Invent Your Own Tech!

Div6

Crusader
Americans and baseball humph.
Tansy's thread has real possibilities. It is unfortunate that it got hijacked so early with discussions concerning baseball.
I feel obliged to stake a case for a much deeper philosophical pursuit. The game of cricket.
For unaware foreigners, here is an excellent basic description:


You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!


Its not hard.

For more relevant information, Google Bradman.

F**K. I need my int buttons checked now.........
 

Div6

Crusader
Hubbard was right about a few things. :omg:
Well, with that many words in print who wouldn't be? A broken clock is right twice a day, even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.......yes, I have a tendency to overdo it on the metaphors, or are they similes..........:confused2:

It seems to me that life and art are essentially the same thing. Hubbard stated the importance of the viewer to be able to contribute to any work of art. But one can't contribute to the tech and I think that's why I (in modern parlance) never took ownership of it.

So, for those us who are still interested in spiritual/personal development, I invite you to create your own tech. I believe you get better and deeper cognitions this way. Take as much as you wish from established subjects - there's no problem with this if you've genuinely look at them and find elements to be true. Hubbard took his own observations of life and those of others and tried to make them proprietary. Don't fall for it.

If I observe that to feel happy in life it's important to breathe then a fully indoctrinated Tansologist might believe they were only alive because of me and my selfless work in discovering and publishing the Tansy Breathe to Live Principle. Life is life, truth is truth, and putting labels on stuff may be helpful but is essentially meaningless.

Alternatively, just start from scratch, assuming you know nothing - it's liberating.

Hubbard made one early definition of Scn as "rehabilitation of judgement" and yet here we have the GAT where there are only robots and processing isn't happening in the moment.

Invent your own tech. One way to start is by identifying the most fundamental datum to life (Hubbard said you'd need two to evaluate but that's bollocks). For me, it was "the basis of aberration is a nonconfront".

Now "aberration" seems pejorative to me. In the context of Scn materials it is seen as something undesirable, something we need to get rid of. Bullshit. That viewpoint undermines a being's freedom of choice. So I change "aberration" to "automaticity". Automaticity being anything a being isn't being right here, right now through spontaneous expression of their potential (I find creating my own definitions to be helpful but it can lead to problems).

So, I'm left with "the basis of all automaticities is a nonconfront". That baby alone could keep me going for years in developing processes and drills. :happydance: The more I looked at it, the more I came to realise that all charge stemmed from 1. Considerations regarding separation from God, and 2. Considerations regarding power of choice. Those two lead to a shitload more ideas for living life better. Now the truth may be different for you - fine. :)

You don't need a guru. DIY! Invent your own tech.

Tech is toolz. Thats all. Ultimately, it is only you who can let yourself out of this universe. No one else can. The "upper bridge" is really just uncovering your postulates, and agreements, and understanding the mechanics of games and how you got here. No one else knows or can affect that track.

So yes. Creation has gotten a bad name, but really, what else can a being do? (Yes, yes, I know not-is things, but hopefully those compulsions have been run out earlier on...)
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
I balk at this!

That's the ticket. Tansologist...fluffentologist...(insert nick here)ologist. That's the best way to approach this stuff.

I will not accept an "E-Polgy" or any "E-Pologists" into my personal cult of one! :no: !

Roy always thought he could get to be a Poltergeist for some obscure reason, though. :yes: :duh:

How could he have been so naive? :confused2:

EP
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm partial to reversals.

E.g. "you are NOT YOUR FUCKING THETAN! you are your body."

You do not live forever!!! When you die that is IT!

You have never lived before this lifetime!

All men are not basically good!


Absolute heresy even for some who are totally not scios anymore.

Then there are the substition processes
ref: Degraded being technical letter,
Date Now.

E.g.
Everywhere you see the word 'thetan/being/spiritual being' you delete
it and put in it's place 'person'.

It is sometimes called the 'Beam me down Scotty' process because it is to bring people back to earth.


