What's new

Dear Cockatoo: Question on the Tech

Nurse Pinch

Patron with Honors
"Phoenix for many years has been hot, dry desert country with mountains
that are fascinating to me and my family.

One night we decided to take a trip up to the mountains. We climbed,
using flashlights, and finally reached a peak where we could see all
the lights of Phoenix spread in a wide vista before us.

Then we sat down on the rocks to look at the beautiful scene and get
in communication with the beings in the area.

By getting in communication with the beings we discovered some
weather controlling machinery that were installed in each mountain
peak around the valley that is Phoenix. They were installed there
eons ago to assure fair weather for the space port which was in
operation there at the time.

By auditing the beings running them, we knocked out all those machines.
And Phoenix has been having rain or floods ever since. The whole desert
is turning into lush greenery.

Thanks to Ron for the tech to be OT. One can only be OT by making his
data his own and using it to the fullest."

Rod Martin
OT

[Advance! issue 19, p. 10]


More here. http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/fun/

:alien2: You are kidding aren't you :omg:

:spacecraft:

Pinchy.
 
:dancer:

You know how I know I have won a rational debate?

When the topic suddenly turns to me rather than to the subject debated.

I declare myself to have prevailed against all commers.

resolved. Kirsties otness has nothing to do with her weight.

Thank you. thank you very much!
:coolwink: :dancer:

You can't win a rationale debate unless you debate rationally, which you haven't done. The point of my post is that you are simply not debating rationally.

It is as if you are claiming that the Easter Bunny (results from the OT levels)is real and your proof is that there is literature on Santa Claus (spiritual phenomenon).

The debate that your are avoiding is not that there is such a thing as spiritual and psychic phenomenon; that's your straw man fallacy.

The debate you are avoiding is whether or not OT levels produce those psychic phenomenon.

You have not produce any empirical proof that the OT levels produce such results other than the claim "I saw the Easter Bunny!"

You claim your oponents are not logical in their disbelief of the Easter Bunny because they don't believe in Santa Claus.

And more to the point, if you wanted to say you believe in the results of the OT levels no one would doubt that, except maybe from some of those who had done their OT levels (which I suspect you haven't).

But you are arguing that there are empirical results that are real and obvious and others just can't see it.

The point of my post is that you can't see the false arguments and begging the question that is the basis for your arguments.

Googling logic and then repeating what you read is one thing; it doesn't mean you are logical. Using reason is what makes one logical.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

nozeno

Gold Meritorious Patron
TAJ you bastard!

santa-claustombstone-795494.jpg
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
You can't win a rationale debate unless you debate rationally, which you haven't done. The point of my post is that you are simply not debating rationally.

It is as if you are claiming that the Easter Bunny (results from the OT levels)is real and your proof is that there is literature on Santa Claus (spiritual phenomenon).

The debate that your are avoiding is not that there is such a thing as spiritual and psychic phenomenon; that's your straw man fallacy.

The debate you are avoiding is whether or not OT levels produce those psychic phenomenon.

You have not produce any empirical proof that the OT levels produce such results other than the claim "I saw the Easter Bunny!"

You claim your oponents are not logical in their disbelief of the Easter Bunny because they don't believe in Santa Claus.



And more to the point, if you wanted to say you believe in the results of the OT levels no one would doubt that, except maybe from some of those who had done their OT levels (which I suspect you haven't).

But you are arguing that there are empirical results that are real and obvious and others just can't see it.

The point of my post is that you can't see the false arguments and begging the question that is the basis for your arguments.

Googling logic and then repeating what you read is one thing; it doesn't mean you are logical. Using reason is what makes one logical.

The Anabaptist Jacques

True enough. I dont have data to refer anyone to, to connect supernatural phenomenon with scientology. All I can provide is my own experience and pointers to that of others, which is way too subjective to stand in any sort of impartial debate.

You said "But you are arguing that there are empirical results that are real and obvious and others just can't see it. "

I am arguing that there are phenomenon such as described by scientology's OT levels, I am NOT arguing that I can prove scientology can produce them as currently constituted. Just that such phenomenon exist. There is a distinction. I gave pointers to where verifiable science could be found. Then the debate turned to me.

I gave my rationale, and I think to a large degree it was not considered.

When santa claus and the easter bunny are talking points, it is my clue that I am done.

I truely love talking about this kind of thing, but have no great motivator for ad hom. ( or maybe I do considering how long I tried...)

Take a win, resolved: kirstie is fat because scientology cant produce ot's. Or would it be scientology cant produce OT's, proof, kirstie is fat.

(seem fucking ridiculously thin conclusion to you....?)
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
True enough. I dont have data to refer anyone to, to connect supernatural phenomenon with scientology. All I can provide is my own experience and pointers to that of others, which is way too subjective to stand in any sort of impartial debate.

You said "But you are arguing that there are empirical results that are real and obvious and others just can't see it. "

I am arguing that there are phenomenon such as described by scientology's OT levels, I am NOT arguing that I can prove scientology can produce them as currently constituted. Just that such phenomenon exist. There is a distinction. I gave pointers to where verifiable science could be found.

