BIG BEINGS - Do they exist? Are you one?

[paul.spiritualquest]

Semantics

Agenda is not hidden, by definition. Thus "hidden agenda" as cliche.
An agenda is something one wishes to accomplish. One is more or less aware of agenda, in oneself and others. There's nothing wrong with having an agenda or even not knowing what that agenda is. But one of the treats of ESMB is they tend to get pointed out, whether one likes it or not.

True, agenda is not hidden by definition. But taking it down to the reality level here, how often do you think it is hidden and how often not?

That´s why I prefer the term paradigm, a set of ideas, a belief-system, a "viewpoint" of preconceived concepts. We all come from paradigms.

Agenda is more of "my view" regardless yours. But again, two much into semantics...

 

[lkwdblds]

Fine, continue building up my ratings.

I have an agenda. So do you. So does everyone. One is either conscious of that agenda or not.

Why do you want to introduce Scientology terms and discuss them on an ex-Scientology forum, if you want buttermilk? You're not going to get it.

We all have agendas, mine is based on truth, you 3 seem to me to have a hidden agenda. An open and honest agenda and a hidden agenda are two very different things. I could be judging you guys incorrectly and if so, I will retract what I said if I am proven wrong to my satisfaction.

To say that I introduced Scientology terms and discussed them on an ex-Scientology forum and that doing so is a wrong thing to do, to me borders on almost complete insanity! Ex-Scientology means that a person has already been in Scientology, often for years or decades, and knows the terms already. To stay in a long time, most people have perceived that they made real gains. Why can't this stuff be discussed in an open forum? It was Gadfly himself, several months ago who told me to praise Hubbard for the good work he did and condemn him only for the bad work or evil that he did. I adopted this policy and gave credit to Gadfly on many occasions. Suddenly, you assert that if I introduce a Scientology term on an ex-Scientology discussion board, I am going to be in for a fight.

Getting back to the word agenda, we both have agendas, I put mine up on my own thread and when I comment on someone else's thread I try to stay on topic and add something either pro or con which will enrich that person's thread and make it more successful. You and your two cohorts seem to prefer to enter someone's thread and becauses "horror of horrors" the host of the thread used a .....whispered very softly....a a scientology term', he and his thread must be smashed. Keep up the bashing, look at the ratings of the thread. I will say you are making the thread more successful so you can't be all bad, nearly 2000 hits so far in two days. Keep the bashings coming, they are good for ratings!
Lakey

 

[Gadfly]

We all have agendas, mine is based on truth, you 3 seem to me to have a hidden agenda. An open and honest agenda and a hidden agenda are two very different things. I could be judging you guys incorrectly and if so, I will retract what I said if I am proven wrong to my satisfaction.

I might wrong, but I don't believe that either of the "other two" have any interest in being perceived as being part of some group that I am in.

:confused2:

 

[Gadfly]

It was Gadfly himself, several months ago who told me to praise Hubbard for the good work he did and condemn him only for the bad work or evil that he did. I adopted this policy and gave credit to Gadfly on many occasions. Suddenly, you assert that if I introduce a Scientology term on an ex-Scientology discussion board, I am going to be in for a fight.

I had that view then, and I still do. Sort of. Though my view has tended to evolve more in the direction that there was more infection in his ideas, than not.

But, I NEVER said to "praise" him, or to "condemn" him. I don't tend to use those terms. That is an alteration of whatever I originally said. Simpy, for me, some of Hubbard's ideas correlate well with my own observations and understanding of things, and many do not. I accept the ones that do, and I toss out the ones that don't. It is all quite free of drama and emotion. If I find any value in an idea, I will discuss why and how. If not, I will also discuss why and how.

I like some of Hubbard's ideas. I like some of them very much, because for me, with certain ideas, it seems to be that he explained them better than just about anybody else before him.

But, the idea of the "Big Being", for me, is NOT one of those. I HAVE been discussing the topic. I have been discussing why the whole idea involved in the concept of a "Big Being", as delineated by Hubbard, is patently dumb, useless and without much value. How is that not on topic? The title asks, Big Beings, Do They Exist? I have been explaining, from my viewpoint, how and why they don't. Not in any Hubbardian sense anyway. Not with all the related ideas of "theta", "free theta", "responsibility", "boots in the sky", and so forth.

 

[Good twin]

While Big Being Lakey is posting on my big ass thread I'll drag my big ass over here to help get his thread count up. Hi Lakey!

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

The hidden agenda is ...

Now I UNDERSTAND how you guys got into the thousands!!

I had a cog guys!

The hidden agenda here is to get the stats up no matter what is posted!!! That´s why people write so many posts that are no direct answer to the OP.

On the other hand it´s not Thursday at 14pm, so I got confused about my cog. :confused2:

 

[Good twin]

Now I UNDERSTAND how you guys got into the thousands!!

I had a cog guys!

The hidden agenda here is to get the stats up no matter what is posted!!! That´s why people write so many posts that are no direct answer to the OP.

