What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

lkwdblds

Crusader
Mary was made a Saint by early Christians

If John McM was really at least stuck in the win of being JC, or someone similar around that time, he might also have been stuck in that culture - in which only men counted. If you wanted to have a serious emotional relationship, pretty much your only option was to have it with a man. Otherwise it would have been like having one with your dog.

Fortunately things are different nowadays.

Roland

Wasn't Mary very heavily venerated and made a saint by the early Christian church. She has been thought of with enough esteem to illustrate that the culture of JC's time is not a culture in which only men counted. Even in the Ten Commandments, one of the commandents is to "Honor thy Mother and thy Father". In Judaism, which is "that culture" which you are talking about and the culture to which Jesus belonged, women have always been honored and have never been considered on a par with dogs. There were gays in Biblical times and being gay was looked upon as a sin in the Bible. My point is that the guys who wrote the Bible did not rationalize by thinking, "Hey women are more like animals than humans, therefore it is normal for many men to seek out other men as their lovers." It seems to me that this is what you are implying and I don't know where you are coming up with this point of view.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
No. The point is there are no ties. There is nothing to which to be tied. You have a consideration about ties and you view your consideration as a problem for you.




It's no different than it would be were you talking with a fire-breathing Reaganite. You can avoid him. You can talk to him but evade talking about Reagan. You can talk to him about Reagan but only in ways which he can "have". You can talk to him any way you feel like about Reagan accepting the prospect that he won't be able to "have" all your viewpoints, i.e. "be responsible" for his agreement AND disagreement.

It's all a matter of: for what can YOU be responsible (a very powerful process).

The point is to realize that which ever approach YOU choose, is the approach YOU have CHOSEN. You are not responsible for other people's reactions. You are responsible for your own CHOICES and the INTENTION you have underlying those choices.

The power of choice is always yours. That is why you can't escape your responsibility for having chosen.

This ain't a popularity contest unless you choose to consider that it is one. Then it becomes one for YOU and you now have the problem of how to play your new game. :)

So I repeat, Hubbard is dead. He is no longer a part of any problem. :D


Mark A. Baker :)

"Hubbard is dead," is an old Scientology PR line used to shut down discussion about Hubbard, whose alter-ego lives on through his writings and through the Hubbard cult, both inside and outside the CofS.

Just more PR damage-control (tailored, by you, for the "public" at ESMB).

P.S. IMO, you are seriously "hinky." Recently, you endorsed a CofS sanctioned phony PR book, and attempted to steer someone, and his/her documents, toward a CofS flunky "scholar."
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
The first sentence in your post is completely sesnseless!

This second "issue" has been "solved" for you. Hubbard's dead. He is simply no longer relevant to the process of moving forward.
..........<Snip>.....................

Mark A. Baker

I agree with what Veda has said regarding your post above and would like to add my own comments to it below.

Your first sentence above has got to rank as one of the stupidest comments I have ever read. You state that "He is simply no longer relevant to the process of moving forward.

The entire Web Site of ESMB is entirely based on the fact that despite his being dead he IS still relevant to the process of moving forward and this includes probably many if not all of your own posts written here. Obviously, if you were correct and Hubbard is simply no longer relevant to the process of moving forward, then ESMB would never have come into existence. Not only ESMB but dozens of other websites having to do with Hubbard and Scientology would also not exist because the man is now dead and is thus no longer relevant to the process of moving forward.

Taking your concept to the absurd, lets say that Hubbard is in a hospital and is still alive, then according to your thought, he is still relevant to the process of moving forward, then Hubbard's vital signs go flat and he is pronounced dead and then, per your criteria, he is simply no longer relevant to the process of moving forward. But. hold on a second, a doctor massages Hubbard's heart and then applies a defibrilator and Hubbard comes back to life and now lo and behold he is again relevant to the process of moving forward.

A person who has issues with Hubbard is allowed to look through a glass window in the door of the room where Hubbard is being treated but can't hear anything or view the instruments showing Hubbard's vital signs. All the person sees is Hubbard lying on a table unconscious and being worked on by hospital staff. What you are saying is that Hubbard was first relevant to the person's process of moving forward, then Hubbard becomes not relevant and then changes back to being relevant again when actually throughout the whole treatment, Hubbard's relevance to the person having issues with him never changes. Your concept that his death changes his relevance to a persons' moving forward is shown to be completely absurd. You seem to be on some kick now where you are picking phrases out of my posts, and then choosing to evaluate for me and belittling my train of thought. You then proceed to pedanticly correct me as if I was an infant and you were teaching me my ABC's. When I try and explain to you in earnest, that I am not looking at things from the same viewpoint as you then you won't let it pass but you seem to insist on originating some very complex constructs to pedantically illustrate to me the error of my ways. These types of comments of yours are unpredictable as to where and when they occur but they are happening more and more frequently lately.

