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

[lkwdblds]

Very true but....

Past a certain point, money is just a way to keep score in the game of "Who's got more status?". This is one of those games where the only way to win, is not to play.

Looking at it from Diandra's point of view, Michael Douglas married her when she was 19 (and he 33) and divorced her when she was 42 to marry a younger, spectacularly gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones. She's got a LOT of resentment to work out.

What you write is true but there are a couple of points I'd like to make. Michael Douglas has more status that Deandra, always did have and always will. By wining more money from him, I don't see a shift in her status, unless it goes lower by virtue of her being perceived as too greedy.

She probably feels rejected by him for dumping her for a younger woman of Zeta-Jones spectacular beauty. She is just looking for revenge and a way of getting back at him and her only means of doing so is to extort more money out of him. This is the wrong avenue for her to pursue. She needs help and the ability to rise above such petty concerns as hurting Michael Douglas or getting even with him.

She was compensated wtih $45,000,000 at the relatively young age of 42. Even now she is only 52. With $45,000,000 and being only 52, there is so much opportunity open up to her to find a new lover or husband and live a purposeful life over the next 35 or 40 years. To just seek to hurt him, extort money out of him and make his life miserable, she is following a surefire path to even more unhappiness.
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

With $45,000,000 and being only 52, there is so much opportunity open up to her to find a new lover or husband and live a purposeful life over the next 35 or 40 years.

Feel free to give her my number. With a bottle of warm olive oil and well placed tactile stimulation I can be quite adept at consoling a distraught woman. As they said in ancient Rome: Do et des.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Leon]

You don't get it mate.

I'm not here for entertainment, or for argument. I don't view ESMB as an arena for sport or for the demonstration of intellectual gymnastics.

And I'm certainly not here to try and prove or disprove anything, and for those who think I should have to indulge in catering to their wish that I "prove it to them" and "defend" what I say . . . screw it. They should do their own homework of investigation and testing to prove/disprove things. Types who make those kinds of challenges demonstrably only ever refuse to accept what is presented but always have another "argument."

As Max Planck, the Nobel Laureate physicist once said, “In science it takes sixty, not thirty years for a new and revolutionary idea to establish itself. Not only must the old professors die off, so must their students.” And I see this phenomena with old Scientologists: anything that does not match that failed paradigm is rejected, refuted, or misinterpreted as being the same as.

My attitude to that is, why be bothered with them; let them be as they wish.

I post with the intent to pass on what info or knowledge I have that I have found and consider will be of benefit to others . . . if you read and understand my posts, you will see I have constantly stated that fact.

I don't care whether individuals take on what I write or not. And I am certainly not interested in the silly little nit-picking exercises, of refutation and challenges and all that silly stuff that you seem to like and want to engage in.

It is a waste of time . . . . you see, you don't actually question: you refute and challenge. You don't seek to expand understanding and to clarify: you seek to refute. And with your constant altering of what is said in my writing and of going off the points at issue, I see it as a fruitless exercise in trying to deal with you. And certainly so since you want to engage in insults, as you did when I once said I was busy with something else and as you are doing in this current exchange. Why should anyone want to be bothered with someone who wants to insult them?

You can think as you wish. I have no compulsion to challenge you or change what you wish to belief; and I certainly have no desire to change your way of thinking. As I said, as far as what I write goes, you can take it or leave it. And if others want to believe you instead of me, they certainly have the right to do so.

R

Roger, I have never asked you any question for any other reason than a desire to know abnd understand more. Never for "sport" or "entertainment". When I see outpopints or gaps in what you present then I want those areas cleared up or filled in.

I am a dyed in the wool tech person. It is my interest at every waking moment - not just with Scientology (in the broad sense) but in every other subject as well. When I come across something that doesn't add up I ask. And when I find someone who tries to avoid answering then I suspect they don't know their subject as well as they pretend to.

You appear to be someone who likes to make things known. My present goal line is to find out what is going on n life. On the face of it we should be able to get along very well indeed with esch other. But you need to know your stuff.