Yes you did.

I saw you do this.

Then the debate turned to me.
That's just because it is more fun that way.

I gave my rationale, and I think to a large degree it was not considered.

When santa claus and the easter bunny are talking points, it is my clue that I am done.

I truely love talking about this kind of thing, but have no great motivator for ad hom. ( or maybe I do considering how long I tried...)
Have you ever noticed that in a debate, sometimes, each debater is debating different things, and both are right?

I think TAJ's point was that Scientology is incapable of producing the spiritual phenomena that you described in the empirical results you cited - which did not come from Scientology.

And your point was that spiritual phenomena do exist, and there is empirical evidence for it - but none of that empirical evidence comes from Scientology.

You have made this point since the beginng of this thread.

Take a win, resolved: kirstie is fat because scientology cant produce ot's. Or would it be scientology cant produce OT's, proof, kirstie is fat.

(seem fucking ridiculously thin conclusion to you....?)
But you ALSO tried to make the point that Kirstie Ally could still be an OT even when she loses her job and millions of dollars from a compulsion to overeat which she literally can not control - even though the definition of CLEAR is a being with no more compulsions - let alone the definition of OT, which is cause over life.

So TAJ successfuly argued that point.

And you, fairly successfully, argued a different point.

THEN everyone gave you a wedgie and messed up your hair.

Which was also entertaining.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
My hair is un mussed and I go commando.

I will have to shout out to my girl DCAnon, "good troll".
:)
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
No I'm not, but by the time I got to Phoenix it was dry again.

Well obviously the machinery was so advanced, it fixed itself right up and started up its original purpose again. What more proof do you need that advanced beings once inhabited this planet millions of years ago?

"Phoenix for many years has been hot, dry desert country with mountains
that are fascinating to me and my family.

One night we decided to take a trip up to the mountains. We climbed,
using flashlights, and finally reached a peak where we could see all
the lights of Phoenix spread in a wide vista before us.

Then we sat down on the rocks to look at the beautiful scene and get
in communication with the beings in the area.

By getting in communication with the beings we discovered some
weather controlling machinery that were installed in each mountain
peak around the valley that is Phoenix. They were installed there
eons ago to assure fair weather for the space port which was in
operation there at the time.

By auditing the beings running them, we knocked out all those machines.
And Phoenix has been having rain or floods ever since. The whole desert
is turning into lush greenery.

Thanks to Ron for the tech to be OT. One can only be OT by making his
data his own and using it to the fullest."

Rod Martin
OT

[Advance! issue 19, p. 10]


More here. http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/fun/

I love these stories. They perfectly illustrate what it means to be a dedicated Scientologist and why so many people think Scientologists are a bit wacky.

Someone comes up with a wonderful story ‘proving’ the miraculous nature of the ‘Tech’. And everyone believes it without even asking for proof. :duh:

If someone were to apply the tiniest bit of critical thinking, they would see that the area around Phoenix is still a desert, thus rather disproving the whole story. And, if someone were to be really awkward, they might ask for evidence of this ‘machinery’. Shouldn’t be too hard to find and given the obviously hugely technologically advanced nature of any such machinery that could still be operating after so many thousands of years, it would be worth a fortune to find it.

So, just a few moments of logical thinking blows huge holes in this particular story. So why didn’t I do this 20 years ago? :banghead:

Axiom142
 
Wouldn't that be nice...

By at some level consciously or not, deciding too.

Its really that simple. That would be the scientological wisdom.

Not that I am wise, but I do grok the gestalt.

So, I could choose to be... gay? ... or not?

You might ask Michael Pattinson about the "scientological wisdom" with that one... he's the highly talented artist and very capable person who did the entire bridge through OT VIII in order to "cure" being gay. He was told over and over about the "aberration" that would be fixed and somehow, after reaching the very top, despite all that, was still... gay.

(being gay is considered a demonstration of being "1.1" as a direct reference by the mighty Hubbard)

Google search for his story if you are curious - it's simultaneously incredibly sad, wretched, and inspiring - that he's still managed to come out the other side despite the best the cult could throw is a testament to his personal strength.
 
So, I could choose to be... gay? ... or not?

You might ask Michael Pattinson about the "scientological wisdom" with that one... he's the highly talented artist and very capable person who did the entire bridge through OT VIII in order to "cure" being gay. He was told over and over about the "aberration" that would be fixed and somehow, after reaching the very top, despite all that, was still... gay.

(being gay is considered a demonstration of being "1.1" as a direct reference by the mighty Hubbard)

Google search for his story if you are curious - it's simultaneously incredibly sad, wretched, and inspiring - that he's still managed to come out the other side despite the best the cult could throw is a testament to his personal strength.

Welcome voiceless!

Very nice post:thumbsup:

We hope to hear you voice here often.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
So, I could choose to be... gay? ... or not?

You might ask Michael Pattinson about the "scientological wisdom" with that one... he's the highly talented artist and very capable person who did the entire bridge through OT VIII in order to "cure" being gay. He was told over and over about the "aberration" that would be fixed and somehow, after reaching the very top, despite all that, was still... gay.

