They are called
irony,
native wit, and
satire and are much prized as literary traits among those with an education.
However, those with an history of excessive involvement with the church of scientology often characterize such aspects as
'covert hostility',
'joking', &
'degrading'.
What a person sees is a reflection of what that person's own thoughts.
Mark A. Baker
First, if what you were actually doing here on ESMB were of the nature of
irony,
native wit, and
satire, that would be fine, but it isn't.
Now, maybe you
intend it that way, but short phrases on a computer screen are a very poor medium for these things (unless composed in ways that make them obvious). So, if THAT is what THINK you are doing, you are failing miserably. If you actually have any concern or desire that your "native wit" and "irony" is
seen and received as these things, then you might try better paying attention to "the other end of the comm line" - and notice that for the most part these things are NOT "duplicated on the receiving end".
And it is NOT the "fault" of the readers - as your last sentence implies.
On this comment, "What a person sees is a reflection of [STRIKE]what [/STRIKE]that person's own thoughts", that is true in SOME cases. For example, when I
see how the Church of Scientology lied and aimed to sabotage the life of Paulette Cooper through VERY underhanded HUBBARD "tech", IT EXISTED JUST AS THAT. It isn't ME (or anyone else) that is "seeing this" because it is, ummm, how did you say, "a reflection of my own mind".
This is typical of exactly what you do Baker. This is a perfect example. YOU AGAIN OVER-GENERALIZED (as you so often do). You said:
"What a person sees is a reflection of [STRIKE]what [/STRIKE]that person's own thoughts."
Again, that is true in SOME cases and in SOME contexts, but you state it as some complete "truth".
And, in typical Scientology habit, that comment does what Scientology ALWAYS does - it blames the person and NOT Scientology. See, what you IMPLY is that if a person notices anything bad in some area that it must be a "reflection of the person". If a person doesn't "get"
your wit and irony then it must be his or her fault (reflection of THEIR OWN mind). Personally, to me, this is hilarious.
There are TWO things occurring in reality. The "objective events, situations and occurrences", and the
subjective reactions and relationships that people have with them. Your above comment entirely omitted that fact that even without an observer to observe some of your absurd statements, to act as a "reflector" (as you would say), the comments are still absurd (as adjudicated by most people with a common education and a decent state of mental health).
People don't fail to "get" your
irony,
native wit, and
satire because they "see something else as a reflection of their own mind", but because for the most part,
you are not very good at it. I get the feeling in some of your posts that you are typing away, laughing as if some great joke is being relayed - yet YOU are the ONLY one laughing. For all the talk of "comm" and "paying attention to the receiving end of the comm line" that occurs in Scientology, and for one who claims to like some aspects of this subject of Scientology, this is one area where you seem to possibly need some major improvement.
Last point. Some people don't enjoy long posts. Mine tend to be longer because I like to provide EXAMPLES for any general statements made. When you FAIL to provide any supporting discussion when stating something like, ""what a person sees is a reflection of [STRIKE]what [/STRIKE]that person's own thoughts", it acts just like Hubbard's own "open-ended" statements where the ONLY option is for the reader the "fill in the meaning" (dub-in). And yes, dub-in DOES follow the tendency of where a person WILL "see what already exists on his or her own mind". THAT is a major problem with speaking in fucking generalities all of the time!!!!
(that was a generality)
Also, this isn't even a correct sane proper sentence:
""What a person sees is a reflection of what that person's own thoughts."
Now maybe, it could be stated as. "What a person sees is a reflection of what that person thinks", or ""What a person sees is a reflection of what exists in that person's own thoughts." But even then, it is simply, still, an over-generalized statement. Not
all people exist in THAT sorry state of reflexive automaticity . . . . .
Now, maybe YOU were speaking from experience here and were mistakenly extrapolating your OWN personal mental tendencies on others.:confused2:
Note: The above sentence is an example of what YOU often do. It is an underhanded quip. It is a snide remark. It isn't aimed at "real discussion" - it is aimed at creating some
stupid effect. And, this sort of thing, to me, is NOT irony, native wit, or satire.
As I see it, you too often don't involve yourself in REAL honest discussion to get anywhere - you
play games and "argue" (using all sorts of gimmicks and ruses) in some attempt to "win" (at some game that exists in ONLY your head, and that ONLY you are playing).
Also, you are NOT the ONLY one who does this - some of your more traditional ESMB "opterms" also do it at times.
To me, it just gets old and boring.
Just talk - have a sincere discussion - don't "argue" or play games of reason and logic. This is NOT a "debate club". That's all I try to do, and it seems that most people "get" what I say most of the time. :confused2:
And, who knows, maybe not.
over der>>>>>>>
