What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
A good post, CO. And a correct post.

There are lots of nuances on this issue/subject, and as usual one often does not get to them all in one post as I did not in mine on this topic.

What you note above as the "procedure" used by the processor to "give" clients their items is such crazy shit as to be almost unbelievable.

Though I did have to repair my friend/client on just this kind of crap run on him when at the ranch a year of two ago (not by EW).

I remember the period in the '90's we had an exchange on the old Kn list forerunner to the Prosperity List to do with folks having difficulty listing for and getting their correct negative Code item.

When I did mine, my observation was that it spanned a spectrum of the mood scale and that it did change expression as it manifested at different levels on the scale. . . . hey what's new? We ourselves change expression as we change mood:D

As I noted at the time we discoursed on the subject, one of the things behind many who questioned or went into doubt on the rightness of their negative (or even positive) Code, did so due to having gotten as their item only a single mood expression of it versus getting the core ultimate expression of it that spanned the spectrum. And only getting one expression of it of course triggered all the rest of the mood spectrum expressions of it.

Alan was very much in agreement with this analysis . . . I even think it came to him as a little bit of a cog.

And this phenomenon caused folks to go into a "what's wrong" mode on their items.

In actuality, looking at it now, I'd say it is not so much a "wrong item" as an "incompletely expressed" item.

So it is interesting now to be looking at what the hell went on.

I know the items you were originally correcting (some at least) were Codes items. These recent ones with folks being "given/told" their items . . . were they Codes items? or simply other listed for items?

R

The most recent was a repair of an out list regarding "game of life" NOT CODE per se. However, as all really charged items have the codes as a basic on the chain (in a manner of speaking), there is / was a tinge of that relationship.

The outness, in broad daylight, was Eric's inability to let the PC look fully, to ITSA fully, and to resolve on their own. Eric flatly dismissed doing those actions. The item, in Eric's mind, was handled. I was told the session, that I corrected, took place nearly a decade ago.

I have no correct data or rumor regarding Eric's current competence.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Rog,

You are one the main reasons I started posting on this thread.:coolwink:

You truly give gifts that are very well worth receiving. I have been working my way through the “Oh God” thread. Your posts there, here, elsewhere are a tremendous record of diligence, pragmatism and discovery that will go forward in time and are invaluable contributions to the growing composite of knowledge, wisdom and practical techniques.:yes:

You are one of a very small number of folks that I would trust completely as a processor—Ted and Carmelo are on that list, also. I say this not because others are “bad”…I say this because I know I would be perfectly duplicated and that my complete “craziness” would not baffle or frustrate yall too much. :D I say this because I know you guys know what you are doing and, most importantly, do it for the right reasons from the Heart.:thumbsup:

“The unexamined life is not worth living. Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for.” Socrates

Thank you, Rog, for examining and sharing.:hattip:

Love to have those beers together someday.:happydance:

Face:)


Thank you!

As for the Socrates quote, it goes right along with the "Ideas Having Sex" talk. I take it that Socrates was advocating "sex" with many partners. Certainly a different idea than One-Way Ron who wanted to be the biggest bugger on the block.
 
I said to her, "I am not an E.D. type person, I am supposed to work as the back up to the E.D." "I would never be Simon Bolivar but I WOULD BE one of Simon Bolivars top aides!" I resent the fact that my Dad dumped his hat on me and now I am the E.D. (Executive Director) of his friggin stupid construction company and I am not suited for this job, I should be doing something else! She said that my TA was floating and we would be ending off. As I stood up and walked back to the waiting room, my entire space had shifted and I was looking at things from a different angle, a different perspective.

I was puzzled because it was such a big win and yet it led me to be a smaller being and avoid being an Executive Director. I longed for my comfort zone, where I could be a top advisor to the Big Honcho who was runing the show. [/COLOR]I have never been able to secure this type of job in this life.

Sorry, Lakey, I'm gonna do a fundamental violation and evaluate for you, but then I'm not your auditor. :coolwink:

The consideration that "it led me to be a smaller being" is a self invalidation. It stems from the tendency to evaluate self in terms of an adopted IDENTITY and in terms of internalized expectations. It is also a "ser fac". It is a very very common "ser fac". Mothers typically want their daughters to marry doctors & millionaires, not busboys or artists. :)

The fact is that which makes you a "bigger being" is creating that which is of interest to YOU, not that for which you gain another's approval. We get trained to fulfill other's expectations, and not to "let others down". This conflict of motivations is something we all recognize and yet we all have varying degrees of difficulty realizing it in our own lives. :coolwink:

What CO & Roger have been discussing recently on this thread goes right to the heart of this issue of "self vs identity". Hope their comments help.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thank you!

