BIG BEINGS - Do they exist? Are you one?

[Blue Spirit]

A Dichotomy

The only thing of value I can recall from Hubby Dub's "What is Greatness", was the line or two about, and I AM paraphrasing, "continuing to love ones fellow Man despite all reasons to the contrary". Other than THAT, nothing sticks in my mind. And, THAT aspect, which makes spiritual sense to me, was always severely downplayed in Scientology as a belief, and especially as a practice.

"What Is Greatness" and "Fair Game" don't exactly fit congruently.

Hubbard's case is still fucked up TODAY.

 

[Gadfly]

"What Is Greatness" and "Fair Game" don't exactly fit congruently.

Hubbard's case is still fucked up TODAY.

Yes, many of the things Hubbard said don't "exactly fit congruently" with other things he said, or with observations of reality. The point being what?

And, about his case, so you say and have said before. Where do you get this from? What "reliable source"? A Marcabian invader? A Helotrobus Implanter? Channelings of Captain Bill?

 

[Blue Spirit]

None of the Above

Yes, many of the things Hubbard said don't "exactly fit congruently" with other things he said, or with observations of reality. The point being what?

And, about his case, so you say and have said before. Where do you get this from? What "reliable source"? A Marcabian invader? A Helotrobus Implanter? Channelings of Captain Bill?

A little birdie told me !

 

[Mystic]

The "What is Greatness" allegedly written by the apparition-tulpa thought form Lips Hubbard was Lips' response to John McMaster when John went "Clear" at St. Hill during the mid 60s.

John's heart chakra got excited and somewhat turned on and he was running around expounding love lovE loVE lOVE and LOVE. He was simply loaded with love and he was a beautiful sight to behold.

Lips couldn't stand this! John was getting more attention than Lips. So Lips writes this "What Is Greatness" to get the upper hand again.

 

[nexus100]

You are welcome. Thank you also for giving me something to run out!

You know, I used the Nelson Mandela Movie, that brought in the use of a Christian concept of "my soul" and I used that and I used the play, Death of a Salesman and the term "elan vital" which is non Scientology. I like the term Big Being better than the best non Scientology equivalent I could think of, "A Giant amongst Men". I then use non Scientology terms such as charisma, grace, style, savior faire, charwoman. Despite pointing this out several times, I am still mocked or trashed for kicking around horid Scientology ideas. You do not think that in the outside world some people are thought of as special? Why does the Catholic Church have Saints, on what basis do they choose the Pope, the Cardinals and Bishops? Why are Abraham Lincoln and George Washington taught in U.S. history and have national monuments and holidays in their honor?. Why aren't there similar accolades for former presidents Millard Fillmore, Martin van Buren and James Polk?. Why is Elvis remembered and not say Roy Orbison? Both had excellent voices and musical talent, but Elvis had more charisma and savoir faire, he was a Bigger Being than Orbison.

To me, if I can not use one or two Scientology terms on a thread on an ex Scientology website without being made sport of and being accused of kicking around horid Scientology concepts, then there is something wrong somewhere and it is not with me. Sorry, no offence to you or any one else, you have just as much right to your opinions as I do to mine. I am going to leave things right there.
Lakey

No one IS something. We just take the viewpoint. Adulation of a viewpoint is kinda strange, isn't it?

The point of this board is mockery, injustice and accusation. Except it is directed AT Scientology instead of from it.

I take no offense at all, it's good to see your dander up, Lakey. You're lovely with pink cheeks!

 

[lkwdblds]

Actual tests prove more men prefer a tight ass!

I'm pretty sure the subject of big asses deserves it's own thread.

All other things being equal, I am sure over 99% of men prefer a tight shapely ass to a big flabby ass IN ALL CULTURES ON EARTH.

For women"s preferance, it is not quite as important. Perhaps 98% of them prefer the same in their men. Maybe in the Hotn'tot tribe in South Africa a big flabby ass is prefered by one or the other sex.

Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

An ally at last!

A little birdie told me !