I can't stop you from posting here but I am telling you that from now on, I am not going to repond to these evaluations and invalidations which you are heaping on me. So far, in the last three incidences, I have not found anything of value in your critiques which makes any sort of sense to me so I will not be wasting any more time reading or responding to them. I agree with Veda that you are acting hinky.

Acting suspiciously; strange, unusual; acting in a manner as if having something to hide, or seemingly crooked; Suspicious (of something ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hinky - Definition in context

Lakey
 
Last edited:

RogerB

Crusader
The issue, Lakey my friend, is not where or what Hubbard is or was . . . it is what you created yourself to be based on your contact with him and/or his materials. (And one must realize that one made contact with him by joining his organization regardless of whether one actually met him in the flesh or not. For example, I never met him in the flesh.)

It is your own thoughts that trap you the most.

And it is by undoing old now inapplicable thoughts that one now gets free.

Rog
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
This second "issue" has been "solved" for you. Hubbard's dead. He is simply no longer relevant to the process of moving forward.

Any useful ideas or materials associated with him are useful in themselves, not in their relationship to him. They retain that usefulness. Similarly with those people who remain "fixated" on Hubbard, either "pro" or "con". Their individual "fixations" possess no particular value, either to themselves or others.

Examining what is available for utility to one's self has always been the intelligent way to proceed. What is valuable in this proceeding is the data itself. Those who claim authorship become useful as "tags" for organizing or arranging such data, but are not relevant to whether the data so organized is itself useful.

Everyone contributes. That needs to be respected. Not all contributions are necessarily helpful to a given individual facing a specific set of circumstances. Nor can any be completely discounted. Even a "suppressive environment" can prove to have been a valuable learning experience. The horror of the Holocaust lives on in contemporary culture as a warning to complacency over such another destructive excess.


Mark A. Baker

Your argument is flimsy. You cannot separate the material from the man. Even those who wish to develop the "tech" must consider Hubbard as relevant if they are not to repeat the same mistakes. Yes, Hubbard is dead and his physicality is not relevant, but his legacy is and has particular value.

I note that your first paragraph contradicts the last. Hitler is dead but serves as a personification of the Evil which lead to the Holocaust. A detailed examination of Hitler's life, motivations, and actions provides a central theme from which all branches including politics, economics, eugenics, propaganda, and so on can be properly explored without losing sight of the big picture as to how it all happened. Although Hitler is dead now, just the mention of his name is sufficient to evoke the memories of, and the lessons to be learned from, that period of human evolution and to do what we can to avoid the same situation as we move forward.

And the same applies for the name L Ron Hubbard, except that while there are a few independent groupings of Nazis, there is no officially recognised body of them, yet Hubbard's "church" lives on. The battle isn't over and for so long as the CoS exists, Hubbard is hugely relevant to the process of moving forward in that regard. Like it or not, true or false, and from a marketing point of view, Hubbard is an easy-to-use poster-boy for warning people away from UFO cults and shaping public opinion. As far as I am aware, no one has yet burnt Hubbard's effigy and I would hate to see that happen. Perhaps what you see as a "fixation" on Hubbard is really only the use of his legacy as a handy means to commence communication with others about a difficult to understand subject. Hubbard is just a vector for leveraging awareness. So, while some continue to literally sing his praises, don't conflate their fervent idolatry with those who are simply using his example to warn others.

So far as examining what is available for utility, the bulk of the material can be sifted according to what was going on for Hubbard at the time. This antipathy for psychiatry/psychology, for example, could be eliminated when Hubbard's experiences after WWII and then again when Dianetics was haughtily dismissed in 1953 are examined. How would an examination of the utilitarian aspects of the material in relation to children and family dynamics stand up in light of Hubbard's own personal practises in this area, what about education, health, and mental ability? Reliable sources allege he was injecting cocaine throughout the period he gave the Philadelphia lectures, confirming or being able to definitively rule that out might help sort of wheat from the chaff, or are are the claimants genuine SPs, in which case, what was going on for Hubbard when he invented that term? The list goes on. I suspect there wouldn't be much Scientology left after such a data-gathering process and maybe this is why some people would rather leave Hubbard out of the equation when picking and choosing applicable bits and pieces.

