Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
As you guys know, I have no problem with anyone using Scn ideas and all that sort of thing, as long as they look at them and as long as they aren't in some hideous group that RPFs people and rips them off.
That having been said, I tend to think that if one is going to do that, that the essence of the concept(s) should be considered rather than something like "LRH said". That's exactly why I had to ditch my Indie Scn'ist self assigned label. So I guess the thing is to get away from things Scn'ological and look at commonality. If something is true for you (or me or Jane Doe) it should be because it really does work out, is helpful. So one should strip away the framework. Think of a piece of info as a piece of jewelry. It's set in a setting that is the wrong kind of metal, maybe base or sterling silver when one really wants gold or platinum- and the prongs are loose and it tends to snag on clothing. But the gem really is nice. So you reset it. Then it's no longer a Victorian mourning ring or a mother's ring or a harem ring or whatever. It's YOUR ring.
I noticed the other week that I still have some of the old settings and that they still are snagging and that I didn't notice til I looked down at my (metaphorical) skirt.
I was at my masseuse's last week (she's helped me immensely with some neck issues I was having) and we were talking. She'd hurt her arm years ago and was frightened of losing her livelihood. So she went to the physical therapist faithfully, AND got two kinds of massage AND got acupuncture and I think some counselling. She said "I hit it with all I could." And she got better quite quickly.
Well, do you know what my first thought was? Surprise that "mixing methods" could work. See, in Scn (and a couple other disciplines/ologies, but Scn is INFAMOUS for this stricture) you don't mix methods. You're told that from a tech standpoint it "obscures results" and that's what Scn'ists say when they're being mellow and forgiving about it. Otherwise, they may say that only Scn works, don't squirrel, etc. But the ones who are kind of mellow about other practices at least say don't mix methods. And I always thought, hey, fair enough. You could do one thing at a time and still do all your other dealibops that you wanted to do.
But talking to my masseuse, a very wise lady, I thought, well, hell, why is mixing methods a problem? I mean, what, is your head gonna explode? No. You might get better faster! Ok, so what if it just makes it hard for CSing (if the person's in the FZ)? Then I thought, maybe it doesn't even do that.
So upshot is that there are probably a few of those old settings and miscellanous dusty corners and things around in my mind and maybe I thought I didn't have any.
That's why I come out and admit when I have labored under the wrong impression about stuff, like I did re Joan Wood. Like many others, I still have some old incorrect ideas and the best I can do is try to spot and address them.
So I now am looking at the "mixing methods" idea completely differently. It actually feels a bit dizzying. I'm not kidding.
That having been said, I tend to think that if one is going to do that, that the essence of the concept(s) should be considered rather than something like "LRH said". That's exactly why I had to ditch my Indie Scn'ist self assigned label. So I guess the thing is to get away from things Scn'ological and look at commonality. If something is true for you (or me or Jane Doe) it should be because it really does work out, is helpful. So one should strip away the framework. Think of a piece of info as a piece of jewelry. It's set in a setting that is the wrong kind of metal, maybe base or sterling silver when one really wants gold or platinum- and the prongs are loose and it tends to snag on clothing. But the gem really is nice. So you reset it. Then it's no longer a Victorian mourning ring or a mother's ring or a harem ring or whatever. It's YOUR ring.
I noticed the other week that I still have some of the old settings and that they still are snagging and that I didn't notice til I looked down at my (metaphorical) skirt.
I was at my masseuse's last week (she's helped me immensely with some neck issues I was having) and we were talking. She'd hurt her arm years ago and was frightened of losing her livelihood. So she went to the physical therapist faithfully, AND got two kinds of massage AND got acupuncture and I think some counselling. She said "I hit it with all I could." And she got better quite quickly.
Well, do you know what my first thought was? Surprise that "mixing methods" could work. See, in Scn (and a couple other disciplines/ologies, but Scn is INFAMOUS for this stricture) you don't mix methods. You're told that from a tech standpoint it "obscures results" and that's what Scn'ists say when they're being mellow and forgiving about it. Otherwise, they may say that only Scn works, don't squirrel, etc. But the ones who are kind of mellow about other practices at least say don't mix methods. And I always thought, hey, fair enough. You could do one thing at a time and still do all your other dealibops that you wanted to do.
But talking to my masseuse, a very wise lady, I thought, well, hell, why is mixing methods a problem? I mean, what, is your head gonna explode? No. You might get better faster! Ok, so what if it just makes it hard for CSing (if the person's in the FZ)? Then I thought, maybe it doesn't even do that.
So upshot is that there are probably a few of those old settings and miscellanous dusty corners and things around in my mind and maybe I thought I didn't have any.
That's why I come out and admit when I have labored under the wrong impression about stuff, like I did re Joan Wood. Like many others, I still have some old incorrect ideas and the best I can do is try to spot and address them.
So I now am looking at the "mixing methods" idea completely differently. It actually feels a bit dizzying. I'm not kidding.