Ethics and the Dynamics

[Terril park]

I received a nice piece of promo the other day. The scribery was entilited "The
Goal of Man"

LRH doth speaketh that when a person is low on one dynamic he is low on all of them and that when he is succesfull on one he is successful on all.

[snip]

Rd00

You or the writers of the promo have altered this idea slightly. I'd be interested to know which.

LRH says something along the lines that if you are not doing well on one dynamic, it TENDS to pull the others down.

Not that conditions on all dynamics are the same.

This is actually quite self evident. If you consider the first 3 for simplicity,
being in a low condition on any of these would tend to make the other two
lower. Do some thought experiements on that.

 

[Rene Descartes]

You or the writers of the promo have altered this idea slightly. I'd be interested to know which.

LRH says something along the lines that if you are not doing well on one dynamic, it TENDS to pull the others down.

Not that conditions on all dynamics are the same.

This is actually quite self evident. If you consider the first 3 for simplicity,
being in a low condition on any of these would tend to make the other two
lower. Do some thought experiements on that.

Hello BB

I shall grab the piece of promo over the next few days and excerpt the excerpted excerpt into a post here.

As for the first 3 for simplicity, let us consider a rape victim. Hmm, does this mean we have to look and see what kind of support that victim is receiving from the symbiotes, such as family or community?

It would seem to me that the one not getting support and is feeling despondant is in the same condition on all three.

But the despondant one getting all the support from #2 and #3 is a different story.

Sometimes I think some people can't see the tech through the paper it is written on (forest through the trees)

I'll get back to you as soon as I am able.

Rd00

 

[Smitty]

comment to Leon

Now as to conditions - they are not a bad idea of Hubbard's. They can no doubt be improved somewhat but they're not too bad as they are.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the rote conditions postulated by Hubbard even exist. So you are giving an opinion on a speculation.

The fundamental condition that you are in is the condition that you are in. It is a reflection of to what extent you have withdrawn from life, or not. The purpose of the formulas is to get you to reach into areas you have withdrawn from and to then occupy those areas and prosper in them. Whether this correlates to various dynamics or not is beside the point - the division of life into various "dynamics" being merely a useful arbitrary.

That might be the purpose Hubbard postulated for conditions formulas, but the fact is that doing those formulas exactly "per the tech" produces unreliable and unstable results.

Yes one can do very well in a small focussed area. One can also neglect other areas and be a hopeless shambles in those. I think most of us are like this to some extent. I certainly am.

But underneath it all is you, the one who should be living across all of life. So there is a basic condition you are in. And there can also be seperate conditons in each little focussed area of your life. .

We all have to deal with a multitude of conditions (dictionary defintion, not Hubbard's) every day. No two are identical and need to be dealt with individually. A rote formula can never produce reliable results when each condition is different.

You can use the conditions formulas to improve those focussed areas - nothing wrong with that. But recognise that underneath it all is your own condition and until you handle that thoroughly the "handlings" you do in the smaller areas are temporary and somewhat insignificant to the big picture of things.

If you are planning to do anything at all with Ethics formulas and conditions formulas then I urge you to desist until you have done Mary Freeman's Ethics Program. It is here that you will get down to the real basics of dealing with you as a "first dynamic" being. Hubbard didn't bother much with that - he only wanted the stats to go up. Once you have yourself sorted out somewhat you can proceed with the other areas of your life on your own and improve things tremedously.

Mary's program may have some merit, but I submit that conditions are different and cannot be reliably dealt with if you classify it and deal with it in a rote manner with Hubbard's conditions formulas. The first step is looking at what is there. The second step is to define the condition. The third step is to take ownership of that condition. Handling can be done more effectively now without dependency on rote formulas.
Smitty

 

[Vinaire]

...

I'll get back to you as soon as I am able.

Rd00

I thought you were quite able. Or, do you need to be more able?

.

 

[Smitty]

comment to Vinaire

Please follow what make sense. If a particular interpretation of Scientology data makes more sense, let's call it PARASCIENTOLOGY.

Using this terminology, what Leon is talking about is parascientology. Mary Freeman's Ethics Program falls under parascientology.

.

Actually, Mary Freeman is a metapsychology practicioner.
Smitty

 

[Rene Descartes]

I thought you were quite able. Or, do you need to be more able?

.

Well there you have it folks.

In Psychology there is the Freudian slip.

In Scientology there is the Hubbardian slip.

You see as I was typing the line from Rocky Raccoon played in my mind.

"I'll be better doc, I'll be better just as soon as I am able"

and thereafter I forgot to type "able to" and left off with "able".

vinaire, you mean to tell me you never heard of Rocky Raccoon?



Rd00

 

[Rene Descartes]

As I said earlier, it all depends on the interpretation. If we look at chronic and acute levels, and then interpret acute levels as being fluctuation around the chronic level, then it becomes possible to understand both the viewpoints from which Leon and Rene are looking.

By the way, one has to be willing to understand before one may actually understand. And one should be able to shift one's viewpoint too. Knowledge of Idenics could be useful here.

.

Yeah, it sure is nice to know that when we are engaged in the sexual act with a loved one and the act is going very well that at the great moment we are acutely in power on all 8 dynamics.

Rd00

 

[Zinjifar]

Yeah, it sure is nice to know that when we are engaged in the sexual act with a loved one and the act is going very well that at the great moment we are acutely in power on all 8 dynamics.

Rd00

Group sex with animals? What are you? Some kinda perv?

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Group sex with animals? What are you? Some kinda perv?

Zinj

You made me spill my tea, Zinj.

.

 

[Vinaire]

...

vinaire, you mean to tell me you never heard of Rocky Raccoon?



