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

[Ted]

The Dalai Lama Says...

Hubbard said that communication is the universal solvent.

I have had many years to first accept this statement, work with it as such, then backing off, consider its validity. Some 20 years ago I determined the statement to be bullshit. It sounds good, especially if you are selling communication technique. It's catchy. But consider the source: a pathological liar. In attempting to work with his managers using his management system, I found limited communication, and mostly commands. You have, no doubt, heard the old saying about sewage flowing downhill. In attempting to work with his justice system, I found absolutely no communication. My Comm Ev reads like a pack of twisted fact, false information taken as truth, and outright fabrication. Where is the solvent in that?

You could advance the argument that none of that is real communication, as I have done. But in that argument I call "Bullshit!" I am through being reasonable with "the tech" in an effort to make it congruent.

Communication is the universal solvent might be true for a bullshit artist who has the perceived need to be in control and dominant, on a one-way flow.

My conclusion is that, if there is a universal solvent, it is compassion. Compassion is something a bullshit artist won't be able to muster. Compassion says to the other person, "You are not alone in your time of difficulty."

Dalai Lama: "When we wish and seek to help others, our attitude is more positive and relationships become easier. We are less afraid and have less anxiety. Otherwise we remain shy and hesitant, and feel the need to take a thousand precautions before we approach people. When our intentions are good, we have greater self-confidence and are stronger. This is how we learn to understand how precious and valuable kindness is."

As always, I invite disagreement.

 

[RogerB]

Heaven's Burning

In this Australian film, Heaven's Burning, the young lady wants to leave Japan. She wants to run away to Australia. She arrives freshly married with her Japanese husband who she now plans to ditch as he attends a business convention. He has gotten her into the country and she intends to dissolve into the scenery.

She runs. He cannot believe it. He thought they were in love. He goes beserk..

In the background....Russell Crowe has just fallen in with a Turkish gang. A family of mafia type hoodlums. He agrees to be their driver for one bank robbery. While in line at the bank Youki Kudoh accidentally sees the face of one of the robbers while she is trying to cash some of her wedding gift checks. Fearing to be identified, the robbers kidnap her and take her to the outskirts of town where they are going to shoot her dead. Russell foils the plot in an act of chivalry by shooting the turks instead. She has now become attached to him as the only friend she knows. He adamantly tries to shake her but she will not go. She decides that she can help him now rob banks as she has seen how it is done. They do.

As one of the turkish gang members survived and reported back, the family of the dead ones are now chasing them intent on dismemberment... Russ and Youki flee across Australia in a 1960s old car.

Fanatic husband trails behind in hilarious motorcycle garb, blasting down the dirt roads through Alice Springs hot on their trail.....hear the motor runnnin....dead out on the highway... Helmut is complete with mohawk and the leather jacket is complete with silver studs. Funny for a conservative Japanese businessman. Added to the scene are the feds as the couple is toting bank money. So we got the cops, the jilted husband, and the Turks pursuing a bank robber and an ex bride who would rather die than go back to the strict family who betrothed her. Anyhow it ends up like Thelma and Louise only ending at the ocean shore, vehicle ablaze rolling over in foamy surf. Russ is dead. Youki, only half dead, sitting next to him with the cops closing in reflects on the fact that she has experienced this one small taste of freedom in her life and uses the bank gun on herself. Good film. Unique plot. Hope I didn't spoil it for you.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KN8UPcDu74

Nah,

Enjoyed your telling of it so much, I don't now need to spend $$$'s to go see it Though I'll miss seeing the wonderful Oz scenery

R

 

[RogerB]

Ted,

You're on great roll, Kid!

Nice sensible, well reasoned posts your last two (in particular . . . all are good)

To your compassion, I'd add, Appreciation.

It's a big word with lots of nuance in meaning.