Also, isn't there something in Scientology about how, if the foundations of an idea contain an error, everything that is built upon them is also in error?
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
This antipathy for psychiatry/psychology, for example, could be eliminated when Hubbard's experiences after WWII and then again when Dianetics was haughtily dismissed in 1953 are examined.

Also, isn't there something in Scientology about how, if the foundations of an idea contain an error, everything that is built upon them is also in error?

Good points Blip and well explained. I only snipped a small section above that I wanted to comment on.

I'm not so sure that psychiatry "haughtily dismissed" Dianetics. So far for me, the story that best explains what happened is written up in Russell Miller's book. It seems that the psychs WERE honestly interested and tried Dianetics out, quite a lot. It was the failure to make Clears that sunk the dianetics ship. "Fortunately" :omg: for Hubbard, he came up with Scientology as a replacement.

Am I wrong?
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Well, there is a first time for everything

The issue, Lakey my friend, is not where or what Hubbard is or was . . . it is what you created yourself to be based on your contact with him and/or his materials. (And one must realize that one made contact with him by joining his organization regardless of whether one actually met him in the flesh or not. For example, I never met him in the flesh.)

It is your own thoughts that trap you the most.

And it is by undoing old now inapplicable thoughts that one now gets free.

Rog

Before my reply to Rog, I just want to acknowledge Blip for what I consider a very fine post!

Rog, there is a first time for everythign. This is the first time I do not agree with an important part of one of your posts. It took me a lot of time to wade through MAB's last post but after all the evaluations and invalidations of me and trying to understand a very complex text, I finally did figure out what he was saying which is similar to your first paragraph above.

I still rejected his post and tend to view the issue as Veda views it in his post above. I made a personal statement about my own life by saying that I would like to cut all ties with Hubbard but I can not do so because of Hubbard's writings containing some elements, both in Tech and in Management, which many, including myself, find benifical. As a result of this, I can not jettison all of Hubbard's teachings and have to continually sort out what is good from what is evil. THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING! I stand by this statement. It is just the way I feel so it is true for me right at this time. I should not be evaluated for and be pedantically schooled or lectured into some other way of feeling. I am allowed to state how I feel without being criticized or attacked.

Rog, your post is very different from MAB's You present a piece of tech in your opening paragraph and then embellish that with two follow up statements. My reaction is positive, I am refreshed and renewed and review things in my mind to see if perhaps I am making a mistake. You are getting me to look. It is a positive experience. MAB's posts are not like that. They are very complex and make no mistake about it, there is an intent in them to not only evaluate for me, which he freely admits but also to invalidate me. When I read his critical posts I tend to spin out, have bad physical reactions, feel caved in, etc.

Perhaps he is just not as skilled as you in trying to get someone to look or perhaps he is doing something hinky. I do not know which it is at this point but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Just three days ago, I wrote of a major cognition which I had on the Disagreement Rundown in 1993. The cog was that I am not cut out to be the E.D. of a group but rather do best as a close confidant and technical advisor to the E.D. I related to the board that I first felt great about this cognition but then later began to think it was not the full E.P. which I needed to get because in a way I was a postuling that I did not have what it takes to be an E.D. and I did not want to do that.

Enters MAB and he states that I am dramatizing a Service Facsimile. I patiently explain to him how I feel about it and that I don't see any area of this cognition where I am trying to make myself right and make others wrong. Instead of just acking me, MAB states that it is definitely a Service Fac and by not owning up to it, I am dramatizing the service fac even stronger and what is more it shows PTSness and I don't necessarily have to be PTS to someone else but I may be PTS to one of my own "entities." He then recommends some processes and some sources I can read up on and perhaps handle my PTSness and Service Fac on my own.

NOW I ASK YOU, WHAT THE HECK IS MAB DOING? To me this is definitely hinky. He has never stated what his case state is or his training level is that I know of. Even if he is Class VIII, he would not have the right technically to pull this stunt and make this evaluation for me. Notice that he did not PM me but rather put this material out on our open Forum. His posts tend to discredit me before the members of this thread! If he was really trying to help me, he should have PM'ed.

