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

[CarmeloOrchards]

Yes, his intention was to do good and help. That is his nature.

Just that he told instead of asking

The more correct procedure is to make a correct observation (which he did, by the way) and to ask, "Is it?" Not state, "It is."

AS you agree, one is mainly hung up due to one's own considerations. Hubbard coined the term "Serfacs" to refer to variations on this basic theme.

The fact is, however, it is our considerations/thoughts that are the basis of our belief systems, operating paradigms and many of our hang-ups . . . and yes, one could use Hubbard's term "serfacs."

There is much milage to be won by picking up such "thoughts"/"considerations." and running the "Thoughts are Things Procedure" I posted on this thread.

I benefit from it on a regular basis. Indeed, I last ran it only last week.

Rog

we can segue this into a mesh with what Leon was saying about 2 way comm on CCHs.

good auditors perceive physical originations, theta manifestations and ask "what's happening?"

 

[Enthetan]

They were both wasting a hundred thou apiece, so there was no reaction from the SO. Phil, at the end of his auditing, was asked to attest to Clear OT. He came back crazy as a loon, looking for BTs everywhere in everyone. Never being able to just say "I went to the park." he'd say "someone went to the park"

He was silently declared as he left also. No goldenrod, just word of mouth declared. He was always a rabble rouser, had always been one. He had made comments, while he was there, that apparently weren't appreciated. So the t shirts were just more icing on the cake.

It was a typical LRH mind fuck. Just like when LRH picked Rocky Stump up personally, took him to the boat, feted him, and when he was on his way back to ASHO had him declared.

He slowly came back around to sanity, after having been declared. He could put the pieces together. What had made sense to me in 1976, when I left the fold on my own, then began to make sense to him after he was told to leave the fold.

Mucho decades later: He is closing on 80 years old, plays hard games of tennis each week, bike rides, gets about $4-5 K per painting that he does on a commission basis, audits a bit (for people looking to have their case cracked), was in the front office of the brand new Stanford football stadium (he's a civil engineer), spends time in the mountains, with the grandkids, does substitute teaching, writes on the IVy list -- not a bad lifestyle
In my wildest dreams, back then, I never thought I'd be sharing stories like this with former SO members.

So let me get this straight: they have him attest to "Clear OT" and then declare him after he goes out the door?

I'm wondering how much of the motivation was from him being a rabble-rouser, and how much from him coming out of his auditing acting crazy, which would be a turn-off for people thinking of going to Flag for auditing? Or maybe both -- a crazy-talking, outspoken rabble-rousing OT coming back from Flag auditing would be a nightmare for Flag's PR.

 

[Enthetan]

we can segue this into a mesh with what Leon was saying about 2 way comm on CCHs.

good auditors perceive physical originations, theta manifestations and ask "what's happening?"

Very good point, and what separates good auditors from mindless drones -- the ability to notice when something just happened with the PC, and handle it smoothly.

 

[lkwdblds]

I totally agree but one more point as to serfac....

Yes, his intention was to do good and help. That is his nature.

Just that he told instead of asking

The more correct procedure is to make a correct observation (which he did, by the way) and to ask, "Is it?" Not state, "It is."

AS you agree, one is mainly hung up due to one's own considerations. Hubbard coined the term "Serfacs" to refer to variations on this basic theme.

The fact is, however, it is our considerations/thoughts that are the basis of our belief systems, operating paradigms and many of our hang-ups . . . and yes, one could use Hubbard's term "serfacs."

There is much milage to be won by picking up such "thoughts"/"considerations." and running the "Thoughts are Things Procedure" I posted on this thread.

I benefit from it on a regular basis. Indeed, I last ran it only last week.

Rog

Thanks so much Rog, this discussion has cleared up the entire matter for me. I hope MAB is okay with it as well!

One more technical fact, based on your quoted post above. The definition I was using for serfac is different from what you stated above. I was using the definition that it was an artifice which one used soley to make himself right or justify his actions and to make others wrong. In that sense of the word, I did not believe my cognition and then having second thoughts about the cog was a service fac.

MAB was using a more expansive definition of the term and thus the two of us could not come to any sort of agreement. Based on the definition which you gave in your quoted post, then yes, I would have agreed that I was using a serfac.

Here again, it is the processor's or auditor's job to clear all terms before taking up a topic to try and help a processee. That is one of the fundamental rules of auditing and MAB did not do this fundamental step.

I have emerged through this ardous process much cleaner and better off than had it never happened. I got rid of some m/u's, got a first hand look at how not defining terms can lead to big upsets, and also observed as a somewhat detached observer how my case can restim and go into action without me being able to discern fully what is case and what is me.

I want to take responsibility for MAB and hope that he is stronger now for having gone through this experience. Here on this thread, we are striving for games where all players win. I have made a concerted effort to do all that I can do to see that MAB comes out of this as strong or stronger than before he got into it. If there is something more that I need to assuage his feelings, please let me know and I will do it.