Various dictionaries:

This one here is a good one:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/appreciation

ap·pre·ci·a·tion
noun

Recognition of the quality, value, significance, or magnitude of people and things.
A judgment or opinion, especially a favorable one.
An expression of gratitude.
Awareness or delicate perception, especially of aesthetic qualities or values.
A rise in value or price, especially over time.​

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. This is Virginia's favorite . . . particularly that "delicate perception" part)

There are other dictionaries defining it, but some are quite clumsy and even ugly . . . example (at the top of the google search):

Definitions of appreciation on the Web:

understanding of the nature or meaning or quality or magnitude of something; "he has a good grasp of accounting practices"
taste: delicate discrimination (especially of aesthetic values); "arrogance and lack of taste contributed to his rapid success"; "to ask at that particular time was the ultimate in bad taste"
an expression of gratitude; "he expressed his appreciation in a short note"
admiration: a favorable judgment; "a small token in admiration of your works"
an increase in price or value; "an appreciation of 30% in the value of real estate"​

For me personally, I find appreciation of another to be tremendously empowering of them. That is, when I fully appreciate another they are tremendously empowered, made more of, enhanced by it. And the reverse flow also applies.

I find it to be a virtue of the spirit that involves full understanding, awareness of the truth of the Being, a love for them and a validating make-more of them.

It's up there with the virtue of honoring another.

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

Hubbard said that communication is the universal solvent.

I have had many years to first accept this statement, work with it as such, then backing off, consider its validity. Some 20 years ago I determined the statement to be bullshit. It sounds good, especially if you are selling communication technique. It's catchy. But consider the source: a pathological liar. In attempting to work with his managers using his management system, I found limited communication, and mostly commands. You have, no doubt, heard the old saying about sewage flowing downhill. In attempting to work with his justice system, I found absolutely no communication. My Comm Ev reads like a pack of twisted fact, false information taken as truth, and outright fabrication. Where is the solvent in that?

You could advance the argument that none of that is real communication, as I have done. But in that argument I call "Bullshit!" I am through being reasonable with "the tech" in an effort to make it congruent.

Communication is the universal solvent might be true for a bullshit artist who has the perceived need to be in control and dominant, on a one-way flow.

My conclusion is that, if there is a universal solvent, it is compassion. Compassion is something a bullshit artist won't be able to muster. Compassion says to the other person, "You are not alone in your time of difficulty."

Dalai Lama: "When we wish and seek to help others, our attitude is more positive and relationships become easier. We are less afraid and have less anxiety. Otherwise we remain shy and hesitant, and feel the need to take a thousand precautions before we approach people. When our intentions are good, we have greater self-confidence and are stronger. This is how we learn to understand how precious and valuable kindness is."

As always, I invite disagreement.

Very nice Ted! I have always accepted Hubbard's universal solvent statement at face value without ever questioning it. As you point out, one can readily see that some communication seems to be a solvent while other comm definitely worsens a situation or state of affairs. I came up with two comments on this topic:

1. For Hubbard's statement to stand up, there must be some modifiers or adjectives placed before the word communication. I came up with "2-way", you say compassion, Roger brings up appreciation. If one puts them all together, we would have, "Two way, compassionate and appreciative communication is a universal solvent."

My "two way" adjective needs a little explaining. For compassion to be a solvent, the sender must have the attention of the party to whom he/she is directing their communication. For example, some beautiful music or some compassionate words directed to a person whose mind is churning with negative thoughts probably will not act as a solvent unless the sender has the recipient's attention and he/she is actually is willing to listen to the music and/or speech. I would call it one way communication if the recipient is not willing to listen and two way if they were.

If the two way adjective is a little too complex, the definition can be reworded as follows:

COMPASSIONATE, APPRECIATIVE COMMUNICATION TO AN ATTENTIVE LISTENER IS A UNIVERSAL SOLVENT.

I would run with that statement!

To put this rule into action, a sender would have to do three things:
#1. Get the recipient's attention.
#2. Compose a compassionate, aprreciative communication.
#3. Direct the communication to the recipiant.

What do you think, Ted, Roger and all you other thread readers?
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Ted,

You're on great roll, Kid!