As for the Socrates quote, it goes right along with the "Ideas Having Sex" talk. I take it that Socrates was advocating "sex" with many partners. Certainly a different idea than One-Way Ron who wanted to be the biggest bugger on the block.

Yep.:thumbsup:

IMO, Hisself wanted to be the only bugger on the block.:yes:

Face:)
 
Thanks. I nearly didn't come back. Who needs abuse for gifts given? Who needs to be lied about?
:omg:

Roger, please keep in mind there are many of us out here who find your commentary utterly invaluable. We don't necessarily chime in on every post but I can assure you a fair few are playing close attention to your perspectives on tech issues.

The board contains all types. As you are well aware, quite a few have their own personal agendas. Please, if you find that the noise level gets to be too distractive just put the sources of that noise on "ignore" and keep on keeping on. Really.


Mark A. Baker :)
 

RogerB

Crusader
OK . . . as I was completing my last post I got a phone call from my book distributor asking me to a meeting at 4:30pm. Had to drop "everything" to deal with that traffic and head off . . . . .

More later.

Thanks for the appreciation and ack Face! Nicely put, and well received.

Rog
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
:omg:

Roger, please keep in mind there are many of us out here who find your commentary utterly invaluable. We don't necessarily chime in on every post but I can assure you a fair few are playing close attention to your perspectives on tech issues.

The board contains all types. As you are well aware, quite a few have their own personal agendas. Please, if you find that the noise level gets to be too distractive just put the sources of that noise on "ignore" and keep on keeping on. Really.


Mark A. Baker :)


Prezackly so.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
However, there is a nuance here that I would introduce.

As CarmelO has rightly noted, and often, the lead auditor for Alan (Eric W) produced a lot of "out lists." There is a probable reason for this.

In my view, it occurred because the folks who ended up with "out lists" were hung up in the LRH/Scn notion that one had to/should get the most right, truthful, and ultimate item of your existence on the subject being listed. And that, of course, is a tall order. A very tall order.

A more truthful and workable approach to resolving one's case is to recognize that there are quite a number of "right items" to a listing question such as, "What game are you playing?"

The key to it is to recognize the right items . . . note the plural. Don't limit yourself.

Yes, that's been one of my issues with the listing process for years. Very often we'd run with my largest item and leave the charge on the others. Then one of those would kick in, and I'd wind up in session, but by the time the question was asked in session, some other list item would read the most.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

It always struck me that we should run the ones I expressed an interest in running in addition to the one that read the most.

Granted, sometimes one would just come up with silly answers that may have no real charge on them. I think I once said an orange was suppressing me. :)
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Yesterday, I took my Toyota truck apart, to fix a bad water pump, I got to the point where I have to take the timing belt off to get to the water pump. I left it there. I'm going to have to go to the library today to find out everything I need to know about the timing belt. There is so much more knowledge needed these days to do "simple" repairs. Things were a lot less complex when I was growing up. The same laws of physics apply. The applications have just become more complex.

Indeed! On my trip to India I fixed the rusted out gearbox sub frame by
" sewing" it back with coat hanger wire to the floorpan. :) Got us from
Istanbul to Kabul. And was still going strong. Older cars had the timing belt
inside the engine and it was a chain. Very rugged. I believe the last car to use that system is the Nissan Micra of the previous generation. And possibly
the latest. Making sure the timing belt is in the right place is a far more intellectual exercise than my previous neanderthal meanderings! But
back in the day you just had to take off the fan belt change the pump and bobs your uncle.
 
Granted, sometimes one would just come up with silly answers that may have no real charge on them. I think I once said an orange was suppressing me. :)

Thetanic Dahlink, I think if you reflect upon that answer "in a new unit of time", so to speak, you may find that that answer wasn't perhaps quite as silly as it seemed at the time of your first viewing. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker :)
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks for the kind thoughts but....

