BIG BEINGS - Do they exist? Are you one?

[lkwdblds]

I may have misinterpreted your position,

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.

I really don't get your point fully, most things we talk about on this board or boards iin general are relative truths. The only guy who spent most of his posts talking about life static or BRAHMA was Vinnaire. The subject was well covered there. Discussing what is going on at Gold or what terrible experiences some had like Good Twin's Mission been set on fire by an anrsonist is a relative truth, the thread on how big someone's ass is is a relative truth. All of those types of threads all use Scientology terms and are relative truths and there seems to be tolerance for them. This thread, for some Godforsaken reason that I could not understand and can not understand now was belittled for using two or three Scientology terms and and in my perception I got the idea that you three guys just tried to make a mockery of discussing this one concept of Big Beings.

Maybe I was wrong about your motives, I probably was. The three of you were all guys I had looked up to in the past as opinion leaders. If I was wrong about your motives, I apologize. Nexus and Good Twin were right, I mean it is only a discussion on a discussion board about what I thought was an interesting subject. I was certainly not trying to say that I personally was a bigger being than you guys or anyone else. I don't consider my self a Big Being due to lack of charisma and savoir faire. I come up with some good ideas but due to lack of charisma and/or committment they don't get noticed or followed by anyone. I consider Rosa Parks a bigger being than me if the term has any meaning. If it does not have any meaning then it is a moot point if she is a bigger being than me. I could really care less, it is not that important.

Oddly enough, in 1955, during Jim Crow, I was 15 and worked the summer at my Aunt and Uncles Magazine Stand in front of Shell's Market in Miami, Florida. At that time in the South, the races had separate drinking fountains and bathrooms and the Blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. I had occasion to take the bus several times and I, being from Los Angeles, usually purposefully sat in the Black section on purpose. People would tell me that I should move and I refused. I told them that their laws were wrong and I would not support bad laws. I was 15 1/2 years old and all by myself and I always rode in the Black section of the bus on purpose. Looking back on that, my only claim to being a big being would be that one courageous act I did when I was a teenager. Those instances were the greatest and proudest moments of my life. Still, I am no Rosa Parks, for a Black adult woman to do that was much more of a big deal than for a teen age white guy to do it. She got arrested and carted off to jail and then deservedly became a legend.

Anyway, its silly for people to fight over a thread on a message board. I over reacted and have now come to my senses. Please write whatever you wish. Be my guest. The one thing that is true is that the fight was interesting and generated a lot of Views and Replys and that was what I was looking for when I started the thread. The very last thing that would ever be on my mind of all the things in the world would be to use the term BIG BEING to intimidate people into believing that I am a Bigger Being than someone else in order to control them. The game of doing that is not even on my radar screen. I find it reviling, a disgusting and unclean game.
Lakey

 

[Good twin]

Did I reccommend a truce? Lakey must be reading between the lines.

My PM to Lakey:

Wow, Lakey. I think there's room for lots of different views on this board. I really am impressed with the Apollo - 73 thread, even though it's mostly a bit over my head. LOL. I read it regularly, but only posted once I think. I'm more of a ESMB goof myself. I really like the Ostrich and I love Nexy, but I wouldn't pee in your pool. That's why I started a humourous version of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

The one thing I've noticed that the members seem to have in common is the fact that we all continue to evolve. My own assessment of myself and my abilty has changed more in the two years I've been posting here than the entire three decades I was in the cult. Still.....I do like being with folks who speak the language and understand the mindset. I could read Carmelo all day long. He makes me realize why I was attracted to Scientology in the first place.

 

[nexus100]

Did I reccommend a truce? Lakey must be reading between the lines.

My PM to Lakey:

Wow, Lakey. I think there's room for lots of different views on this board. I really am impressed with the Apollo - 73 thread, even though it's mostly a bit over my head. LOL. I read it regularly, but only posted once I think. I'm more of a ESMB goof myself. I really like the Ostrich and I love Nexy, but I wouldn't pee in your pool. That's why I started a humourous version of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

The one thing I've noticed that the members seem to have in common is the fact that we all continue to evolve. My own assessment of myself and my abilty has changed more in the two years I've been posting here than the entire three decades I was in the cult. Still.....I do like being with folks who speak the language and understand the mindset. I could read Carmelo all day long. He makes me realize why I was attracted to Scientology in the first place.

All right, WHO TATTLED?

 

[Gadfly]

Anyway, its silly for people to fight over a thread on a message board.

Yes, it is. And, primarily, you seem to be the only one "fighting". Most of us seem to be just having fun. Lose the "seriousness". That may be an attitude left over from too much time and involvement with Scientology. Clay Demo "insouciance". Write essay, "How I can apply the concept of insouciance to my involvement with this message board".

I over reacted and have now come to my senses. Yes, you did. Overreact, that is. About "coming to your senses", only time will tell.

Please write whatever you wish. Be my guest.

We all do and will, write whatever we wish. Up until now, nobody seems to have required a license for that.

The one thing that is true is that the fight was interesting and generated a lot of Views and Replys and that was what I was looking for when I started the thread.

Again, the "fight" exists largely in your own mind. As far as I know I am the same Ostrich I have always been. Granted, I do enjoy stirring up the pot occassionally.

The very last thing that would ever be on my mind of all the things in the world would be to use the term BIG BEING to intimidate people into believing that I am a Bigger Being than someone else in order to control them.

I can pretty much guarantee that nobody took it that way, and that few or none were intimidated. Where do you get this stuff from? Lighten up on the thinkingness buddy! I could be wrong, but I think you need to get out of your head some. When I see explosions of "ideas" and "words", I usually infer, correctly, a busy busy mind, playing out all sorts of internal dramas in ones mind. Lots of "significance" and "meaning", about all sorts of things. Again, I could be wrong. I say this as a "help flow" suggestion, not as an attempt to "interiorize" or "cave-in".

The game of doing that is not even on my radar screen. I find it reviling, a disgusting and unclean game.

Well, reacting or responding with revulsion, disgust or "feeling unclean" are right up there with "being offended" and "righteous indignation". Those are very strange and "soggy" reactions in my book. I don't go there. I don't recommend that anyone else does either.

My responses are in BOLD above.

 

[lkwdblds]

Thanks again Good Twin

Did I reccommend a truce? Lakey must be reading between the lines.

My PM to Lakey:

Wow, Lakey. I think there's room for lots of different views on this board. I really am impressed with the Apollo - 73 thread, even though it's mostly a bit over my head. LOL. I read it regularly, but only posted once I think. I'm more of a ESMB goof myself. I really like the Ostrich and I love Nexy, but I wouldn't pee in your pool. That's why I started a humourous version of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Its a real "joy" to see this thread in action, getting lots of replies and adding a "Spirit of Play" to the board'

The one thing I've noticed that the members seem to have in common is the fact that we all continue to evolve. My own assessment of myself and my abilty has changed more in the two years I've been posting here than the entire three decades I was in the cult. Still.....I do like being with folks who speak the language and understand the mindset. I could read Carmelo all day long. He makes me realize why I was attracted to Scientology in the first place.

Good Twin, your wisdom continues to shine through! Like you, I feel that I have made more "case gain" (oops, probably another Scientology term) here in 11 months than my 3 decades in the Church though I feel that I did get a lot out of being in the Church as well.

I think it is being able to get a great variety of data and opinions from some of the top minds on Planet Earth, plus then being able to carry on a discourse with them and interchange ideas with them. I was struggling, trying to express these feelings and came up with something called, "THE BENEFITS OF PANEL DISCUSSION AS A MEANS OF BECOMMING MORE EDUCATED AND EVOLVING TO HIGHER STATES OF AWARENESS."

