OT 8

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Every SO member I ever knew, in or out, volunteered to do something I considered to be incredibly stupid and remained dedicated to perpetuating that stupidity for quite some time until they themselves chose to leave. Many are still continuing in their stupidity. Public scientologists rarely played any role in convincing these erstwhile "planet savers" that they should adopt these terms of serfdom much less continue in them.

Sh!t rolls down hill.​

That is an old truism. Standing in its path is neither "noble" nor "intelligent".

The ones for whom I feel the most empathy are the children who were sold out by their families to this idiocy. But then I never encountered any of them until at least 20 years AFTER I had left. They weren't a major part of the SO generally back when I was a member of the church, just within the CMO. It wasn't an especially large org and I experienced no contact with them. Moreover the fact remains the children were sold out by their FAMILIES. As far as I'm concerned that is felony child abuse. The general public of scientology were not involved in those decisions.

To repeat: public scientologists are NOT responsible for the conditions the Sea Org staff endure.

Senior management and the members themselves are. They have the freedom to revolt or leave. The fact that they persuade themselves to stay and endure horrific treatment is not something the general public is even aware, as SO staff often go to great lengths to pretend otherwise.

Some public are able to see what's what in the orgs. These often seek to alter conditions. The Great Schism of the '80s was replete with such instances. As I recall the Loyalists of the Sea Org were quite active in putting down the revolt and destroying the lives of those individuals who sought to improve conditions.

Everyone is entitled to choose. They are not entitled to blame others for the choices they have made for themselves.

Life isn't fair. Life in the church of scientology is extremely unfair. The Sea Org, and in particular those individuals who volunteer to be a part of that "August Institution", are what makes that condition possible. Not the general public.

Gut Yontiff.


Mark A. Baker

So you will concede then that the ide of OTs being totally responsible is bullshit then?

You guys always fall back on the same circular argument.

"Scientology would be great if only...

The Sea Org

Hubbard

Miscavige

The Mission Holders conference

People not understanding Scientology as you do."

It is the same endless escape hatch for self-delusion.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Free Being Me]

He's not pretending. They are intellectually neutral.

Your interpretations of his remarks are all dub-in. They speak more to your issues than his.

Something to think about.


Mark A. Baker

Manipulation is your forte, I see.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I really don't understand why some people go out of their way to be offensive to certain fellow members here. Personally, I'm interested in reading opinions and viewpoints about OT8 from those who have actually traversed the territory. :confused2:

Because there is a difference in how some people approach it, Panda.

When the person is condescending and disingenuous it makes them suspect.

I'd rather have someone say "Scientology did wonders for me, so go fuck yourself" that to try to condescendingly explain why their view is morally and intellectual superior and therefore it is above my level of unawareness.

No, Geir doesn't use those exact words, but he does post links to blogs which create that atmosphere.

And his links are just promotion of Hubbard ideas in what he thinks are everyday terms.

He doesn't seem to know anything about any of the philosophical ideas or approaches in the last 2,500 years that contrast his view yet he pushes his wins off, just like Hubbard, as being an intellectual breakthrough. It is a trick and a trap.

If he was to offer an honest analysis, even if he accepts it as a good thing, I would be fine with that.

But in my view he doesn't.

Let me quote Euripides:

"The words of truth are simple, and justice needs no subtle interpretaion, for it has a fitness in itself; but the words of injustice, being rotten in themselves, require clever treatment."

I don't see his statements as simple explanations of his experience.

I see his writing as a clever and subtle attempts to justify an injustice.

And this is something I am not going to let slip by.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Panda Termint]

Thanks, TAJ. I'm confident that you don't think personal insults are any kind of substitute for reasoned discussion. That (personal insult) was all I was referring to in my original commentary.

BTW, I doubt very much that Geir (or any good-hearted person) would have countenanced the cost of his wins in terms of the human suffering of others had he (or any of us) known of those things. I think you missed with that.

 

[Anonycat]

Thanks, TAJ. I'm confident that you don't think personal insults are any kind of substitute for reasoned discussion. That (personal insult) was all I was referring to in my original commentary.

BTW, I doubt very much that Geir (or any good-hearted person) would have countenanced the cost of his wins in terms of the human suffering of others had he (or any of us) known of those things. I think you missed with that.

I have no idea why, but this reminded me of a story. It is not OT8, so forgive the departure.

I was very close friends with a famous celebrity, and his image through the years seemed mildly spiritual to full-on spiritual bits of advice, in public speaking. He was a great person to spend time with, because he was one of few people I've hung out with that really had a passion for it.

His roots started in Catholicism as a child and into adulthood it stayed with him, but morphed and as well new things were appearing on the horizon, and some in his quest.

He was known for taking a commercially impacting trip into having a Guru. His life was very regimented, and his entire day was a routine of prayer, food, lots of practice, and food and prayer and sleep.

