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

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

These are examples of things Hubbard wrote, but what I wanted was some indication of what stuff it was, by other people, that Hubbard sorted and sifted and prioritized. I want to be able to compare Hubbard's version to the original, in order to see just how good a job Hubbard did at understanding and re-organizing the original ideas. Comparing Hubbard only to Hubbard's own claims about what other people did (or failed to do) is just giving Hubbard a free pass.

And I'm afraid these particular first examples that you picked are some of the very ones that I consider to be idiotic. "Space is a viewpoint of dimension" is not a brilliant breaking of the definitional loop. It's meaningless. What the hell is 'dimension', apart from being a certain property that spaces have? What is a viewpoint? How can space, in general, be a viewpoint? At the very least I would have thought one should say something like, "Space is the set of all possible viewpoints." Seriously, mistaking this effort by Hubbard for any kind of insight is like watching an awkward student driver stall the vehicle while trying to turn a corner, and calling them Mario Andretti.

Dimension is what is created by the action of particles moving or in Hubbard's terms, reaching and withdrawing. Your second point regarding a set of all possible viewpoints is an excellent point but that is covered a bit later in the Factors around factor 6 or 7 where it states (and I paraphrase), "and there are other viewpoints and they too extend out anchor points and thus there is intermingling of anchor points and thus is space created." Frankly, I am not going to take the time to sort out and spoon feed you data as you are asking me to do. I believe that since you are the one originating this conversation and asserting that all this stuff is no good and idiotic, you take the time to at least search it out, read it and study it a little before you totally trash it. To me, you are putting the cart before the horse. You come in saying something is no good but then admit that you have not really studied it and then you want me to spend my time digging up all the data so that you can trash it. IMHO you are being extremely arrogant!

Likewise Hubbard's so-called 'Axioms' are ridiculous. Quite apart from what they might or might not mean, they are simply not axioms at all. Axioms are supposed to lay out the few undefined terms that one proposes to use, and specify what relationships are to be assumed between them. The whole point is to have only a few axioms; if you have to assume a lot of things without explanation, then why should anyone pay any attention to what you say? It's all just assumed.

Quantum mechanics has five or six axioms. Euclidean geometry has five.

Those are what real axioms look like. Hubbard's "axioms" are different.

I'm sorry, but if the Axioms and the definitions of space and communication are prime examples of Hubbard's genius, then they only serve to confirm my previous impression that the man was a glib ignoramus, and not even particularly intelligent; merely cunning in knowing what kind of BS he could get away with, with some kinds of audience. If you accepted this kind of work by Hubbard as some kind of genius, then I'm really and honestly not just being anti-Hubbard, but am simply telling you the plain, bitter truth: you got taken.

I recommend that you get yourself a copy of the Phoenix lectures or download part of it off of the internet. That book covers many of Hubbard's axioms with detailed and interesting explanations. Ditto for the Factors, I suggest you Google them and study them a little before bashing them. A couple of more points.

Euclid's Axioms for geometry, as good as they were, have been challenged ever since Einstein published his second theory of relativity, suggesting that space is curved. In Euclidean Geometry, one of his Axioms states that parrallel lines never intersect. Of course this seems self evident and not subject to challenge or even comment. Lo and behold, when Einstein introduced the concept of curved space, this Axiom of Euclid, I believe his fifth Axiom of Euclidean Geometry, was challenged and with that one axiom challenged, other of his Axioms were weakened. A subject called non Euclidean geometry was developed to take into account Einstein's new theory and now Euclid's beautiful work is stale dated. Ditto for the beautiful work and axioms of Newtonian physics. Does that mean that the work of Newton and Euclid was no good. No, not in the least! Those works served mankind well for centuries and ultimately made it possible for an Einstein to come foreward and push mans knowledge even fUrther.

Other than your comment about viewpoints, which I cover above, your other sweeping statement above which tells me that I got taken is just your opinion. You admit that you have not read much of Hubbard's work and are not all that familiar with it and then assert your opinion that everything he wrote is idiotic. You are entitled to your opinion but to me an opinion with no references or examples to back it up, is of very minimal value to say the least. It is also a demonstration of extreme arrogance and such opinions do not constitute proving your point.