Sorry, Lakey, I'm gonna do a fundamental violation and evaluate for you, but then I'm not your auditor. :coolwink:

The consideration that "it led me to be a smaller being" is a self invalidation. It stems from the tendency to evaluate self in terms of an adopted IDENTITY and in terms of internalized expectations. It is also a "ser fac". It is a very very common "ser fac". Mothers typically want their daughters to marry doctors & millionaires, not busboys or artists. :)

The fact is that which makes you a "bigger being" is creating that which is of interest to YOU, not that for which you gain another's approval. We get trained to fulfill other's expectations, and not to "let others down". This conflict of motivations is something we all recognize and yet we all have varying degrees of difficulty realizing it in our own lives. :coolwink:

What CO & Roger have been discussing recently on this thread goes right to the heart of this issue of "self vs identity". Hope their comments help.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks for your concern and kind thoughts but I am not getting the gist of your post. The only thing I can make out of it is that you are suggesting that being an advisor to an Executive Director is just as important as being the E.D. and that I am coloring it based on my cultural background that the E.D. is a higher level post in society and the E.D.'s advisor, even his or her Chief advisor. If this is what your saying, then it is a valid concept but I do not agree with it. To me, the E.D. has to have a big Ethics presence and a lot of charisma and using those tools, the E.D. gets people to follow him.

Even the most skilled of E.D. advisors confront mainly ideas, data and symbols and are good thinkers and analyzers which can be very valuable but they usually do not have the Ethics presence and charisma required to lead people and get people to follow them. I consider the skill of leading people senior to the skill of analyzing facts and figures. Just my opinion.

As far as a connection to a service fac, I do not see any connection to any service fac whatsoever, again just my opinion. Thanks for trying to help me out!
Lakey
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Your advice to get the rightest item available then work with that is a very workable solution. The LRH solution of repair, making the tech right, fixed, and inflexible, while making both pc and auditor wrong, is not the best of solutions. Here I am thinking of the LRH brag about a Class 12 being able to assess a list getting reads where an auditor from a lower org got none. Well that might be the auditor's fault, it might also be due to the changed context of the pc's life and auditing environment.

The man said it was a workable system not a perfect one. I believe this is correct. he spent 40 or so years trying to improve it. He tried to create something where the man in the street could process anyone. With much success. This is a very noble goal.

Is it possible ? Dunno. Its workable though.

I know a class VI psychologist who has pointed out that all mainstream
therapists don't worry about word clearing. Its up to them to
communicate correctly with clients.

Well all thinkers stand on others shoulders. Hubbard was one on whose shoulders many have stood. despite his short comings.

He pointed out new directions?

I primarily promote standard tech. But have a very liberal stance.

I know personally that Carmello and Ted have achieved..... Well. At least
in the direction of miracles. Others, Roger for example, I don't have any data.

Well! He trained me to be an FSM. Still doing it sort of. :)
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Carmelo's post seemed to move the thread to hyperdrive.

Carmelo's post sparked an avalanche of discussion. He knows it, he just called me. He is pretty hyped up about it and also about oiur thread in general. Carmelo remarked that we are in a hyperdrive type Power condition. I fully agree.

Carmelo's posts brought responses from Ted, Face, Fo Ti and others and then Roger came back on to the board.

I was not worried about Roger leaving us. I know he is extremely busy and when all is said and done there are only two guys on our thread who have disagreements with him, dozens of us love Roger. To abandon the thread because of two guys disagreeing with him, I did not believe that was Roger's style.

As for those two guys, they are both more than welcome to post here from my perspective but they have not been around for a few days either and I recall Vinaire invited Leon to dialogue with him over on Vinaire's thread so maybe they are over there having a dialogue, I don't know!

In the meantime, I am going to stand back and read the hot and heavy action which Carmelo touched off and which has been so enthusiastically discussed by so many of our thread readers and posters. Carmelo and I both have no idea where the storm of interest in this topic will lead us but we will see where it goes!!!

Before signing off, I just checked our status. We have severn members currently reading our thread along with 5 guests or a total of twelve and for all the "Inside Scientology Stories" combined there are 19 people reading them. 12 out of 19 is 63.2% so nearly 2 of 3 readers reading the inside stories on ESMB are reading our thread. That is pretty amazing!!
Lakey
 
John Mace on making your dreams come true

MAKING YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE.

Probably everyone knows someone or at least knows of someone who always seems to get whatever they put their mind to. What ever they aim for seems to materialize. Sometimes they do not even appear to have had to work very hard to achieve it.

A good example is of people who start a business which just seems to flourish.

The other side of the coin is the case of others starting the same type
of business but finding themselves in bankruptcy, or at best, just walking away from their endeavor to look for employment.