Nice sensible, well reasoned posts your last two (in particular . . . all are good)

To your compassion, I'd add, Appreciation.

It's a big word with lots of nuance in meaning.

Various dictionaries:

This one here is a good one:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/appreciation

ap·pre·ci·a·tion
noun

Recognition of the quality, value, significance, or magnitude of people and things.
A judgment or opinion, especially a favorable one.
An expression of gratitude.
Awareness or delicate perception, especially of aesthetic qualities or values.
A rise in value or price, especially over time.​

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. This is Virginia's favorite . . . particularly that "delicate perception" part)

There are other dictionaries defining it, but some are quite clumsy and even ugly . . . example (at the top of the google search):

Definitions of appreciation on the Web:

understanding of the nature or meaning or quality or magnitude of something; "he has a good grasp of accounting practices"
taste: delicate discrimination (especially of aesthetic values); "arrogance and lack of taste contributed to his rapid success"; "to ask at that particular time was the ultimate in bad taste"
an expression of gratitude; "he expressed his appreciation in a short note"
admiration: a favorable judgment; "a small token in admiration of your works"
an increase in price or value; "an appreciation of 30% in the value of real estate"​

For me personally, I find appreciation of another to be tremendously empowering of them. That is, when I fully appreciate another they are tremendously empowered, made more of, enhanced by it. And the reverse flow also applies.

I find it to be a virtue of the spirit that involves full understanding, awareness of the truth of the Being, a love for them and a validating make-more of them.

It's up there with the virtue of honoring another.

Rog

Good point, Roger!

I think working compassion and appreciation together will solve a whole helluva lot of sticky stuff. It's like spiritual "Goof-Off."

 

[Ted]

Very nice Ted! I have always accepted Hubbard's universal solvent statement at face value without ever questioning it. As you point out, one can readily see that some communication seems to be a solvent while other comm definitely worsens a situation or state of affairs. I came up with two comments on this topic:

1. For Hubbard's statement to stand up, their must be some modifiers or adjectives placed before the word communication. I came up with "2-way", you say compassion, Roger brings up appreciation. If one puts them all together, we would have, "Two way, compassionate and appreciative communication is a universal solvent."

My "two way" adjective needs a little explaining. For compassion to be a solvent, the sender must have the attention of the party to whom he/she is directing their communication. For example, some beautiful music or some compassionate words directed to a person whose mind is churning with negative thoughts probably will not act as a solvent unless the sender has the recipient's attention and he/she is actually is willing to listen to the music and/or speech. I would call it one way communication if the recipient is not willing to listen and two way if they were.

If the two way adjective is a little too complex, the definition can be reworded as follows:

COMPASSIONATE, APPRECIATIVE COMMUNICATION TO AN ATTENTIVE LISTENER IS A UNIVERSAL SOLVENT.

I would run with that statement!

To put this rule into action, a sender would have to do three things:
#1. Get the recipient's attention.
#2. Compose a compassionate, aprreciative communication.
#3. Direct the communication to the recipiant.

What do you think, Ted, Roger and all you other thread readers?
Lakey

That's a nice addition, Lakey!

My only hedge is that I believe compassion and appreciation can be so high and so intense that communication becomes a non-issue.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Great Stuff, Ted and Rog…absolutely G-R-E-A-T S-T-U-F-F! I agree completely.

Lakey, I think you’re over-analyzing a tad, IMHO. Compassion and appreciation, to me, are not formulaic “things”…they are instinctual, natural and outside/beyond the realm of "thinking".


Face

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

That's a nice addition, Lakey!

My only hedge is that I believe compassion and appreciation can be so high and so intense that communication becomes a non-issue.

I agree...that's part of what I was trying to say but you have said it so much better.

Compassion and appreciation are not just words strung together in a sentence or even thoughts you want someone else to embrace…to me, they are (for want of the right words) a non-corporeal “impulse” that instinctively follows a pathway to expression…whether it be a smile, a word, a touch or an action such as cooking food for a sick or troubled friend.


Face

 

[Leon]

More please!