I would like you take Hubbard's definition of communication, dissect it and show us where it goes wrong. To me, that definition makes a lot of sense and is an accurate definition, better than what is stated in dictionaries, please explain why you think otherwise.

Regarding where Hubbard borrowed from others, the most obvious example is Hubbard's, "Life is a static with no mass, wave length, time, etc." These types of thoughts appear in Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, the Tao and the Vedic hymns. Hubbard here is defining the soul, the spirt, elan vital or whatever others have called it. It is not original with him but his definition is original and introduces some new facets into the earlier definitions. Another area where Hubbard altered the work of others such as Jesus, is his precept that Man does not HAVE a Soul but Man IS a SOUl. This is a suble change of a couple of words but it causes major changes in the way a being may view his own existence. Another item might have to do with sins, either committing sins yourself or having others sin against you. Hubbard developed this concept as his overt act - motivator theory. Others have commented on one getting off lies and getting off secrets which one is concealing from others and Hubbard developed this work, pioneered by Freud and others into his his subject of withholds and missed withholds.

There is Sherlock Holmes ability, developed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, of looking at things very carefully and seeing obvious things which others overlook and Hubbard comes up with his subject of 'Obnosis', observing the obvious. There is logic, developed by Plato and Socrates and Hubbard comes up with his Data Series. I am just making up this list on my own with no preparation and I could go on for hours but enough is enough. I hope you get my drift.
Lakey

P. S. - Hubbard also took a precept from early Greece, I forgot who first said it, maybe ArIstotle and this precept had to do with learning and knowing. The precept states that the first state of knowing is to know that you don't know. You might look into that one yourself, you are able to arrogantly trash an entire subject after only a sketchy or cursory look at it. Not only that but you want others who believe a little differently to save you time and supply you with quotes so that you can trash them.

REGARDING THE QUOTES YOU WANT ME TO PUT UP, I CAN'T EVEN CONCEIVE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU MIGHT SAY, "OH LOOK, HERE IS ONE THING THAT HUBBARD STATED THAT ACTUALLY HAS SOME MERIT." I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS POSSIBLE! YOU HAVE PREDETERMINED THAT EVERYTHING HE WROTE WAS STUPID AND IDIOTIC AND YOU ARE NOT ABOUT TO CHANGE AND WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT EVEN ONE THING HE WROTE HAD SOME MERIT. SOMETHING IS WRONG THERE BECAUSE EVERY MADMAN, EVEN A HITLER, GOT SOME THINGS RIGHT. WHEN A SUBJECT IS ABLE TO ATTRACT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ADHERENTS, AND GROW DESPITE HEAVILY FUNDED ATTACKS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND MEDICAL GROUPS TO KILL IT, IT MUST HAVE HAD AT LEAST SOME TRUTHS IN IT OR IT WOULD NEVER HAVE GOT OFF THE GROUND!!

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

"Communication: the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point." Now hold this in mind & ponder
<snip>
The Factors starts out with, "Before the beginning was a Cause and the sole purpose of the Cause was the creation of an Effect.", next is "In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is 'to be'. next is, "The first act of beingness is to assume a point of view and from that viewpoint extend out points to view called anchor points and thus is space created." .
<snip>
Lakey

OK, I'm dumb. Help me.
Assume a point of view & from that viewpoint extend out points to view called anchor points and thus space is created.

Well. OK

From no mass no space, the static .... wher comes the ability for impelling across a distance. How from a static do we start this impelling.

Can somebody put the Hubbardian " theory in a - lovely word - "workable" form ?

LOL !

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OK, I'm dumb. Help me.
Assume a point of view & from that viewpoint extend out points to view called anchor points and thus space is created.

Well. OK

From no mass no space, the static .... wher comes the ability for impelling across a distance. How from a static do we start this impelling.

Can somebody put the Hubbardian " theory in a - lovely word - "workable" form ?

LOL !

No. no one can because its pure obfuscation, how would you test whether space is created through this idea ?
make some no space ? it's just stupid shit to purposefully bring about confusion.

it's chinese fingercuffs for the mind.

