An Evaluation of Dianetics

[Vinaire]

The universe is a polarity-based universe. Life has a dynamic aspect just as a coin has a head. But life is not dynamic just as a coin is not a head.

This is the mistake Hubbard made. He ignored the non-dynamic aspect of life. If you haven't experienced this, then I weep for you.

Hubbard took this dynamic aspect of life and because of the outpoint in his analysis he leapt to the conclusion that the sole purpose of life is to survive!

Once he did this he stuck himself to one side of the polarity and could not see the other side of the coin. Hence he spent his life fighting to "survive" to be "at cause" and to "make things go right". He was doomed to fail and die a miserable death.

If we take off our Hubbard blinkers, we open ourselves to the wonder of life! The miracle of being.

I am glad you are happy. I am quite happy too.

Confusion may arise when one mixes Dianetics with Scientology.

Dianetics talks about SURVIVE, but Scientology talks about CREATE - SURVIVE - DESTROY.

Dianetics is dealing with only a third of the cycle of action.

Life is made up of Cycles of Action. It consists of reach and withdraw.

You also are using life in the sense of STATIC, which is causing confusion. I consider LIFE as what is manifested. The source of LIFE is static.

When there is no life manifested there is nothing.

There is only TOTAL POTENTIAL for cycle of action, or life, to be manifested.

That total potential is STATIC.

Can you give me an example of non-dynamic aspect of life which is not STATIC?

If you can't then please review the confusion you are creating.

.

 

[Vinaire]

That's because you haven't taken off your Hubbard blinkers! BH is not being complicated at all, he just seems to be so to you because you are looking at him through Hubbard glasses.

You don't seem to make any sense either.

All I see is that you are stuck on Hubbard just like BH is.

.

 

[lionheart]

I am glad you are happy. I am quite happy too.

Confusion may arise when one mixes Dianetics with Scientology.

Dianetics talks about SURVIVE, but Scientology talks about CREATE - SURVIVE - DESTROY.

Dianetics is dealing with only a third of the cycle of action.

Life is made up of Cycles of Action. It consists of reach and withdraw.

You also are using life in the sense of STATIC, which is causing confusion. I consider LIFE as what is manifested. The source of LIFE is static.

When there is no life manifested there is nothing.

There is only TOTAL POTENTIAL for cycle of action, or life, to be manifested.

That total potential is STATIC.

Can you give me an example of non-dynamic aspect of life which is not STATIC?

If you can't then please review the confusion you are creating.

.

Based upon your previous behaviour, if I gave you an example from my experience, I suspect you would bat it away with one of your imperious put-downs. So I'll pass on your invitation.

I didn't introduce the confusion. You are the one who parrotted Hubbard's assertion that life is surviving!

I never said life is a Static, Hubbard did, not me.

You said "When there is no life manifested there is nothing." are you sure? How do you know that? Is it self-discovered or a Hubbard-based thought?

Your question "Can you give me an example of non-dynamic aspect of life which is not STATIC?" is introducing the confusion, why introduce the idea of Static into your question?

You seem to want to have two different definitions of life. An energy that is surviving and a Static which is Hubbard's idea of no-thing.

Dianetics is involved in the first definition. I am happy to restrict it so, but then we get the outpoint that life seems to be "some sort of energy". So you cannot assert the dynamic principle of existence that life's sole purpose is to survive, because it is based upon an outpoint.

This is now a circular argument and I am withdrawing from the endless repitition.

I hope you sense the non-dynamic aspect of life one now.

 

[Vinaire]

Based upon your previous behaviour, if I gave you an example from my experience, I suspect you would bat it away with one of your imperious put-downs. So I'll pass on your invitation.

I didn't introduce the confusion. You are the one who parrotted Hubbard's assertion that life is surviving!

I never said life is a Static, Hubbard did, not me.

You said "When there is no life manifested there is nothing." are you sure? How do you know that? Is it self-discovered or a Hubbard-based thought?

Your question "Can you give me an example of non-dynamic aspect of life which is not STATIC?" is introducing the confusion, why introduce the idea of Static into your question?

