For Those Who Can't Stand Criticism

[Alanzo]

That is an interesting criticism but what is wrong with infinitizing?

I believe that one must start broad to get the whole view and then gradually narrow down to the specifics.

.

I know the pattern. I used to do it, too.

It's thinking with "infinite principles", or "eternal truths" and connecting relative things to those infinite principles or eternal truths.

But some things are not infinite, and so the infinite does not always apply.

By diving into infinity, you miss the inspection of the real and the mundane too often.

In fact, I believe you have said that the relative world is just an illusion, and so you don't bother with it. The relative world is the only one we all can see, so you should dwell there at least some of the time.

And, some eternal truths do not exist at all in the relative and mundane world - only the eternal and infinite world. Even worse, some eternal truths are actually false in the relative and mundane world.

So by infinitizing too much, sometimes what you write and say is false in the real world.

 

[Alanzo]

The only trouble is, well, where does one start?

I guess I could start with the apparently casual throw-away line "I've given up drinking for the winter". What kind of hippy-loving, sandal-wearing, soft-cock, tie-dyed, crystal gazing way is that to spend the cold months? And then you go and tell us all that instead of drinking you are staying in listening to Bhudist teachings? FFS!!

I can only assume you are seeking to attract female attention by coming across as all touchy-feely, sensitive and new-age. Well, mate, let me tell you, that approach dates you. Big time.

My turn . . . criticism welcome.

This is a common criticism of me. I hear this one all the time from my friends here in the cornfields.

I live in the Midwest. No one ever gives up drinking here, and they certainly never listen to Buddhist sermons. And they all think that when I mention it that I am somehow trying to get laid by doing so.

In examining criticism of ones' self, does the number of times over equal certainty and results?

 

[Vinaire]

A Black Hole isn't infinite mass.

Black Hole:

A black hole is a region of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape. It is the result of the deformation of spacetime caused by a very compact mass.

It is my opinion that at the center of the Black Hole the mass is infinite.

.

 

[Alanzo]

Yes, because nobody can save people from Scientology.

You are pursuing a lost cause.

.

This one has occurred to me before.

In fact, I wrote a big post about it on the Scn Forum around this time last year. I felt like I would never post anything ever anywhere again on Scientology.

What can I say?

It wasn't fun enough.

 

[Vinaire]

Yow.

That ones' gotta sting, Vin.

Sting who?

.

 

[Alanzo]

Black Hole: It is my opinion that at the center of the Black Hole the mass is infinite.

.

You're blocking!

You're blocking!!

 

[Alanzo]

I've got an idea.

Alanzo, why don't you start a thread where you tell Marty what you think he has done wrong, is still doing wrong, and why you don't agree with him and how he can improve to win your respect.

Keep it factual, no ad hom, no sarcasm etc.

Let's test your theory.

I feel like I've done that about 15 times.

Somebody else do one and I'll chime in, too.

 

[Vinaire]

This one has occurred to me before.

In fact, I wrote a big post about it on the Scn Forum around this time last year. I felt like I would never post anything ever anywhere again on Scientology.

What can I say?

It wasn't fun enough.

Saving people from Scientology is like saving people from themselves. It cannot be done. People will take their own time to come out of their deception. It cannot be speeded up by another.

Yes, it is fun trying to do it. I am also doing it in my own way by finding something that is very simple and effective and can become a grass roots movement. If that happens it will be the end of Scientology for sure.

So, any attempt to save people from Scientology is at best an effort to get self-satisfaction. I am definitely aiming at self-satisfaction by working on KHTK. I am not aiming at saving people from Scientology, though what I am doing may have that effect.

The idea that one may be saving people from Scientology is just another form of self-deception.

I hope this doesn't sting.

.

 

[Alanzo]

Saving people from Scientology is like saving people from themselves. It cannot be done. People will take their own time to come out of their deception. It cannot be speeded up by another.

Yes, it is fun trying to do it. I am also doing it in my own way by finding something that is very simple and effective and can become a grass roots movement. If that happens it will be the end of Scientology for sure.

So, any attempt to save people from Scientology is at best an effort to get self-satisfaction. I am definitely aiming at self-satisfaction by working on KHTK. I am not aiming at saving people from Scientology, though what I am doing may have that effect.

The idea that one may be saving people from Scientology is just another form of self-deception.

I hope this doesn't sting.

.

There is a lot of truth to what you say.

But I see it differently.

I have a belief that I am providing information and engaging in discussion that encourages people to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology.

Maybe I am blinded by my own belief, and all I'm really doing is trying to save people from Scientology for my own self-satisfaction.

One of those activities sounds so much better than the other.

 

[SomeGuy]

It is my opinion that at the center of the Black Hole the mass is infinite.

.

It seems like a stretch to go from "compact" to infinite.

This extrapulation by a mathematician intrigues me.

