"Find out *that* you are"
- Thread starter rhill
- Start date
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Ron seemed to have a bad understanding of grammar. This is a sentence fragment. Ron: Flunk, Restudy.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
From the Intro to Scn Ethics book (snipped a bit). This exists in a PL too, from which it was taken. Entitled, "Hats, Not Wearing," I think:
Treason is defined as betrayal after trust.
The formula for Treason is very correctly and factually "Know that you are."
It will be found, gruesomely enough, that a person who accepts a post or position and then doesn't function as it, will inevitably upset or destroy some portion of an org.
By not knowing that he is the (post name), he is committing treason in fact.
PaulThe formula for Treason is very correctly and factually "Know that you are."
It will be found, gruesomely enough, that a person who accepts a post or position and then doesn't function as it, will inevitably upset or destroy some portion of an org.
By not knowing that he is the (post name), he is committing treason in fact.
thefiredragon
Patron Meritorious
I think you have a misunderstood. Maybe you should consult a good dictionary and clay demo it until you are in agreement with it. Failing at that, maybe an intensive or two of auditing will clear up any confusion you have. If that fails, you can always fall back on the stable datum that "Ron said it so it must be true."
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I think you're alter-ising the tech! Ron didn't include a blank.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Donate that shit to your local library or, better yet, throw it in your garbage.
Then you won't be in treason to yourself !
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Another " point" on this ethics stuff ( per the old boy ) :
One can be in an ethics condition on one, some, many, or all dynamics.
Is that right, or not?
Well, if one considers a being has dynamics that might imply one is not ones dynamics as they are something one has and not something one is.
If this is the case ( pun intended ) then WTF does the being get out of doing conditions on something it has that is not, per se, the being.
I have a pair of Levi's. SFW if I do conditions on those Levi's. It does what for ME ? See.
I know, bad grammar. Bad sentence structure. Fragmented sentences. (God how did I ever read DMSMH )? anyway, talking about this shit I drift into the typical structure of it. My bad, I'll work on that.
One can be in an ethics condition on one, some, many, or all dynamics.
Is that right, or not?
Well, if one considers a being has dynamics that might imply one is not ones dynamics as they are something one has and not something one is.
If this is the case ( pun intended ) then WTF does the being get out of doing conditions on something it has that is not, per se, the being.
I have a pair of Levi's. SFW if I do conditions on those Levi's. It does what for ME ? See.
I know, bad grammar. Bad sentence structure. Fragmented sentences. (God how did I ever read DMSMH )? anyway, talking about this shit I drift into the typical structure of it. My bad, I'll work on that.
Last edited:
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
IF (big if) you find doing the ethics conditions useful and want to do them on a self-determined basis, and accept Hubbard's words that these are based on natural law, then you can delimit any chunk of your life you want to and figure out its operating condition over whatever arbitrary chunk of time you wish.
Maybe you want to address your dealings with your pet cats, for instance. It's not that you have daily and weekly stat graphs showing whatever kitty stats you have worked out (I hope!), but you note that they don't seem to be doing quite as well over the past few months as you remember from before. It's not too bad, not like they're dying all of a sudden, but you figure the "stats" are slightly down over the past few months.
So you decide to apply the emergency formula, and follow the steps, as you figure they apply to the scene. Since this will (hopefully!) involve you caring more for the kitties, pretty much whatever you do as long as it's not drastic, this is likely to be successful.
There is a story about someone who used to assign conditions to his body thetans. I don't have too many details of that, other than that the practice wasn't looked on too favourably by fellow scios!
Paul
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I love the idea of assigning BTs conditions based on their stats. Very humorous.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Which, of course, is bullshit.
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
getting ethics in
ethics tech is brilliant. suppose you are in an org and you are confused. just as soon as you truly find out where you are you are certain to go into treason.
ethics tech is brilliant. suppose you are in an org and you are confused. just as soon as you truly find out where you are you are certain to go into treason.
Ogsonofgroo
Crusader
Treason in the Hubbard mind was anything/anyone that would argue against his warped view of the universe (near everyone) after they had agreed with at least one thing.
oi.
For all the blather about 'freedom', 'ethics', 'choice', 'self-determinism', it ends up being (an unfortunately remaining) a rather small and dismal cage in the long run, hung far and away from the things that can truly bring one to an enlightened (or at the very least, a better) understanding of the nature of things.
Remains a sad saga that continues against raging tides of pain, humiliation, and eye-openers.
oi.
For all the blather about 'freedom', 'ethics', 'choice', 'self-determinism', it ends up being (an unfortunately remaining) a rather small and dismal cage in the long run, hung far and away from the things that can truly bring one to an enlightened (or at the very least, a better) understanding of the nature of things.
Remains a sad saga that continues against raging tides of pain, humiliation, and eye-openers.
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
The Enemy Formula is "Find out who you really are", the implication being that you're out of valence and you're being somebody else. The next step down from thinking that you're somebody else would be to not even realize that you were (as in "I exist"). In this state, stuff would "just happen" around you, and you would not even be aware of being the being who caused it.
Think of Descartes famous line "I think, therefore I am".
At least this is the way I tended to interpret the formula.
Mystic
Crusader
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Not necessarily. There are bits of truth to it. Maybe a young couple get married, and set up home together. Who does the shopping? Who pays the rent or the mortgage? Who does the housework? For a happy household all these duties need to get worked out and agreed upon, and *done.*
This is people having hats, and wearing them (or not), even if the language isn't used.
If they don't discuss this much, and the guy goes out to work and pays for everything, and the wife stays at home and does nothing except open her legs every now and then, he is likely to get pissed off with preparing his own meals and vacuuming the carpets while she's out with her girlfriends *spending his money*.
-----
Which doesn't mean I think Hubbard was correct with everything in the ethics conditions. And I haven't consciously done an ethics condition — i.e., the steps of any formula — since leaving the SO.
Paul
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Yes, but "Treason"?
BETRAYAL?
No.
Annoyance, maybe. "Come on - can we talk about this? Remember our agreement that you would do this and I would do that??"
Hubbard putting this on a SCALE, and putting it way below "NON-EXISTENCE" even, and then accusing the person of treasonous betrayal is all a use of social conditioning and coercive manipulation.
A person who accepts this and tries to apply it as written becomes a tyrant, and an idiot.
It ruins families, and couples, and even groups, to run like this. It makes them unbearable.
While it may contain some bit of truth, it is taken to the level on complete bullshit, and as written, is destructive to human social activities.
Last edited:
