Here's a nice volunteered success story

[dexter gelfand]

Try to express a viewpoint without taking one sometime.

I don't understand, Nex- how do you express a viewpoint without first having a viewpoint?

Love, Dex

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Generally a useful viewpoint is one that takes a stand. Since every viewpoint shares the dual nature of being both accurate and incomplete the only really worthless post is one that fudges into multiple viewpoints, likely in an attempt by the poster not be wrong or to manipulate instead of understand.

Re deciding what's a useful viewpoint vs one that is not: I think that one man's meat may be another man's poison.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Ron would probably say, "You're guilty of doing that which you accuse others of doing!" That would apply to me and also apply to you but, hell, who cares what Ron would say?

HellYeah!

However.............

Ron is so validative of the 'rightness of the being' one can never be wrong, because of the Hubbard Law of Commotion:

"FOR EACH AND EVERY POLICY THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE POLICY."​

On the other hand, one can never be right either.

Nothing in Scientology is black or white. Nor are they exactly red or green on white.

Things are colored as desired, needed or dictated by COB. (Commodore, Chairman and/or Chameleon of the Board).

 

[degraded being]

Yah, I do love debate. It's fun.

I think that if one goes to a forum wherein the main stance is kinda opposite, that one can and should expect counter arguments and debates. Not attacks, though.

I would expect attack. A FZ board would presumably be for people who wanted to practise scientology even though they may have differing views about COS and scientology itself. If I just posted something that wasn't contentious maybe there wouldn't be anything to attack.....even then, some may see me as an *anti* and therefore feel defensive...or whatever, and I could possibly get attacked. If I posted something contentious then I would be more expectant of attack, even, as I have said, a thread was provided for anti scientologists. BTW do any FZ boards provide such threads???????
I would not for one minute expect people to supply posture-politeness and what the scientologists call "social-personality".
I thought one of the goals of scientology was to find out how to get beyond that. If a board was for debate and discussion that may be another matter.

 

[dexter gelfand]

Good answer.As far as suspending disbelief about me spending a lot of money on something I want, you needn't. Obviously, I did in fact spend a whole lot of money & time passionately trying to achieve Ron's promised states/abilities. And your assumption that I would not make such a Quixotic attempt again is also correct. For reasons that are more than obvious. What you expressed is what Ron should have expressed....that the subject of Scientology is experimental. A pure R&D undertaking that, while it might anecdotally be capable of achieving certain effects, is entirely hypothetical or, at best, only produces subjective results which vary individual to individual with wild variation. If Hubbard had invited all to participate in this grand experiment, it might have been like Wikipedia--contributed to by a vast number of practitioners, researchers, innovators and spiritual pioneers. I once posted about this and conceived of a subject that could have perhaps had (minimally) three categories of technology. Briefly it was along these lines...

CATEGORY I) PROVEN. That which can be scientifically proven, duplicated and which produces quantifiable results using all the protocols of the scientific testing methods--double blind studies, placebos et al. CATEGORY II) PILOT. All practitioners and pcs, alike, would know full well that they were participating in an process or rundown that had qualified itself as having clinical promise. No one would be deluded or tricked into believing that it was other than a good-faith attempt to see if it might work. CATEGORY III) PURE R & D. Here, any theory or predicate, bar none, could be undertaken without limitations. If any technique appeared to have merit and pass certain standards, it could be elevated to a Category II or Pilot phase.​

If Hubbard had administered Scientology with the honesty and humility that you describe is your process, there may have been real and remarkable progress in the subject. No telling what discoveries might have resulted with such an embracive and open approach. However, Hubbard took all of his "Pure R & D" and instantly elevated it to Category I ("Proven") and thereafter attached untold number of additional support baggage by calling it a religion, naming himself as the "being from another planet" who "rose above the bank" and became the "only individual to ever pass thru OT III" without being killed. Add to that all the outrageous totalitarian instruments of threat and punishment that were brutally dealt out to anyone who dared question his methods and a complex monstrosity was borne. I have been deeply involved, in one of my enterprises, with R & D of a medical and scientific nature and I have untold respect for anyone who earnestly sets out to discover tools by which peoples' lives can be bettered. So, despite what you might think about my Joking & Degrading or other edgy posts, I do respect your efforts to pursue and develop any techniques which people find useful in their lives.

And I respect your intentions and experience, HH. Thank you.

Love, Dex

 

[nexus100]

Re deciding what's a useful viewpoint vs one that is not: I think that one man's meat may be another man's poison.

Fair enough, here's a definition of a useful viewpoint with regard to understanding:

A place from where one can be seen, a definite point in space.

 

[degraded being]

Not at all. Although those prone to factionalism often seek to impose such a dichotomous view.

The best posts are those which expand & clarify the topic under discussion without regard or attempt to promoting a particular perspective or opinion of the ideas being expressed upon others.


Mark A. Baker

As Nex has pointed out the perspectives and opinions and ideas of others can be expanded and clarified in many different ways.
Even being "peurile" can do so.

 

[dexter gelfand]

Hi Dexter - did you see my post #348?