Humbly tendered by fatso to distract you while he had his hand in your wallet.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OK, I'm dumb. Help me.
Assume a point of view & from that viewpoint extend out points to view called anchor points and thus space is created.

Well. OK

From no mass no space, the static .... wher comes the ability for impelling across a distance. How from a static do we start this impelling.

Can somebody put the Hubbardian " theory in a - lovely word - "workable" form ?

LOL !

I believe you are missing a key point and that is that in Hubbard's model of the Universe, as stated in "The Factors", the source of the Universe comes from without, in other words it is outside the Universe. A life unit, a unit with no mass, no space, etc. has the power to postulate and perceive and it selects a viewpoint from which to view things but as yet no space exists, no energy or matter exist and time does not exist.

This life unit, then extends out from itself points to view and sets these points into motion by using its power to postulate, i.e. it wills things to occur in such a manner that they move closer to and away from the life unit's point of viewing. In this manner a filmy, non solid space is established. Due to no matter or energy yet being present, the space is very filmy with no time component.

When other life units establish their own viewpoints and extend out their points to view, a co mingling of these filmy spaces occurs. Beings sense items within their space which are not under there own control. The point where each being first senses the existence of moving items not under its own control would be a major point of awareness for all beings. It is a bridge point where a being's universe alters from just being its own universe and morphs into being a universe shared with other beings.

Beings come to recognize this state of affairs and initially it must be a shocking revelation for each being. Eventually beings come to realize that they must deal with this state of affairs. This realization leads to communication between beings, each with independent volition, being developed,. Communication between life units begins at first with mimicry. One being puts up a picture and another being duplicates and makes a copy and sends it back to the first being. In this manner, beings send out trial balloons signaling a desire to communicate. Ultimately, an agreed on system of communication is concocted, thus communication between life units is inaugurated and results in an agreed upon universe, shared by various life units who agree to participate in it,

To facilitate the concept of an agreed upon universe to be shared by a large number of beings, solid particles, which can be sensed and experienced by all are dreamed up, postulated into existence and agreed to. These particles are created from energy created by life units and these particles are condensed energy which becomes matter. Matter contains mass and when particles containing mass move in space then a time stream comes into existence. There is a fall out from all of this and such things as gravity, seem to be necessary to resist movement of objects and limit the velocity at which they can move. Thus the mechanics of Newtonian physics are established.

This stuff is not intuitive and is not easy to grasp, also it is just one man's theory. Nobody really knows for sure what is true in this realm. Much simpler theories have been put forward such as the Chapter on Creation in the Bible. The trouble with the Bible theory is that before the Universe a God must first exist so many people ask, how did God come to be? You get into an endless "what came before that" which never ends Most systems have that shortcoming, including those taught in the Universities.

The simplest attempt to illustrate Hubbard's theory that I have encountered is the idea of a closed in baseball stadium with a live game taking place in it. Kids in the neighborhood cut a knothole in the fence, that represents assuming a viewpoint. Ballplayers and the ball are moving in various patterns around the stadium and as they approach and recede from the knothole, there is the action of reaching and withdrawing. Someone else cuts another knothole on the opposite site of the stadium and they see things from a different perspective. Later, two such people argue about things which happened, having viewed the game from different perspectives, etc and arguing their differences tends to create mass. There are a lot of similarities to The Factors in this analogy; it is an extremely simple and crude representation of The Factors but does provide some people a bit more understanding of them.

Vinair Aragalwa (not sure of spelling) has moved on beyond Hubbard's model and moved in the direction of simplicity. In his model of the Universe, discussed on Facebook, space is a given, it just exists, there is no diety outside the Universe in fact there is no concept of anything outside the Universe. In Vinny's model he uses the literal definition of the word Universe, it includes everything. As Vinny's theory of the Universe develops he reaches the conclusion that all life is totally connected and that we are all One. We are the God be we don't know it. His model is very fascinating and probably simpler to grasp than Hubbard's model but Vinny has to get people to agree that we are all parts of one being and a lot of people are unwilling to buy into that.