BTW I used to be a member of Mensa in South Africa, and in the few short years that I was its national chairman I changed it from being asocial boozing club to being a vigorous enquiring hard-nosed pusuit of knowledge society. I expect high standards of intellectual honesty wherever I go when I am dealing with people who present themselves as being knowledgeable - and you do present yourself as such, in fact you go to the limit pushing the idea of just how kowledgeable you are.

However, you appear to only talk the talk. You're as eager as all hell to get involved in every tech discussion going, but in nothing of what you present are you willing to stand your ground and defend or clarify or explain your position. As long as you sound good and get some acknowledgement, well, that seems to be good enough for you, that's all you desire. When pushed the slighest to explain yourself you crumble and dodge and pretend to be too busy and you don't walk the walk.

So sad, too bad.

I sa again - I have never asked you any question out of any motive than a sincere desire to get some area of what you present clarified and aligned with other data in my mind. To suggest otherwise, as you do, is really an ad hominem attack.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Good Stuff, Ted.

Porter Wagoner wrote "Satisfied Mind" back in the '50s. I like the words as they ring with practical truth. But the tempo is a '50s tempo. Today I think it drags as many of the '50s Country songs do. The words ring true for all time; the tempo for the time in which it was written. If you recall the '50s, out in the country, there was a lot of time to listen to the corn grow, a lot of time for the drinking and relational soap opera of the day so often sang about.

Today we move along at a faster pace. We cover more territory aided by not only vehicular travel but also the internet. Today the song would have to be played at twice the tempo with some clever picking in the bridge. Average pickers today are comparable to the great pickers of yore.

Here's a lecture by David Byrne. "As his career grew, David Byrne went from playing CBGB* to Carnegie Hall. He asks: Does the venue make the music? From outdoor drumming to Wagnerian operas to arena rock, he explores how context has pushed musical innovation."

* CBGB (Country, Blue Grass, and Blues) -- a music club in the borough of Manhattan in New York City.

David Byrne asked, "Does the venue make the music?"

I ask, "Does the venue (time, place, forum, personnel, and so on) make the session?" I believe it does to a large degree. I will follow up with more in a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se8kcnU-uZw&feature=digest

One of Roy Kirswell’s paintings, “This is the Session”, is set in the forest and shows two woodsman-type fellows doing a session with an emeter and the forest animals listening in. I grew up in a mountain valley surrounded by National Forests and Public Grazing Lands and that painting “spoke” to me.

“Venue” is so much of a “driver” for humans that it is easily and often over looked and, as Byrne well explained, is becoming portable, personal and internal. Nature is always teaching if we are willing students

Humankind has been very busy building “venues” to suit…that’s what, so to speak, “built the world”. Now that the world is built the trend is, somewhat, to go individual and personal again. Naizsmith covered that some in his “Megatrends” series.

Since my brain re-alignment, deeply internal and external “organic” or “natural” venues are the only ones I feel comfortable in and have “meaning”. I think venue is what makes a session…very interesting observation you made…something I’d never really thought about before. For me, looking back, I think time and personnel were the most important components of session "venue".

Face

 

[RogerB]

Roger, I have never asked you any question for any other reason than a desire to know abnd understand more. Never for "sport" or "entertainment". When I see outpopints or gaps in what you present then I want those areas cleared up or filled in.

I am a dyed in the wool tech person. It is my interest at every waking moment - not just with Scientology (in the broad sense) but in every other subject as well. When I come across something that doesn't add up I ask. And when I find someone who tries to avoid answering then I suspect they don't know their subject as well as they pretend to.

You appear to be someone who likes to make things known. My present goal line is to find out what is going on n life. On the face of it we should be able to get along very well indeed with esch other. But you need to know your stuff.

BTW I used to be a member of Mensa in South Africa, and in the few short years that I was its national chairman I changed it from being asocial boozing club to being a vigorous enquiring hard-nosed pusuit of knowledge society. I expect high standards of intellectual honesty wherever I go when I am dealing with people who present themselves as being knowledgeable - and you do present yourself as such, in fact you go to the limit pushing the idea of just how kowledgeable you are.

However, you appear to only talk the talk. You're as eager as all hell to get involved in every tech discussion going, but in nothing of what you present are you willing to stand your ground and defend or clarify or explain your position. As long as you sound good and get some acknowledgement, well, that seems to be good enough for you, that's all you desire. When pushed the slighest to explain yourself you crumble and dodge and pretend to be too busy and you don't walk the walk.

