You might need to examine such on interaction on all Flows. Anyway - the subject of spiritual teammates was discussed by Hubbard in depth in DMSMH under "pro-survival engrams", "sympathy engrams" "ally computation sympathy engrams", and such.

 

[alex]

You might need to examine such on interaction on all Flows. Anyway - the subject of spiritual teammates was discussed by Hubbard in depth in DMSMH under "pro-survival engrams", "sympathy engrams" "ally computation sympathy engrams", and such.

Yes and one of the remedies in DMSMH for restimulation it staying away from the things that restimulate.

I was basing my consideration of a flaw on the notion of a newly released entity, which I would think would be to some extent keyed out of their bank or the mutual bank if you will, but it they were then constantly in contact with others of similar experience, it would seem to be a possible problem.

It certainly would be interesting to hear in much more depth how knowledgism handles entities, particularly in regards to the above.

 

[degraded being]

Yes and one of the remedies in DMSMH for restimulation it staying away from the things that restimulate.

I was basing my consideration of a flaw on the notion of a newly released entity, which I would think would be to some extent keyed out of their bank or the mutual bank if you will, but it they were then constantly in contact with others of similar experience, it would seem to be a possible problem.

It certainly would be interesting to hear in much more depth how knowledgism handles entities, particularly in regards to the above.

Are you wanting to clear up your mu's do conditions, and get back on lines with the knowledgists Alex?

 

[lionheart]

Well I think I did answer the question, you just dont seem to like my answer.

Sure Ron "tells you", and then when it runs, voila you know its true. Or not.

I dont feel it is a flaw. Its the way it works. Show me a better way. You seem all hung up on evaluation, like evaluation is wrong in any situation. Hopefully your mother evaluated for you and told you to look both ways before crossing the street...Yes evaluation expressed by the auditor to the pc in regard to their originations is detrimental. Other forms less so. And perhaps even helpful.

Well, my mother never told me I was surrounded by degraded beings and many thousands were attached to my body and were having a hidden influence on me physically, emotionally, mentally and psychically. She never said they were degraded by an evil cosmic overlord who blew them up, attached them to ribbons and subjected them to mind-numbing and confusing movies until their only solution was to haunt me!

Bad mother!

She never told me I could only exorcise them by convincing them they had incidents I & II glueing them to me.

Bad, bad mother!

Of course it is a code break-type evaluation by Ron on OTIII and OTII! The instructions given to a PC before session and how to run their case in session, given by the "founder", who has worked on you through your course in scn to convince you of his rightness, who tells you it is your only hope for your eternity, of course this is a case evaluation, telling the PC what to think about his case.

It is dancing on a pin-head to differentiate between that and an opinion expressed by an auditor in session. But scientologists become very good at pin-head dancing, one has to admire their sense of balance!

Yes and one of the remedies in DMSMH for restimulation it staying away from the things that restimulate.

I was basing my consideration of a flaw on the notion of a newly released entity, which I would think would be to some extent keyed out of their bank or the mutual bank if you will, but it they were then constantly in contact with others of similar experience, it would seem to be a possible problem.

It certainly would be interesting to hear in much more depth how knowledgism handles entities, particularly in regards to the above.

Likewise the "newly released entity" after an OTIII session. Are you seriously suggesting that dependency is a liabilty in knowledgism but not in scientology?

Remember OTIII is run in close proximity to other victims of Ron's scam. If there is any validity to OTIII, then one has literally hoardes of "released" entities swaming around and looking for the way forward after being released from the PC's body.

Is that not an environment to produce transference and assigning god-like or guru status to those freeing them?

"In a therapy context, transference refers to redirection of a client's feelings from a significant person to the therapist. Transference is often manifested as an erotic attraction towards a therapist, but can be seen in many other forms such as rage, hatred, mistrust, parentification, extreme dependence, or even placing the therapist in a god-like or guru status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Remember Ron considered "spritual entities" to be his slaves!

It would be interesting to have a comparison between the degree of evaluation imposed upon entities by scn and by knowledgism. Because running incident I & II on a BT is a huge evaluation imposed upon the BT by the auditor! OTIII auditors break the auditors code in every OTIII session.

And a comparison of the steps taken by the two practices to avoid transference would be interesting.

What steps are taken in an OTIII session to avoid the BT holding the auditor, scientology or Hubbard in esteem? I have read many times OTIIIs have said they tell the BT to go to a Scn org as their next step! What!!!???

"Elemental spirits are your slaves" L Ron Hubbard.

 

[nw2394]

You answered most points, thanks.

Except this one:

Do you think an entity being told they have incidents I and II on their so-called track and this is the reason they are stuck to the processor's body, is a good idea? Isn't that hugely suggestive and evaluative? Do you think that creates a dependency in the entity on scientology and on the processor?

Well, not sure what others did on III, but I don't think so the way I did it. I asked "Inc 2?". If nothing came up I didn't push it (and it sometimes didn't - and especially didn't in relation to the so called Inc 1). In which case I found out what they had turned up in my session space for and handled that instead.

Nick