If you understand what I wrote in response to your post it may save you some heartache.

I think you are a good bloke, it's just that sometimes there are parts of scio that we don't realise we practice, such as needing a "safe space" to state an opinion, or perhaps trying to restrict comments to those that agree. There are many points of view here that are worth looking at, sometimes just a little shift to the left or right can bring new insights. HH, DB and Veda have said some truly brilliant things on this board and even if it is disturbing sometimes, their comments are worth the while to read. It's not personal.

Hi Free! I DO understand. What I disagree with is thoughtless knee-jerk ranting, which is pretty much all I see coming from Degraded being and Blip. There just isn't any point in responding to them, or in any way carrying forward their communications. Others' such as Veda, Helluva Hoax, and Free Being, may not agree with my viewpoint, but they are demonstrating that they are here to exchange viewpoints, and both arrive at and bring about understanding between us. We can actually learn from and appreciate each other. There's a difference, wouldn't you agree?

Love, Dex

 

[nexus100]

I don't understand, Nex- how do you express a viewpoint without first having a viewpoint?

Love, Dex

Ya hafta read Baker's post first, Dexie.

 

[Sindy]

Fair enough, here's a definition of a useful viewpoint with regard to understanding:

A place from where one can be seen, a definite point in space.

It's a courageous place to be.

The mushy, mercurial comments that morph into nonsensical diatribes simply for the sake of being contrary certainly increase the number of posts on a thread. Possibly that is the usefulness, to exasperate. It's the sizzle that keeps the thread from doing a fizzle. It's the comments in between that are the meat.

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

"nuggets" from memory...

Once had a boss who talked incessantly and could "hold forth" at length re almost anything.

I recall asking the next boss up the chain what it was about Guy that made him so wordy. :confused2:

The answer was "It's simple - if Guy ain't talkin, he's BORED!"

Anyhow, that was his viewpoint.

Simple, ain't it?

EP

 

[dexter gelfand]

One need only watch the videos of the recent Freezone conference, where an OT3 completion is announced, resulting in an eruption of cheers and applause by the attendees, to recognize that the LRH Bridge is primarily what the Scientology Freezone does.

I'll take Dexter at his word that he's no longer trapped on the LRH Bridge, but the fact is, despite recurring denials, mostly by ScnFZ/ScnIndie PR people, and directed at the "public" of ESMB, doing the LRH Bridge is what the ScnFZ/IndieScn is primarily about. And that's fine, since that's the primary reason for the Scientology Freezone/Independent Scientology in the first place: to provide Standard Scientology, in other words, the LRH Bridge, to those who wish to do the LRH Bridge outside of organized $cientology.

Once the cherry picking starts, and the LRH Bridge is abandoned, continuing to call it Scientology is misleading, and it adds to the already smoke-and-mirrors aspect of the doctrine of Scientology, which has been advertising itself for years as anything that the potential customer, potential recruit, newbie or "raw meat," might find appealing and attractive.

In other words, Scientology - for years - has been telling people that Scientology is whatever it is they most want it to be at that particular moment. This, in an attempt to deceive, manipulate, mislead, and exploit the person, his energies, good intentions, and his treasure.

So it's a muddled mess.

Dexter seems to be (slowly) renouncing the LRH Bridge, yet he still plans to do the confidential upper levels, and it remains to be seen if he will succumb to the catharsis-lubricated/hypno-mind manipulation/e-meter-dependence-fetishism of (most of) those levels. If he does fall prey to the magical mystery bus tour along the "upper" LRH Bridge, then he'll be back on the LRH Bridge (and back in the LRH bus) for an indefinite period.

However, unlike many of his ScnFZ/ScnIndie associates, he is learning (while still being typically Scientologically offended by those who happen to faster learners than he.)

So, I wish him well, and look forward to his eventual graduation from Scientology.

I like to be straightforward, and not misleading. Simply stated, I think for myself. That is why I got into Scientology in the first place (A friend I was playing music with was involved, and I got him past his reluctance to talk about it to me and invite me to go with him) and that is why I left the CoS (I was dedicated to doing something for my PC's, and it became all too clear that the CoS had a different agenda).
I judge the effectiveness and worthwhileness of the individual aspects ascribed to Scientology and other techniques for myself too. I'm not much for unilateral, absolute, all-encompassing acceptance or rejection of anything.
I don't see myself tending toward rejecting the whole of Scientology. On the contrary, I look forward to listening to many Briefing Course tapes I haven't yet heard, and understanding processes and "levels" I haven't yet experienced. I just don't limit myself to Scientology, and I don't accept the whole shootin' match as a package.
For instance, I have witnessed undeniable gains of telepathic ability by people doing OT III, even by one person I knew who was having a hell of a time misrunning it, and needing lots of correction. At the same time, I have no doubt at all that the incidents described on that "level" never happened for most of us, although they apparently did for Hubbard (or, as one friend suggested, maybe Hubbard was "Xenu", and was dealing with his own overt-motivator sequence), and he was running his case on the rest of us. Nevertheless, I have experienced ample proof that it is quite common for people who do that level to gain abilities, despite the apparently misleading information that is included. So when I finish my OT II (which is going quite well and fun for me, thank you) I look forward to doing OT III. I have my own theories about what is called "entity case" but I will leave that for another discussion.
I also look forward to experiencing Games Matrix processing, very much.I also will do more co-auditing with a friend of the Power Processes, running through them repeatedly, despite what the CoS materials say about only doing them once, and only at one point on the "grade chart". I am committed to applying what I find works, and works best, period, and for me that does not equate to either accepting or rejecting all of Scientology, or anything else, and I do believe that approach to be the original idea of Scientology, but that it was long ago corrupted by Hubbard and then others.
I do not anticipate refuting or rejecting Scientology as a whole, not at all. I do allow for the fact that as I continue to progress in my own path, my viewpoint can and will continue to change.

