What's new
By:
Filters

ESMB Poster "David Mayo"

This is not the topic of this thread, and I won't be pursuing it further; but I just want to mention that fundamental progress is made by questioning what is being taken for granted by everybody. People seem to take for granted that a being is not a created thing. It seems to then follow that beingness is eternal. I question that. That's all.

.
 
Gadfly said:
VaD, get some sleep or drink more coffee! :D

Caliwog wrote:

"All that's missing are the promises to be able to travel through space and time at will and threats to be banned if you dare say the subject doesn't work!"

Fluffy then wrote:

"Who has EVER been threatened with banning because they thought the subject didn't work?"

:confused2:

++++++++++
Click to expand...

It's a statement/comment I've seen a number of times from critics and critical ex members. That people get in trouble for honestly airing their views about Scn. Or, sometimes, that Indies and FZers will jump on someone for so doing.

It's just not true. Nobody ever got banned for anything other than breaking the rules of conduct. Ever.

And most Scn'ists here- if not all- are generally pretty mellow with opposing views. Posts get reported and hell breaks loose when the ad homs come poppin' out. I know this, cuz it used to be said about me. That I'd killfile (usenet) or place people on ignore (msg boards) or jump all over them for having opposing views about Scn. That was never EVER the case. It's just something people tell themselves because they got busted for being rude.
 
Vinaire said:
This is not the topic of this thread, and I won't be pursuing it further; but I just want to mention that fundamental progress is made by questioning what is being taken for granted by everybody. People seem to take for granted that a being is not a created thing. It seems to then follow that beingness is eternal. I question that. That's all.

.
Click to expand...

What you said above:

...irrelevant

...unreal

...abstract

...stupid

... has nothing to do with life.

...has only to do with your mind (in its endless search)

...has nothing to do with soul(s)
 
VaD said:
But, knowing his blog and his history of criticising Scn - no, it's not just Marty and Marty's blog, I concluded that he has had an idea that Julie was promoting Scn here ("under other disguise").
Click to expand...

I think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make about me, but it wasn't my intent. Glad this has all been worked out! :)

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
 
Vinaire said:
This is not the topic of this thread, and I won't be pursuing it further; but I just want to mention that fundamental progress is made by questioning what is being taken for granted by everybody. People seem to take for granted that a being is not a created thing. It seems to then follow that beingness is eternal. I question that. That's all.

.
Click to expand...

I will answer with sincerity.

We have discussed this all much in the past on this board. I will answer within a certain context that relates to this realm of ideas.

The "finite entity", the "thetan", the individualized aspect of the Ground-of-all-Being is most likely NOT eternal. You and I have agreed in the past that Hubbard may have erred in this notion - that the "thetan" is some non-destructible entity.

As I see it, and you may too, the "thetan", the "soul" or the "individual spirit" is another aspect of the grand illusion. It is subject to a cycle of action, like any other aspect of manifested creation. It comes and goes, even if at a much slower rate than many other things. It is born, develops, changes, and eventually decays and dies.

In that regard, YES, it is NOT eternal, and while possibly/probably related in some way to what IS fundamental, it itself is only a "tentacle" of God.

I entirely agree that a "spiritual being" IS a created thing. As I understand it, if one systematically removes all attachments and considerations, one eventually ends up "splattered all over the universe", with NO IDENTITY, with NO LOCATION, and as "God".

But also, this temporary "spiritual being" has MANY of the creative qualities of THAT from which it emanates. And IT, no matter how temporal in the big picture, CREATES "knowledge".

God ----> individualized spirit ----> knowledge

The "being" is still "senior" to knowledge.

++++++++++++
 
Gadfly said:
VaD, get some sleep or drink more coffee! :D

Caliwog wrote:

"All that's missing are the promises to be able to travel through space and time at will and threats to be banned if you dare say the subject doesn't work!"

Fluffy then wrote:

"Who has EVER been threatened with banning because they thought the subject didn't work?"

:confused2:

++++++++++
Click to expand...

I apologize for having something misenterpreted

...or - if you allow me to view it this way - for interpreting something not the way you, other posters, interpreted.

I don't hold "the truth".

I just say it how I see it.

***

But, hell, I don't like when some just tell me to shut up because I'm saying something I'm not supposed to say, or saying something different from what they think I should say.

- Am I a swamper here? (compared to "Petty Officers" and "Leutenants")???
 
VaD said:
I apologize for having something misenterpreted

...or - if you allow me to view it this way - for interpreting something not the way you, other posters, interpreted.

I don't hold "the truth".

I just say it how I see it.

***

But, hell, I don't like when some just tell me to shut up because I'm saying something I'm not supposed to say, or saying something different from what they think I should say.