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "walk softly, but carry a big stick."

Hubbard intimated, "communication is the universal solvent, if you don't agree, then we'll disconnect from you."

 

[lkwdblds]

Great Stuff, Ted and Rog…absolutely G-R-E-A-T S-T-U-F-F! I agree completely.

Lakey, I think you’re over-analyzing a tad, IMH. Compassion and appreciation, to me, are not formulaic “things”…they are instinctual, natural and outside/beyond the realm of thinking.


Face

Face, whether done instinctively, which is preferable, or if a person must first exert some conscious effort to include those things in his communication, my point is that as long as they are present, then communication will be a universal solvent - with the one proviso that the sender must first make sure he has the receiver's attention before initiating the communication.

To some people compassion and appreciation (C & A) ARE instinctual and their communications do act as solvents. For many other people, not naturally gifted in communication skills, or not self aware enough to realize that their instinctive communication is lacking in C & A or that C & A are important, the goal would be to teach this bit of wisdom to them. At first they might have to think a little or make some effort to include it, but when they see how this technique will improve their lives, probably they will quickly be able to adapt and communicate that way instinctually.

To view the communication of the second category of people, go check out Sharone's thread of "What Candy says about LRH". A lot of posters there need to read Ted's OP thread and change their way of 'communicating'.

To Ted's concept about C & A being in to such a high degree that no communication is needed, that is Ted, always thinking outside the box!

I feel that societies HAVE existed where that level of empathy was maintained. Written or sounded communications were used mainly for poetry or artful prose or other very aesthetic means of communication. Music was probably originated in such a society.

Day to day mundane needs and activities did not need to be communicated. I am pretty sure many of you either feel this or have recollections of these societies as well.
Lakey

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Face, whether done instinctively, which is preferable, or if a person must first exert some conscious effort to include those things in his communication, my point is that as long as they are present, then communication will be a universal solvent - with the one proviso that the sender must first make sure he has the receiver's attention before initiating the communication.

To some people compassion and appreciation (C & A) ARE instinctual and their communications do act as solvents. For many other people, not naturally gifted in communication skills, or not self aware enough to realize that their instinctive communication is lacking in C & A or that C & A are important, the goal would be to teach this bit of wisdom to them. At first they might have to think a little or make some effort to include it, but when they see how this technique will improve their lives, probably they will quickly be able to adapt and communicate that way instinctually.

To view the communication of the second category of people, go check out Sharone's thread of "What Candy says about LRH". A lot of posters there need to read Ted's OP thread and change their way of 'communicating'.

To Ted's concept about C & A being in to such a high degree that no communication is needed, that is Ted, always thinking outside the box!

I feel that societies HAVE existed where that level of empathy was maintained. Written or sounded communications were used mainly for poetry or artful prose or other very aesthetic means of communication. Music was probably originated in such a society.

Day to day mundane needs and activities did not need to be communicated. I am pretty sure many of you either feel this or have recollections of these societies as well.
Lakey

“C&A” are but manifestations of the “Universal Solvent” and therefore, as long as they are present, any “thing” can act as a conduit.

“C&A” are instinctual in all of Us and we all have these “natural gifts”…they are not a “technique” to be "mastered". “Self Awareness” cannot be taught, it can only be sought; it cannot be learned, it can only be earned; it cannot be attained for the is “Nothing” to gain.

“C&A” need not “attention” on the part of the recipient. “C&A” are subtle, "powerful" and limitless and are inhibited to the degree one wishes for, desires or requires the “attention” of another. “Self Awareness” itself’ is a spiritual ruse but is a pinhole porthole to the “Sea of Awareness”.

To me, if I have to “think about” “C&A” then, by that act alone, I pervert and am "cut off" from the well of “C&A”. There is no “effort” or “use” or “include to “C&A”.

I’ve read every post on Sharone’s thread. What’s your point; “Others are not communicating properly but I am?” Or, “they’re not duplicating me and therefore not learning the proper way to communicate or the fact that my viewpoint is right?” Or, “I’m “treating” them with ‘C&A” but they’re not paying attention?”