There are of course such things as natural business acumen, and that is
extremely important, but the words themselves are a big generality. Large prosperous organizations are operating in the field of how to be successful in business and many books have been written on the subject, so I will only discuss what is probably the basis of Business Acumen.

Any business, be it a large international conglomerate or the smallest one man show, operates in three basic areas; Selling, Producing and Administration. They must be financed and operated in that order. No matter how many branches and subdivisions are created in large organizations, they all come under the umbrella of one of the above three
categories.

The most important of these is Selling, followed by Producing, with Administration a poor third. You are heading for disaster if you invest heavily in Administration before you produce anything, never mind having sold anything. The biggest and flushest office with new furniture and equipment is the last thing you start with. As for production you should only produce enough to demonstrate your abilities. The primary requirement is customers which entails selling.

The great majority of new businesses that fail, and most small businesses do fail, do so because they break this fundamental and natural law.

A classic example of applying this natural law is provided by Dick Smith the Australian businessman. On his web page, he almost offhandedly describes how he started out his food enterprise. It follows the above criteria to the letter. He was already a wealthy man and could have started out with a grand office complete with all the trimmings, but he did not, he did the opposite and before even that, he obviously did his research. It is no stroke of luck that he is a wealthy and successful businessman.

I mention the above to let it be known that I am aware of the practical side of success, but although it is important, there is more to becoming successful than acumen, for the word acumen does not always provide all the answers, nor does luck In my opinion there is no such thing as good luck. Good luck is being at the right place, at the right time, meeting the right people and making the right decisions. All of this depends entirely upon YOU.

Acumen and so called good luck, is only a part of the scenario and is not what I started out to discuss, but it had to be discussed to obviate it being raised as an argument against what I am about to put forward. I will therefore get back on track and reiterate that we are all Spiritual Beings. This is stated from a totally secular viewpoint.

Spiritual Beings are omnipotent, all powerful. That great mathematician and scientist, Einstein, is credited with stating that as a general rule, we only use 10 % of our abilities. Well I disagree, for we use all our abilities and energy, but most of it is used to shoot ourselves in the foot!

Anything a Being decides to do or to have will materialize unless there is overwhelming opposition. On the battlefield, a company of ten men, lead by an intrepid and powerful leader will be heading for disaster if they attack a powerful and well prepared army group of ten thousand enemy.

That may seem a ridiculous example, but it is not, for this is the equivalent degree of opposition which most mortals experience everyday and why there are more poor than rich people. What is very important about the opposition is that it is entirely from within ourselves. We are our own worst enemies.

In my book, “How to Turn Upsets into Energy” there is reference to Affirmations which are used to turn some negative aspect of life into a positive aspect. For example, if a person is unhappy they have to keep affirming that they are happy. What this indicates is that buried in the person's psyche is this unknown source of the unhappiness which the affirmation is attempting to override.

This universe and each and everyone of us is a complex mixture of positives and negatives. Electricity is a classic example of the existence of both positive and negative terminals, in fact it is this factor which is used to generate and utilize electricity.

It is the existence of the negatives within us that cause so many of our dreams to not materialize. When we wish for something, we are saying "I would like that." Rather than saying, " I am going to have that!" A vast difference in attitude is indicated by those two sayings and the difference is created by the underlying negatives and their various strengths.

I want to introduce a concept here and it is this. REAL strength and success comes from certainty but weakness and failure comes from uncertainty. Uncertainty is usually followed by EFFORT, and that is a sure sign that there is a prior negative or counter intention in existence. It goes like this; Dream - decision counter decision triggered effort effort effort. Once effort has been introduced the chances of the dream materializing is problematical. The natural state of things for a powerful spiritual being is, Dream - decision - dream materializing as reality.

The very fact that “effort” has to be used, indicates with absolute certainty that a negative or counter intention is already in place. It is very subtle, but as soon as a person makes a positive decision, negative decisions gets triggered if they exist. The negative decision must have been in place before the positive decision was made, if efforting takes place.

Decisions that are made with absolute certainty will materialize, but the trick is for them to be made with absolute certainty - without a counter decision being introduced.

The supremely optimistic individual is the one who's wishes materialize, but so too do the negative thoughts of the pessimist. Pessimism and optimism can be fleeting or permanent states of mind and their effects are felt accordingly.