So sad, too bad.

I sa again - I have never asked you any question out of any motive than a sincere desire to get some area of what you present clarified and aligned with other data in my mind. To suggest otherwise, as you do, is really an ad hominem attack.

You still don't get it mate.

I didn't join a debating society, Mensa or anything else when I came on ESMB. I had enough of the clever "argument" types when I was a member of the Am. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science for 15 years.

And your post above is still in the vein of insults . . . . you just don't get it! You even inferred/accused that I was lying when I said I was busy a while back . . . hell there is a lot more going on in this world that your little want to challenge someone or something.

And contrary to your fixed opinion, I don't have to "defend" anything. If you don't like or don't understand what I write, ignore it. But don't expect that you have a right to demand others spend time with your wishes.

Don't you find it odd that you are the only one that's having this kind of difficulty or conflict with me and what I write?

You see, in your think you think you are engaging in discourse and an exchange of information . . . but it is your method that is failing; and I don't want anything of it.

R

 

[Ted]

Good Stuff, Ted.

One of Roy Kirswell’s paintings, “This is the Session”, is set in the forest and shows two woodsman-type fellows doing a session with an emeter and the forest animals listening in. I grew up in a mountain valley surronded by National Forests and Public Grazing Lands and that painting “spoke” to me.

“Venue” is so much of a “driver” for humans that it is easily and often over looked and, as Byrne well explained, is becoming portable, personal and internal. Nature is always teaching if we are willing students

Humankind has been very busy building “venues” to suit…that’s what, so to speak, “built the world”. Now that the world is built the trend is, somewhat, to go individual and personal again. Naizsmith covered that some in his “Megatrends” series.

Since my brain re-alignment, deeply internal and external “organic” or “natural” venues are the only ones I feel comfortable in and have “meaning”. I think venue is what makes a session…very interesting observation you made…something I’d never really thought about before. For me, looking back, I think time and personnel were the most important components of session "venue".

Face

I knew Roy. He hung around the mission for a while and was in training at ASHO same time I was. I am familiar with the painting. I wonder who possesses it now? Anyway, it spoke to me as well. Lots of Dynamics were represented, lots that is excluding the money dynamic.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I have been wondering how a person could possibly go Clear on the subject of self or any other subject if their perceptions are screwed up. My conclusion: A person can't. Or, if a person does, he/she certainly won't stay Clear.

What screws a person's perceptions? Any number of different toxic, false, deceptive inputs, physical or spiritual/mental.

Here's some funny stuff from George Carlin. Gets past the first few minutes. He then starts talking about some hilarious perceptions that we all have shared at one time or another simply because we have bodies and brains hardwired in similarity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILwOQV32rHg&feature=player_embedded

I love Carlin…one of the greatest wits and social satirists of our time.

Back in the late '60's one of the early Clear SH hotshots, Bill Deitch, was a very funny Jazz musician/comedian that did a tour for SH, drawing big crowds. He was irreverent, satirical and hysterical regarding some of our own foibles as Scns and CofS. It was good fun and "real"...nothing malicious...El Ron creamed him. In my view, any individual, group or institution that can't laugh at itself has a touch of evil in it.

"Clear" and "OT" has never been clear to me. Too many conflicting definitions, “We’ve got it this time!” eras from 1950 to 2010, and “Abilities Gained/Regained” that, in actuality, are not manifest in any “Clear” or "OT" I know…including me.

I think people “buy into” Clear due to their own subjective understanding of the definitions/descriptions and “feelings, sensations and wishes (dreams)” that are augured by their own or “take” on the concept “freedom”. What makes it “real” is if they have a huge “Win” in Scn…they then “project” that as “being more ‘clear’” and that Clear is “obviously" so much more than that huge “Win”...who wouldn’t want that? The Christians have been using that formula with great success to market Jesus and Salvation for centuries.

Ultimately, Clear and OT is about being in control and the only way to get “there” is to submit to control and be controlled…I’d love to have seen a routine on that from Carlin!