Carmelo has become a factor in my increase in awareness and through his connections, several big names in Scientology have come to my "Aboard the Apollo - 1973" thread. I got to meet Purple Haze, through him and one other person's combined efforts. Purple Haze is an icon going back to early Sea Org days and was one of the most important staff members in the early days of CCLA. I actually had an extremely slight acquaintance, no more than saying "hi" when passing in the halls, with this person back in my CC days from 1970 to 1973. On New Years eve I was actually invited to a New Years party which this person attended and was able to engage this person one on one and learn much more about them. Purple Haze had posted a comment on my Apollo thread saying, It takes the third dynamic to run out the third dynamic case. This brief statement summed up what I was trying to say in my quote above about the value of panel discussion. In C of S, one is denied talking about one's personal "case" if one is not in session and is not allowed to make any comments about C of S management that do not toe the party line. By rules such as these existing, the third dynamic case can never even be addressed, let alone be run out. Two other reasons Message boards are much more productive in learning than Scientology style education is the fact that in Scientology, all education is inflow, from LRH in to you. You have zero chance to discourse or ask any questions, or offer any original ideas of your own. All extraneous ideas, confusions or disagreements are merely handled by the words, "What do your materials state." plus perhaps some word clearing and a demo or two.

The justification for this process, which is claimed to be education but which is quite obviously indoctrination into one man's view of things is contained in KSW 1, the first Keeping Scientology Working Bulletin. In this lengthy treatise we are told that LRH once believed a group could evolve truth but that only 20 suggestion out of 100,000 offered to LRH had any value at all and that even of those 20, none were basic or major. Once one buys in to this statement, as I did hook, line and sinker, one is hooked into Scientology with LRH being "Source" It turns out the 20 in 100,000 is completeley untrue. The 20 items of value is probably more like two or three hundred and many of them are basic, such as TR's developed by the Halpern's and Study Tech developed by a married couple, both Scientologists and told to LRH in England in 1963 (See Roger B.) for the details.

In summary, one gets much more education on a discussion board format, discoursing with others than is possible by having one man's ideas being duplicated daily on a total inflow. Just think about it and you will see it must be so. Even more so than education, think about the difference is Case Gain. Inside the church, you are taught that your personal ideas and creative ideas have no value and that only the input of LRH's ideas has any validity to improving conditions. Just think of what a resurgence of beingness occurs in a person when this false idea which has been implanted into all Scientologists "bites the dust." All kinds of abilities which I had but were being supressed due to my Scientology training, have come to the fore. Lot's of paranormal abilities and just plain clearer thinking abilities. It is really miraculous.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Your responses

My responses are in BOLD above.

Yes, your responses are BOLD in two ways, both in type style and in their content. Thanks for responding! I checked up and as best as I can tell, you have never started a thread of your own. I think that would really be useful for you to do. You have a lot of data at your disposal and good analysis and writing styles. Why don't you grace us with a new thread. I believe if you would do so, it would be a real "barnburner"
Lakey

 

[Gadfly]

Yes, your responses are BOLD in two ways, both in type style and in their content. Thanks for responding! I checked up and as best as I can tell, you have never started a thread of your own. I think that would really be useful for you to do. You have a lot of data at your disposal and good analysis and writing styles. Why don't you grace us with a new thread. I believe if you would do so, it would be a real "barnburner"
Lakey

I have started a few. Granted, not many. I don't have much attention or concern for "stats", "my own thread hits", "number of posts", and such related nonsense. One recently though, that involved a great deal of research and consolidation of data on my part:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476 Scientology Breeds Fanaticism (about the Three Key Scientology Beliefs) 22 Dec 2009

Viewing the "Members who have read this thread" at the bottom of the page, you never viewed this thread. Take a look. Some found it useful and interesting.

And, you participated in this thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15571 Acts of Creation

You even posted "Gadfly, you have always written very informative posts on these types of subjects. I was skimming through the newer threads and found yours and it looked very interesting." You posted THAT within the last week, and then said above, that you "checked up and as best as I can tell, you have never started a thread of your own". Seems a bit strange to me. Glaring contradiction. Was' up with THAT?

Just click on any person's HANDLE, and check out the statistics. You can easily find ALL threads that any person originated. For the Ostrich:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/search.php?searchid=1889197

I keep busy simply responding to and detouring existing threads as strikes my fancy. I don't respond to "thread topic" as much as I find something interesting within a thread, and then go down some path of my own associations. And, at times I do let the stream-of-consciousness factor very much lead the way (to the continual dismay of some).

