I respect any intelligent thought and opinion. Please allow me to make it clear that I oppose the Cos in its current and probably any future form that is not based on an entirely free-market competitive model. I do not oppose Scn philosophy (I support it), but my intent is not to convert anyone or to interfere with anyone's activities as long as these do not threaten or injure my activities. In keeping with my perception and use of Scn I encourage anyone's independent thought and desires for a better life.
As for opposing the Co$ - thats good, from my perspective. But not relevant to the conversation. I don't recall asking you about your thoughts on the Co$.
Hubbard defined the ARC triangle I mentioned. Affinity, Reality, Communication. Everyone has a level of affinity, a reality, and is able to communicate. All three taken together constitute Understanding. That I know, neither psych nor media defined this.
Hubbard defined ARC, but does it work? As he described? So I can't understand something/someone unless I am in agreement (reality) with them?
If memory on steroids can cause emotional upsets in the present that are hard for an individual to control, wouldn't it be better to resolve that? Apparently, just wishing it away doesn't work, but reviewing an entire chain of unpleasant past events will discharge it.
Yes, resolving issues of the past, if affecting the present would be prudent, IMO. Hubbard didn't invent this technique either. As for the need to view an 'entire chain' - not in my experience.
I've seen other guys and girls who can use their intention, politely or not. It isn't an exclusive to Scns. But I'd never felt intention as strong as this one OT's. (It was a one-time one-second event, btw - I don't have ghosts following me around pushing me into walls. Your humor, even if pointed at me, is appreciated as funny.)
But this was purely a subjective experience. Passed onto us as an objective one. Can you see the difference?
I agree there are often more than one possible explanations, and finding the right ones are a big win. Past life recall probably isn't "provable". "Proof" can always be challenged. Leibnitz, for example, a "noted" German "philosopher" challenged that matter was merely a figment of imagination, and could not be "proven" to exist. (I almost took out my former college roommate over that one, to "prove" to him that matter existed.
) A few years later, he was the guy that intro'ed me to Scn.
Sure, but if I walk into a wall, it will hurt. That counts as 'proof' in my book.
I didn't say past lives don't happen. I said ones recall of them doesn't prove it is as people say it is. There is a lot we probably don't know about our current reality. But lets be wise enough to say it as it is - we don't know, but we still search for answers.
Hubbard came along into that degredation of thought and affirmed that one's own rightness is senior. What a man knows to be true, is true.
You oppose the Co$ (as stated earlier) but seem to be quite keen on Hubbard. Hubbard created the Co$. It is Hubbard through and through. Hubbard was degraded himself. Your other post
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=133526&postcount=103 implied that this is all conspiracy theory, desite the links to documentation I provided. Hubbard is no saint, no knight in shining armour.
Neo, I agree with you. To me, your willigness to talk and even consider viewpoints you are highly skeptical about is responsible behavior. The idea is that an individual through the philosophy of Scn can further develop his innate responsibility. But with all due respect, responsibility is a darn big subject. One can argue that responsible men succeed more frequently, because others recognize and reward responsible qualities. But then you'll get someone saying that success is wealth and wealthy men are crooks.
I am more interested in truth, not someones (including mine) version of it. I have stated my thoughts on responsibility already
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6749&highlight=responsibility
I hope I've succeeded in being polite and of some interest. The most responsible thing I can say is that you're a responsible man able to tell what is true and what is false on your own. (Like a past life, you are able to identify the notion of responsibility, but
can you "prove" responsibility exists? Is it merely a "belief" that man is basically good?)
Your opposition to the CoS coincides in many respects with my opposition to the CoS, and I don't want to blunt your opposition to the CoS. But I can't sit by comfortably and smile when I see anyone make a mistake - I just think the philosophy of Scn has some important truths and shouldn't be thrown entirely away.
Your manners are not in question. Besides I don't mind a person 'raising their voice' if it fits the 'discussion'! I don't know if it is merely a belief that man is basically good. I don't have data on any scientific experiments on this. But if I didn't believe it - would I be talking with you, LOL.
Any disagreements we may have is not necessarily on the Scn philosophy. It is predominately on your dedication to Hubbard. It is not based on fact. Thus it is not based on truth, and no I don't accept that because you say it is true, it is therefore true for you. Truth as actually documented, says what it says. The question is -can you accept that?
Neo