Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
DOX PLOX.
Scientology is all bad
- Thread starter Veda
- Start date
DOX PLOX.
Jquepublic
Silver Meritorious Patron
Excuse me, conman. "Does it strike you as odd that you should use the words of a conman as if they were true?"
Now what the hell did that do except waste both our time?! WTF man.
PS: Infinite says: People who talk about things like "continual overts of any magnitude" as if there really were such things are, to me, indicating a belief in something which can be easily reconstructed into objective reality once its pointed out. Perhaps not for the person concerned - they may have too much invested in the belief - but others might be interested. I know I am.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you saying there is no such thing as a person with continual overts of magnitude? Maybe I'm not following you. I doubt you are really saying that nobody exists in this world whose intentions are bad and who regularly hurts others.. are you? Maybe I am mis-understanding.. You are expressing yourself in a way that is difficult for me to understand.. like "reconstructed into objective reality".. etc.. not sure what you mean at all.. or what it is you are actually interested in at the end..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you saying there is no such thing as a person with continual overts of magnitude? Maybe I'm not following you. I doubt you are really saying that nobody exists in this world whose intentions are bad and who regularly hurts others.. are you? Maybe I am mis-understanding.. You are expressing yourself in a way that is difficult for me to understand.. like "reconstructed into objective reality".. etc.. not sure what you mean at all.. or what it is you are actually interested in at the end..
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
No, not forget...but re-examine and re-evaluate her acceptance of them and the concepts they stand for as being real and being true, based on a new knowledge or new realization that the "Source" of these concepts lied about them, and nearly everything else about himself and his life, did not ever do any real research, had no real training or education or experience about our minds, or healing and helping people with their human problems, cared not a whit about religion or spirituality, and at the core of his factually demonstrable extremely dysfunctional personality was a money-grubbing, lying, cheating, backstabbing, abusive sociopath.
We're just (hopefully gently) encouraging a little more cognitive dissonance over the whole still trusting and "believing that the tech works" viewpoint of life, the universe and everything. In other words, thinking like a Scientologist is trained to think, and not getting beyond that.
It is a gradient from COS organization bad, but Scientology good...to DM bad but Ron good...to Ron, Dm and COS organization bad, but Scientology processing and auditing good (the tech works and helps people) to...
...the total freedom to fully examine and question the efficacy of ALL OF IT, every part of it, even right down to the essential meaning of terms and concepts, based on a reality based linguistic map or viewpoint, and not from an INDOCTRINATED Scientology Cult think (which entails thought-stopping and overlooking or suppressing boatloads of cognitive dissonance) map or viewpoint.
It's kind of your classic peeling the Scientology Onion, or Arnie's levels of rising awareness of stages or levels of being an Ex.
We're all trying to help DillPickle, (and the lurkers who may or will be reading this) who is also trying to help us.
It's all good. It's also very hard work and painful to re-examine and re-assess or evaluate for yourself long held and long cherished concepts, terms and beliefs which one wishes to be able to rely on and trust in as "stable data", or have certainty about. Especially so for those who were raised in the cult, and have no other frame of reference.Having helpful examples and encouragement at hand, done in a respectful and caring manner, does help to speed the process. We have ample real world evidence of that right here on the board, and elsewhere.
This is not my first rodeo, Demented LRH, or yours.
I don't expect her, or you or any other Ex to forget any of it, in fact I think it is harmful to get out of COS and just try and "forget" that you were ever in, and to suppress and deny that whatever happened to you and your friends and family, happened. But I do want all Exes to be able to fully heal and move forward in positive ways in life. That's why I refer to the process as a healing journey and recovering from one's cult experience. To further use a map analogy, one of the first rest stops along the way where you can get out of the stage coach and take a good look around at the scenery in this new territory is when you fully recognize, realize and accept that you were in a Cult. To be able to do that, you have to be able to question the ways you were indoctrinated to think and view "reality", based on the Cult's teachings and standards, and the basic concepts and assumptions that you hold on to about what is real and true.
(Facey, pardner, I'm getting into Southwestern lingo as an homage to YOU!
) 
It's about healing and redeeming the past, which is often a long and arduous process, but infinitely easier with friends and well-wishers at hand to help light the path out of the mental trap of "being" a Scientologist.
The path is clearer and easier to discern for some, but more obscure and rocky for others. But the way out of always thinking like a Scientologist, even after you leave the Cult, IS right at hand. Sometimes folks just don't see it yet, or are unwilling to let go of their old considerations, and trust to it yet. But the path is there.
Questioning what one thinks and assumes to be true about the way the world is and our minds work IS the Path!
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..
Moving on to:
Now remember, Axiom One says the static has no location in time. So, how can the Static be capable for "considerations" since to consider means to think and to think means to use a language and to use a language means ordered context and to order context takes time. My earlier question about Axiom 1 still applies too - what, for example, can the Static have an opinion on in the presence of nothing to have an opinion about? The crazy is just starting . . .
Moving on to:
Now remember, Axiom One says the static has no location in time. So, how can the Static be capable for "considerations" since to consider means to think and to think means to use a language and to use a language means ordered context and to order context takes time. My earlier question about Axiom 1 still applies too - what, for example, can the Static have an opinion on in the presence of nothing to have an opinion about? The crazy is just starting . . .
Demented LRH
Patron Meritorious
I took a look at the first article. It is very theoretical, and I do not see how it could be applied to Dianetics.