What has become obvious is that the earlier decision, the first decision, is the one which takes precedence, so this has to be located and discreated. Positive or pro survival decisions are normal and natural, so it is only the negative decisions which need searching out.

Here are two examples from my own life, but I could relate many more.

Quite some years ago I applied for a position which I really wanted and I had a lot of attention on my application being successful - I was efforting. At the same time I developed a body complaint which had me really worried and pessimistic about my long term health. The doctor I visited organized a battery of tests, after which, with a smile on his face he informed me that I had absolutely nothing to worry about in the long term. There was nothing physically wrong.

This doctor was a fascinating guy, unfortunately now dead, for after telling me that there was no physical reason for my bodily pains, he told me to lie down on his table. He then proceeded to use a kind of "laying on of the hands" which I now realize is very reminiscent of the Chinese healing art of Gi-gong. What he did, was to put my attention on various areas of my body, which as a result of his method, saw their associated negative energy ridges dissipate. I would love to be able to tell him of my own work in this area, but apart from that, very quickly two things happened; firstly there was a gradual lessening of bodily discomfort, but secondly and importantly I found myself exterior to my body, enjoying the bliss often accompanied by this state. Then literally out of no-where, I found myself thinking quite calmly and matter-of factly, "I am going to get that job."

Next day the phone rang and a company director making the call, apologized for the delay in responding to me after my interview and offered me the position. Before any reader starts thinking it, it was not a
coincidence. I do not believe in coincidences. Please do not read into this that the practice of Gi-Gong will cause a person to be exterior from their body I make no such claim. What happened to me was a combination of various circumstances which is not the import of what I relate and being out of my body is not an unusual circumstance for me.

So much for positive decisions.

Years before that happy event I was going through what can only be described as a personal domestic crisis. I wanted to expand my skills as a counselor, so enrolled on a course to do so, but among other things, the money and time involved only exacerbated the personal issues. In a moment of utter despair, in a vain attempt to resolve my problems I gave in and ceased my training. The issues did not resolve so I started a new life, but even so, two years later, my desire for more knowledge by way of more training had not materialized. Something always seemed to get in the road to stop me; I needed a holiday! I will start after Xmas! There was always a good reason to justify my attitude. I even got around to starting once, but did not continue! There was even a good reason of course as to why I did not continue!

To perhaps put my attitude into proper perspective and explain why my procrastination was so foreign to me, I should add here that the pursuit of knowledge has been of paramount importance to me all my life. As for procrastination, my present wife says, "You always want it yesterday!"

Then something remarkable happened. I met a supervisor from my original course who after expressing surprise at my failure to continue said, “When you said you had decided not to continue I thought it was only a temporary thing. I did not dream it was meant permanently."

I looked at her in amazement and then I was overcome with grief as the circumstances of my ill fated decision came back to me. I recalled saying
to a confidant in a moment of utter despair, " I will not train any more!" That decision had been buried in my psyche where it had been completely
forgotten since making it, but it had been sitting there like an hypnotic command, which I was powerless to overcome.

Having exposed the negative decision I was now free of it and I have never
stopped expanding my skills and researching since that moment, but cannot help but wonder what direction my life would have taken had it not been for that chance meeting. I certainly would not be writing this, nor would I have written my book, but then again, I do not believe in coincidences!

When I said, "I will not train anymore" it was said from despair and apathy with no thought as to the possibility of circumstances changing. In other words, nothing was even considered to qualify the decision, let alone counter it.

The same applies to the incident about the position I got; while in my doctor friend's rooms, there was not the slightest hint of doubt about me getting it. Negative thoughts were conspicuous by their absence.

What these two incidents have told me, in as equally as strong terms as many other similar but positive incidents have done, is that there are two circumstances when decisions will always eventuate; when a person is very down and when a person is very high. The trouble is when a person is down, the decisions are always negative, non survival, although exactly the opposite when the person is high.

To be realistic about this data it needs to be accepted that the above two states are the exception rather than the rule, but do serve to explain the mechanics of success or failure in life, and the struggle or ease with which we achieve our goals.

The less negatives which a person has buried away, the greater their chance of success in life.

Copyright. John Mace 21st May, 2000
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Slipstreamin'...