FINALLY ROG, I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE LAST TWO SENTENCES OF YOUR POST.

It is your thoughts that trap you the most. I fully agree.

and it is by undoing now unapplicable thoughts that one gets free!

I also fully agree and believe I have been the "poster boy" to prove this point. I arrived on ESMB in February of last year, fully believing that LRH was a saint, that all the original LRH tech was valid and definitive and that all the ills of the C of S were caused by DM. I have jettisoned scores of unapplicable thoughts, all which have acted to free me. I have had enormous wins and blow downs along the away. My only disagreement with your post is that I still feel that at this point I still have some ties to Hubbard. This is how I feel. I may feel that way for unoptimum reasons and maybe need to dig deeper to find out why I feel that way, etc. but that is another topic for another day. Today I just feel that I still have some ties to Hubbard despite what MAB thinks about it and sad to say, even if you disagree with me.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Beach Towns

America's Best Little Beach Towns
For travelers seeking casual retreats for sand and surf, these uncrowded and unpretentious spots from Florida to Hawaii make ideal (and affordable) trips.
By Tom Austin


In the free and easy days of summer, the quest for a great American beach town like Boca Grande, Fla., is a national passion. Beach towns are a mainstay of the hot months, a beacon for countless citizens looking for a reprieve from the daily grind. The Great American beach town, apart from being idle as all get out, is also resolutely democratic, conscious that the sand belongs to all. These spots serve as emblems of our God-given right to get too much sun and to eat tasty—if nutritionally unfortunate—fried food.

So get that beach chair and cooler ready—and prepare for the simple pleasures of summer at one of these classic retreats.

Rockport, TX
This is nature Texas-style, big and ready to roll, with an enormous flock of whooping cranes in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, stunning beaches along nearby Matagorda Island, and a 1,000-year-old oak known simply as “the Big Tree.”

Stay: A funky little place with classic beach lodgings, the Fulton Beach Bungalows overlook Aransas Bay.

Eat: Steve Lew’s BBQ Kitchen will take you way down home, with pulled pork and Texas-style sausage.


Chincoteague, VA

This small, serene island just off the Virginia coast is the gateway to the 37-mile-long Assateague Island National Seashore—a nature refuge that’s home to wild ponies, herons, woodpeckers, and foxes. It’s accessible to boaters and via car over the Route 175 bridge.

Stay: A Victorian-era home has been turned into Miss Molly’s Inn, a seven-room B&B that offers high tea in the afternoons.

Eat: The Seashell Café is a welcome destination after a long day on the beach. Fill up on clam chowder and platters of fried Atlantic shrimp and Chincoteague oysters.


Lubec, ME

Lubec is all the way Down East, right near the border with New Brunswick, Canada. Its assets include an elegant Victorian/Greek Revival–style downtown, 97 miles of shoreline, two lighthouses, and easy access to the former Roosevelt summer home on Campobello Island, which is now an international park.

Stay: The Peacock House Bed & Breakfast, installed in an 1860 Federal-style residence, has ocean views, an eclectic library, and manicured gardens.

Eat: Drop by Annabell’s Pub for informal fare like fish chowder and a genuine, breezy Maine ambience.


Gearhart, OR

With its antiques shops and picturesque hiking trails, Gearhart—just north of the renowned, more-bustling Cannon Beach—is an in-the-know haven for Portland hipsters like Paige Powell and Gus Van Sant. In the evenings, people drive onto the hard-packed sand for wine and stargazing parties.

Stay: The 12 attached cottages of the Gearhart Ocean Inn, constructed in 1941, are an easy walk to the beach, and the owners will furnish a “clam gun” for scooping up clams from the sand.

Eat: The nicely refined Pacific Way Bakery & Café serves top-notch muffins and coffee in the morning, and later a menu that includes bay shrimp, designer pizzas, and flawless crab cakes.


Santa Cruz, CA

Thrill-seekers flock to the Giant Dipper roller coaster at the Beach Boardwalk amusement park, but Santa Cruz has a surfeit of other attractions: Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park, surfers at Pleasure Point (and the Santa Cruz Surfing Museum), and frolicsome seals at Natural Bridges State Beach.

Stay: At the Casablanca Inn, most rooms have ocean views (and a handful have fireplaces, for when those NoCal nights get chilly). The restaurant looks out on the awesome expanse of the Pacific.