Well, I don't know about your opener, I don't think I am my body, but I do think I would cease to exist if my body died and there was no way to be "uploaded" or "downloaded" to another body or substrate for consciousness.

I really like your "beam me down, Scotty" process. I've been doing it for years. It also makes it obvious where ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims are being made.
 

Div6

Crusader
Americans and baseball humph.
Tansy's thread has real possibilities. It is unfortunate that it got hijacked so early with discussions concerning baseball.
I feel obliged to stake a case for a much deeper philosophical pursuit. The game of cricket.
For unaware foreigners, here is an excellent basic description:


You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!


Its not hard.

For more relevant information, Google Bradman.

H2G2 FTW: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A944417

"Many people have expressed a total lack of understanding of the game of cricket and that is because the British have failed to explain the game adequately. That's a great pity, and it is hoped that this entry can go some way towards rectifying this shortcoming of a nation's people.

Overview

Cricket is a team game, with two sides of 11 active players. At least one substitute is allowed per team, called, not unreasonably, the 12th man. He rarely gets the opportunity to play, but regularly comes onto the pitch to bring refreshments for the other 11 on his team. A game consists of two or four innings played over a period of between one and five days, with the simple objective of one team amassing a greater total of 'runs' than the other. Remarkably, even in the five-day version, it is possible for the game to end in a draw. This is not the same thing as a tie, where both teams have the same score after all the innings have been completed, and is very rare, but is instead a game that could not be completed because the time allotted for play ran out, which is quite common. Amazing, when you consider that the game may well have lasted more than 40 hours and over 1000 runs have been scored.

The Field

Cricket is played on a field of generally unspecified dimensions (called 'the pitch') with a special central section of manicured and nurtured grass (called 'the wicket'1). At each end of the wicket, separated by 22 yards, is placed an assemblage of wooden components - which, confusingly, are also called a wicket (see 'Equipment', below). Adjacent to the playing area of the pitch is a building called 'the pavilion' which some believe to be the most important part of the pitch. At various times of the game, the pavilion contains players from both the teams and 'members' bathed in a miasma of alcohol fumes and cigar smoke"

More at link.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Cricket is our national sport. It's only exciting though, in the last five minutes, if it's a close game (give me RUGBY any day!). The cricket pavilion though, sounds more than slightly appealing :whistling: !
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
How the hell my precious and important thread got diverted onto cricket I'll never understand. :melodramatic:

I guess this just demonstrates that karma does exist - even on message boards! :duh:

Oh well - nothing should be taken too seriously. :happydance:
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
How the hell my precious and important thread got diverted onto cricket I'll never understand. :melodramatic:

I guess this just demonstrates that karma does exist - even on message boards! :duh:

Oh well - nothing should be taken too seriously. :happydance:
Yeah.. It a damned shame.. And an abomination words fail to describe!

I even tried to make it about gliding.. Soaring high in the sky above the.. Those fluffy things.. Frolicking in aerospace bottoms up and stuff..

:yes:
 

Carmel

Crusader
How the hell my precious and important thread got diverted onto cricket I'll never understand
That'll teach ya, for being a dick head in the first place, for contributing to the Q and A on your thread, on page two. :wink:
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Yeah.. It a damned shame.. And an abomination words fail to describe!

I even tried to make it about gliding.. Soaring high in the sky above the.. Those fluffy things.. Frolicking in aerospace bottoms up and stuff..

:yes:

:hysterical:

"And an abomination words fail to describe!"
Goddamit SP - you have a way with words that I really like!


That'll teach ya, for being a dick head in the first place, for contributing to the Q and A on your thread, on page two. :wink:

Touche SNC. :p :D
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Red Shirt Update

My nugget of wisdom for the day: "Never beam down in a red shirt".

It turns out that if you are on Deep Space Nine, you can apparently beam down with a red shirt without any problems (most of the time). Sisko has done it any number of times (red shirt is apparently "command", now, and yellow is security, blue is science: I'd imagine you wouldn't want to wear yellow, now)
 
A

Art

Guest
Hubbard was right about a few things. [snip] [join] But one can't contribute to the tech and I think that's why I (in modern parlance) never took ownership of it. [join] So, for those us who are still interested in spiritual/personal development, I invite you to create your own tech. I believe you get better and deeper cognitions this way.