This thread is the place to be for sure... I feel kinda guilty for all the good stuff I'm getting as I "draft or slipstream" along behind the real champions on this thread. :yes::clap:

This definition comes to mind - the cooperative action here is palpable and, dare I say it....exciting! :clap::thumbsup:

EP

Drafting (aerodynamics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A paceline of drafting cyclists
Drafting or slipstreaming is a technique where two vehicles or objects align in a close group reducing the overall effect of drag due to exploiting the lead object's slipstream. Especially when high speeds are involved, drafting can significantly reduce the paceline's average energy expenditure required to maintain a certain speed and can also slightly reduce the energy expenditure of the lead vehicle or object.
Drafting is used to reduce wind resistance and is seen most commonly in bicycle racing, car racing, and speedskating, though drafting is occasionally used even in cross-country skiing and running. Some forms of triathlon allow drafting. Drafting occurs in swimming as well, both in open-water races (occurring in natural bodies of water) and in traditional races in competition pools. In a competition pool, a swimmer may hug the lane line that separates him/her from a swimmer of whom s/he is abaft, thereby taking advantage of the liquid slipstream in the other swimmer's wake.
In cycling, the main (largest) group of tightly packed cyclists in a race is called a peloton, where cyclists ride in a long formation, with each (but not the first rider) drafting behind the others before them.
When cyclists ride fast, they form a paceline. Each cyclist (but not the first) is drafting behind another one.


Belgian tourniquet (Belgischer Kreisel)
In order to ride very fast, a team of some skilled cyclists may form the Belgian tourniquet. Successively, each cyclist leads the group.
Drafting can be cooperative, in which several competitors take turns in the lead position (which requires the most effort and energy consumption). Or, it can be competitive or tactical, where one competitor will try to stay closely behind another leaving him or her more energy for a break-away push to the finish line.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Update right this moment 1:11 PM in California

RIght now, 10 members and 8 guest viewing our thread, a total of 18 out of 27 viewing all Inside Stories threads combined.
Lakey
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
The man said it was a workable system not a perfect one. I believe this is correct. he spent 40 or so years trying to improve it. He tried to create something where the man in the street could process anyone. With much success. This is a very noble goal.

Is it possible ? Dunno. Its workable though.

I know a class VI psychologist who has pointed out that all mainstream
therapists don't worry about word clearing. Its up to them to
communicate correctly with clients.

Well all thinkers stand on others shoulders. Hubbard was one on whose shoulders many have stood. despite his short comings.

He pointed out new directions?

I primarily promote standard tech. But have a very liberal stance.

I know personally that Carmello and Ted have achieved..... Well. At least
in the direction of miracles. Others, Roger for example, I don't have any data.

Well! He trained me to be an FSM. Still doing it sort of. :)


True, scientology is a workable system. Depends on whose hands it lies. Evidence abounds that scn has not worked for everyone. At least it did not work as promised. Like that ghostly fifth man in a barbershop quartet, whether it has worked or not, all involved are to blame, to one degree or another.

Having said that, I will add that you, Terril, are what LRH had described as the ideal Div 6'er. You just keep right on keeping on knowing or feeling no reason to do otherwise no matter what or how much trash someone throws at you. I wish I had one of you in my Mission or WISE company.

While I am wishing, I wish I was still running my groups sans upper management involvement, and I wish LRH wasn't a flake, ...

Okay that will do.
 
Thanks for your concern and kind thoughts but I am not getting the gist of your post. The only thing I can make out of it is that you are suggesting that being an advisor to an Executive Director is just as important as being the E.D. and that I am coloring it based on my cultural background that the E.D. is a higher level post in society and the E.D.'s advisor, even his or her Chief advisor. If this is what your saying, then it is a valid concept but I do not agree with it. To me, the E.D. has to have a big Ethics presence and a lot of charisma and using those tools, the E.D. gets people to follow him.

And the esteem you associate with that is your own consideration.

You are free to adopt or reject such considerations at will. You are also free to use such considerations as a means of self validation or invalidation as time & circumstance may suit you to do. :)

All "manners training" and other forms of social conditioning are efforts to achieve a "moral consensus" on "acceptable standards of behavior". Different activities generate different groups, which in turn have differing moralities, i.e. "acceptable standards of behavior". Math geeks run by different rules than do Young Republicans.

These differing rule sets often run afoul of one's own personal goals & interests as well as each other. See: The GPM. :)



Here's an imaginative exercise:

A. diagram how an individual having each of the identities of an islamist, a magician, a mother, a wife, a mexican citizen, a business owner, and a resident of Santa Monica could be seen to have these identities align with each other.