Thanks for coming to my aid Blue, I really appreciate siding with me on this thread. LAKEY RETRACTION. I met Blue and his wife and found his wife to be very attractive, easy to talk to, kind and competent and her space is very clean and very safe. I said to Blue on another thread that he "married above his pay grade." This was an improper statement; the truth is that Blue is in a class where it is hard to find anyone of the opposite sex in his paygrade and yet he was able to make things go right on his 2 D and found a person of a comparable pay grade to make him the perfect wife.

Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

no

No one IS something. We just take the viewpoint. Adulation of a viewpoint is kinda strange, isn't it?

I don't think it is strange at all. I admire Rosa Parks for taking the viewpoint that it was not right that she had to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. Millions of others of all races chose not to take the viewpoint she did. To me, I finding nothing at all strange in admiring Ms Parks and the viewpoint which she took and the combination of the two, the beingness that is Ms Parks viewing from the viewpoint which she had assumed. I admire everthing about the entire event including the being, herself, and all components having to do with that event and the good that followed thereafter.

Apparently you have a different opinion, No one IS something. It is strange to admire a viewpoint. I do not agree with either of those precepts but have no problem with your believing they are true.

The point of this board is mockery, injustice and accusation. Except it is directed AT Scientology instead of from it.

I take no offense at all, it's good to see your dander up, Lakey. You're lovely with pink cheeks!

I totally disagree with your second to last sentence above which I have put in bold print. I don't believe one word of which you state and am 180 degrees opposed to your point of view. I don't believe mockery has much of a place at all on this board, perhaps an occasional joke centered around a mockery, such as Good Twin is doing with the BIG ASS thread is a lot of fun and brings about a spitit of play on the board. Other than that mockery has not much to offer. Bringing up injustices is valid and accusation to me, in and of itself, is not valid to practice except perhaps on some rare exceptions.

I believe that a discussion board should be a place for reasonably high levesl of discussion to be take place. People should be able to vent and let off steam and also feel they are imparting some message of importantce to share with other board members. Since the common thread of the board is ex Scientologist, I have been approaching the board with the idea of relating both the good and bad experiences which I have experienced in Scientology. It is self evident that the majority of the people here have had more bad experiences than good since almost everyone here has left the church. Nevertheless, I feel it is important that the good experience be mentioned as well.

If C of S was all bad, 100% evil and misguided, the message board would have basically one short story. Everyone's message would be simple. I came in because of lies I was told, I was tricked into spending all my money and thought I was making progress but I quickly found out it was all smoke and mirrors and I left completely broke and lost all my friends.

However, the storys are not all like that, not by a longshot. That is why, to get to the bottom of what really happened, the entire time, place, form and event must be told so that people have all the facts in front of them to be able to correctly understand what happened to them and to clear it out from their minds. Thus the good must be told along with the bad.

To direct mockery, accusation and injustice at the church from the outside will not enable the victims to correctly understand what happened to them and why their lives were so damaged. All it will do is just the opposite, it will beef up the memories of what happened, and cause a lot of unneeded hate and frustration and remembrance of loss to those who were victims. Doing what you are recommending will only solidify and beef up the incidents in the minds of the victims and fester more hate and frustration to further entrap the victims.
Lakey

 

[GoNuclear]

Another method

Or,

NOT FEELING AS BIG AS YOU SHOULD BE?
$cientology can help you with that!

See your registrar today!
​

$cientology, bilking wanna-be gods since 1952!​

Not feeling as big as you would like to feel? How about that John Holmes
brand masculine enlargement pump that used to be advertised in Hustler magazine with the headline "Now there is hope for small men!" and, of course, it HAD to work, because, after all, it was endorsed by the king of big, John C. Holmes. A whole lot cheaper than Cof$ and probably about the same level of results.

Pete

 

[degraded being]

I've always liked the dodecahedron, myself...also will profess a great fondness and sympathetic vibration for Fibinachi spirals wherever they are to be found in nature. You and I should dance together!

"dodecahedron" ooooooooooh, I feel all shivery and and,
"Fibinachi!"? people are listening but who cares? Let's skip the light strombulitasic.