You seem to want to have two different definitions of life. An energy that is surviving and a Static which is Hubbard's idea of no-thing.

Dianetics is involved in the first definition. I am happy to restrict it so, but then we get the outpoint that life seems to be "some sort of energy". So you cannot assert the dynamic principle of existence that life's sole purpose is to survive, because it is based upon an outpoint.

This is now a circular argument and I am withdrawing from the endless repitition.

I hope you sense the non-dynamic aspect of life one now.

You don't seem to have anything sensible to say. I just see lot of ser-facs.

.

 

[lionheart]

You don't seem to make any sense either.

All I see is that you are stuck on Hubbard just like BH is.

.

You see me "stuck on Hubbard" because you are seeing through Hubbard's eyes.

Poor Ron was so stuck in his paranoid ego that he thought everyone, SPs, the Press and Governments were fixated upon him. They weren't.

You see me stuck on Ron. Is that here or is it in your eyes?

 

[lionheart]

You don't seem to have anything sensible to say. I just see lot of ser-facs.

.

That's because you look with Scientology eyes. so you see any disagreement with you as a dramatisation of case by the other person and you resort to the Scientology put-down trick.

 

[beyond_horizons]

You don't seem to make any sense either.

All I see is that you are stuck on Hubbard just like BH is.

.

Personally I don't know how one who regurgitates and quotes the guy's stuff as often as you do can be considered "stuck on Hubbard". It seems the other way around. I guess I’m missing the point of the purpose, and the target audience for your so-called research project? Did you miss something or are you practicing for heading up a group or something?

You don't appear to be moving on! You appear to be moving back in.
:confused2:

 

[Alan]

Golly-Gee - BH and LH are the least stuck people on ESMB - you sure your not doing an A to E cycle? :confused2:

 

[lionheart]

Golly-Gee - BH and LH are the least stuck people on ESMB - you sure your not doing an A to E cycle? :confused2:

It is interesting how LRH supporters and/or Scn supporters seem to acuse me of being "stuck" on LRH!

This is an ex-Scn message board, so the subject of Scn is often discussed. LRH was the self-appointed founder and "source" of Scn so it seems sensible to me to assign causation of things scientological to LRH.

When people do so they are accused of being "stuck" on him. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious!

I also noticed an interesting phenomenon, a little earlier on this thread, when I put forward the example of my father-in-law who no longer wants to survive. I noticed Hubbard/Scn apologists performing extraordinary mental gymnastics to try to argue how his desire for death was actually the urge to survive! Incredible!

Does anybody understand what Vinaire's purpose was in this thread? Does Vinaire?

 

[Zinjifar]

It is interesting how LRH supporters and/or Scn supporters seem to acuse me of being "stuck" on LRH!

This is an ex-Scn message board, so the subject of Scn is often discussed. LRH was the self-appointed founder and "source" of Scn so it seems sensible to me to assign causation of things scientological to LRH.

When people do so they are accused of being "stuck" on him. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious!

I also noticed an interesting phenomenon, a little earlier on this thread, when I put forward the example of my father-in-law who no longer wants to survive. I noticed Hubbard/Scn apologists performing extraordinary mental gymnastics to try to argue how his desire for death was actually the urge to survive! Incredible!

Does anybody understand what Vinaire's purpose was in this thread? Does Vinaire?

I suspect it's about protecting at least *one* 'stable datum', which would serve as a rationalization for why Scientology wasn't a hoax, a fraud and a mistake.

Naturally, that 'one stable datum', once accepted would lead inevitably to the 'give them a finger; take the arm' system of handling and soon all of Hubbardism would be rehabilitated

Zinj

 

[Headend]

It is interesting how LRH supporters and/or Scn supporters seem to acuse me of being "stuck" on LRH!

This is an ex-Scn message board, so the subject of Scn is often discussed. LRH was the self-appointed founder and "source" of Scn so it seems sensible to me to assign causation of things scientological to LRH.

When people do so they are accused of being "stuck" on him. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious!