In closing, I offer two comments: #1 On this topic know one knows the full truth with 100% certainty and the full truth may be beyond human comprehension. #2 [/B]Mankind can only speculate. [/B]I believe that things which contribute to extending mankind's knowledge further as regards "origins of the universe" studies will always simplify current theories. If something makes current theories more complex, then I feel that new material is always a step in the wrong direction.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I recommend that you get yourself a copy of the Phoenix lectures or download part of it off of the internet. That book covers many of Hubbard's axioms with detailed and interesting explanations. Ditto for the Factors, I suggest you Google them and study them a little before bashing them. A couple of more points.

I recommend that you get yourself a copy of the book Idenics. That book covers the evaluation Hubbard did.

(seems to mean you were bashing me for me to getting you to read that book with an open mind viewpoint, and now you wish another to read Hubbard, fair enough)

Kimo sabe, Lakey.

 

[lkwdblds]

More from Mama

Mama sent a new post, visiting Disneyland:

Dear Lakey,

For Christmas this year, we took our family to Disneyland. We spent a week walking, and swimming, and eating.

Here is a link to just an amazing coral and bell ringing group

http://youtu.be/WBuEu_3CgFk

They just knocked our socks off.

They are in California Adventure, near the entrance, only in the holiday season.

The first minute is like totally boring, with the narrator walking to the park from the parking lot. But once he focuses on the group, you can see and hear their beauty.

For more of them go to YouTube and search for "Buena Vista Street Community Bell Ringers"

yo mama

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

No. no one can because its pure obfuscation, how would you test whether space is created through this idea ?
make some no space ? it's just stupid shit to purposefully bring about confusion.

it's chinese fingercuffs for the mind.

Humbly tendered by fatso to distract you while he had his hand in your wallet.

You criticize but offer no better theory to show us the way. All I can thing of to say to your comments above is "Yawn..."

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I recommend that you get yourself a copy of the book Idenics. That book covers the evaluation Hubbard did.

(seems to mean you were bashing me for me to getting you to read that book with an open mind viewpoint, and now you wish another to read Hubbard, fair enough)

Kimo sabe, Lakey.

A ridiculous post, that made me laugh. Gib, have you ever heard of the ability to sort out similarities and differences?

I have nothing against Idenics. I had some sessions and did a little study from materials Mike provided to me and I like Mike and Galusha"s work and I posted that Idenics was an improvement over standard Dianetics.

SOT's situation is totally different. To my knowledge he has never taken scientology services and he admits that he hasn't read very much of Hubbard's work. He admits to doing only a cursory and brief study of the subject and yet he has pre-judged the entire subject and all of Hubbard's writings and strongly asserts that everything which Hubbard has written is all idiocy and trash. Contrast that with my familiarity with Idenics. I received Idenics counselling from Mike and did a little reading on the subject from materials which he provided me. I admire the work done by Mike and John Galusha and I stated n my earlier post that I believe Idenics is an improvement over standard Dianetics.

Surely Gib, a man of your intelligence can see that you are not comparing apples to apples. Perhaps you need to purchase a book on the subject of logic because many of the comparisons which you make to support your positions, such as your post above which I am commenting on, are very deficient in logic.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I believe you are missing a key point and that is that in Hubbard's model of the Universe, as stated in "The Factors", the source of the Universe comes from without, in other words it is outside the Universe. A life unit, a unit with no mass, no space, etc. has the power to postulate and perceive and it selects a viewpoint from which to view things but as yet no space exists, no energy or matter exist and time does not exist.

This life unit, then extends out from itself points to view and sets these points into motion by using its power to postulate, i.e. it wills things to occur in such a manner that they move closer to and away from the life unit's point of viewing. In this manner a filmy, non solid space is established. Due to no matter or energy yet being present, the space is very filmy with no time component.

When other life units establish their own viewpoints and extend out their points to view, a co mingling of these filmy spaces occurs. Beings sense items within their space which are not under there own control. The point where each being first senses the existence of moving items not under its own control would be a major point of awareness for all beings. It is a bridge point where a being's universe alters from just being its own universe and morphs into being a universe shared with other beings.