Love, Dex

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Hi Free! I DO understand. What I disagree with is thoughtless knee-jerk ranting, which is pretty much all I see coming from Degraded being and Blip. There just isn't any point in responding to them, or in any way carrying forward their communications. Others' such as Veda, Helluva Hoax, and Free Being, may not agree with my viewpoint, but they are demonstrating that they are here to exchange viewpoints, and both arrive at and bring about understanding between us. We can actually learn from and appreciate each other. There's a difference, wouldn't you agree?
Love, Dex

Oh shit, I am no longer a radical, underground, subversive protester and have been accepted into society! Dammmmm, I better step up my game and start offending some people asap!

 

[dexter gelfand]

Oh shit, I am no longer a radical, underground, subversive protester and have been accepted into society! Dammmmm, I better step up my game and start offending some people asap!

Would it help if I declared you a "Suppressive Person?"

Love, Dex

 

[dexter gelfand]

Degraded Being,

I saw an earlier post where your reply to me ended with "I don't love you"- Are you breaking up with me?

Love, Dex

 

[AlphOhm]

Degraded Being,

I saw an earlier post where your reply to me ended with "I don't love you"- Are you breaking up with me?

Love, Dex

 

[Free Being Me]

Hi Free! I DO understand. What I disagree with is thoughtless knee-jerk ranting, which is pretty much all I see coming from Degraded being and Blip. There just isn't any point in responding to them, or in any way carrying forward their communications. Others' such as Veda, Helluva Hoax, and Free Being, may not agree with my viewpoint, but they are demonstrating that they are here to exchange viewpoints, and both arrive at and bring about understanding between us. We can actually learn from and appreciate each other. There's a difference, wouldn't you agree?

Love, Dex

Thanks for including me in this exclusive group of open mindedness Dex. It's obvious we each share opposite opinions regarding $cientology. I reserve the right to be puerile (seems to be the word of the day) at the drop of the tone arm.

I don't mind talking about $cientology, but I do mind when a thread is set up like an infomercial. With that said and since a correction has been made it's in the past.

I read HH's suggestion that had $ci continued with an open source, collaborative approach, the present might be different. After the Cof$ disintegrates maybe this concept would correct Hubtards failed impositions. I'm not interested with such a task, my spiritual interests with $ci are done.

Have you ever read Heinlein? I'm reminded of a quote in the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress: If possible, leave room for your enemies to become your friends. Maybe a corrected future $ci will take out the abuses and weaknesses, taking a philosophical route of practicality than an authoritarian testament to pride and control. Who knows?

 

[degraded being]

Degraded Being,

I saw an earlier post where your reply to me ended with "I don't love you"- Are you breaking up with me?

Love, Dex

Why do I have to make all the decisions? I thought you broke up with me in your last response to me anyway. I thought that was quite masterful. Now you disappoint me with this limp wristed seduction attempt.

 

[dexter gelfand]

Why do I have to make all the decisions? I thought you broke up with me in your last response to me anyway. I thought that was quite masterful. Now you disappoint me with this limp wristed seduction attempt.

Ok, just to confirm-we've agreed its ok to see other people, right?

Love, Dex

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Have you ever read Heinlein? I'm reminded of a quote in the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress: If possible, leave room for your enemies to become your friends. Maybe a corrected future $ci will take out the abuses and weaknesses, taking a philosophical route of practicality than an authoritarian testament to pride and control. Who knows?

Which is similar to Hubbard's own injunction to "...always leave the door open, even if only a crack".

That is not really all that surprising either since Hubbard & Heinlein were at one time close friends and had similar ideologies & attitudes. Heinlein even admitted to having been audited by Hubbard during the time of his writing of the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land". That book includes several thinly veiled references to scientology & Hubbard. These are compounded by further similar references in several of the later Lazarus Long novels.

A recent re-reading after several decades of SIASL (the unexpurgated version released in the '90s which I had not previously read) has left me curious of just EXACTLY how familar Heinlein was with scientology as it existed in the '50s. Heinlein routinely uses science fiction as his medium for discussing points of what he saw as "pragmatic philosophy". Frankly, SIASL almost reads as an "Handbook for OT". I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to understand the subject of scientology, although with the added proviso not to take what is clearly meant as science fiction as an impled truth.


Mark A. Baker