- Am I a swamper here? (compared to "Petty Officers" and "Leutenants")???
Click to expand...

Nope, you were just being a bit non-sequitor in following the chain of events. Something we are all guilty of from time to time.

We ALL say things that some other or some group of others don't like. And, sometimes we each make mistakes. I do. When I do, I try to correct it.

Plus, who cares what anyone else thinks? :confused2:

+++++++
 
Voltaire's Child said:
It's a statement/comment I've seen a number of times from critics and critical ex members. That people get in trouble for honestly airing their views about Scn....It's just not true. Nobody ever got banned for anything other than breaking the rules of conduct. Ever.
Click to expand...

HCO PL 23 Dec 1965 ETHICS - SUPPRESSIVE ACTS - SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS - THE FAIR GAME LAW

"...Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology... Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists... testifying hostilely
before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it... writing anti-Scientology letters to the press... testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public..." -- LRH

So the "rules of conduct" include not complaining about Scientology (at least, not publically). We all know what happens to SPs, and connection to an SP makes you PTS and ineligible for services.

So, according to LRH, you do get kicked out for complaining about Scientology.

Although I maintain that the SP declares are more about keeping people in. That's the subject of today's blog entry, matter of fact.

UPDATE: See next message.

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
 
JohnnyRUClear said:
Did a massive M/U just occur on the word "ban"? Ban from the cult vs. ban from this site?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get it either. I know that certain folks have recently been harboring a near obsessive over-attention on board "bannings" (and the politics involved), but confusing the banning of people from Scientology with the banning of people on discussion boards is a bit too much of A=A=A (identity-thinking) for me!

Cramming Order (applies to whoever):

M3 W/C the word "ban"

DEMO: Each of the 10 points of KSW

Essay: What is "banning" in organized Scientology, and how might it occur by stating or thinking that the subject of Scientology "doesn't work".

CLAY DEMO: Identity Thinking

++++++++++++++++++
 
VaD said:
Well, actually the tone of a message by Caliwog addressed to Julie Mayo. - could just feel something unfriendly there.
Click to expand...

A very good point. I actually have a lot of respect for David and Julie Mayo. I've actually been spending time learning more about what happened during the AAC years and will be writing about it on my blog. From what I've learned so far, if Marty Rathbun ran his Indie business like David ran the AAC, my blog probably wouldn't exist. The biggest difference, near as I can tell, is that the Mayos actually put some thought into the subject, while Marty follows LRH blindly.

I am critical of Scientology, but I try my best to separate my views about a person from my views about their views. I am not always successful.

If I think someone is a bad seed - Marty, DM and LRH, for examples - then I will say so. That said, if Marty ever has a change of heart and gets out of Scientology, who knows? We could end up best of friends!

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
 
^^^ Oink! - Before this gets outta hand.. I'm sure Fluffy is talking about banning on this here Message Board, ESMB.. I agree, or I decline to mention any disagreement..

Inside the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology you WILL be banned and declared and consigned to a billion years interiorated in a rock for any doubts voiced about the 'tech' or it's rotund and flabby source.

There are in existence Message Boards that seeks to implemet the Hubbardian maintance strategies for 'safe environments'.. Which means that you get treated as described above for veering off the party line.

ESMB ain't nearly as bad as that.. Look! - I can write shoit like this! (Probably?)

:yes:
 
VaD said:
I do (care what anyone else thinks).
Click to expand...

Suggestion? You shouldn't.

Admiration is NOT the most valuable particle in the universe (even though it may have been to Hubbard and even though Hubbard defined it to be).

Desiring attention from or acceptance from other people and things is a fundamental personal weakness. It is probably most likely a manifestation of "ego" (a temporary and unnecessary mental contrivance).

That is my opinion, and while I don't go out of my way to "hurt the feelings" of others, I in no way desire that others "like me". I do very little out of some motivation "to be liked". I just try to be honest. Some people need acceptance like other people need air, water and food. It is a misplaced need. Let it go.

Now, what was the topic?

++++++++++++
 
Caliwog said:
A very good point. I actually have a lot of respect for David and Julie Mayo. I've actually been spending time learning more about what happened during the AAC years and will be writing about it on my blog. From what I've learned so far, if Marty Rathbun ran his Indie business like David ran the AAC, my blog probably wouldn't exist. The biggest difference, near as I can tell, is that the Mayos actually put some thought into the subject, while Marty follows LRH blindly.

I am critical of Scientology, but I try my best to separate my views about a person from my views about their views. I am not always successful.

If I think someone is a bad seed - Marty, DM and LRH, for examples - then I will say so. That said, if Marty ever has a change of heart and gets out of Scientology, who knows? We could end up best of friends!

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Now your view is clear to me. :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top