Eat: Center Street Grill is the go-to restaurant for salads, pastas, homemade hollandaise sauce, ahi tuna, and freshly squeezed lemonade and orange juice on the outdoor patio.


Sunset Beach, HI

Sunset Beach is the world capital of surfing, but in summer, all the wave-riding frenzy ebbs, and this town on the North Shore of Oahu becomes resolutely and wonderfully idle.

Stay: The oceanfront Ke Iki Beach Bungalows, a quick drive from the commercial district along the Kamehameha Highway, are all about easy atmosphere, to the sounds of the North Shore’s endless surf.

Eat: Ted’s Bakery, down the road from the mythical Pipeline, is a casual center of surfer life known for bento-box lunches, garlic shrimp, and mahimahi sandwiches. Finish it off with a slice of decadent Haupia chocolate pie.


Rehoboth, DE

An all-American classic—saltwater taffy and ice cream on the boardwalk, days of baking in the sun on Dewey Beach—with a lively art gallery scene and such august institutions as the Biggs Museum of American Art. In the evenings, visitors dance at places like the Rusty Rudder or Shag, or just stroll the boardwalk.

Stay: Opened last year, the Hotel Rehoboth, a plush boutique lodging, has a welcoming fireplace and a mod cottage-furnishings store off the lobby.

Eat: Eden, a high-end restaurant that often lives up to its name, features such dishes as a lobster and crab tower and pan-roasted Atlantic salmon.


Silver Lake Sand Dunes Area, MI

A beach staple of the Midwest, this strip along Lake Michigan—encompassing the towns of Hart, Mears, and Pentwater—has no shortage of massive sand dunes, beach buggies, and farmers’ markets along with over-the-top July 4th fireworks.

Stay: A simple affair overlooking the lake and a spread of sand, Dunes Waterfront Resort is not a bad way to get lost on a summer weekend.

Eat: That Place Restaurant, a 1950s and ‘60s theme joint with posters of James Dean and Elvis, is, well, the place to get a hamburger and shake.


Boca Grande, FL

This Edenic escape on the Gulf of Mexico is a real slice of Old Florida, with whimsically named streets such as Damnificare, a much-photographed lighthouse watching over Gasparilla Island State Park, and long, quiet beaches touched by gentle surf.

Stay: The Gasparilla Inn, a member of the Historic Hotels of America and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, is the classic resort and comes complete with a golf course. It’s closed during the hottest months, though; the best alternative is its sister property, the Innlet, which features a waterside restaurant and a relaxed vibe.

Eat: A funky Florida spot with character, Temptation—think murals of leaping tarpon and a neon martini sign—serves local grouper, pompano, and soft-shell crabs.


See more of America's Best Little Beach Towns

http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/americas-best-little-beach-towns/11
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
ESMB members & friends attend the Hollywood Bowl.

A group of 8 people went to the Hollywood Bowl last night to hear an all Mozart concert. We had Blue Spirit and his Wife, Song Bird who I met on Facebook, Johnny R., the "Magic Thetan" and a friend of his, Mary W. who I had met at the 4th of July party and who I believe is connected with Johnny R. and last but not least yours truly, along with Eddie, a non Scientology freind of mine, originally from Columbia.

We picnicked on the grounds prior to the start of the concert. Me and my friend Eddie arrived late due to all the traffic coming from Orange County and had just enough time to eat.

The concert had three pieces. The most exciting work was K 365 the concerto for two pianos and Orchestra written by Mozart to be performed by he and his Sister, Nannerl when he lived in Salzburg. For this occasions, the two pianists were the Lebeque Sisters, two beautiful women who wore gorgeous designer pant suite type garments, one in red and one in blue. They gave a world class reading of this great concerto. The closing piece was the Linz Symphony #36. Mozart, having just married visited his Father and Sister in Salzburg and on his way home to Vienna stopped in Linz to visit a Count who was a friend of his Father's. The Count had his own orchestra and wanted to put on a concert featuring a Mozart symphony. Mozart did not happen to bring the music for any of his symphonies with him in his travelling trunk but his host was going to donate the proceeds of the concert to Mozart, money which the recently married couple, Stanzi and Wolfi, could certaininly use.