B. now diagram how the exact same items in the above could be in conflict with each other.

It shouldn't take much to see how easily the conflicts can interfere with the alignments.

Warning: as has been noted by CO & Roger working with one's own "actual items" can produce strong effects; emotional, philosophical, & physical. Hence my exercise suggests items which do not correspond to your own life.




As far as a connection to a service fac, I do not see any connection to any service fac whatsoever, again just my opinion. Thanks for trying to help me out!
Lakey

One good "formula" for identifying a service facsimile: that which is used to make yourself right by making another wrong.

What is often "missed" is that this can just as easily apply between different identities of the same being as it can between different beings. This can open up whole new & different vistas of: how have you made yourself right, how have you made yourself wrong.

Example: the "mother" makes the "doctor" wrong for not spending more time with her family, whereas the "doctor" makes the "mother" wrong for not devoting enough time to her career.

Result: energy wasted in continual self-recrimination which could have been used for other creative activity.

Have you ever known a person who continually denigrated his own accomplishments? :)


Mark A. Baker
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
And the esteem you associate with that is your own consideration.

You are free to adopt or reject such considerations at will. You are also free to use such considerations as a means of self validation or invalidation as time & circumstance may suit you to do. :)

All "manners training" and other forms of social conditioning are efforts to achieve a "moral consensus" on "acceptable standards of behavior". Different activities generate different groups, which in turn have differing moralities, i.e. "acceptable standards of behavior". Math geeks run by different rules than do Young Republicans.

These differing rule sets often run afoul of one's own personal goals & interests as well as each other. See: The GPM. :)



Here's an imaginative exercise:

A. diagram how an individual having each of the identities of an islamist, a magician, a mother, a wife, a mexican citizen, a business owner, and a resident of Santa Monica could be seen to have these identities align with each other.

B. now diagram how the exact same items in the above could be in conflict with each other.

It shouldn't take much to see how easily the conflicts can interfere with the alignments.

Warning: as has been noted by CO & Roger working with one's own "actual items" can produce strong effects; emotional, philosophical, & physical. Hence my exercise suggests items which do not correspond to your own life.






One good "formula" for identifying a service facsimile: that which is used to make yourself right by making another wrong.

What is often "missed" is that this can just as easily apply between different identities of the same being as it can between different beings. This can open up whole new & different vistas of: how have you made yourself right, how have you made yourself wrong.

Example: the "mother" makes the "doctor" wrong for not spending more time with her family, whereas the "doctor" makes the "mother" wrong for not devoting enough time to her career.

Result: energy wasted in continual self-recrimination which could have been used for other creative activity.

Have you ever known a person who continually denigrated his own accomplishments? :)


Mark A. Baker


Sure. We perfectionists do it all the time.

Like anything else that appears in the physical universe perfectionism has its upside and its downside.

I learned one thing about architecture and engineering that helps: The design and construction of the perfect building or bridge is within the designer's grasp. Finance and material resources limit how far the designer can reach. So he backs off his ideal and settles for what is workable and useful and affordable.

Same goes for processing/auditing. It is always possible to strive for the perfect session; it is not always possible to attain it. The pc/client has a different perspective: If his situation was addressed to his satisfaction that's all that matters.

A person can go into paralysis through analysis striving for too much perfection.
 

FoTi

Crusader
:omg:

Roger, please keep in mind there are many of us out here who find your commentary utterly invaluable. We don't necessarily chime in on every post but I can assure you a fair few are playing close attention to your perspectives on tech issues.

The board contains all types. As you are well aware, quite a few have their own personal agendas. Please, if you find that the noise level gets to be too distractive just put the sources of that noise on "ignore" and keep on keeping on. Really.


Mark A. Baker :)

Yes, Roger.....please don't leave us. I love to read your posts and I can see from the comments of others that you are much appreciated here. Please don't be blown off by a couple of others who have their own agenda. You are too valuable here. You have helped me a lot with your posts!!!

:bighug:

I so envy the posters here that have more knowledge and experience than I, and I am so glad that you are all willing to share your knowledge and experiences on this board. It is so helpful. It makes up for a lot of experiences in life that I never had and most likely would never have or know anything about without your putting your experiences here on ESMB. It's like gold to me. I wish I had more knowledge and experience to give back to you all here and contribute to the show, but I only have what I have and can't make it any more than it already is....sorry about that. But... I do love what you all have to share here and I'm grateful to all of you who do so. It certainly makes my life better. :yes:

:grouphug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top