BTs, Language Usage and Invalidation
On the way driving into town today a few things came to mind regarding the theory of OT III and BTs. Follow me through this now.
First, we have the notion of "invalidation". Making less of something, making one feel small or invalid or meaningless. In the extreme it can be thought of as complete suppression, where one feels completely NOT-ISED. YOU DON'T EXIST.
Second, is the notion of "granting of beingness". Personally, I always liked that idea. The idea of simply creating an entirely safe space for anyone who wanders into your space, free of all judgments, total acknowledgement as "worthy", "valued" and "fine just as you are". Of course, it didn't mean that within the Scientology paradigm, but taken out of that context, the idea can be quite cool!
Ok, with those two ideas in mind, here is the proposition.
Consider the English language, or ANY language, and the use of pronouns. When you walk up to your friend Bill on the street, wave and say, "hi, how are you doing", what about all of the BTs? They are entirely ignored. Have you ever been part of a conversation where the talker was ignoring YOU completely, making you feel like you didn't exist? The same thing goes on EVERY TIME you use a pronoun. Each BT is entirely ignored! It is as if it is told, "you don't exist"! Every time any person uses a pronoun in speech.
When you tell your friend that your family is going to the beach, you say, "we are going to the beach". Now, the dumbest BTs might make a mistake and falsely assume that includes them, but the brighter candles know full well that the "we" refers ONLY to the family members. Again, the BTs are entirely ignored. They are severely INVALIDATED. It is as if they don't exist. But, they do!!!!!!
"How are you doing today", again, completely omits any reference to the BTs. They are there, quietly ignored, completely invalidated, with absolutely NO beingness granted to them on any level. They are treated as if they DON'T EXIST. That is the ultimate of SUPPRESSION. The complete NOT-IS. So, normal human language MAKES THEM completely PTS!!!!!! So, of course they get keyed-in!
I propose that all people in all countries write to their governments and colleges, and propose either the creation of new pronouns to take into account that we are each actually a "composite being' (Ref: HCO PL, The Nature of a Being), or make adjustments in the currently used pronouns to take the "composite aspect of personal REALITY" into account.
It seems the less educated among us, especially from the "back hills" regions of the USA had it right all along. When they said, "yous guys are crazy", it was actually a more correct usage, because it DID acknowledge the BTs too! "Thems people won't be coming with us", also takes the group nature of the individual into account. The BTs weren't left out! And some black folks had it right too, "I's not able to make it to work today masser", and also, "we's not feeling so good today".
There are many possible solutions.
Instead of "I don't feel good today", the correct usage would be "Is don't feel good today", "Is" is the PLURAL of "I". But that is too confusing because it looks just like "is". Mmmm, what to do? You could add an apostrophe, such as "I's", but that is an abbreviation for "I is", though granted THAT is incorrect usage and should be "I am". New words could be MADE UP for each of the pronouns!
So, for "I", understood as a plural, taking into account and acknowledging all the OTHER folks hanging out in your space, there could be "Ig", and you would say, "Ig am going to the store". Or, for "we", the word "waj" could be added to the English language. "Waj went for a walk last night", where "waj" means "we" but including all the little critters too! Come on folks, extend a little compassion to the little guys! BTs of the world unite!
Come on! Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub and Scientology never had trouble before coming up with "new words" ("nomenclature"), so why balk at it now? Extend a little compassion and understanding to the little sticky post-ems (aka "BTs")!
Possessive pronouns create other problems, but they can also be solved. When you say, "the book is mine", again you are disregarding and invalidating all of the many BTs - who sure never didn't anything wrong or bad to YOU!!!! You could say, "the book is mines". That works. Or, take this sentence, "The car is now your problem", where the "your" assumes ONE PERSON, and again grants NO BEINGNESS to all the many BTs. One could say, "The car is now yours problem(s)". And even saying, "one won't be happy with a broken leg", should change to "ones won't be happy with a broken leg", but again, "ones" already is the possessive form of "one". In that case, the possessive form would change to "ones's won't be happy with a broken leg".
It can get much more complicated, because really, in the example of the broken leg, each BT has a DIFFERENT perspective and experience of the broken leg, so there are really, many "broken legs".
A special grant and study should be begun in each country, figuring out how to solve this VERY REAL problem of such great magnitude!
Think of the BY-PASSED CHARGE involved. Each BT, unacknowledged, disregarded, and granted absolutely NO beingness for the past 75 MILLION YEARS, every time someone used a pronoun such as "I", "you", "we", "his", "her", "our", etc! The accumulated charge must be INCREDIBLE!!!!! Invalidation, piled on top of "not-is", piled on top of PTSness, piled on top of "no granting of beingness", for MILLIONS of YEARS. It is no wonder them suckers can be a bit pissed off at times!!!!!
HelluvaHoax, can you please possibly write a policy letter or two to address this very real and major problem with common language usage?
(The above is an example of using "logic" while "thinking inside of some box". Within the context of the OT III framework of "data", and other Scientology "data", it actually makes a certain sort of "sense").