Necessity is the Mother of invention and in only four days, Mozart wrote his Linz Symphony and had the parts for all the various instruments made up and the full score all ready to distribute to the musicians and ran them through rehearsal before the actual concert, which took place on November 4, 1783. Just think of that, a symphony with a slow introduction and 4 movements created from scratch, with all parts written out for every instrument and rehearsed all in four days from conception to its premiere performance. Its impossible but then Mozart did the impossible often.

Anyway, all 8 of us had a nice meal, good fellowship and saw a fantastic classical musical concert.

Here are the Lebeque Sisters playing Bach, just so you can see how good they are and how beautiful as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvIK5gVBmRk&feature=related

Lakey
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I'm not so sure that psychiatry "haughtily dismissed" Dianetics. ( . . . snip . . . ) Am I wrong?

Albeit mild, there was some initial interest from psychiatry/psychology. However, as early as 1950 the American Psychological Association passed a resolution stating: "the fact that these claims ( . . . in relation to Dianetics . . . ) are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations."

This infuriated Hubbard who was already upset with "the shrinks" for refusing his request for assistance to deal with his own psychological troubles after WWII.

The only formal scientific study of dianetic therapy in existence was prepared in 1953 by Harvey Jay Fischer of the School of Education of New York University and concluded that:

Since the three areas ( . . . intellectual functioning, mathematical ability and personality conflicts . . . ) sampled are important aspects of personality adjustment, and since neither positive nor negative movement in these areas results from dianetic therapy, one may infer that no systematic change in character structure or personality functioning results from this therapeutic technique.

This was a further blow to Dianetics and, again, Hubbard took it personally. Scientology has refused since then to participate in any further academic or scientific analysis of its claims. The only evidence of efficacy is anecdotal and even adherents to this day refuse to accept or even consider the implications of a conflict between causative and co-relational confluence. Given the Fischer results, they probably don't understand the concept and, in light of Robert Devine's statement to Court in support of the Headley's suit, would find it difficult to reconcile anyway.

Hubbard was forced to come up with a new term for Dianetics after he lost the rights to the use of the name when he went broke. It was subsequently re-purchased but, like you say and given the reception to the work, it turned out to be fortunate. Very fortune-ate.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Lakey, my friend . . .

My opening paragraph/sentence was probably incomplete. In my mind, I followed on from my earlier post regarding "Betrayal of Self" due to thinking things like Hubbard being superior to or more knowing than self in a way that one feels one cannot, etc.

That earlier post of mine on the notion of own considerations that limit or betray self, you were in accord with. The traffic between you and Mark occurred after that post, and then I attempted to simply put the point that, really, so what about Hubbard? . . . . it's your own considerations that ensnare you.

That is the context of my opening sentence you are responding to here with:

My only disagreement with your post is that I still feel that at this point I still have some ties to Hubbard. This is how I feel. I may feel that way for unoptimum reasons and maybe need to dig deeper to find out why I feel that way, etc. but that is another topic for another day. Today I just feel that I still have some ties to Hubbard despite what MAB thinks about it and sad to say, even if you disagree with me.

And we are not in any disagreement at all here. You are quite right, and I know you have, as you say, "still have some ties to Hubbard."

That is the exactness I addressed. That and the fact that one has such ties because of one's own considerations . . . but the words I used were, "it is what you created yourself to be based on your contact with him and/or his materials."

It's these old considerations that hold any connection in place. And it is perfectly fine to continue as such if you choose. And it is also perfectly true that one can upgrade and/or change the condition, alignments and circumstances of any such connection. All as one chooses.

I'm only putting the tech point that that is what's behind it all . . . one's own considerations and creations (same thing):D

It's for you to choose what you do with them . . . screw anybody else's opinion or think on them :D

Rog
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Okay, so we don't disagree!

Lakey, my friend . . .

My opening paragraph/sentence was probably incomplete. In my mind, I followed on from my earlier post regarding "Betrayal of Self" due to thinking things like Hubbard being superior to or more knowing than self in a way that one feels one cannot, etc.

That earlier post of mine on the notion of own considerations that limit or betray self, you were in accord with. The traffic between you and Mark occurred after that post, and then I attempted to simply put the point that, really, so what about Hubbard? . . . . it's your own considerations that ensnare you.

That is the context of my opening sentence you are responding to here with:



And we are not in any disagreement at all here. You are quite right, and I know you have, as you say, "still have some ties to Hubbard."