Face

 

[FoTi]

Carmelo, have you spoken with each of your sons, individually and asked them why they veered from the family tradition and chose the kind of women that they did choose? And why they think that the way that their wives are handling their children is okay.....especially if there are noticable changes in the kids, for the better, when you take care of them?

I think your sons would be the only ones that would be able to answer your questions, since they are the ones who chose their own wives, for their own reasons. We don't know your sons or why they did what they did. And, perhaps their choices had nothing to do with you or how you raised them or what the family traditions have been. :confused2:

 

[RogerB]

I love Carlin…one of the greatest wits and social satirists of our time.

Back in the late '60's one of the early Clear SH hotshots, Bill Deitch, was a very funny Jazz musician/comedian that did a tour for SH, drawing big crowds. He was irreverent, satirical and hysterical regarding some of our own foibles as Scns and CofS. It was good fun and "real"...nothing malicious...El Ron creamed him. In my view, any individual, group or institution that can't laugh at itself has a touch of evil in it.

"Clear" and "OT" has never been clear to me. Too many conflicting definitions, “We’ve got it this time!” eras from 1950 to 2010, and “Abilities Gained/Regained” that, in actuality, are not manifest in any “Clear” or "OT" I know…including me.

I think people “buy into” Clear due to their own subjective understanding of the definitions/descriptions and “feelings, sensations and wishes (dreams)” that are augured by their own or “take” on the concept “freedom”. What makes it “real” is if they have a huge “Win” in Scn…they then “project” that as “being more ‘clear’” and that Clear is “obviously’ so much more than that huge “Win”...who wouldn’t want that? The Christians have been using that formula with great success to market Jesus and Salvation for centuries.

Ultimately, Clear and OT is about being in control and the only way to get “there” is to submit to control and be controlled…I’d love to have seen a routine on that from Carlin!

Face

Nice post Face.

Nice astute observation on the "buying into clear" thing being based on the individual's own concept of what it'll be like. What a nice carrot it is to be told you can be "free from what you want to be free from." And that "Total Freedom" song

OT, of course, is about being able to operate . . . . but what, and as what??? The Old Man foxed us on that one too, in my view. He never defined the true abilities and/or powers involved. So again, we imagined in our own minds what it'd be like . . . and we got sold another juicy carrot to chase.

The good news, however, is that I am finding my own standards cum envisioned ideals of it are being attained, if slowly and bit by bit. So we ought not give up on what we believed possible.

Rog

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Nice post Face.

Nice astute observation on the "buying into clear" thing being based on the individual's own concept of what it'll be like. What a nice carrot it is to be told you can be "free from what you want to be free from." And that "Total Freedom" song

OT, of course, is about being able to operate . . . . but what, and as what??? The Old Man foxed us on that one too, in my view. He never defined the true abilities and/or powers involved. So again, we imagined in our own minds what it'd be like . . . and we got sold another juicy carrot to chase.

The good news, however, is that I am finding my own standards cum envisioned ideals of it are being attained, if slowly and bit by bit. So we ought not give up on what we believed possible.

Rog

Excellent, Rog. Thank you.

Yep, El Ron foxed us alright…but we were already in the “Hunt’ to begin with.

I agree on the “operate” and the “what, and as what?” El Ron’s gig was to sell us on we could operate as long as we were subject to, and part of, the “operation”. He “hawked” the tickets and we took a spin on the Carny thrills ride.

You’ve not given up…I’ve not given up…and most of us here haven’t given up. It was all part of our paths and we should embrace it, grow from it...accept it and not resist it…share it. Life happens, so get over it already.

The only way to have a healthy garden and good fruit is grafting, thinning, watering and cross pollination.

Forward, always forward.

Face

 

[Leon]

You still don't get it mate.

I didn't join a debating society, Mensa or anything else when I came on ESMB. I had enough of the clever "argument" types when I was a member of the Am. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science for 15 years.

And your post above is still in the vein of insults . . . . you just don't get it! You even inferred/accused that I was lying when I said I was busy a while back . . . hell there is a lot more going on in this world that your little want to challenge someone or something.

And contrary to your fixed opinion, I don't have to "defend" anything. If you don't like or don't understand what I write, ignore it. But don't expect that you have a right to demand others spend time with your wishes.