BTW. Beings do have shapes. It's in "The Axioms" by LRH".
"Beings are inherently shaped according to those perceptions which those individuals who used to serve them, but, in present time do not, are mocking up. For example, a being who used to be served as the lead-ah of a sci -fi cult, but who is now beyond derision, would, necessarily be a short little thing, but that is mainly dimension...his shape is ceratoid bufoniform, and that is not a scientology word, that is a term using two words in the English dictionary"

I read that in"The Axioms" and i was like, wow, that is soooo true. It reallly indicates!.

 

[nexus100]

I totally disagree with your second to last sentence above which I have put in bold print. I don't believe one word of which you state and am 180 degrees opposed to your point of view. I don't believe mockery has much of a place at all on this board, perhaps an occasional joke centered around a mockery, such as Good Twin is doing with the BIG ASS thread is a lot of fun and brings about a spitit of play on the board. Other than that mockery has not much to offer. Bringing up injustices is valid and accusation to me, in and of itself, is not valid to practice except perhaps on some rare exceptions.

I believe that a discussion board should be a place for reasonably high levesl of discussion to be take place. People should be able to vent and let off steam and also feel they are imparting some message of importantce to share with other board members. Since the common thread of the board is ex Scientologist, I have been approaching the board with the idea of relating both the good and bad experiences which I have experienced in Scientology. It is self evident that the majority of the people here have had more bad experiences than good since almost everyone here has left the church. Nevertheless, I feel it is important that the good experience be mentioned as well.

If C of S was all bad, 100% evil and misguided, the message board would have basically one short story. Everyone's message would be simple. I came in because of lies I was told, I was tricked into spending all my money and thought I was making progress but I quickly found out it was all smoke and mirrors and I left completely broke and lost all my friends.

However, the storys are not all like that, not by a longshot. That is why, to get to the bottom of what really happened, the entire time, place, form and event must be told so that people have all the facts in front of them to be able to correctly understand what happened to them and to clear it out from their minds. Thus the good must be told along with the bad.

To direct mockery, accusation and injustice at the church from the outside will not enable the victims to correctly understand what happened to them and why their lives were so damaged. All it will do is just the opposite, it will beef up the memories of what happened, and cause a lot of unneeded hate and frustration and remembrance of loss to those who were victims. Doing what you are recommending will only solidify and beef up the incidents in the minds of the victims and fester more hate and frustration to further entrap the victims.
Lakey

I'm not wililng to spend time unraveling the above, which may not be fair, but that's life. It appears to me that the large majority of the board operates as I stated above, and it seems to work pretty well. You're entitled to disagree.

 

[Zinjifar]

Scientology isn't all bad, but, not because it has any redeeming qualities.

Scientology isn't bad enough to be all bad. If anything, it's pitifully impotent in measures evil.

Just enough to be evil, but, not enough to be worth pissing on for the large bulk of humanity.

Not even enough to be *noticed* by the bulk of humanity. Clear the planet? Scientology can't even interbolate hobos. They seem immune to Ron's sway. Why weren't you?

90% of raw meat leave after the first contac. Think about it.

Zinj

 

[lkwdblds]

Excellent thought provoking post.

Scientology isn't all bad, but, not because it has any redeeming qualities.

Scientology isn't bad enough to be all bad. If anything, it's pitifully impotent in measures evil.

Just enough to be evil, but, not enough to be worth pissing on for the large bulk of humanity.

Not even enough to be *noticed* by the bulk of humanity. Clear the planet? Scientology can't even interbolate hobos. They seem immune to Ron's sway. Why weren't you?

90% of raw meat leave after the first contac. Think about it.

Zinj

Very good points which stimulate a lot of self reflection. I do believe it to be true, though it may be unpopular on ESMB with people with your viewpoint, that the people who were attracted to Book 1, Dianetics, were an above average crowd. I would venture to say, without any actual proof, that their intelligence and their compassion to help themselves and others was higher than the norm in the society of their day.