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Regarding men and mass

How about their bellies? Is there something like a critical mass?
.

Good point Heidrun, we don't want them to tip over forward when at a standstill, either!

 

[lkwdblds]

A great opening post on your thread.

I have started a few. Granted, not many. I don't have much attention or concern for "stats", "my own thread hits", "number of posts", and such related nonsense. One recently though, that involved a great deal of research and consolidation of data on my part:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476 Scientology Breeds Fanaticism (about the Three Key Scientology Beliefs) 22 Dec 2009

Viewing the "Members who have read this thread" at the bottom of the page, you never viewed this thread. Take a look. Some found it useful and interesting.

And, you participated in this thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15571 Acts of Creation

You even posted "Gadfly, you have always written very informative posts on these types of subjects. I was skimming through the newer threads and found yours and it looked very interesting." R U on drugs? You posted THAT within the last week, and then said above, that you "checked up and as best as I can tell, you have never started a thread of your own". Seems a bit strange to me. Glaring contradiction. Was' up with THAT?

Just click on any person's HANDLE, and check out the statistics. You can easily find ALL threads that any person originated. For the Ostrich:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/search.php?searchid=1889197

I keep busy simply responding to and detouring existing threads as strikes my fancy. I don't respond to "thread topic" as much as I find something interesting within a thread, and then go down some path of my own associations. And, at times I do let the stream-of-consciousness factor very much lead the way (to the continual dismay of some).

I just went to the thread which you supplied a link to which you were runing just last month. I should now appear on the list of viewers. I am objective enough to know an outstanding piece of work when I see one and it is a top rate posting, more than that, a superlative posting. To get the accolades you got from Alanzo is mute testimony to the calibur of the work.

I can't count how many times I have praised your posts in writing even several times on this thread. I try and be objective and commend and support fine work, despite any differences of opinion which I may have with the author of that work over some other matter.

I am going to spend more time reading your thread this evening and will write a reply, thus increasing your replies stat which you don't care about but will go up nevertheless.

Before the major change made a few months ago when ESMB shut down for a few days overhauled their software, it was easy to see which threads an individual had started. Under this new and revised system, I have been unable to retrieve that information. I tried doing a search asking for your threads and got only your posts, not threads so I must have done something wrong. You gave an explanation of how to do it so I will study that. (answer to your question)

Well thats about it for now but I will spend a good amount of time on that thread tonight, It looks like some very good and interesting reading. I plan to avail myself of the pleasure of reading it both for pleasure and to gain knowledge.

 

[lkwdblds]

It looks like this thread has come to an end.

Once my perceived disagreement with Gadfly, Nexus 100 and Div 6 resolved, interest in this thread nosedived from nearly 1000 views a day to nothing. I received enough reactions to my survey questions and many reactions that I was looking for and some reactions that I did not expect. The mindset of those 3 guys was unexpected to me, I had no slightest idea that such a mindset even existed. As active as I have been on ESMB, I had never encountered their point of view. Probably I did but just dismissed it without understanding it. Well they have a particular point of view which I now understand and can deal with. The main thing is for me that I have to understand where a viewpoint, radically different from mine, is coming from so that I can fully understand it, even stand in their shoes and see how they believe as they do. I was able to do this and end cycle on what I felt was an angry argument and they felt was not an argument at all but just an exercise in the use of free speech. Since I got the answers which I sought on this thread plus sorted out my differences with the 3 gentleman, I am not going to originate any more posts on this thread but will only reply if any noteworthy comments come in.
Lakey

 

[Dulloldfart]

There are big beings, yes.

Unfortunately, if you read OT II and start to *think* with the data (assuming it has validity), you realize that EVERY being on this planet has been implanted with the idea that they are "Big Beings". Irregardless of their actions, activities, stats, products, etc.

And so, welcome to the cluster f*** that is "planet earth", courtesy of LRH.

Hubbard's "Big Being" write-up on OT2 doesn't say that at all. Take a look. The only reference to a big being is the supposed image:

http://www.freezone-america.net/Prometheus04/otTwo/index.htm

Paul