Some of the tech was not developed by Hubbard. But I find his Scn 0-8 an invaluable source. I have a few takes on life as I see it.

Interactions with others is obviously a key to happy living. There are broad ranges of realities, many of which do not fit exactly with mine. I've found that asking a bit more about another's viewpoints and opinions and convictions (whatever), is "mind-expanding". Some people do get very emotional about their ideas and views. Whether I think those are sane or not, I do watch the attitudes and emotions another has, and carefully acknowledge those, and try to respect them.

I try to view myself as a reliable individual, someone others can know and depend upon for honesty, and a rational viewpoint. So I try to read basic things that are relevevant. Sounds boring, but accounting is a very interesting subject, for example. And even if I fail in the smarts department, I think I can succeed in the personal integrity department to some extent. Integrity is worth working on - it's the machinery of life. Speeding, you get a ticket, and can stop speeding in the future; but failing in integrity, one puts oneself into much deeper trouble on a long term basis, the beginning of an insidiously slippery slope with no bottom.

On the "high" philosophical side - there is such a thing as Truth. Personal integrity is a part of that, very close to home. I believe Hubbard was exactly right on the truth of life. He was right about much more than creation being an integral part of life. For the deeper meaning of creating art, just look at the idea that in creating something, you are all alone - there's no "agreement" for you to hang your hat on. You can't "ask your buddy" how to write this poem (which thought?), or this music (what mood?), or paint this painting (which brush stroke?). There's no "manual" to tell you what your creation should be. It is your baby. But you are responsible for the personal effects of your creation on yourself, and you are responsible for cultural effects your work may have, and those are huge issues of perception of truth, and beauty, and integrity. The simple rule is to make sure it is "you".

Just trying to contribute something to this thread. Most of my thoughts were developed as a result of auditing, reading, and comm with fellow Scientologists, but I developed them.

Best,
Art
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Art, thanks for bringing up Scn 0-8, one of my favorite Hubbard books. I like that one, probably more than any of the others, although I used to really like DMSMH & SOS, I just later decided they were overly complicated and factually inaccurate in many places (obsolete, to make the tech degrade complete). A far better manual on procedure is available, today, but it isn't in the scientology bookstore, and I'm not here to promote.
 
A

Art

Guest
Art, thanks for bringing up Scn 0-8, one of my favorite Hubbard books. I like that one, probably more than any of the others, although I used to really like DMSMH & SOS, I just later decided they were overly complicated and factually inaccurate in many places (obsolete, to make the tech degrade complete). A far better manual on procedure is available, today, but it isn't in the scientology bookstore, and I'm not here to promote.

Thanks for your reply. I have yet to make it through SOS - don't know why. Not to try to skim your secret sources :) but I confess I have wondered about the possibility of reading the current state of the art, without going into the historical development. Probably my confusion, and the way to get organized education in auditing is the courseroom. I really haven't seen that subject discussed much, how to balance books, tech vols, lectures, and courses. DMSMH, oddly, makes more sense and seems deeper to me, the second time through.

Best,
Art
 

Veda

Sponsor
Some of the tech was not developed by Hubbard. But I find his Scn 0-8 an invaluable source.

-snip-

'Scientology 0-8' was John Sanborn's idea; he thought there should be a 'Book of Basics'.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58

You can thank, not only L. Ron Hubbard, but an assortment of unnamed old time Scientologists, plus others, including Aleister Crowley, and the Rosicrucians, for the information and inspiration that became such things as 'The Factors', the 'Axioms', and the various scales.

This thread is loaded with links exploring earlier sources:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
...but I confess I have wondered about the possibility of reading the current state of the art, without going into the historical development.

Clearbird does a fairly good job of providing that, if you are talking about "standard" Scn.

Paul
 
Top