I also noticed an interesting phenomenon, a little earlier on this thread, when I put forward the example of my father-in-law who no longer wants to survive. I noticed Hubbard/Scn apologists performing extraordinary mental gymnastics to try to argue how his desire for death was actually the urge to survive! Incredible!

Does anybody understand what Vinaire's purpose was in this thread? Does Vinaire?

LH I've been sitting quietly on the sidelines, letting go of the odd impulse to interject and you've been doing such a good job. I also realized that if I banged my head against the wall at least there wouldn't be any comm lag.

If only Vinny could answer a simple question with a straight answer.

Your making plenty of sense, so keep up the good work.

 

[Vinaire]

You see me "stuck on Hubbard" because you are seeing through Hubbard's eyes.

Poor Ron was so stuck in his paranoid ego that he thought everyone, SPs, the Press and Governments were fixated upon him. They weren't.

You see me stuck on Ron. Is that here or is it in your eyes?

I see knowledge as it is. I am happy just talking about knowledge. It is you who keep on bringing Hubbard into the discussion.

How about a promise to not mention Hubbard again?

.

 

[Vinaire]

Golly-Gee - BH and LH are the least stuck people on ESMB - you sure your not doing an A to E cycle? :confused2:

I am surprised at your comment Alan.

Here I am talking from the viewpoint of Vivekananda and Vedas and all of you are confusing it with Hubbard.

I guess none of you have the background that I have.

.

 

[Headend]

I am surprised at your comment Alan.

Here I am talking from the viewpoint of Vivekananda and Vedas and all of you are confusing it with Hubbard.

I guess none of you have the background that I have.

.

Oh the pain of it all. I am so unique & special, my insights are so deep, no one could ever understand me.

 

[Vinaire]

Oh the pain of it all. I am so unique & special, my insights are so deep, no one could ever understand me.

Now yopu seem to be reacting to me if not to Hubbard, and the actual subject of discussion is forgotten.

Why?

.

 

[beyond_horizons]

I guess none of you have the background that I have.

.

Oh my goodness or badness, depending on how you wish to spin it. You are the 'only one' who understands! Must be lonely at the top. How’s the patient and understanding wife, who stood by you while you were pulling it back together, and the kids doing on all these surveys?

 

[Headend]

Now you seem to be reacting to me if not to Hubbard, and the actual subject of discussion is forgotten.

Why?
.

Vin I was hoping that maybe, just maybe, you would see what you were really saying, if I exaggerated it. I remain hopeful.

 

[Vinaire]

Let's get to the proper discussion on the question about SURVIVAL. Here is what I wrote:

Confusion may arise when one mixes Dianetics with Scientology.

Dianetics talks about SURVIVE, but Scientology talks about CREATE - SURVIVE - DESTROY.

Dianetics is dealing with only a third of the cycle of action.

Life is made up of Cycles of Action. It consists of reach and withdraw.

I consider LIFE as what is manifested. The source of LIFE is static.

When there is no life manifested there is nothing.

There is only TOTAL POTENTIAL.

That total potential is STATIC.

There is no life if it is not manifested.


If anything in the above you disagree with, please let me know.

.

 

[beyond_horizons]

If anything in the above you disagree with, please let me know.

.

Beyond Scientology and Dianetics, Total potential is capable by the composite energy being that is ‘The Universe’. Call it 'God' or call it 'Brahman' it certainly isn't Hubbard.

However Quanta’s (as in Quantum Mechanics), are capable of being bubbled off! But alas as the bubbles pop, the essance of the Quanta's reconnect at some level within the greater whole. We can run but we can't hide forever!

Think of The Universe as an Octopus of almost infinate porportions. As of this moment Vinni you and I are 'suckers' yanking on each other's chords from and through different tentacles.

 

[Vinaire]

Beyond Scientology and Dianetics, Total potential is capable by the composite energy being that is ‘The Universe’.

You seem to be saying that "total potential" is a property of some "being." Is that correct?

My viewpoint is that the TOTAL POTENTIAL precedes any being. In other words, a being, including God, comes about because there is a potential for it. This is the idea contained in the following hymn from the Vedas.

THE CREATION HYMN OF RIG VEDA

Even gods are not above SURVIVAL.

.