Here are some synonyms for assuage:
pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of; "She managed to mollify the angry customer"
quench: satisfy (thirst); "The cold water quenched his thirst"
relieve: provide physical relief, as from pain; "This pill will relieve your headach

Lakey

 

[Ted]

Very good point, and what separates good auditors from mindless drones -- the ability to notice when something just happened with the PC, and handle it smoothly.

Or, sometimes more importantly, do nothing.

 

[RogerB]

Or, sometimes more importantly, do nothing.

Oh Yeh, that is a big truth . . . knowing when to shut up, do nothing, and let the PC do his magic.

R

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Yes. The trick my Dear is to ask, not tell.

To infer or suggest, not state.

To present a principle or general "rule," and allow it to be applied by the person if it fits; but not to say it fits or try to make it fit.

Rog

Yes, well my avoidance of a career in diplomacy was intentional.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Here again, it is the processor's or auditor's job to clear all terms before taking up a topic to try and help a processee.

An exchange of posts in a public forum is not a session, I am not your auditor, nor was I auditing you; as my op made clear. The way I discuss things with a pc is for me a separate issue. That makes use of a "different identity".

My posts dealt with the nature of considerations and how persisting in them can work against our own interests and serve to invalidate that which we value. Nonetheless, I am glad you feel you understand the nature of my posts better now.


Mark A. Baker

 

[FoTi]

Yes. The trick my Dear is to ask, not tell.

To infer or suggest, not state.

To present a principle or general "rule," and allow it to be applied by the person if it fits; but not to say it fits or try to make it fit.

Rog

Or, sometimes more importantly, do nothing.

Oh Yeh, that is a big truth . . . knowing when to shut up, do nothing, and let the PC do his magic.

R

Thank you , guys.

 

[RogerB]

Yes, well my avoidance of a career in diplomacy was intentional.


Mark A. Baker

Nah, you'd have been great in diplomacy. They love big words!

R

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Nah, you'd have been great in diplomacy. They love big words!

R

Not to mention disambiguation & clarification of obfuscation through a resort to excessive verbosity.


Mark A. Baker

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Not to mention disambiguation & clarification of obfuscation through a resort to excessive verbosity.


Mark A. Baker

The Great Carnac: defenestration


Ed McMahon: What will happen to Mark Baker?

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

So let me get this straight: they have him attest to "Clear OT" and then declare him after he goes out the door?

I'm wondering how much of the motivation was from him being a rabble-rouser, and how much from him coming out of his auditing acting crazy, which would be a turn-off for people thinking of going to Flag for auditing? Or maybe both -- a crazy-talking, outspoken rabble-rousing OT coming back from Flag auditing would be a nightmare for Flag's PR.

He was acting crazy as compared to normal people.

He was critical of various Flag practices. They declared him because he wasn't a blind follower. It was 1981, and everyone from the missions with any spine were being railroaded out.

 

[Ted]

I'm Free

An exchange of posts in a public forum is not a session, I am not your auditor, nor was I auditing you; as my op made clear. The way I discuss things with a pc is for me a separate issue. That makes use of a "different identity".

My posts dealt with the nature of considerations and how persisting in them can work against our own interests and serve to invalidate that which we value. Nonetheless, I am glad you feel you understand the nature of my posts better now.


Mark A. Baker

See Me.
Feel Me.
Touch Me.
Heal Me.


Not taking any side here except my own.

There are two things I will mention that I feel strongly about: If a person chooses to place personal information in the physical universe, they might as well expect that information to be kicked around like a football either in your face or behind the back. By personal information I mean, "This is how I feel..." "This is what I think..." Even, "This is where I have been and what I have done," or "These are my goals..." All of that sort of thing.

This discussion, while highly beneficial to many, is not an auditing session in the traditional sense.

Next...

In order to be "OT" a being must get itself over the inval/eval buttons. Just get over it. I am not saying inval and eval are okay in a traditional session. I am not saying these actions by another are okay while a being is sorting its own thoughts and feelings. I am saying that life is not a session in that sense, so, in life, if another gives inval or eval, get over it. If life were auditing a being, a being would never need auditing!

Let's not fall into scientological political correctness. People can say and do stupid things. In life, it could be foolish, or dangerous, or just dishonest to be politically correct, to never evaluate or invalidate, and let some non-optimum thing slide. Having said that, I will add, choose your "battles" wisely. Some things have to be let go because there is much that is non-optimum being generated moment by moment and so little time to correct it all.

Can you imagine an Olympic skater being a crybaby because the judges evaluated their score, a score the skater disagreed with? That skater would likely never get to the Olympics. No. You take your eval, pick up your skates, move on.

Inval and eval, to be "OT", get over it.

Here's my idea of a real challenge: High-toned discourse, an exchange of ideas and feelings, where beings get restimulated (or simply stimulated) from time to time, and are allowed to work out of it rather than get pounced on and crushed. This is a third dynamic session. The rules, if anyone would care to document them as they develop, are a bit different than a one-on-one session.

And now for one great moment of inspiration in rock and roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06pIHuL631c

 

[Leon]

Nah, you'd have been great in diplomacy. They love big words!

R

Diplomacy . . .that is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way as to make him look forward to the trip - have I got that right?

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Diplomacy . . .that is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way as to make him look forward to the trip - have I got that right?