That is the exactness I addressed. That and the fact that one has such ties because of one's own considerations . . . but the words I used were, "it is what you created yourself to be based on your contact with him and/or his materials."

It's these old considerations that hold any connection in place. And it is perfectly fine to continue as such if you choose. And it is also perfectly true that one can upgrade and/or change the condition, alignments and circumstances of any such connection. All as one chooses.

I'm only putting the tech point that that is what's behind it all . . . one's own considerations and creations (same thing):D

It's for you to choose what you do with them . . . screw anybody else's opinion or think on them :D

Rog

Thanks Roger, I am in full agreement with you after all. This post is crystal clear to me and I agree with it 100%. It is very helpful to get some tech on this area which a lot of us share and to have things stated concisely.
Lakey:):)
 

Roland ami

Patron with Honors
Wasn't Mary very heavily venerated and made a saint by the early Christian church. She has been thought of with enough esteem to illustrate that the culture of JC's time is not a culture in which only men counted. Even in the Ten Commandments, one of the commandents is to "Honor thy Mother and thy Father". In Judaism, which is "that culture" which you are talking about and the culture to which Jesus belonged, women have always been honored and have never been considered on a par with dogs. There were gays in Biblical times and being gay was looked upon as a sin in the Bible. My point is that the guys who wrote the Bible did not rationalize by thinking, "Hey women are more like animals than humans, therefore it is normal for many men to seek out other men as their lovers." It seems to me that this is what you are implying and I don't know where you are coming up with this point of view.
Lakey

I wasn't talking about the bible, or early Christianity, or the local tribal customs, but the general state of belief in the classical world of around 0 CE. Judaism was a minor and unusual backwater at the time, though regarded with considerable respect by the Romans, who (as an illustration) uniquely allowed Jews a 6 day workweek. Christianity at that time (well, 50 years later) was merely a minor and unimportant offshoot of Judaism.

The biblical injunctions against homosexuality are a separate issue, and one that has been well covered elsewhere. Suffice it to say that in the bible it has the same weight as a sin, as does wearing mixed fabrics.

Roland
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
On tape, Hubbard talks about another test.

Albeit mild, there was some initial interest from psychiatry/psychology. However, as early as 1950 the American Psychological Association passed a resolution stating: "the fact that these claims ( . . . in relation to Dianetics . . . ) are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations."

This infuriated Hubbard who was already upset with "the shrinks" for refusing his request for assistance to deal with his own psychological troubles after WWII.

The only formal scientific study of dianetic therapy in existence was prepared in 1953 by Harvey Jay Fischer of the School of Education of New York University and concluded that:



This was a further blow to Dianetics and, again, Hubbard took it personally. Scientology has refused since then to participate in any further academic or scientific analysis of its claims. The only evidence of efficacy is anecdotal and even adherents to this day refuse to accept or even consider the implications of a conflict between causative and co-relational confluence. Given the Fischer results, they probably don't understand the concept and, in light of Robert Devine's statement to Court in support of the Headley's suit, would find it difficult to reconcile anyway.

Hubbard was forced to come up with a new term for Dianetics after he lost the rights to the use of the name when he went broke. It was subsequently re-purchased but, like you say and given the reception to the work, it turned out to be fortunate. Very fortune-ate.

Very nice post again Blip! I have heard a taped lecture by Hubbard from the early to mid 50's where Hubbard mentions a study done by the University of Chicago. He dismisses them on several counts and at the time I heard the tape, I thought his criticisms had some merit.

He stated that the practitioners at U. of Chicago essentially just gave the processes to their subjects but they did not make use of the auditor's code and the entire bag of tools which a good auditor needs to get good results: a good comm cycle, real sincere caring about the cases of the people being tested, the intention to get the pc through, the tone scale and so forth. Also I believe he also stated they did not properly assess so as to find out what needed to be run. I do not think e-meters were used because they were just testing Book 1 auditing. I am pretty sure the tests were done around 1952 or 1953 before the TR drills were developed
Lakey
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Wouldn't Johnny Mac as JC be influenced more by his own culture?

I wasn't talking about the bible, or early Christianity, or the local tribal customs, but the general state of belief in the classical world of around 0 CE. Judaism was a minor and unusual backwater at the time, though regarded with considerable respect by the Romans, who (as an illustration) uniquely allowed Jews a 6 day workweek. Christianity at that time (well, 50 years later) was merely a minor and unimportant offshoot of Judaism.