Beings come to recognize this state of affairs and initially it must be a shocking revelation for each being. Eventually beings come to realize that they must deal with this state of affairs. This realization leads to communication between beings, each with independent volition, being developed,. Communication between life units begins at first with mimicry. One being puts up a picture and another being duplicates and makes a copy and sends it back to the first being. In this manner, beings send out trial balloons signaling a desire to communicate. Ultimately, an agreed on system of communication is concocted, thus communication between life units is inaugurated and results in an agreed upon universe, shared by various life units who agree to participate in it,

To facilitate the concept of an agreed upon universe to be shared by a large number of beings, solid particles, which can be sensed and experienced by all are dreamed up, postulated into existence and agreed to. These particles are created from energy created by life units and these particles are condensed energy which becomes matter. Matter contains mass and when particles containing mass move in space then a time stream comes into existence. There is a fall out from all of this and such things as gravity, seem to be necessary to resist movement of objects and limit the velocity at which they can move. Thus the mechanics of Newtonian physics are established.

This stuff is not intuitive and is not easy to grasp, also it is just one man's theory. Nobody really knows for sure what is true in this realm. Much simpler theories have been put forward such as the Chapter on Creation in the Bible. The trouble with the Bible theory is that before the Universe a God must first exist so many people ask, how did God come to be? You get into an endless "what came before that" which never ends Most systems have that shortcoming, including those taught in the Universities.

The simplest attempt to illustrate Hubbard's theory that I have encountered is the idea of a closed in baseball stadium with a live game taking place in it. Kids in the neighborhood cut a knothole in the fence, that represents assuming a viewpoint. Ballplayers and the ball are moving in various patterns around the stadium and as they approach and recede from the knothole, there is the action of reaching and withdrawing. Someone else cuts another knothole on the opposite site of the stadium and they see things from a different perspective. Later, two such people argue about things which happened, having viewed the game from different perspectives, etc and arguing their differences tends to create mass. There are a lot of similarities to The Factors in this analogy; it is an extremely simple and crude representation of The Factors but does provide some people a bit more understanding of them.

Vinair Aragalwa (not sure of spelling) has moved on beyond Hubbard's model and moved in the direction of simplicity. In his model of the Universe, discussed on Facebook, space is a given, it just exists, there is no diety outside the Universe in fact there is no concept of anything outside the Universe. In Vinny's model he uses the literal definition of the word Universe, it includes everything. As Vinny's theory of the Universe develops he reaches the conclusion that all life is totally connected and that we are all One. We are the God be we don't know it. His model is very fascinating and probably simpler to grasp than Hubbard's model but Vinny has to get people to agree that we are all parts of one being and a lot of people are unwilling to buy into that.

In closing, I offer two comments: #1 On this topic know one knows the full truth with 100% certainty and the full truth may be beyond human comprehension. #2 [/B]Mankind can only speculate. [/B]I believe that things which contribute to extending mankind's knowledge further as regards "origins of the universe" studies will always simplify current theories. If something makes current theories more complex, then I feel that new material is always a step in the wrong direction.
Lakey

I made major changes to a post I made yesterday and the changes are so great that I thought that I better repost it. The changed areas are highlighted in blue. BTW, this stuff just gushed out of me, I didn't have to do any thinking at all other than choosing the words to use. It is all only my opinion and has nothing else to support it. I'm not putting this forward as my theory or anything, it is all just speculation with nothing to back it up. Use with care, enjoy this or hate it as you see fit. I am not going to defend these ideas against any attacks but I will clarifying various points if asked.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I believe you are missing a key point and that is that in Hubbard's model of the Universe, as stated in "The Factors", the source of the Universe comes from without, in other words it is outside the Universe. <snip>
Lakey

Didn't read past " Hubbard's model of the Universe as stated in The factors "......for surely some one as well read as you has long been aware that these fabled " Factors " did appear in German right around WWI time period long before Hubbard showed up to smash his name in history ?

Sort of like posting about Hubbard Study Tech. Er, bogus "source".

Anyway, I skipped the rest of the post due to the obvious.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I made major changes to a post I made yesterday and the changes are so great that I thought that I better repost it. The changed areas are highlighted in blue. BTW, this stuff just gushed out of me, I didn't have to do any thinking at all other than choosing the words to use. It is all only my opinion and has nothing else to support it. I'm not putting this forward as my theory or anything, it is all just speculation with nothing to back it up. Use with care, enjoy this or hate it as you see fit. I am not going to defend these ideas against any attacks but I will clarifying various points if asked.
Lakey

Hope you remembered to flush after that !