Don't you find it odd that you are the only one that's having this kind of difficulty or conflict with me and what I write?

You see, in your think you think you are engaging in discourse and an exchange of information . . . but it is your method that is failing; and I don't want anything of it.

R

"I see this thread is tuning into a "point scoring contest." How sad.

There was, as is ordinarily the case here on ESMB, an opportunity for honest and learned exchange of intellect, knowledge and good reason . . . but some, do not reveal the knowledge that is the basis of their view but instead only assert opinion and the put down of others." - RogerB


Nuff said.

 

[RogerB]

"I see this thread is tuning into a "point scoring contest." How sad.

There was, as is ordinarily the case here on ESMB, an opportunity for honest and learned exchange of intellect, knowledge and good reason . . . but some, do not reveal the knowledge that is the basis of their view but instead only assert opinion and the put down of others." - RogerB


Nuff said.

You still don't get it . . . this is simply the continuance of the attempt to make wrong. And if you go back on your earlier posts and retorts to me, you'll see that is exactly why I will not "discuss" with you.

Others read my stuff, got on with it and had wins using it. But what do you do? You try to make it something other than it is and try to run a debunk of it. And of course, you don't or refuse to see the actual knowledge that is contained and conveyed in what I write.

I suggest you look at your history of posts and honestly look at what you write and do.

R

 

[Ted]

Expectations and Entitlements

As I said earlier, expectations and entitlements are profitable when directly addressed in processing/auditing. Two-way comm works best, that is, actual two-way comm, not the one-way comm of an auditing comm cycle.

Leon, Roger, thank you for the demo.

I am about to write something that might seem evaluative. It is not intended as such.

Leon appears to have certain expectations. From my bystander position these appear perfectly reasonable. Discourse on/within a discussion group is a reasonable expectation.

Roger appears to have entitlements. Whether self-assumed or assigned by another doesn't matter as the effect/affect is the same. As far as I am concerned Roger is entitled to his entitlements. He's done the work, walked the walk, etc.

Both parties, as I see it, are right, neither are wrong. So I am going, "WTF?"

Here's some information that has been on my mind for some time. It comes from the field of music. I just went, "Ah, ha!" as it came together for me. I hope it answers a few questions for others as well:

This following paragraph from <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-barbershop-quartet.htm> Emphasis is mine:

One of the most distinctive features of barbershop music is the ringing chord. The ringing chord is a unique vocal effect created when the four voices harmonize perfectly with each other, overlaying in such a way that the illusion of a fifth singer is created. The ringing chord can sound quite ethereal and it is very recognizable; most barbershop groups work hard to attain it, and are rightfully proud when they manage to achieve it.

If you want to plug in the third party law on that, you might see as I do, a third party can exist as and only as the byproduct of the two primary parties. So in applying hubtech which requires a WHO, an innocent party can and will often get hung.

I do feel and think that this illusion is an important awareness and it extends all across physical universe activities, possibly into spirit-world as well. So I am going to take a breather and let this process run a while.

Thank you.

 

[lkwdblds]

A feminine opinion or just a smart person's opinion?

Carmelo, have you spoken with each of your sons, individually and asked them why they veered from the family tradition and chose the kind of women that they did choose? And why they think that the way that their wives are handling their children is okay.....especially if there are noticable changes in the kids, for the better, when you take care of them?

I think your sons would be the only ones that would be able to answer your questions, since they are the ones who chose their own wives, for their own reasons. We don't know your sons or why they did what they did. And, perhaps their choices had nothing to do with you or how you raised them or what the family traditions have been. :confused2:

I recommended a woman present an opinion on this matter from a "feminine" point of view. Sweetness had already done so but I did not agree with her (just my opinion - her opinion may be correct for all I know). I urged Sweetness to revise her opinion and other women to comment. FoTi comes up with the simple but logical recommendation of just asking the Sons.