Why was this so? Apparently, there was a hole existing in society, where the mental healing arts lagged not only the advances of science but also the physical healing arts, at least in the Western world that I knew about. Scientology never took hold in the Orient, so in 1950 the point which I stated above was true in the West but probably did not resonate in the Orient. Freudian analysis showed promise for a while but did not evolve and the only other forms of treatment were drugs and electrical shock. The people at large were looking for something new to come along and Hubbard exploited that need. A grass roots movement swept the country for a short time and the Hubbard method got planted into society.

For me personally, I didn't fit into society all that well. I liked to just be myself without adopting any of the styles or fads of the day and I always told the truth, even compulsively and even when a white lie would have been better. In effect, I was lonely. I had only my parents, a brother, aunts, uncles. nieces, nephews, cousins and about 5 friends in my life. I did not fit in at all in my religion, I thought all the Jewish ceremony was mumbo jumbo and though culturally rich, I did not have any characteristic Jewish traits. I felt uncomfortable going to Temple. I WAS JUST PLAIN LONELY AND LOOKING FOR A RELIGION AND A SOCIAL GROUP WHEN SCN ENTERED MY LIFE. That's why I joined, to handle my loneliness and give me something to live for.

I stayed beyond the first course because I had terrible communication skills when I joined and that inexpensive course changed me from not being able to communicate well to having almost superlative communications skills when compared to the norm in society. I used TR 2 extensively at Aeroject where, I was a 30 year old single guy, on site as a Contractor working for IBM. I talked to all the most beautiful women whom I had secretely admired prior to doing the comm course. I used my TR's and about 4 of the most beautiful girls working there whom I used to fantacize about, literally told me their entire story, including everything about their love lifes, their desires and goals and what they were trying to find in life. All it took was to put one's TR0 in, ask a question with TR1 and just listen and acknowledge and do half acks, etc. and the girl would tell me her life story, everything, no holds barred and ask my advice. Needless to say, my love life improved, instead of being a wallflower I became a "Don Juan". This course was the very first course, costing only $50. I used to lie in bed at night wondering what the higher level courses on the bridge would do for me if the first course did as much as it did.

I was sure that I would never quit Scn. Had the organization actually pursued with vigor the lofty goals and codes which it claimed were its backbone and fiber, I never would have left. It took about 30 years of taking crap from the Organization before I finally wised up and threw in the towel.

I should have wised up decades earlier than I did, its easy to see that from the current perspective, here in 2010. I think that once one builds a life around a belief system that he entered due to being lonely, he or she has extreme trouble leaving that belief system for fear of returning to his or her prior lonely existence.

Lakey

 

[Div6]

A "big being" does not mean a "big mind".

It just plays to the construct of "ego". How does "static" have ANY size?

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

How static could have size

In 3rd dimensional terms static cannot have size, as it is neither time nor space. Matter and energy are actually build from time and space, following modern physics.

But if you took a 4th dimension, call it theta or whatever, and imagine it could have magnitude, then there could be so to say, less or more theta.

Just to show how to think around things.

=============

If we take the ego issue aside,

How about judging "bigness" by possitive effects? Is a Gandhi bigger than a Bush in some sense?

 

[lkwdblds]

Good point about static!

A "big being" does not mean a "big mind".

It just plays to the construct of "ego". How does "static" have ANY size?

The question "How does 'static' have ANY size?" is really excellent. There is a comm lag there for me, I can not answer off the cuff. How does static do anything for that matter. It is supposed to be able to do just two things, Postulate and Perceive. I do not know how it does even those, if it is a true static. We are supposed to know that it can have qualities, even though it is outside of the realm of MEST. Well for one thing, it must assume a viewpoint at which point it looks outwards and space is created.

Each individual being must make the decision, "to be" which causes separation of some sort to occur, a separation from Cause or God or whatever. This separation concept has the inherent characteristic of creating space. The being takes a viewpoint just outside the created space and views from that point of view. It always views from outside the space but can decide to take a viewpoint within the space if it so desires. The space is composed of anchor points and dimension points and the dimension points must be in motion to keep the space created because space must be continuously created. The rate of creation has a relationship to the velocity of light, probably an inverse relationship. I GOT ALL THIS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE BY PARTICPATING ON VINNAIRE'S OH! GOD!! THREAD.