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

One could as easily say each has a connection to a Universal Consciousness ( or call it Infinite Intelligence or call it God ) & that each of us came forth into this life connected ( here is where "communication" comes into play ?) to this group of intelligence that came before us.

[ Now if this is true that we come into a human form life, live, connected to this 'source ( God I LOVE that word ! ) then croak & return to whince we came less the baggage we acquired while on earth ( scio speak : "case" ) & then emerge back into the fold until we decide to come forth again. Given this, this theory of direct line to "past lives" becomes utter bullshit.

Going forward to change all one has to do is change their mind - look at the future. Looking at the past fixes absolutely nothing ( well maybe fix attention on the wrong things in the wrong direction - LOL ).

Could these backward looking technologies be trapping us by getting us to look in the wrong direction ? The psychs & scios sure send people that way, eh ? ( Guided Imagery got so popular - thank you Father Freud ! )

This could , depending on ones degree of "connection" with this ( God forbid ! ) "source" be where ALL thought come from & we are merely picking up ( divine ? ) inspiration from this. There might be NO original thought by us but only what we are able to pick up from source.

We could go along an say all thoughts ever thought by anyone are still floating around " out there" ( where ever that is ) and so this coukld be the start of the theory of what Hubbard bastardized into his " Tone Scale ".

( By the way, Jesus healed people = perhaps = by recognizing them in their purest state no crippled or blind. Jesus skipped that tone matching Hubbard stuff & got results ? But wait a second here - Hubbard was never ever wrong about anything - was he ?

Anyway, this is just all off the cuff, my fleeting opinion that just flashed by without a moments thought ( well, of my own - LOl ~ ) so please don't expect me to define, defend, or expand, or do anything to clarify, etc ,( either ).

Oh, I see "opinion" bandied about a fair amount. Some tell others their opinion of another. Shouldn't the opinion of one by another be about the least pais attention to thing in the world ? Seems the one offering opinion of another is seeking somehow to get some kind of a reaction - & the healthiest reaction is most likely laughter.



But, should it happen that if anyone ever duplicates scientology that it will just disappear ?

Hold on here... ya mean nobody has duplicated scientology ? "Think" about that LOL ~


Standard - thus ends that .............. next topic ............ so dream on ......LOL !~

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Vinny, and bless his heart I love him very much, has his own theories about how - is it "are" or "came to be "?
He is a bright man, well learned, yet there are a few other ponderables out there, too.

So, we could go to the Sumarian texts carved into stone some 10,000 years before the Bible - yet there is found everything that is later related in the Bible. Hmm.

Well, in this "God" thing or loosely " soul" or as some - stranger than fiction beliefs prefer - " thetan " - both seem to have so much ongoing baggage that in these moments ( of now ) I tend to use the less loaded term of " inner being ". Different levels of awareness of " inner being '" & the relationship to what is called the source - not source as in guru ( aka Hubbard hisself ) - of that is a whole separate discussion.

Anyway, the pyramids ( of Egypt as they seem to have appeared on so many continents ) the biggest one was said to have been built in 20 years. Hmm, given the size of it and number of blocks at 40 to 80 tons each one would have to have been placed - & precisely fitted - every 5 minutes. Quick slave labor or something else we don't yet understand at work ?

Atlantis has 4 real possible spots it " could" have been located - all those rings Plato described... maybe it was a Mothership from who knows where that moved around this planet ?

What if the ET aliens did come down here & create what we call "mankind" by mixing their DNA with apes ? How come on the evolutionary line "man" shot up like a rocket but other animals didn't ( Please skip Hubbard hisself buying into the Piltdown Man thing ).

What if the alien guardians watching over this created race then bred with them imparting higher intelligence - and a part of themselves that contemplates & creates art, music, engineering & mourns death... plus ponders where we came from ? Other animals on this planet don't seem to be doing that...do they ?

When the aliens left what if they created a flood to wipe out the "race" they left here but didn't get 'em all - thus there is some spotty history carved into stone what we now can see as "spacemen ".