 

[Vinaire]

The primary concern I have in regard to your contributions, Vinaire, is that you appear to only half-understand the concepts involved. You are guilty of that particularly pernicious Hubbard tactic of re-defining language so as to better meld with the statements you make. A classic example occurs in the "peer review" process as per your recent thread. The madhair completely dismantled your premise and then, perhaps gratuitously, slung in a bit of a dig. Rather than focus on the man content of the comment, you zoomed in on the throw away ad hom as if it somehow negated everything else that had been said. It is you, in fact, who cannot separate himself from the content.

Apart from that, and your haughty writing style, you seem like a decent sort of bloke. Nutty, for sure, but I like odd balls.

In all honesty I find that a lot of people are quick in criticizing what I present but do not present ideas of their own to the discussion. It is as if they are afraid to contribute their own ideas for fear of criticism by others.

So, I see a hypocrisy here. If I appear to only half-understand the concept then why not supply the other half? I do not see people doing that.

I do not trust arguments from people who become emotional and invalidative. That is typical "scientological" behavior. I find people too much fixated on Hubbard to be able to evaluate knowledge for what it is. There are people here who consider anything in Scientology to be rubbish even when something was stolen by Hubbard from a reputable source.

Themadhair did not dismantle my premise. He is too emotional and not scientific. I ignore him for that reason.

.

 

[nexus100]

"snip"

"There are people here who consider anything in Scientology to be rubbish even when it was stolen by Hubbard from a reputable source."


I think someone should build a hall of fame just for this statement.

 

[Vinaire]

I know the pattern. I used to do it, too.

It's thinking with "infinite principles", or "eternal truths" and connecting relative things to those infinite principles or eternal truths.

But some things are not infinite, and so the infinite does not always apply.

By diving into infinity, you miss the inspection of the real and the mundane too often.

In fact, I believe you have said that the relative world is just an illusion, and so you don't bother with it. The relative world is the only one we all can see, so you should dwell there at least some of the time.

And, some eternal truths do not exist at all in the relative and mundane world - only the eternal and infinite world. Even worse, some eternal truths are actually false in the relative and mundane world.

So by infinitizing too much, sometimes what you write and say is false in the real world.

Actually I would like to hear your "accurate" criticism of the following 5 essays:

http://vinaire.wordpress.com/

I do not think these essays represent infinitizing as you put it. I may muse and meander around on this board, but what I put on my blog is pretty sound.

.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I'll take the road less travelled, please...

To answer the question:

I would take the honest criticism from someone I disliked over the money. In fact, in the course of my community service, I do hear much criticism from various sources (seemingly constantly!).

In my profession, I get and give feedback to people all the time, and I really value it when folks hold up a mirror for me to see my "self" and "get" my own behavior, when I need an attitude adjustment or a reality check, etc. Not always easy, but it does foster growth, which I personally value greatly.

We never totally see ourselves as others see us...(and others never totally see us as we see ourselves). I feel it is a noble calling to work on becoming as "transparent" (honest, sincere and genuine with no blind spots or hidden agendas) as possible...and feel that it is the work of a lifetime.

By the way, good thought provoking thread, Al Baby!

 

[Sindy]

"snip"

"There are people here who consider anything in Scientology to be rubbish even when it was stolen by Hubbard from a reputable source."


I think someone should build a hall of fame just for this statement.

It at least deserves it's own thread.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I'm married. I get all the criticism I want for free.

Well, not "free" I do earn it.

Please send the cheque to Kevin Bloody Mackey, C/- ESMB.

 

[Vinaire]

There is a lot of truth to what you say.

But I see it differently.

I have a belief that I am providing information and engaging in discussion that encourages people to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology.

Maybe I am blinded by my own belief, and all I'm really doing is trying to save people from Scientology for my own self-satisfaction.

One of those activities sounds so much better than the other.

I am all for providing factual information on Scientology. But I would let people read and judge it for themselves.

I would not try to pursuade people and get them to change their minds through discussion. That is very "scientological" in my opinion.

.

 

[Sindy]

Black Hole:



It is my opinion that at the center of the Black Hole the mass is infinite.

.

It is only opinion because the concept of Black Holes (which I do subscribe to) is still just a theory. However, the scientific theory does not posit that a Black Home has infinite mass. it simply has the mass it once had as a star and the mass it has amassed, if you will, since it's journey to being a Black Hole.

 

[Vinaire]

It seems like a stretch to go from "compact" to infinite.

This extrapulation by a mathematician intrigues me.

Well, I am following a line of argument presented on the KHTK ESSAYS thread and I don't want to repeat it here. I know it is a conjecture at this stage, but it has a fairly good basis of looking at SPACE as a manifestation rather than as the background. That changes the fundamental approach.

I plan to work out the mathematics for it.

.

 

[nexus100]

At what point inside the black hole does the finite end and the infinite begin? And why does the infinite decide to sit inside a black hole when it could go any old place?