CONCLUSIONS: When I speak of Bigness in Beings, it has nothing to do with the physical size or any MEST like aspect of a being. It has more to do with the quantity and quality of the postulates which the being is able to make and to have "stick" or come to fruition.

Your question really shatterd my smug complacence that I understood what I was talking about. I thank you for stirring up the pot!

It appears to me that all beings start out the same. By assuming different viewpoints, the first distinction occurs. Than by looking out from their viewpoints futher differences develop. They make different postulates and off they go in different directions and soon become aware of one another and combine all their individual spaces to a common physical universe space.

Somewhere along the line, differences develop, probably due to differing postulates being made. It seems that somewhere in the very early track, some beings may stand out from others. Are those who do stand out the ones who stay most connected to their original CAUSE or GOD? Are they the mavericks who go further from God and try out new concepts through their postulates? Could it be a mixture of the two?

These are the questions which must be answered to answer the questions posed by this Big Being thread. At this point, I do not know the answers. I throw things open for discussion. In the meantime, go look at Good Twin's BIG ASSES THREAD, that one is easier to ponder and contemplate.
Lakey

 

[Gadfly]

A "big being" does not mean a "big mind".

It just plays to the construct of "ego". How does "static" have ANY size?

Everybody is playing with words here. On this thread.

Of course, DUH, a "static" can not be "measured". It is DEFINED in that way.

The Vedic idea is that the potential for all creation resides within Brahma. It is POTENTIAL.

Potential of any sort can only be measured by MANIFESTATIONS, by actual "results" in observable reality.

The emanations of spirit that appear as individual points of consciousness seem to possess different potentials, because the range of "effects" each "creates" varies so much from one to the next. From within the game, from a limited viewpoint, yes the potential of one being from the next seems to differ. No two things are equal, so of course. Duh!

Getting stuck in the details of manifested reality - getting wrapped up in all this thinkingness about "big", "small", "good", "bad", on and on ad nasuem. Beings can wrap themselves up in thinkingness for as many eternities as he or she feels like so doing.

One need only look around. The biased slanted view in Scientology depends on the notion of "size of the effect created or caused within the surrounding environment". The view and logic is simple. Larger effects, spread out over greater distances, implies a "larger being". Within the Scn mindset. The related ideas were clearly spelled out by Hubbard. It isn't very complicated what he stated. I don't "think with" any of that crap any longer, BUT one can observe it from afar, examine the ideas, and notice how these ideas affect behavior in those "thinking with the ideas", without getting "sucked in" oneself.

Obviously, different people create different types of effects, and effects with varying degrees of impact on the surrounding reality/realities. That is simply observable.

All this talk of "big beings", "small beings", "degraded beings", "suppressive beings" betrays a bias in the talker. There is a "hidden judgment" running throughout this entire thread, and for me personally, I have zero interest in that type of judgment.

Talk to a Christian, and a "big being" will mean something different (within their system of values). Ask a Muslim, you will get a different answer. Any talk about such a thing says more about the person doing the talking than anything about an "real" legitimacy to the notion of "big beings".

There are people who concern themselves with notions of "big beings". Why is that? Because, most people do NOT consider, worry about or spend any time thinking about such ideas.

The whole "big being" notion is inextricably tied up with the notion of "small", "degraded" and "lowly being". There is no "small" without "large". The entire realm of concepts involved in this is so incredibly based on JUDGMENTS. And, the subtle and not-so-subtle aspect of JUDGING was one thing I found so NOT likeable about participating with (any version of) Scientology. That is partially why I find this thread uninteresting. I truly have no interest in such things. I am expressing THAT viewpoint, and why I have THAT viewpoint. It is not an attack against anyone. It simply is the way I currently look at this.