Excellent Leon!

Diplomacy...the art of telling someone exactly what you think of them and having them like it.

Face

 

[lkwdblds]

Some comments on your comments....

See Me.
Feel Me.
Touch Me.
Heal Me.


Not taking any side here except my own.

There are two things I will mention that I feel strongly about: If a person chooses to place personal information in the physical universe, they might as well expect that information to be kicked around like a football either in your face or behind the back. By personal information I mean, "This is how I feel..." "This is what I think..." Even, "This is where I have been and what I have done," or "These are my goals..." All of that sort of thing.

Agreed.

This discussion, while highly beneficial to many, is not an auditing session in the traditional sense.

Agreed.

Next...

In order to be "OT" a being must get itself over the inval/eval buttons. Just get over it. I am not saying inval and eval are okay in a traditional session. I am not saying these actions by another are okay while a being is sorting its own thoughts and feelings. I am saying that life is not a session in that sense, so, in life, if another gives inval or eval, get over it. If life were auditing a being, a being would never need auditing!

There were 3 evals and 1 inval in 4 days. I saw a pattern developing, a possible threat to dead agent me.

Let's not fall into scientological political correctness. People can say and do stupid things. In life, it could be foolish, or dangerous, or just dishonest to be politically correct, to never evaluate or invalidate, and let some non-optimum thing slide. Having said that, I will add, choose your "battles" wisely. Some things have to be let go because there is much that is non-optimum being generated moment by moment and so little time to correct it all.

Can you imagine an Olympic skater being a crybaby because the judges evaluated their score, a score the skater disagreed with? That skater would likely never get to the Olympics. No. You take your eval, pick up your skates, move on.

I liken it to a baseball game where the manager argues with the ump about a bad call. If it happens once, no big deal but 3 times, the manager has the right to stand up to the ump and make a stink.

Inval and eval, to be "OT", get over it.

Here's my idea of a real challenge: High-toned discourse, an exchange of ideas and feelings, where beings get restimulated (or simply stimulated) from time to time, and are allowed to work out of it rather than get pounced on and crushed. This is a third dynamic session. The rules, if anyone would care to document them as they develop, are a bit different than a one-on-one session.

I had those exact types of exchanges described above with Roger, Veda, Blip, et al. Only with the protagonist evaluating for me did these types of exchanges not occur even though I made an enormous efforr to cause them to happen.

And now for one great moment of inspiration in rock and roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06pIHuL631c

Your comments make sense. I agree with most of them. From the comments I made closest to the bottom, you can weigh what I say and reach your own conclusions.

Though it was not an actual auditing session, I still feel that a party evaluating for another should takee the time to ensure that the basic terms being used be defined properly so both parties are speaking the same language. Also, though not a session, the Code of Honor is a good guidline to follow as a guidline for other aspects of life. Though not mandatory, it works well when this is followed. If these prelimary steps were not taken and the protagonist doesn't reply positively to the mentioning of them but is defensive instead then it shows that the protagonist was not trying to help me out. He states that he was trying to assert a technical point. He feels free to use me as his guinea pig and evaluate for me. I don't believe that is a good thing to do. I am done talking about this. I am moving on. You guys have the last word.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

Your comments make sense. I agree with most of them. From the comments I made closest to the bottom, you can weigh what I say and reach your own conclusions.

Though it was not an actual auditing session, I still feel that a party evaluating for another should takee the time to ensure that the basic terms being used be defined properly so both parties are speaking the same language. Also, though not a session, the Code of Honor is a good guidline to follow as a guidline for other aspects of life. Though not mandatory, it works well when this is followed. If these prelimary steps were not taken and the protagonist doesn't reply positively to the mentioning of them but is defensive instead then it shows that the protagonist was not trying to help me out. He states that he was trying to assert a technical point. He feels free to use me as his guinea pig and evaluate for me. I don't believe that is a good thing to do. I am done talking about this. I am moving on. You guys have the last word.
Lakey

If I can be part of the last word, I again, tend to agree with you, Lakey.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

To clarify this point: I never myself made an invalidative reference in my posts.

My purported "offense", such as it is, lay in daring to point out what was a clear instance of self-invalidation in one of Lakey's posts and illustrating how such self-invalidations arise from our own closely held considerations.


Mark A. Baker

OK!

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

What an educational thread.

I've always wanted to know how OTs have sex and Ted has answered it with just share some fluids..ahh I mean thoughts and get it over with. Heck there are other things to do in life, like admiring other sexy shiny objects on wheels, devouring other life forms and using air vibrators of all shapes and sizes with which to make all kinds of music.

I say make love not war.

Speaking of war. I am not so sure that Xenu is the why for mankind's troubles, and maybe the 3rd party law too has some holes in it. I think conflict is more closely related to us creatures mistaking our selfs to be extant by our possessions be they material or more ethereal such as thoughts and emotions and thinking we need to protect those to "protect" or establish or maintain our selfs.

There is certainly some value in 'trying on' others possessions as they are proffered. There is often something there to learn. Well, unless we are a fully operating God.

Keep it guys and girls, I keep falling in love.