IMHO no “Society” originated music…all of Us are born “with a song in my heart”.

Now, you're a sure enough smart feller, Lakey and you may very well be completely right in everything you have said re: “C&A", and attention and communication and music and all. But, I “feel” and “see” it differently than you do and I’m surely doing a damn poor job of trying to explain “it”.

Peace Bro'.

Face

 

[RogerB]

Originally Posted by afaceinthecrowd
Great Stuff, Ted and Rog…absolutely G-R-E-A-T S-T-U-F-F! I agree completely.

Lakey, I think you’re over-analyzing a tad, IMH. Compassion and appreciation, to me, are not formulaic “things”…they are instinctual, natural and outside/beyond the realm of thinking.


Face

Face, whether done instinctively, which is preferable, or if a person must first exert some conscious effort to include those things in his communication, my point is that as long as they are present, then communication will be a universal solvent - with the one proviso that the sender must first make sure he has the receiver's attention before initiating the communication.

To some people compassion and appreciation (C & A) ARE instinctual and their communications do act as solvents. For many other people, not naturally gifted in communication skills, or not self aware enough to realize that their instinctive communication is lacking in C & A or that C & A are important, the goal would be to teach this bit of wisdom to them. At first they might have to think a little or make some effort to include it, but when they see how this technique will improve their lives, probably they will quickly be able to adapt and communicate that way instinctually.

To view the communication of the second category of people, go check out Sharone's thread of "What Candy says about LRH". A lot of posters there need to read Ted's OP thread and change their way of 'communicating'.

To Ted's concept about C & A being in to such a high degree that no communication is needed, that is Ted, always thinking outside the box!

I feel that societies HAVE existed where that level of empathy was maintained. Written or sounded communications were used mainly for poetry or artful prose or other very aesthetic means of communication. Music was probably originated in such a society.

Day to day mundane needs and activities did not need to be communicated. I am pretty sure many of you either feel this or have recollections of these societies as well.
Lakey

Actually, Lakey,

What Face has stated here is quite precise and accurate.

The things Ted and I are imparting here are not "think about" type of things . . . and not "outside of the box" you refer to.

They are natural attributes and virtues of spirit at its highest state of being and operation. It's actually natural for a very high toned, at the top of the Zones Being to operate that way and practice these virtues and abilities

It's the guys who've dropped out from our more true state of operating in high harmony, with love and true duplication, as-is of our fellows that the "think about" and "how do you do its" and "waddyya-means" creep in. Down there, where one wonders what appreciation actually is and means, the true communication that occurs at the top of the scales and Zones of operation has has long been lost.

Though Ted uses the term "compassion" . . . and it is the term used in the translations that pass on the teachings of the eastern sages to us, I find it an unfortunate word to be being used. I personally think I'd prefer the concept of Empathy because it connotes true understanding, help, oneness and feeling rather than the "being kind to victims and feeling they way they feel" note that dictionaries have for it. Empathy has a note of effectiveness to it

When one relates to another at the highest levels on the mood scales one is wonderfully empowering of (to) those others. They cognite around you, simply due to your presence and your so "duplicating" them as-is. There is none of that "waddyya mean" type stuff . . . it's a level of mutual knowing.

It's the true "communication" Ted speaks of . . . not the mechanical transferring of "things," thought or ideas "across the great divide between you." You each know what you are each expressing

Note that word . . . expressing. You don't even have to "impel particles across space and/or distance" in the vein that Hubbard wrote. You are each at-one with the other and know what is . . . hell you don't even have to "make sure you have their attention before you 'communicate'!"

It's a level of mutual know . . . .

Oh, yes, and one can attain the state . . . . just takes a fair bit of good processing with the right tech

R

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Hubbard said that communication is the universal solvent.