The mapping that I described is used in all linguistic softwares that translate texts from one launguage to another. Each word in an language is matched with another word in a different langauge. This is one-to-many relation because one word can have more than one equivalent in another language. I know this stuff because, as an IEEE member, I receive one of its magazines, Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
I am not a linguist, but I use the magazine's materials for stock market analysis. Occassionally, out of curiosity, I read its articles on linguistic mapping.
===============
This does not relate to your post; someone wrote that he does not see the connection between the reactive mind and linguistic mapping.
According to Hubbard, the reactive mind uses some form of language, which is a misinterpretation of the Engish language (I assume that the PC is an English-speaking individual; otherwise, a reference to any other language could be made). In linguistic terms, the reactive mind maps the English language onto itself.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
There are several things going on which can make it difficult to discuss Scientology. It is difficult to avoid Scientology terms and concepts but if you do use those terms and concepts, you have automatically accepted those as having value and truth.
Those who reject Scientology's terms and concepts cannot have a discussion about those concepts unless they have been translated into real world terms and then discuss those.
Define "continual overts of magnitude" using real world words and concepts and there can be a worthwhile discussion. If it is left solely in Scientology terms, it cannot be debated because Scientology does not allow for debate.
Bill
That's an easy one.. It says he/she/it is CAPABLE... as soon as he/she/it HAS A THOUGHT they are no longer STATIC. I can't prove Axiom 1 or 2 are TRUE.. but at least that makes sense. PS: I shouldn't have said he/she/it, as being STATIC, that "something" would have no he or she identity.. just STATIC LOL PSPS: I shouldn't have said "Something" either
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
So if the moment it considers something it then is no longer a static, then what is it, when is it, and where is it?
The Anabaptist Jacques
According to LRH.. there is no "it".. it's just STATIC.. almost impossible to describe.. I'm straining my brain to call it ANYTHING LOL PS: Oh.. if you mean WHAT, WHEN and WHERE after it has considered something.. then it is whatever, whenever and wherever it has considered itself to be. PSPS: Maybe "it" is the awareness of awareness unit with no thought.. just perception. If "it" wants something to perceive, to be aware of, it just creates it. Maybe when there is no creation, it is still aware that it is aware.. but is not focusing on anything.
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Then how can it be self-evident?
For the static to be evident it has to exist in space and time.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Demented LRH
Patron Meritorious
"To a lot of words (Hubbard goes on to say), the reactive mind attaches no meaning at all. So you won't notice your reactive mind at all, when you're dealing with things it considers meaningless. But to some words it attaches very different meanings than your analytical mind does. For instance, where your analytical mind interprets 'french fries' to mean a tasty but fattening food item, your reactive mind may interpret 'french fries' as meaning pain, or embarrassment, or joy. So when you hear the word 'french fries', your reactive and analytical minds feed you divergent meanings, and the reactive mind's irrational but powerful interpretations may affect your behavior."
Student of Trinity.
As you said, the words with no meaning attached to them do not affect person's actions.
As for the phrase "french fries", it could be interpreted differently by the reactive mind, according to Hubbard. But neither he nor anyone else provided alternative interpretations. That is why the word "french" is mapped onto undefined word, and so does the word "fries".
I would be using different argument if Hubbard (or Korzybski) were to provide the reactive mind's interpretations of the words. But they did not.
Student of Trinity.
As you said, the words with no meaning attached to them do not affect person's actions.
As for the phrase "french fries", it could be interpreted differently by the reactive mind, according to Hubbard. But neither he nor anyone else provided alternative interpretations. That is why the word "french" is mapped onto undefined word, and so does the word "fries".
I would be using different argument if Hubbard (or Korzybski) were to provide the reactive mind's interpretations of the words. But they did not.
I added this on to my original post:
According to LRH.. there is no "it".. it's just STATIC.. almost impossible to describe.. I'm straining my brain to call it ANYTHING LOL PS: Oh.. if you mean WHAT, WHEN and WHERE after it has considered something.. then it is whatever, whenever and wherever it has considered itself to be. PSPS: Maybe "it" is the awareness of awareness unit with no thought.. just perception. If "it" wants something to perceive, to be aware of, it just creates it. Maybe when there is no creation, it is still aware that it is aware.. but is not focusing on anything.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Hmm.. I followed you up to the point where you said Hubbard did not provide alternative interpretations.. let's say of the words French Fries.. or what your point is about that.. I can say, that the words "french fries" might mean something good to eat to the analytical mind, but to the reactive mind, they are BAD because when the person was 2 years old, his mother almost died choking on a french fry.. or whatever the reactive mind considers the problem is with french fries.. to the reactive mind, french fries equal "danger".
Demented LRH
Patron Meritorious
No. I am saying that it is unknown what kind of interpretation of a word the reactive mind does when it encounters one. When the wrord is mapped into undefined word, this is an indication that the mapping is not properly defined. In other words, lack of information about the mapping leads to conclusion that thereactive mind does not exist.
Here is an analogy -- the word "ether" cannot be defined properly, so it does not exist. The scientists have abandoned the notion of ether in 1900s.
Definition of the word "either" is an example of mapping of language onto itself.
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Now Trin, you Academic you (takes one to know one 
) We do, in some sense, have two minds. I think of it more as the emergency back up system... People do refer to our "lizard brain". Mine has saved me on several occasions...literally saved me, compelling action while my cerebral cortex was trying to catch up, figure things out and provide meaning to the overriding need to act with no delay. I loves my "little mind" and very likely would not be here without it. Give it props, man!
Okay, I get your meaning, though.
Sorry - if there is a state called STATIC, I haven't experienced it knowingly, so I am the wrong person to try to describe it to you. I'm doing my best off the top of my head LOL