On the other hand it´s not Thursday at 14pm, so I got confused about my cog. :confused2:

Quick, someone get him invoiced and into review fast!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

EUREKA!!!

I like this thread.

1. Speculating is fun.
2. The topic is interesting by itself.
3. Of course we step across the SEMANTICAL barrier of understanding, not in the sense of clearing words, but that everybody understands a different thing to the concept "Big Being", and that is interesting by itself, as everyone comes from a different paradigm. An agenda is when the intent is different to what is stated, and it is HIDDEN. A paradigm is a world view, a set of beliefs.

Sometimes on this board there are completely opposed paradigms, spiritualists against materialists, so the discussion there is kind of not worth, if it isn´t kept in a respectful level and with the willingness to understand where the other party is coming from, true listening.

The other clash is semantics. Every human being has a set of concepts, and understanding of concepts, depending on his education or no-education, experience, or whatever. This is related to the paradigm one is coming from. Normally we all have fractional paradigms, being a puzzle of the sources, and other viewpoint, and experiences.

Discrediting brings nothing, as it is only agression, the intent is to WIN the argument, to overwhelm, not to understand, it is completely WORTHLESS and a waste of time.

I suggest we try a bit more to understand the originary post, if we are not interested or against from a principled viewpoint, and not even willing to be affected by the other party, and share, EXCHANGE ideas, then why post?

Discussing philosophic ideas in this forum is completely ON-TOPIC, wether one considers that discussion to be futile or not. I believe first of all, respect should be granted. Being completely against a philosophic idea of another is completely ok, but one should be able to see it from the other´s person viewpoint, and the discussion should go along without intents to overwhelm, discredit, or to merely WIN. The idea of winning, is for me worthless, as realities there are so many, and generally none is more true than another. Getting exposed to another idea, letting it come in, and affecting oneself is much more interesting. If the original idea doesn´t even appeal in any way, then better, get onto something else. I only get into threads where I believe I have something to say, or something to contribute, otherwise I PASS.

My 2 cents regarding flaring. I suggest we stay on topic of the original post, and debate about it, but only with arguments, the WHAT´s and not the HOW things were stated.

Bless my soul, a peacemaker!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I'll bet it's not really such a big ass...

While Big Being Lakey is posting on my big ass thread I'll drag my big ass over here to help get his thread count up. Hi Lakey!

Truely BIG of you to do so, Good Twin!

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

Whose ass??

 

[Good twin]

Truely BIG of you to do so, Good Twin!

We're partners now.

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

Blast-gun and peace-meaking, can they combine?

Bless my soul, a peacemaker!

I already got my blasts, but took my whole-track blast gun and blasted back in another thread, wish I had been a bit more polite though.

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

Quick, someone get him invoiced and into review fast!

But I have no more money for it, have already 3 mortgages, 5 personal loans, 25 credit cards, and got money loaned from all my friends...

 

[SweetnessandLight]

LOL! Pushed a button?

While Big Being Lakey is posting on my big ass thread I'll drag my big ass over here to help get his thread count up. Hi Lakey!

Good Twin's self-identified Big Ass, Paul. No worries, I'm not using my OT powers to take a remote look at your Keister!

 

[nexus100]

We all have agendas, mine is based on truth, you 3 seem to me to have a hidden agenda. An open and honest agenda and a hidden agenda are two very different things. I could be judging you guys incorrectly and if so, I will retract what I said if I am proven wrong to my satisfaction.

To say that I introduced Scientology terms and discussed them on an ex-Scientology forum and that doing so is a wrong thing to do, to me borders on almost complete insanity! Ex-Scientology means that a person has already been in Scientology, often for years or decades, and knows the terms already. To stay in a long time, most people have perceived that they made real gains. Why can't this stuff be discussed in an open forum? It was Gadfly himself, several months ago who told me to praise Hubbard for the good work he did and condemn him only for the bad work or evil that he did. I adopted this policy and gave credit to Gadfly on many occasions. Suddenly, you assert that if I introduce a Scientology term on an ex-Scientology discussion board, I am going to be in for a fight.

Getting back to the word agenda, we both have agendas, I put mine up on my own thread and when I comment on someone else's thread I try to stay on topic and add something either pro or con which will enrich that person's thread and make it more successful. You and your two cohorts seem to prefer to enter someone's thread and becauses "horror of horrors" the host of the thread used a .....whispered very softly....a a scientology term', he and his thread must be smashed. Keep up the bashing, look at the ratings of the thread. I will say you are making the thread more successful so you can't be all bad, nearly 2000 hits so far in two days. Keep the bashings coming, they are good for ratings!
Lakey

Lakey, you're getting there. Ease up on the clutch a bit, and put 'er in gear.

 

[nexus100]

True, agenda is not hidden by definition. But taking it down to the reality level here, how often do you think it is hidden and how often not?

That´s why I prefer the term paradigm, a set of ideas, a belief-system, a "viewpoint" of preconceived concepts. We all come from paradigms.