Could religion - all religion - be based on worshipping those powerful ET's?

Oh, gosh, am I getting closer to Hubbard hisself ?

Once again, I disavow any responsibility for this post ( of mine - or any of yours either ! ) as I am being forced into auto type - typos & all - by these strange other worldly impluses beyond my human comprehension !

I love you all !

.................................. time for a nap ..............................................​

 

[cakemaker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As Vinny's theory of the Universe develops he reaches the conclusion that all life is totally connected and that we are all One. We are the God be we don't know it. His model is very fascinating and probably simpler to grasp than Hubbard's model but Vinny has to get people to agree that we are all parts of one being and a lot of people are unwilling to buy into that.

Hubbard mostly avoided discussion of the eighth dynamic/God, but occasionally he let on that "We are the God but we don't know it".

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hubbard mostly avoided discussion of the eighth dynamic/God, but occasionally he let on that "We are the God but we don't know it".

Thanks for the nice post, Cakemaker. It is nice to receive a sane and rational post.

I remember several of those discussions and there is no doubt that what you say is true. However, it seems to me that Hubbard had a completely different take on us being Gods as compared to that of Eastern religions. I'm no expert but what I got from studying Eastern religions is that the gist of their beliefs is that all beings split off from one source, i.e. one God in Western terms. They believe in reincarnation and see life as a series of trials, tribulations, struggles and life lessons in which individual beings, pieces of God if you will, are trying to get back to source and reunite with God.

When I first encountered these ideas in my 20's they resonated well with me. These ideas do treat life as a game, a game of attempting to reunite with our source. The idea makes me feel good and makes me happy but I have no idea if there is any truth to it. It sure sounds nice. I do see it as being superior to Western religions which require people to have faith in the teachings of some supreme deity, wherein it is stated that one God created the Universe and if we obey such and such a set of rules, we will end up in heaven but otherwise we will burn in hell. If either of those religious approaches are true, I hope it is the Eastern approach which is true!

Getting back to Hubbard, though, he believed that we all are fallen Gods, he does not believe that when we are salvaged, with his training and processing, we merge with an original God. Hubbard believes that each one of us is totally an individual. He rejects the approach of Eastern religions that we reunite with our earlier source. What he is looking for is for each of us to go through his processes to regain our "Godhood", then pay homage to him as the greatest God of all and then go out into this Universe and bring others back to a God like state so that they in turn can pay homage to and adulate Hubbard. It is a game were only Hubbard wins big, but each of the rest of us who follow him is supposed win as well by recognizing and acknowledging Hubbard.

I believe that he envisioned that when all of us beings, are rehabilitated as Gods in our own right, we should then ban together and erase the Physical Universe and form a new more ethical and aesthetic universe with Hubbard as it's supreme deity. Now that I know a lot more of what Hubbard was really about, his visions regarding how the universe is constructed are the visions which scare me the most. Both the Eastern and Western religions versions are preferable to Hubbard's vision as far as I am concerned.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Going forward to change all one has to do is change their mind - look at the future. Looking at the past fixes absolutely nothing ( well maybe fix attention on the wrong things in the wrong direction - LOL ).

yep, even hubbard said that, I'll never forget it.

"The easiest thing a thetan does is change his mind" , maybe not an exact quote.

But, there you go. Here we have the whole of Hard Sell policy's and PTS/SP tech, which is getting somebody to unchange there minds that it is BS. LOL

How to keep people from changing thier minds about scientology?

Answer: invent PTS/SP and use Hard Sell.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

--snipped--

There is Sherlock Holmes ability, developed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, of looking at things very carefully and seeing obvious things which others overlook and Hubbard comes up with his subject of 'Obnosis', observing the obvious.

Bad example.

Really bad example. LOL

If the theory of "obnosis" had any value or validity, Scientologists never manifested it--which is why Scientology is (by survey) the most hated religion and Scientologists and their "advanced tech" are reviled, rejected and ridiculed worldwide.

As yourself, how good is the "tech" of "obnosis" if Scientology is chronically the planet's laughing stock?

How come they can't "observe the obvious" that people are laughing at them because they are delusionally pretending to have the the supernatural abilities of "Clear" and "OT" ?

