FROM BLOWNFORGOOD - DM IS REDOING THE ENTIRE GRADE CHART

[alex]

The path is well marked - so well marked in fact that each step is in huge flashing lights!

It has been screamed down through time by anyone who had some knowledge.

What has been screamed down through time?

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!

Not my truth, not LRHs truth, not Buddhas truth, and certainly not DMs distortions, but your TRUTH.

Alan

Thank you.

A nice way to validate what is agreeable in what I said while still holding your own viewpoint.

That is a skill you always seem to have.

alex

 

[Alanzo]

Thank you.

A nice way to validate what is agreeable in what I said while still holding your own viewpoint.

That is a skill you always seem to have.

alex

Yes, that is a skill Alan always seems to have....

 

[alex]

Q: Optimum for whom?
A: Optimum for Scientology.

And yet, Scientology *markets* itself as being about 'having a better life' and 'finding out who you are'. In fact, OT VIII's 'EP' is 'Now I know who I'm not and want to find out who I am'.

But, why would anyone care what's 'optimum for Scientology?' Scientology and Scientologists care, because Scientology is sold as 'Mankind's Only Hope'. Because Scientology is a 'Doomsday Cult', recruiting and indoctrinating itself as 'The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number of Dynamics' because the *alternative* is 'The Every Dwindling Spiral!!'; 'Nuclear War!!'; 'Toxins!'; 'Social Collapse!'

All of which are about as polar opposite to 'transcending' *anything* as you can get.

From the beginning Scientology's 'appeal' has been Terror. 'Either We Clear The Planet Or We're Doomed! Doomed I tells ya!'

The only thing Scientology is good for is more Scientology. Yes; some 'processes' can be used by the individual, and may (or may not) help a person 'improve his life', but, that's not their intent, as you so cogently recognize.

But, your assertion that Scientology's 'greater goal' is transcendance is transparently hogwash. Hard to imagine a 'buddha' or other 'enlightened being' frantically racing around screaming 'The Sky is Falling!! Doom! Doom! The End is near!!'

Because, for *any* kind of transcendance, an 'organization' is hogwasy. According to you Alex, your interest in Scientology *is* spiritual in nature; yet you fail to present *any* evidence for any kind of linkage between the Scientology Organization or 'movement' and its goals and what may very well be some kind of 'spiritual' gain.

If you want spirituality Alex; why do you need 'The Church' or 'The Movement'?

Zinj

"Q: Optimum for whom?"

Optimum for me.

You zinj are the vegetarian outside McD's say meat is murder.

Now I would say that anyone who thinks McDonalds is any more than marginally nutritious is ignorant, but one could remain alive solely on a diet from their menu.

Perhaps you would share some of your recipes for spiritual nutrition? And perhaps lead by example rather than trying to make others viewpoints less stable?

I will grant you that the CoS is fucked up. I will assert that there is value in the body of "knowledge" called scientology.

And to bring this completely back to its begining: What proof is needed?

Mine to myself.

I believe that there is still value in the organized approach that LRH layed out. I also KNOW that this is being changed and maybe not for the better.
The Church is not what it once was, and I dont like what it is, but I am in it with eyes open, and for my own reasons.

You are welcome, and in fact appreciated by me, to continue your intellectual assault on it, but for me, it is a matter of choice, and I believe that choice, acting on ones will, is senior to reason.

(Kinda gets into the whole notion of whether or not there is any thing objective about reality)

Basically life is more fun operating on choice rather that reason.

And why do we live? To conform to reason? Or create.


alex

 

[Kerry]

I will grant you that the CoS is fucked up.

I agree. I can't stand absolutes and the edict to not disclose my own doubts and wonderings about what constitutes my life.

Alan, thanks for that response. Maybe you felt ? And/or ..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a9mx1IVZzU

 

[alex]

Yes, that is a skill Alan always seems to have....

I am fully aware that there are people giggling to themselves, knowing I am going to "cognite" someday....

alex

 

[Alanzo]

"Q: Optimum for whom?"

Optimum for me.

You zinj are the vegetarian outside McD's say meat is murder.

Now I would say that anyone who thinks McDonalds is any more than marginally nutritious is ignorant, but one could remain alive solely on a diet from their menu.

Perhaps you would share some of your recipes for spiritual nutrition? And perhaps lead by example rather than trying to make others viewpoints less stable?

I will grant you that the CoS is fucked up. I will assert that there is value in the body of "knowledge" called scientology.

And to bring this completely back to its begining: What proof is needed?

Mine to myself.

I believe that there is still value in the organized approach that LRH layed out. I also KNOW that this is being changed and maybe not for the better.
The Church is not what it once was, and I dont like what it is, but I am in it with eyes open, and for my own reasons.

You are welcome, and in fact appreciated by me, to continue your intellectual assault on it, but for me, it is a matter of choice, and I believe that choice, acting on ones will, is senior to reason.

(Kinda gets into the whole notion of whether or not there is any thing objective about reality)

Basically life is more fun operating on choice rather that reason.

And why do we live? To conform to reason? Or create.


alex

You bring up good and valid questions, Alex.

And these two lines put it very well:

Basically life is more fun operating on choice rather that reason.

And why do we live? To conform to reason? Or create.

There are pitfalls and advantages in operating on each.

Maybe then one should operate on both.

 

[alex]

You bring up good and valid questions, Alex.

And these two lines put it very well:



There are pitfalls and advantages in operating on each.

Maybe then one should operate on both.

Would that not be conforming to reason?


alex

 

[alex]

You bring up good and valid questions, Alex.

And these two lines put it very well:

Basically life is more fun operating on choice rather that reason.

And why do we live? To conform to reason? Or create.

There are pitfalls and advantages in operating on each.