I have had many years to first accept this statement, work with it as such, then backing off, consider its validity. Some 20 years ago I determined the statement to be bullshit. It sounds good, especially if you are selling communication technique. It's catchy. But consider the source: a pathological liar. In attempting to work with his managers using his management system, I found limited communication, and mostly commands. You have, no doubt, heard the old saying about sewage flowing downhill. In attempting to work with his justice system, I found absolutely no communication. My Comm Ev reads like a pack of twisted fact, false information taken as truth, and outright fabrication. Where is the solvent in that?

You could advance the argument that none of that is real communication, as I have done. But in that argument I call "Bullshit!" I am through being reasonable with "the tech" in an effort to make it congruent.

Communication is the universal solvent might be true for a bullshit artist who has the perceived need to be in control and dominant, on a one-way flow.

My conclusion is that, if there is a universal solvent, it is compassion. Compassion is something a bullshit artist won't be able to muster. Compassion says to the other person, "You are not alone in your time of difficulty."

Dalai Lama: "When we wish and seek to help others, our attitude is more positive and relationships become easier. We are less afraid and have less anxiety. Otherwise we remain shy and hesitant, and feel the need to take a thousand precautions before we approach people. When our intentions are good, we have greater self-confidence and are stronger. This is how we learn to understand how precious and valuable kindness is."

As always, I invite disagreement.

Bravo ! Thank you !

 

[Hatshepsut]

Nah,

Enjoyed your telling of it so much, I don't now need to spend $$$'s to go see it Though I'll miss seeing the wonderful Oz scenery

R

Its too old. No one will ever see it unless ordered from amazon.com's basement for 3.99

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Actually, Lakey,

What Face has stated here is quite precise and accurate.

The things Ted and I are imparting here are not "think about" type of things . . . and not "outside of the box" you refer to.

They are natural attributes and virtues of spirit at its highest state of being and operation. It's actually natural for a very high toned, at the top of the Zones Being to operate that way and practice these virtues and abilities

It's the guys who've dropped out from our more true state of operating in high harmony, with love and true duplication, as-is of our fellows that the "think about" and "how do you do its" and "waddyya-means" creep in. Down there, where one wonders what appreciation actually is and means, the true communication that occurs at the top of the scales and Zones of operation has has long been lost.

Though Ted uses the term "compassion" . . . and it is the term used in the translations that pass on the teachings of the eastern sages to us, I find it an unfortunate word to be being used. I personally think I'd prefer the concept of Empathy because it connotes true understanding, help, oneness and feeling rather than the "being kind to victims and feeling they way they feel" note that dictionaries have for it. Empathy has a note of effectiveness to it

When one relates to another at the highest levels on the mood scales one is wonderfully empowering of (to) those others. They cognite around you, simply due to your presence and your so "duplicating" them as-is. There is none of that "waddyya mean" type stuff . . . it's a level of mutual knowing.

It's the true "communication" Ted speaks of . . . not the mechanical transferring of "things," thought or ideas "across the great divide between you." You each know what you are each expressing

Note that word . . . expressing. You don't even have to "impel particles across space and/or distance" in the vein that Hubbard wrote. You are each at-one with the other and know what is . . . hell you don't even have to "make sure you have their attention before you 'communicate'!"

It's a level of mutual know . . . .

Oh, yes, and one can attain the state . . . . just takes a fair bit of good processing with the right tech

R

Bravo ! Thank you !

 

[RogerB]

Bravo ! Thank you !

Thanks, Toady . . . for you I think I'd better add that Hubbard's "tech" is not the tech I refer to that can enable the accomplishment I refer to Hell, NO!

I've been there, done that, tried that and didn't arrive sort of got waylaid along the way with his stuff . . . you know, like parked up a blind ally with nowhere to go and nowhere to turn around

Rog

 

[Commander Birdsong]

onward...

No. She already has that right through her right of privacy.

The fact is males & females are not the same. They do not have the same needs, nor do they face the same risks. The society has been faced with a legal conundrum of seeking to establish 'effective equality' between the sexes for legal purposes while maintaining traditional social distinctions customary to the society. Frankly, the problem is untenable as posed. It can not be 'solved' through legislation. At best only a 'workable' if inconsistent system can be implemented, as is presently the case.

