Re: An Analysis of a Screwy Tech!
At first I wasn't sure whether to regard your post above on the misuse of Ethics in the S.O. and CofS as a reply to my earlier one which I directed at you. Or at least a partial reply. But on reflection and on reading it again I reckon it is meant as one and so I will write something on it.
First off - The insanity of applying these conditions in the way that has been the practice in the CofS is, as you describe, the stuff of madness. It's product is completely destructive of those on whom it is inflicted (unless they are lucky enough to escape or just let it wash over them without taking it seriously - which is what I always did while in the Orgs. In no way do I support or participate in any of that.
I have said repeatedly that the Ethics Formula need to be applied exclusively to the client as a first dynamic person. His membership or participation in a group has no bearing on it at all, except where conduct in such a group serves as an indicator of something unhandled lurking on the person's 1st Dynamic.
Others on that thread suggested that I had "assigned you a condition of Enemy". Nothing could be further from the truth. I did'nt, and I never have assigned anyone such a thing. To do so is completely contrary to the correct application and use of the formulas.
Nowhere do I consider or have I considered that you are n any way in a "Condition of Enemy" to the group here or to any individual in that group. But I do observe - and I said so - is that you are dramatizing an enemy valence towards yourself. It is the enemy within that is at issue here. And unfortunately it just is so that a person with such an enemy cannot see it. He/She is blind to it.
This is BTW a blindness that gets reinforced when one only audits a preclear on what he wants handled. I took this up with Alan on one occasion but he couldn't see it either. When you accustom a preclear to only being audited on what he wants handled you (a) have his bank as your C/S and you as auditor are in endless Q and A with it, and (b) you continually validate and reinforce the preclear's ego.
Note that with the word "bank" above I am not referring to the preclear's Mental Image Picture collection but to the deeper underlying bank consisting of the accumulated postulates he has made over the millennia regarding his concept of who he is, of the game he is playing, his role in it, his postulated limitations, and such-like. Hubbard never got into this at all to any degree of thoroughness.
Further to your post, I note the following attempt at generalizing a message to me in your normal indirect way:
One of the observable aspects of someone with an internal enemy is that they cannot help but give continual clues as to the presence of that enemy. And here you do it again. But you can't see it, can you? You will once you have handled it. It's as obvious as a sore thumb.
At first I wasn't sure whether to regard your post above on the misuse of Ethics in the S.O. and CofS as a reply to my earlier one which I directed at you. Or at least a partial reply. But on reflection and on reading it again I reckon it is meant as one and so I will write something on it.
First off - The insanity of applying these conditions in the way that has been the practice in the CofS is, as you describe, the stuff of madness. It's product is completely destructive of those on whom it is inflicted (unless they are lucky enough to escape or just let it wash over them without taking it seriously - which is what I always did while in the Orgs. In no way do I support or participate in any of that.
I have said repeatedly that the Ethics Formula need to be applied exclusively to the client as a first dynamic person. His membership or participation in a group has no bearing on it at all, except where conduct in such a group serves as an indicator of something unhandled lurking on the person's 1st Dynamic.
Others on that thread suggested that I had "assigned you a condition of Enemy". Nothing could be further from the truth. I did'nt, and I never have assigned anyone such a thing. To do so is completely contrary to the correct application and use of the formulas.
Nowhere do I consider or have I considered that you are n any way in a "Condition of Enemy" to the group here or to any individual in that group. But I do observe - and I said so - is that you are dramatizing an enemy valence towards yourself. It is the enemy within that is at issue here. And unfortunately it just is so that a person with such an enemy cannot see it. He/She is blind to it.
This is BTW a blindness that gets reinforced when one only audits a preclear on what he wants handled. I took this up with Alan on one occasion but he couldn't see it either. When you accustom a preclear to only being audited on what he wants handled you (a) have his bank as your C/S and you as auditor are in endless Q and A with it, and (b) you continually validate and reinforce the preclear's ego.
Note that with the word "bank" above I am not referring to the preclear's Mental Image Picture collection but to the deeper underlying bank consisting of the accumulated postulates he has made over the millennia regarding his concept of who he is, of the game he is playing, his role in it, his postulated limitations, and such-like. Hubbard never got into this at all to any degree of thoroughness.
Further to your post, I note the following attempt at generalizing a message to me in your normal indirect way:
One of the observable aspects of someone with an internal enemy is that they cannot help but give continual clues as to the presence of that enemy. And here you do it again. But you can't see it, can you? You will once you have handled it. It's as obvious as a sore thumb.
] 