There are people who create "big effects". You can infer that indicates a "big being", if you choose to. THAT is the ONLY indicator, by the way. The size of the effect created in the surrounding environment. But, I have little concern for "big effects". Hitler created "big effects", far out into his environment. From a Scn perspective, he must be a "big being". Unless, we want to add in the judgment of "good effects" or "bad effects". The same is true for Stalin, Lenin, Chairman Mao and many others. Who cares whether a being can be judged as "big"? It matters not at all to anything! It is completely irrelevant to the evolution of this planet. The only value it has will be for people who like to think and talk about such notions. Outside of THAT, it is meaningless.

My value system is so FAR removed from Scientology fixed ideas these days. That is all I am communicating here. For me, I find the TYPE of effect much more interesting than the "size" of the effect. THAT says so much more to me about the current state or condition of any being, than any concern for his or her ability to effect "large charges in ones environment". Again, that is all so droll to me. And, all of those ideas are "pure LRH Scientology".

What is the needle reaction for "No Interest"? That is what I have about this subject.

 

[Gadfly]

CONCLUSIONS: When I speak of Bigness in Beings, it has nothing to do with the physical size or any MEST like aspect of a being. It has more to do with the quantity and quality of the postulates which the being is able to make and to have "stick" or come to fruition.Lakey

It very much does have to do with MEST. The ONLY way to adjudicate "big" or "small" with any being, if one wants to consider such things, is to observe results and effects out in some manifested universe. Otherwise, there is no possible aspect of measurement. It ALWAYS comes back to some hidden standard involving "ability to effect changes in the MEST universe". I am quite sure that any person mentioned in the first post displayed (large) created effects in the MEST universe.

Any "postulate" that "sticks" does so in a shared, manifested universe of mutual experience. You cannot separate the "physical" aspect from the "power of the thetan", because the ONLY determinant will always end up being what you can observe (as a created effect "out there").

You will INFER and ASSUME these "larger created effects" derive from some "larger being", from some invisible spiritual source. Or that this "larger being's" postulates have "more power". As I see it, this all involves highly circular logic, since everything goes round and round based on PREDEFINED TERMS in the area.

 

[Div6]

Gadfly,

I am tracking with you on this. It is part of my "disdain" for institutional Scientology, as they mis-use these concepts to stroke egos and extract money.

I agree with you that it is the quality of the effect, and the appropriateness of the effect created that measures true quality of 'theta potential'. Sometimes the smallest of gestures can have the largest effects.

The lesson of post-modernism is that context matters.

Hubbard went off on "art is the quality of communication"....too bad too many of his follwers are stuck in trying to convince us of their "bigness".

Thetan envy?

 

[Gadfly]

Gadfly,

I am tracking with you on this. It is part of my "disdain" for institutional Scientology, as they mis-use these concepts to stroke egos and extract money.

I agree with you that it is the quality of the effect, and the appropriateness of the effect created that measures true quality of 'theta potential'. Sometimes the smallest of gestures can have the largest effects.

The lesson of post-modernism is that context matters.

Hubbard went off on "art is the quality of communication"....too bad too many of his follwers are stuck in trying to convince us of their "bigness".

Thetan envy?

Mine is BIGGER than yours!!!!

Oh, and they don't "misuse" the concepts. Not at all. They apply them correctly just as Hubbard intended, and as he clearly spelled them out. With the meanings for these terms just as Hubbard defined them, and within the context he created (for all those who buy into the whole Scientology package deal)! I see the same subtle and not-so-subtle "hidden standards" appear with "non-institutional Scientologists" as I do with the other variety. In the end, THAT depends only on to what degree any person still agrees with and thinks with Hubbardian ideas.

My point on "measuring" is to STOP measuring. Stop any and all sort of judgment about "appropriateness of the effect" or "true quality", or blah-blah-blah. The ACT of judging, in any way, to any degree, as a mental activity, as an activity of awareness, has a great deal to do with HOW and WHY any point of consciousness so drastically separates him or herself out and away from unfettered Brahma (or "static"). ANY judging will always be arbitrary in some regard, and there is "no correct" way to judge. The act of judging is limiting - in all cases. LRH and Scientology provide and enforce a very severe and strict system of judgment. That has a detrimental effect.