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Bad example.

Really bad example. LOL

If the theory of "obnosis" had any value or validity, Scientologists never manifested it--which is why Scientology is (by survey) the most hated religion and Scientologists and their "advanced tech" are reviled, rejected and ridiculed worldwide.

As yourself, how good is the "tech" of "obnosis" if Scientology is chronically the planet's laughing stock?

How come they can't "observe the obvious" that people are laughing at them because they are delusionally pretending to have the the supernatural abilities of "Clear" and "OT" ?

Well, here's an example of the obvious.

Hubbard says it takes a group of [STRIKE]OT's[/STRIKE] people to handle an area.

And here are [STRIKE]"OT's"[/STRIKE] people handing Marc and handling Marty. LOL

The only thing they have is words, ie OT= really just a person or no clear, no OT soul astronauts, no cause over matter, energy, space or time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGi7uQV-E9o#t=24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Bad example.

Really bad example. LOL

If the theory of "obnosis" had any value or validity, Scientologists never manifested it--which is why Scientology is (by survey) the most hated religion and Scientologists and their "advanced tech" are reviled, rejected and ridiculed worldwide.

As yourself, how good is the "tech" of "obnosis" if Scientology is chronically the planet's laughing stock?

How come they can't "observe the obvious" that people are laughing at them because they are delusionally pretending to have the the supernatural abilities of "Clear" and "OT" ?

It's an honor to have you post here Helluva, I love nearly all of your writings. However, in this instance, I believe you came in late in the discussion and as a result, did not familiarize yourself enough with what I was doing and why.

I had mentioned that IMO Hubbard's major talent was to survey large quantities of data and have the ability to cull out the key items and evaluate them as to importance. SOT wrote that he was not all that familiar with Hubbard's writings, having only done a cursory study of them, and so he requested of me that I give him a list of examples of the types of things which Hubbard took from others and then revised so as to stamp them, in revised form, with the Hubbard "brand".

The bottom line is that just to be courteous and respond to SOT's request, I rattled off the first half dozen or so items that came into my mind. That fact that I rattled off those items did not mean IN ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM that I was endorsing any of the given items as being good tech!! The idea was merely that I would present some items to SOT for HIS analysis. That was it pure and simple, I never endorsed any of those items. Some I thought were good tech and some I thought were crap.

As it happens, I agree with you that OBNOSIS tech was nothing special and I agree on all your comments above including those you made about Obnosis.. We have zero disagreement on all the items which you cite in your post above! Everything you say above, I agree with except for that one point which I just pointed out to you. In addition, I agree with nearly all of your writings and think that you are the most amusing and clever poster on EMSB and also one of the most prolific. Your posts are high quality and well thought out as far as I can see. Please keep up your good work!!
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It's an honor to have you post here Helluva, I love nearly all of your writings. However, in this instance, I believe you came in late in the discussion and as a result, did not familiarize yourself enough with what I was doing and why.

I had mentioned that IMO Hubbard's major talent was to survey large quantities of data and have the ability to cull out the key items and evaluate them as to importance. SOT wrote that he was not all that familiar with Hubbard's writings, having only done a cursory study of them, and so he requested of me that I give him a list of examples of the types of things which Hubbard took from others and then revised so as to stamp them, in revised form, with the Hubbard "brand".

The bottom line is that just to be courteous and respond to SOT's request, I rattled off the first half dozen or so items that came into my mind. That fact that I rattled off those items did not mean IN ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM that I was endorsing any of the given items as being good tech!! The idea was merely that I would present some items to SOT for HIS analysis. That was it pure and simple, I never endorsed any of those items. Some I thought were good tech and some I thought were crap.

As it happens, I agree with you that OBNOSIS tech was nothing special and I agree on all your comments above including those you made about Obnosis.. We have zero disagreement on all the items which you cite in your post above! Everything you say above, I agree with except for that one point which I just pointed out to you. In addition, I agree with nearly all of your writings and think that you are the most amusing and clever poster on EMSB and also one of the most prolific. Your posts are high quality and well thought out as far as I can see. Please keep up your good work!!
Lakey

you lost me there.

Can you explain? what one point?

call me dumb, I can't connect the dots.