Similarly, the question with regard to the hospitals is whether a woman desirous of SAFE MEDICAL treatment can be denied that treatment because the ONLY AVAILABLE MEDICAL FACILITY capable of performing such treatment refuses on religious grounds. As a matter of economics, religious hospitals are predominant in much of the country as they are subsidized by their respective religions. Non-religious hospitals can rarely compete economically in rural areas due to the economic disadvantages they face. As a result women throughout much of the country have their medical choices effectively limited due to the restrictive policies of particular religions, whether or not the woman is a member of that religion.

The simplest solution is to require that any medical facility be prepared to perform any lawful medical treatments without regard to specific religious affiliations. Notice that this requirement does NOT extend to licensed medical practitioners, only to the medical institutions. A medical practitioner retains the right to refuse to perform any lawful medical procedure with which she herself considers ethically unsuitable.

If a church does not wish to provide necessary medical treatments to the public of an area then they clearly have little interest in providing for the needed medical & hospital services of a region, either as a charity or otherwise. The legal requirement that a medical facility allow for the provision of all legal medical procedures is not an undue burden as these are medical facilities open to the public, and furthermore it serves as a great benefit to the community as a whole. Making such assessments is precisely what governing is about.


Mark A. Baker

"she already has that right"

brilliant.

tir a l'arc.

very very well done Mark. it is a beautiful thing to see a keen agile incisive mind go straight to the heart and pith of it.

yes.

a man, a woman, a child, a babe in arms, a senile old geezer, a tart, dyke, a certified public accountnt with semialcoholic wife, two point three kids and a mortgage on a bungalow in passaic new jersey, a stargazer, a stiltwalker, a stutterer, a former secondbaseman fo the Tulsa Drillers, a weasel, wetback, a wanker, an anabaptist and the syphilytic second cousin of a kansas city mafia underboss have the rght to breathe air.

furthermore...

it is de jure unlawful to deny a person their right to breathe air. to attempt it is assault, to do it attempted murder and to sustain it briefly homicide.

is it frivolous, absurd and comic to propose an Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America to affirm and protect a peron's right to breathe air?

yes.

it is.

a woman has the right to bring to bring a pregnancy to term.

you can say it is a right bequeathed by nature but to ascribe the term "right"to a biological process is akin to saying you have the right to fall downward if you jump off a cliff. if the existence of a personal god is axiomatic you can say it is a godgiven right.

like the right to breathe air it is not specified in law.

is it frivolous, absurd and comic to propose an Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America to affirm and protect a woman's right to bring a pregnancy to term?

no.

it is not.

suppose i were a member of a debating society and we were to debate this proposal. if i were to be assigned to take the position in it's favor i would submit the essay "to draw a line" as my opening statement. if assigned to oppose i would open with "it is already a woman's right to bring a pregnancy to term and the proposal is frivolous, absurd and comic." and then sit down hoping to fluster my opponent with brevity and contempt.

at this juncture any skilled debater could rebut the opposition merely citing the essay. it contains several strong hard statements from which three bullet points could be chosen. i can spell out a rebuttal if called upon to do so but i hold it is selfevident in the posted writing.

if it were my assignment to rebut the rebuttal i would stand and say "very well sir, you have torched my camouflage. now you shall see my guns." and i would then speak three words...

 

[Terril park]

Hubbard said that communication is the universal solvent.

I have had many years to first accept this statement, work with it as such, then backing off, consider its validity. Some 20 years ago I determined the statement to be bullshit. It sounds good, especially if you are selling communication technique. It's catchy. But consider the source: a pathological liar. In attempting to work with his managers using his management system, I found limited communication, and mostly commands. You have, no doubt, heard the old saying about sewage flowing downhill. In attempting to work with his justice system, I found absolutely no communication. My Comm Ev reads like a pack of twisted fact, false information taken as truth, and outright fabrication. Where is the solvent in that?