Rd00

That's right. I grew up in India, and there were no Rocky Raccoons there.

And I didn't come across any type of wacky stuff that you talk about all the time, like group animal sex.

All this seems to be part of growing up in America.

.

 

[gomorrhan]

I can't imagine a person growing up anywhere and not having had group animal sex. My particular favorite is the anteater, for obvious reasons.

 

[Vinaire]

I can't imagine a person growing up anywhere and not having had group animal sex. My particular favorite is the anteater, for obvious reasons.

Then Americans are more like Marcabians.

.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

That's right. I grew up in India, and there were no Rocky Raccoons there.

And I didn't come across any type of wacky stuff that you talk about all the time, like group animal sex.

All this seems to be part of growing up in America.

.

F@ck No!

You've got the Kama Sutra, the erotic mythology of the Hindu Gods, all those sexy temple figures, and caste based sexuality.

No one in India has got the time for mere bestiality. Kevin, is but a poor simple wannabe chela with too much time on his hands (and god knows what else).


Mark A. Baker

 

[Terril park]

Hello BB

I shall grab the piece of promo over the next few days and excerpt the excerpted excerpt into a post here.

As for the first 3 for simplicity, let us consider a rape victim. Hmm, does this mean we have to look and see what kind of support that victim is receiving from the symbiotes, such as family or community?

It would seem to me that the one not getting support and is feeling despondant is in the same condition on all three.

But the despondant one getting all the support from #2 and #3 is a different story.

Sometimes I think some people can't see the tech through the paper it is written on (forest through the trees)

I'll get back to you as soon as I am able.

Rd00

The one getting support from 2nd and third dynamics is doing better than the one who after a terrible first dynamic event is apparently not getting support from them.

Think you're making my point?

 

[Rene Descartes]

The one getting support from 2nd and third dynamics is doing better than the one who after a terrible first dynamic event is apparently not getting support from them.

Think you're making my point?

You're sure about that eh?

There are some victims who can get all the support in the world and they will still stay collapsed.

Gads bb, you been giving so many people wins with that auditing and it has resulted in you missing some of the other things that are going on in the world.

Rd00

 

[nexus100]

I think the failure of SCN ethics is the idea that there is any "collapse". The only issues one can have with life are those one doesn't learn from. Otherwise, trying to maintain in this glowdome is likely to get trying.

 

[Rene Descartes]

I think the failure of SCN ethics is the idea that there is any "collapse". The only issues one can have with life are those one doesn't learn from. Otherwise, trying to maintain in this glowdome is likely to get trying.

But some victims are less fortunate than others.

And in Scientology tech the victim is the one to be blamed.

Victim is low-toned in Scientology.

And ethics-wise in Scientology it is likely the victim pulled it in.

The PL on Ethics Blind Spot (ignorance) appears to have been a much misunderstood and under-applied policy letter.

Responsibility is fine after the fact. And just because one can assume it after the fact does not mean that one must assume it before the fact. One can be allowed to assume it before the fact but to enforce the assumption sounds suppressive to me. (dang! why did I use a Hubbard term?)

And there are times when responsibility for one's condition is meaningless.

Methinks Hubbard missed the boat when the compassion wavelength was invented.

He must have thought it was invented by the evil Psychs.

Rd00

 

[Rene Descartes]

That's right. I grew up in India, and there were no Rocky Raccoons there.

And I didn't come across any type of wacky stuff that you talk about all the time, like group animal sex.

All this seems to be part of growing up in America.

.

here vinaire,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Raccoon

As for zinj, I have no idea how he extrapolated something like that, maybe the whiskey was real good today.

Anyway zinj trailing off into who knows what reminds me of an American joke.

A man goes to a Psychiatrist and tells him he is having trouble concentrating on his work. The Psych tells him he is going to show him some ink blots.

He shows him one and asks him what he sees in it.

The man tells him he sees a beautiful naked woman waiting in bed for him to have sex with.

The Psych shows him another one.

The mans tells him he sees a group of people engaging in an orgy.

The Pysch shows him another.

The man tells him he sees himself doing the funky act with two hot babes.

This continues and the man is always describing a sexual act when he sees the ink blots.

The Psych finishes the session and tells the man "I know what your problem is. You are obsessed with sex."

The man says "Me? Hey you are the one who was showing me all those dirty pictures!"



Have fun vinaire,

Rd00

 

[Vinaire]

Now, now, that is quite an indictment of Zinj.

And thanks for introducing me to Rocky Raccoon.

.

 

[Leon]

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the rote conditions postulated by Hubbard even exist. So you are giving an opinion on a speculation.

Of course they don't "exist". Neither do many other things we use in our daily life "exist", e.g numbers, quadratic equations, measurements of various kinds, grammar, manners, etc etc. They are agreed upon, and used sensibly they can be very useful. Used stupidly they are useless.

That might be the purpose Hubbard postulated for conditions formulas, but the fact is that doing those formulas exactly "per the tech" produces unreliable and unstable results.

Doing anything rotely and without understanding is sure to end up a mess. Don't blame the originator of the idea for that.

We all have to deal with a multitude of conditions (dictionary defintion, not Hubbard's) every day. No two are identical and need to be dealt with individually. A rote formula can never produce reliable results when each condition is different.

Agreed. Each one is unique and must be dealt with individually.

Mary's program may have some merit, but I submit that conditions are different and cannot be reliably dealt with if you classify it and deal with it in a rote manner with Hubbard's conditions formulas. The first step is looking at what is there. The second step is to define the condition. The third step is to take ownership of that condition.
Smitty

OMIGAWD - He's given us a FORMULA - A dreaded ROTE FORMULA ! ! ! ! !