Maybe then one should operate on both.

My whole current viewpoint is structured on the notion that, regardless of past consideration, the future is mine to create or not.

Reason would be an agreement with past consideration.

Choice allows one to do that, or not.

Senior.

alex

 

[Alanzo]

Would that not be conforming to reason?


alex

I think that using reason to inform your choices, and then running with your choices on expansive and zealotrous crusades, would be an extremely effective, and fun, way to live. Kinda like Steve Jobs.

But if reason can not inform your choices, then you quite often have disaster. And let me tell you from experience, disaster isn't very fun.

 

[alex]

I think that using reason to inform your choices, and then running with your choices on expansive and zealotrous crusades, would be an extremely effective, and fun, way to live. Kinda like Steve Jobs.

But if reason can not inform your choices, then you quite often have disaster. And let me tell you from experience, disaster isn't very fun.

Well not fun unless you are David Miscavaige....

(and thanks for the Apple mention, my favorite stock, bought at about $15...)

Could we then agree that reason is a lower harmonic of knowing?

alex

 

[Alanzo]

Well not fun unless you are David Miscavaige....

(and thanks for the Apple mention, my favorite stock, bought at about $15...)

Could we then agree that reason is a lower harmonic of knowing?

alex

I don't think so.

Because the Scientology definition of knowledge is too often "Feelings of Truthiness".

The use of disciplined reason specifically tries to eliminate "feelings of truthiness" as valid factors in order to avert the disastrous effects choices based on them can cause.

You obviously used very few feelings of truthiness in choosing Apple as a stock to buy and hold on to for these many years.

Right?

So what's wrong with reason informing your choices?

 

[alex]

The path is well marked - so well marked in fact that each step is in huge flashing lights!

It has been screamed down through time by anyone who had some knowledge.

What has been screamed down through time?

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!

Not my truth, not LRHs truth, not Buddhas truth, and certainly not DMs distortions, but your TRUTH.

Alan

Sorry for replying twice to the same post,

But Yes Alan, you are pointing out the supreme digression of the current church with the aims it started with.

It was once; "if its true for you" and it is now "this is whats true"

alex

 

[alex]

I don't think so.

Because the Scientology definition of knowledge is too often "Feelings of Truthiness".

The use of disciplined reason specifically tries to eliminate "feelings of truthiness" as valid factors in order to avert the disastrous effects choices based on them can cause.

You obviously used very few feelings of truthiness in choosing Apple as a stock to buy and hold on to for these many years.

Right?

So what's wrong with reason informing your choices?

Nothing wrong with reason.

Love the expression "feelings of truthiness"!

I bought apple stock because I knew the company, and the product and the market cycle it was in. It was an informed choice, based on reason.

Where bad choices are made, learning occurs. Choice is still senior to reason though as is is not an abborgation of ones cause to past consideration.

alex

 

[Alanzo]

Nothing wrong with reason.

Love the expression "feelings of truthiness"!

I bought apple stock because I knew the company, and the product and the market cycle it was in. It was an informed choice, based on reason.

Where bad choices are made, learning occurs. Choice is still senior to reason though as is is not an abborgation of ones cause to past consideration.

alex

How is reason an "an abborgation of ones cause to past consideration."?

 

[alex]

feelings of truthiness..

And what game would it be, if left to reason?

The thrill of the unknown, the arbitrary factor, the viewpoint of others...

Those all do not submit to reason.

Choice, intuition, danger, unknown make for interesting life.

And it is ultimately our consciousness rather than the material realm we play in that is what matters.

Reason is great for dealing with matter.

Choice works better for life.

alex

 

[Alanzo]

And what game would it be, if left to reason?

The thrill of the unknown, the arbitrary factor, the viewpoint of others...

Those all do not submit to reason.

Choice, intuition, danger, unknown make for interesting life.

And it is ultimately our consciousness rather than the material realm we play in that is what matters.

Reason is great for dealing with matter.

Choice works better for life.

alex

If it's choice uninformed by reason then we disagree.

You seem to me like you'd be a big "Don Quixote" fan.

Is that true?

Ever seen "The Fisher King"?

 

[alex]

How is reason an "an abborgation of ones cause to past consideration."?

Reason is the use of what is known, to predict the outcome of something.

What is known, is what has already been created. If it is created it exists, a consideration.

Using a process that relies on previous creation to determine future consideration is de facto removal of present time new consideration.

alex

 

[Alanzo]

Alex wrote:

Reason is the use of what is known, to predict the outcome of something.

What is known, is what has already been created. If it is created it exists, a consideration.

Using a process that relies on previous creation to determine future consideration is de facto removal of present time new consideration.

Well! That is an interesting answer!

Can you demo that out for me with a real life example?

 

[Zinjifar]

And what game would it be, if left to reason?

The thrill of the unknown, the arbitrary factor, the viewpoint of others...

Those all do not submit to reason.

Choice, intuition, danger, unknown make for interesting life.

And it is ultimately our consciousness rather than the material realm we play in that is what matters.

Reason is great for dealing with matter.

Choice works better for life.

alex

The Scientology Organization/Movement is a *secular* movement, about *secular* power. Secular Power without 'reason' is universally an abomination. Ergo: The Scientology Organization is an abomination.

Why does Scientology 'spirituality' need 'secular power'? Why does Scientology spirituality need an 'organization' and a 'movement'?

Zinj

 

[alex]

If it's choice uninformed by reason then we disagree.

You seem to me like you'd be a big "Don Quixote" fan.

Is that true?

Ever seen "The Fisher King"?

I certainly think that Cervantes made a nifty little metaphoric statement about the absurdity of life.....

I dont watch movies with Robin Williams if they have any serious content. Choice.

I dont reject the usefulness of reason, only its place.

alex