The biblical injunctions against homosexuality are a separate issue, and one that has been well covered elsewhere. Suffice it to say that in the bible it has the same weight as a sin, as does wearing mixed fabrics.

Roland

Roland, I don't want to split hairs. I was reading into your initial comment the following concept and that was that Johnny Mac, claiming he was J.C. would have been influenced most by his own culture of Judaism and not the
culture of the Roman Empire which had engulfed Judaism within its boundaries.

J.C. never knew Christianity because it was not developed until after he died so he was either influenced by Jewish Culture or Roman Culture or perhaps a mix of the two. Since there was no motorized transport at the time, most lifetimes were probably lived within a 10 or 20 mile radius and I thought it was more likely that J.C. was influenced by Jewish culture than Roman, but I do not know for sure and could well be wrong. I will accept your premise that on the subject of the value of womanhood, J.C. could very well have been influenced by the much larger Roman civilization and if that was the case then your remarks make sense. Even in that case, I never have heard that women were regarded on the same level as dogs in Roman Civilization. I know that they had nowhere near the status of men and that there was no women's rights movement at any time during the Roman Empire's rule but still, were women regarded on a level similar to that of dogs? I am just asking.
Lakey
 
P.S. IMO, you are seriously "hinky." Recently, you endorsed a CofS sanctioned phony PR book, and attempted to steer someone, and his/her documents, toward a CofS flunky "scholar."


The book: Scientology
The scholar & editor of the book: James R. Lewis

If you are going to engage in public denigration & smear campaigns at least be specific. :eyeroll:

Lewis' credentials & scholarship are both better than yours, admittedly that doesn't say much. :D

I leave it up to others to determine the value of either the book or the academic contributions made by its contributors. I find the book interesting for the views presented of various religious scholars on those aspects of the Co$ which they individually address. Unlike some others I do not have an attitude which presumes that the role of academic scholarship is to attack that with which I disagree and to support that with which I concur.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. better "hinky" than obsessive. :p
 
The issue, Lakey my friend, is not where or what Hubbard is or was . . . it is what you created yourself to be based on your contact with him and/or his materials. (And one must realize that one made contact with him by joining his organization regardless of whether one actually met him in the flesh or not. For example, I never met him in the flesh.)

It is your own thoughts that trap you the most.

And it is by undoing old now inapplicable thoughts that one now gets free.

Rog


Beautifully put, Roger. I hope you succeed where I have not.


Mark A. Baker
 
Enters MAB and he states that I am dramatizing a Service Facsimile. I patiently explain to him how I feel about it and that I don't see any area of this cognition where I am trying to make myself right and make others wrong. Instead of just acking me, MAB states that it is definitely a Service Fac and by not owning up to it, I am dramatizing the service fac even stronger and what is more it shows PTSness and I don't necessarily have to be PTS to someone else but I may be PTS to one of my own "entities." He then recommends some processes and some sources I can read up on and perhaps handle my PTSness and Service Fac on my own.

Lakey, I'm sorry you feel spun in from having read my posts. It is clear that you have not understood them. My prose style is a good deal more complex than many, so perhaps this is not terribly surprising.

Roger's post neatly & succinctly focuses on the key issue I was attempting to bring to your attention: the role of one's own considerations in creating the perception of one's problems.

Two points, I did not refer to either entities or "ptsness". Those constitute your interpretation of my remarks. This may have arisen partly from confusion over the meaning of the term "identity".

Identities relate to the roles which an individual undertakes. The same individual may have conflicting roles due to different roles or activities that individual is engaged in.

As per my earlier example, a woman can be a mother, wife, doctor, etc.. The fact of multiple roles implies multiple games with differing considerations about those games. These different roles rarely align completely. When this is not so an individual very often makes himself wrong through the conflict of those considerations that he himself possesses as a result of these conflicting roles.

This is not a matter of "entities". It is an effect of the identities that one chooses for himself and the considerations he holds about those identities.

Good, bad, or indifferent: Hubbard's dead. At this point only individual consideration's about Hubbard remain. Those considerations are closely related to the differing roles which we have created for ourselves, often multiple roles. These are often conflicted.

Any "ties" that bind remain wholly our own. It is up to us to eliminate them.

Things change. What you carry with you is up to you.

Enough said.


Shalom.
Mark A. Baker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top