Agenda is more of "my view" regardless yours. But again, two much into semantics...

Gosh reality level seems to be pretty hard to pin down, what with the climate so variant roun' these parts. I can't make hide nor hair outa no realities nohow.

But if you can spare a pair o' dimes I guess I can too, so long as they aren't of the Zinj variety.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Really enjoying this thread.

I do believe certain individuals have a GREAT command of space. Their presence is undeniable. Early on I noticed a few Scientologists who would cause the entire org's space to become 'calm'. They did it by just being there. Unmistakable.

 

[lkwdblds]

Okay, Let's call a truce.

Lakey, you're getting there. Ease up on the clutch a bit, and put 'er in gear.

Okay, I PM'ed Good Twin who I respect a lot and she also recommended a truce. I'll ease up on the clutch. What do we do, meet in front of an Org carrying white flags and then cut little exes in our hands to start a little blood flow and then tightly clasp hands. This seems to work well in the old Western movies when a truce is called.

You all have license to post whatever you guys want on any ESMB thread including this one (as if there is anyway that I or any one else, except possibly Emma, could stop you). I will be tolerant and grant you your free speech rights just to show what a Big B......WHOOPS, CANCEL THAT, I DIDN'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK, just to show you what a good sport I am.
THE TRUCE GOES INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
Lakey

 

[nexus100]

Okay, I PM'ed Good Twin who I respect a lot and she also recommended a truce. I'll ease up on the clutch. What do we do, meet in front of an Org carrying white flags and then cut little exes in our hands to start a little blood flow and then tightly clasp hands. This seems to work well in the old Western movies when a truce is called.

You all have license to post whatever you guys want on any ESMB thread including this one (as if there is anyway that I or any one else, except possibly Emma, could stop you). I will be tolerant and grant you your free speech rights just to show what a Big B......WHOOPS, CANCEL THAT, I DIDN'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK, just to show you what a good sport I am.
THE TRUCE GOES INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
Lakey

A truce? We're at war? I don't think anything bad is happening at all, much less anything requiring that horror, formality. We are goring the boar, that's about it. Tusk away!

(By the way Good Twin is a BIG troublemaker. Don't tell anybody!)

 

[Div6]

Gadfly, I have a great idea, you Nexus and Div 6 are all very intelligent and creative and seem to share the same concepts. Why not start your own thread and take up your belief system on a thread of your own.

Also, the three of you seem to have the concept that the subject of Big Beingness is merely an artifice used by the organized Church of Scientology and its members to quantitatively categorize how big beings are so as to be able to control assert dominance and control over others by asserting that they are the biggest beings. Despite my repeated assertions and demonstrations that this is not the case, you continue to press forward with this same trite and non sequitur attacks against discussing the Big Being concept.

I do not think any other posters but you three have mentioned the concept of using the term "big beings" for asserting that one is bigger than others by virtue of some quantitative measurement. You three seem to have introduced the concept yoursellves and then continue to either bash the concept or keep it alive by accusing others of promoting it and then bashing others for subscribing to the concept, which no one actually believes in. You are all intelligent and perceptive people and it does not make any sense what you are doing so the only thing to account for it must be that you have some kind of agenda which you are trying to promote.

Your tactics are INTRODUCE A CONCEPT AND BASH OTHERS FOR BELIEVING IN IT AND USING IT (THOUGH NO ONE HERE ACTUALLY DOES) THEN WHEN THIS WEARS THIN, YOU BREATHE NEW LIFE INTO THE NONE EXISTENT CONCEPT BY BASHING MORE PEOPLE FOR USING IT (THOUGH NO ONE ACTUALLY DOES). The agenda seems to be to deflect people away from commenting on the actual topic of the thread by using this tactic and then once a reasonably large audience is built up, then you bring out a brand new and unrelated topic and the three of you start a new discussion group on your new topic, again deflecting discussion from the main topic of the thread.

I have no problem with any of this nonsense, it just drives up my stats, the number of reads and replies. The other posters here can still keep the original topic going just by treating your postings as background noise, and posting to the main topic. MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING, WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO JUST IGNORE THIS THREAD AND START YOU OWN THREAD. You deserve the credit for the reponses you are generating yourselves and the topics you are leaning towards seem like they would be popular and well patronized if on their own thread. I, for one, am not going to read them any longer when they appear on this thread but would surely read and discuss them with you if you were to start your own thread.
Lakey

You are introducing a straw man argument to counter a percieved strawman argument.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)


The only point I am trying to make is that outside of the "Ultimate Truth" (a life static) everything else is just a relative truth. So talking about "big beings", while novel, is much like talking about the weather. It changes from day to day.

But I will say that your effort to group us together, and try to "generalize" our statements in to an "attack" is indicative of an ARC break of some sort.
It is not my intent to upset you, or deny you your "stable data". This is, after all, a discussion board. I take the following point quite to heart:

"That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others; "

ESMB can be a "Grade 0 gut check".
With a wide range and wealth of opinions and viewpoints.