(being gay is considered a demonstration of being "1.1" as a direct reference by the mighty Hubbard)

Google search for his story if you are curious - it's simultaneously incredibly sad, wretched, and inspiring - that he's still managed to come out the other side despite the best the cult could throw is a testament to his personal strength.

Yes, Welcome to ESMB, Voiceless.

It's good to have you here. :)

Where you have a voice...
 
So, I could choose to be... gay? ... or not?


Well, I suppose you could if you wanted to. Whatever floats your boat. :unsure:

However, most of the gays I've known are pretty sure they are born with the orientation rather than "choose" it later. Mind you, for the most part they are all pretty fine with the "inheiritance", too. In fact, a few have gotten a bit "evangelical" and sought to bring "the heathen to the light" sort of thing. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

dexter gelfand

Patron Meritorious
I hear ya

Not trying to "have a go" here Dex, but I tend to disagree.

Ron suggests very strongly with his alleged experiments with "the great god throgmagog" (I may have miss-spelled this) that an OT does indeed have all the answers to every imaginable problem. It is also suggested through the concept of "Knowingness".

DMSMH and the tone scale say that your endocrine system et al will be in perfect condition as a Clear. (But those OT's still insist on wearing glasses damn them)

As for not making the best choices, again DMSMH suggests that a Clear will always make the correct, pro-survival choice; and then use her cat-like reflexes to enact that choice.

In the case of Kirsty Alley, she has been given hatting on diet and exercise through the Jenny Craig system, so it cannot be claimed she is a "Cleared Cannibal"

If anyone can produce OT phenomena (inside or outside Scn), they should run, not walk to claim Mr Randi's $1M prize. Yet no-one has. If someone can show me spiritual phenomena that have been produced (and can be re-produced) under controlled conditions, please point me to the scientific journal where it is written up. Seriously, I am not being a smart ass, I would genuinely like to read about it. Sorry if I sound a bit jaded, but after 15 years of chasing a con man's wet dream I am a DOX or GTFO kinda girl nowadays.

Pinchy

Hiya Nurse, sorry for the delay, I just noticed your response. I appreciate your manner of expression, and I appreciate your polite counterpoint. I agree with the concept of knowingness, in fact I'm sure we all have experienced a degree of this at times, but as an absolute, I think that could only be a theoretical state, Hubbard does achnowledge "there are no absolutes", but I think many detractors would characterize him as meaning otherwise in his claims for the gains made through Scientology.

As to "
DMSMH suggests that a Clear will always make the correct, pro-survival choice", you also have to take into account that this is relative to the data the clear is given to operate on, and that also is stated in DMSMH, which I am currently restudying for my own benefit. I'm finding many passages where, if you read carefully, he does not make claims of perfection or infallibility, or complete imperviousness to illness, or other things assigned to him or the book by people who misunderstand, or willfully misquote or quote out of context to buttress their statements.

I'm finding, the more I study the materials outside of the CoS, that some things I thought were stated either weren't actually stated, or turned out to be true when correctly applied.

As to Kirsty Alley, I can have no idea whether or not she actually attained whatever states or levels attested in the CoS, but it isn't valid to use an individual or a handful of individuals as proof of the validity of any practice. The prisons are full of murderers and rapist who were "Christians", and/or every other well established religion and practice, and it would hardly be fair to judge Christianity by them.

I don't doubt that your own experiences have led you to your views, and I appreciate your expressions of these.

Regards,
Dex
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Dexter, you have your 'stable data' around which you arrange everything else. After all, if you didn't do it that way, they wouldn't be 'stable data' now, would they?

Zinj
 

dexter gelfand

Patron Meritorious
Hiya Zinj

Dexter, you have your 'stable data' around which you arrange everything else. After all, if you didn't do it that way, they wouldn't be 'stable data' now, would they?

Zinj

Hey Zinj, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean- if you are suggesting that I twist meanings to make them fit into what I believe or consider true, I don't know that I never do that, I know I sometimes did that as a churchie, but I outgrew that as my personal integrity increased along with my unwillingness to compromise my viewpoints to try to find a way to be in agreement with the CoS. I have discovered what I consider interesting truths reading some of the postings by some of the people on ESMB who had been around the old man, and in the SO or the CoS decades ago and had made big contributions in that time. and then moved onto a different point of view. Some of them clearly disagree with my self-determined choice, based on my studies and experiences, to apply and promote what I know as standard tech, but nevertheless I find these people's stories valid and worthwhile, and they have expanded my understanding of the development of Scientology and its organizations, and I don't doubt that there are gains to be made from what some of these people have created, albeit not compatible with ongoing progress up the standard bridge.

I haven't any issue or conflict with people for feeling differently, or for expressing their own views, providing they also can grant and acknowledge that these are viewpoints, and not invalidate (pardon the term:) ) the views of others, and/or speak in absolutes.

Listen to any Pharoah Sanders lately? I think he and John Coltrane created some of the most pleasing, spiritually oriented music I know of.

Regards, Dex
 
Top