I think that is the best course of action, the perfect solution to clear this up. This course of action will reveal the actual truth without any guessing or speculating involved and the answer will remain within the family and will not be broadcast widely. Excellent FoTi. Men are supposed to be more logical and women more emotional! Your A to B resolution of the problem serves as an example which illustrates that maxim is not always true and may be bunk.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

More kudos for Ted, more Blowdowns for the rest of us

As I said earlier, expectations and entitlements are profitable when directly addressed in processing/auditing. Two-way comm works best, that is, actual two-way comm, not the one-way comm of an auditing comm cycle.

Leon, Roger, thank you for the demo.

I am about to write something that might seem evaluative. It is not intended as such.

Leon appears to have certain expectations. From my bystander position these appear perfectly reasonable. Discourse on/within a discussion group is a reasonable expectation.

Roger appears to have entitlements. Whether self-assumed or assigned by another doesn't matter as the effect/affect is the same. As far as I am concerned Roger is entitled to his entitlements. He's done the work, walked the walk, etc.

Both parties, as I see it, are right, neither are wrong. So I am going, "WTF?"

Here's some information that has been on my mind for some time. It comes from the field of music. I just went, "Ah, ha!" as it came together for me. I hope it answers a few questions for others as well:

This following paragraph from <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-barbershop-quartet.htm> Emphasis is mine:

One of the most distinctive features of barbershop music is the ringing chord. The ringing chord is a unique vocal effect created when the four voices harmonize perfectly with each other, overlaying in such a way that the illusion of a fifth singer is created. The ringing chord can sound quite ethereal and it is very recognizable; most barbershop groups work hard to attain it, and are rightfully proud when they manage to achieve it.

If you want to plug in the third party law on that, you might see as I do, a third party can exist as and only as the byproduct of the two primary parties. So in applying hubtech which requires a WHO, an innocent party can and will often get hung.

I do feel and think that this illusion is an important awareness and it extends all across physical universe activities, possibly into spirit-world as well. So I am going to take a breather and let this process run a while.

Thank you.

The POWER of group panel discussion never ceases to amaze me, especially when that panel has many all stars participating. Ted's words which I highlight in red above are of mind boggling importance. IN APPLYING HUBTECH WHICH REQUIRES A WHO, AN INNOCENT PARTY CAN AND WILL OFTEN GET HUNG.

When Purple Haze first posted here in December of '09, she stated in her first post that "It takes the third dynamic to run out the third dynamic engram." I am going to put both of these quotes into Sweetness's Golden Quotes from ESMB thread!

I am not as humble as I appear to be, I consider myself a smart guy and think I can look outside the box and see things not everyone else can see. This morning on this thread, I have had a rude awakening which has brought me back down to reality. First FoTi's simple solution to Carmelo's situation was totally missed be me and now Ted's quote above. The moment I read Ted's quote, I felt a shift of viewpoint and noticed mass started blowing from my space.

There are so many brilliant people on ESMB, and outside of it as well. It is mind boggling! Many are brighter than me, quite a few of equal stature and some not as smart. The thing is, "What does that matter?", It is of zero value to waste time thinking along those lines. Just keep listening and looking and work hard to push yourself to keep improving.

My Service Fac was that I thought I was smarter than most and usually right! I blew it in 1973 but unbeknownst to me it began coming back recently due to the success I have had with this thread. Now I have taken another look at that Service Fac and have blown it again.

Ted's example, using the barbershop quartet is brilliant. A fifth voice seeming to arise out of 4 harmonious voices. I remember in 1958 when Stereo sound sytems begain taking over from Monaural hi fi systems, careful placement of your stereo speakers could seemingly create a third source of sound when you knew there were only two.

His comments have opened some new doors to pursue which I want to take up in my next post.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

On Hubtech's requiring a "Who"

The POWER of group panel discussion never ceases to amaze me, especially when that panel has many all stars participating. Ted's words in his above post are of mind boggling importance. IN APPLYING HUBTECH WHICH REQUIRES A WHO, AN INNOCENT PARTY CAN AND WILL OFTEN GET HUNG.

It seems that a major error in Hubbard's tech was in always requiring a "WHO". This was most prevalent in PTS/SP technology and also had a key role in "THIRD PARTY LAW" tech and WHY FINDING tech. In WHY FINDING tech, having a WHO makes a lot of sense and one would tend to accept unconditionally that there has to be a WHO for every non optimum situation.