You could advance the argument that none of that is real communication, as I have done. But in that argument I call "Bullshit!" I am through being reasonable with "the tech" in an effort to make it congruent.

Communication is the universal solvent might be true for a bullshit artist who has the perceived need to be in control and dominant, on a one-way flow.

My conclusion is that, if there is a universal solvent, it is compassion. Compassion is something a bullshit artist won't be able to muster. Compassion says to the other person, "You are not alone in your time of difficulty."

Dalai Lama: "When we wish and seek to help others, our attitude is more positive and relationships become easier. We are less afraid and have less anxiety. Otherwise we remain shy and hesitant, and feel the need to take a thousand precautions before we approach people. When our intentions are good, we have greater self-confidence and are stronger. This is how we learn to understand how precious and valuable kindness is."

As always, I invite disagreement.

I still think there is truth in his statement. Otherwise counseling, auditing wouldn't work.

Its one of his own precepts that he violated and this was a source of violation in his organisations. In some of the green and white the ethos of
enforce and inhibit re communication was paramount. Let alone the GO/OSA
hats and policies! From what I've read over the years it seems that the organisation now deals only with enforcing or inhibiting communication.

The communication from the organisations to those external is insane.
Lies from PR terminals about anything and everything really, and choose your
pet hobbyhorse. Goldenrod in any form is another example. Except this is
now hidden. Lol! The organisation is in "hiding". Hiding communication.

The organisations today deal mostly with reverse tech. There may still be a few tech personnel doing their best to do a good job, but stats indicate
this is not really happening much.


"communication is the universal solvent."

Perhaps better amended to :-

"communication could be a universal solvent."

Anything can be put on a communication line. Good, bad, indifferent.

Appreciation, compassion, and don't forget admiration can all be put on a communication line. Don't have to be spoken or even conceived verbally.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Actually, Lakey,

What Face has stated here is quite precise and accurate.

The things Ted and I are imparting here are not "think about" type of things . . . and not "outside of the box" you refer to.

They are natural attributes and virtues of spirit at its highest state of being and operation. It's actually natural for a very high toned, at the top of the Zones Being to operate that way and practice these virtues and abilities

It's the guys who've dropped out from our more true state of operating in high harmony, with love and true duplication, as-is of our fellows that the "think about" and "how do you do its" and "waddyya-means" creep in. Down there, where one wonders what appreciation actually is and means, the true communication that occurs at the top of the scales and Zones of operation has has long been lost.

Though Ted uses the term "compassion" . . . and it is the term used in the translations that pass on the teachings of the eastern sages to us, I find it an unfortunate word to be being used. I personally think I'd prefer the concept of Empathy because it connotes true understanding, help, oneness and feeling rather than the "being kind to victims and feeling they way they feel" note that dictionaries have for it. Empathy has a note of effectiveness to it

When one relates to another at the highest levels on the mood scales one is wonderfully empowering of (to) those others. They cognite around you, simply due to your presence and your so "duplicating" them as-is. There is none of that "waddyya mean" type stuff . . . it's a level of mutual knowing.

It's the true "communication" Ted speaks of . . . not the mechanical transferring of "things," thought or ideas "across the great divide between you." You each know what you are each expressing

Note that word . . . expressing. You don't even have to "impel particles across space and/or distance" in the vein that Hubbard wrote. You are each at-one with the other and know what is . . . hell you don't even have to "make sure you have their attention before you 'communicate'!"

It's a level of mutual know . . . .

Oh, yes, and one can attain the state . . . . just takes a fair bit of good processing with the right tech

R

Yesssss!!!

Thank you, Rog.

As far as the processing goes and right tech goes...IMHO...that can, for some, in certain circumstances...sometimes...be the "right" pathway for awhile...was for me...even the "bad shit"…this is all part of my individual path.

Every breath taken is "processing"; every moment’s experience is the “right tech”; there is no “State” but "Nothing" ("Native State") and no one is there and no "one" may ever be there and it is not about “one”, it's about all of Us.

Forward, always forward.

Face