VARIOUS TYPES OF "WHO'S" WHICH MAY FILL THE BILL IN HUBTECH
1. A Correct Who
2. An Incorrect Who
3. A proxy Who - brought on the scene only to take a fall and have their head put on a pike to keep others in line
4. An entity which acts as a Who but is not just one person. Call it perhaps a "Simulated" Who.

Beginning students of "Why Finding" conceive of only two Who's possible, the correct Who or an incorrect Who. The veteran Why finders, including LRH, knew well the existence of the Proxy Who. This was a key but unexpressed element of Hubbard's Management tech. Ted's post introduces Item #4 into the mix. However, Hubbard had already introduced this concept before when he brought out an item called "Being PTS to the Middle Class"!

Ted's simulated Who is much more sophisticated than LRH's PTS to the Middle Class. Hubbard's PTS to the Middle Class is a rather simple and obvious instance of an ad hoc construct. Ad hoc is Latin for some rule, theory or law just constructed for convenience to explain away current existing conditions or to force a certain outcome or way of thinking. Ted's #4 is more of a hollographic type of Who - 4 voices in perfect harmony give rise to the apparent existence of a 5th voice. LRH never looked this deeply into this matter or if he did, he never commented on it or wrote it up to my knowledge.

Purple Haze alludes to a #4 type of Who in her statement that it takes the third dynamic to run out the 3rd dynamic engram. Here we are saying that One person sitting in an auditing chair can not fully run out experiences which occurred while being part of a third dynamic group. This apparent truth points the way to the great value of Panel Discussions in undoing third dynamic engrams and secondaries. It is notable that not only was panel discussion not allowed in Hubbard's Organizations but its use was punishable as a Suppressive Act !!! This is illustrative of the fact that Hubbard had an agenda beyond just increasing people's abilities and spreading truths.

A side point is that based on Hubbard's Bulletin, "Tthe Complexity of a Being", with man being composed of many valences, demon circuits and the like, that every "Who" identified in Scientology is in a way, a composite of some sort containing various valences and circuits as well as the person himself or herself. I am only mentioning this in passing but it is not a major point in my treatise.

SIMULATED WHO'S - I am not going to try to tackle Simulated Who's on my own but since Ted has revealed the existence of this type of entity, I would like to throw the discussion open to Ted and others to see if anyone is interested in persuing this topic further.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

csw for leave of absence

between helping my daughter move from Stanford to the City, various construction and real estate projects, and a host of other time sensitive activities, I'll be mainly just working for the next few days. I'll try to answer and reply after the tsunami passes.

 

[Ted]

between helping my daughter move from Stanford to the City, various construction and real estate projects, and a host of other time sensitive activities, I'll be mainly just working for the next few days. I'll try to answer and reply after the tsunami passes.

Okay. If your leave extends for more than the few days as suggested above, you will have to replace yourself.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Okay. If your leave extends for more than the few days as suggested above, you will have to replace yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6d03gbmAzc

 

[Leon]

I suggest you look at your history of posts and honestly look at what you write and do.

R

I'd be quite happy to do that. In the meantime let's look at yours.

First we have friendly open communication.

Then I comment on your Pasadena talk, saying that even though Hubbard had discovered your discovery back in 1951 and published it (and more) yet you did well in discovering it independently. Yopu partially answered this and then withdrew with the comm incomplete.

Next you told me you needed to work on an answer to some questions of mine. They deserved a thorough answer, you said. Howver no answer or reply was forthcoming so I chided you on it.

Nest you were too busy to reply to things from me, much too busy with far more important things than the little game I was playing in life. However this intense business did not stop you from posting to others all over the chatroom and replying to them.

Next you proceeded to just ignore me.

Next you attacked me personally saying I did not deserve any answers from you, you were comtributing to the group by posting what you did and why should you be dragged into a conversation with me. (words to that effect)

Next - and this really amazed me) - yesterday morning (my time) there was a post from you saying that did not owe anyone a reply for anything! Your posts were your posts and anyone who didn't agree with them could . . (not in yor words but the meaning is clear) . . could go and get stuffed.


Now, Roger, I don't think I am the only one who sees a dwindling spiral at work here. Just where were you planning to go to next?