During one of our many talks about God, Christ, and everything Spiritual under the sun, I asked him: so how about that Guru thing? How was that? He said that he was walking and talking to his Guru one day, and he started complaining - about regular every day, every man stuff. He realized: He's just a guy - just a guy like me. So he left. The Guru wanted all their money and requested they have no children. When they departed from the Guru, they had kids and a happy life. No, he never mentioned the expense or details of their personal sacrifices beyond that.

TL;DR:

I asked my very spiritual friend: So what about your Guru period? My friend: "It's like New York. It's good for a weekend, but you wouldn't want to live there."

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Isene Geir is not making any attempt to be a genuine member here, he's dumping his lectures, practicing his 'bull-baiting' then wandering off again until he feels the need for some more attention ... he knows exactly what he's doing and the results he 'creates' are exactly what he apparently needs at this time.

I now feel about scientology much the same as I do about recreational drugs ... I indulged (and enjoyed) some when young and silly but learned very fast that they are potentially dangerous not only to the person using them but to others around them, so I'm not even slightly interested in recreational drugs now ... however, if I were ever to find myself with an illness or disease where marijuana helped (and I believe it does significantly help some people) I would quietly go out and 'score' (lol) and relieve my personal symptoms with it and I may even chat to a few people in a similar situation about the benefits ... but hopefully I would not (unless I'd gone completely mad) go onto the net and tell as many people as possible about my 'success' (past or present) and I especially hope I'd not go onto a message board where people are recovering from the side effects of drugs and trying to assist others to get clean, just for the attention I would receive.

That would be mean spirited at best.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I have no idea why, but this reminded me of a story. It is not OT8, so forgive the departure.

I was very close friends with a famous celebrity, and his image through the years seemed mildly spiritual to full-on spiritual bits of advice, in public speaking. He was a great person to spend time with, because he was one of few people I've hung out with that really had a passion for it.

His roots started in Catholicism as a child and into adulthood it stayed with him, but morphed and as well new things were appearing on the horizon, and some in his quest.

He was known for taking a commercially impacting trip into having a Guru. His life was very regimented, and his entire day was a routine of prayer, food, lots of practice, and food and prayer and sleep.

During one of our many talks about God, Christ, and everything Spiritual under the sun, I asked him: so how about that Guru thing? How was that? He said that he was walking and talking to his Guru one day, and he started complaining - about regular every day, every man stuff. He realized: He's just a guy - just a guy like me. So he left. The Guru wanted all their money and requested they have no children. When they departed from the Guru, they had kids and a happy life. No, he never mentioned the expense or details of their personal sacrifices beyond that.

TL;DR:

I asked my very spiritual friend: So what about your Guru period? My friend: "It's like New York. It's good for a weekend, but you wouldn't want to live there."

I always say let Baghwans be Bagwhans.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Thanks, TAJ. I'm confident that you don't think personal insults are any kind of substitute for reasoned discussion. That (personal insult) was all I was referring to in my original commentary.

BTW, I doubt very much that Geir (or any good-hearted person) would have countenanced the cost of his wins in terms of the human suffering of others had he (or any of us) known of those things. I think you missed with that.

I'm glad that most can see the difference between pointing out what one thinks the immorality and injustice behind a person's post and personally insulting the person.

Some cannot see the difference.

But we are pretty safe from personal insults here.

The moderators have imposed an Insult Weapons Ban.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I really don't understand why some people go out of their way to be offensive to certain fellow members here. Personally, I'm interested in reading opinions and viewpoints about OT8 from those who have actually traversed the territory. :confused2:

As I see it they object that the opinions expressed are not their own.


Mark A. Baker

 

[I told you I was trouble]

As I see it they object that the opinions expressed are not their own.


Mark A. Baker

As I see it most here haven't done 'oatee8' and don't particularly need to be 'educated' on it now having already been regged (unsuccessfully) within the cofs by opinionated, deluded culties.

But I could be wrong ...

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

As I see it they object that the opinions expressed are not their own.


Mark A. Baker

Mark,

I notice that you rarely express your own opinion but only take shots at what other people say.

Many times your comments are spot on for spotting the nuances overlooked by posters.

But I noticed when your criticisms of others are accurately critiqued you then slip into posting negative inuendoes about the other posters character.

At least most of us are willing to put our ideas on the line and stand by them and defend them, and eventually learn from others what we've overlooked.

You should join the club.

You may learn something new.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

And you have a confusion about what I said.

Neutral is not the same as objective. ...

And with that new spin your remarks were utterly pointless.

No one who posts on this board posts "neutral" remarks in the sense you now claim. All remarks arise from some specific perspective, one necessarily not shared by all the board participants.

Yours is a feeble attempt to claim "neutrality" for views of which you may approve and assert as "provocative" those of which you do not approve. Pull the other leg, it has bells on.

... His remarks are not neutral on this board. They have an impact, and he knows it.

Otherwise, why would he say it? ...

Because they express his perspective on a topic of interest to many. He has as much right as anyone else on the board to express his views. You needn't like them, but should you choose to respond you might at least attempt to do so intelligently and respectfully.

... My interpretations are my interpretations, not some cult talk called "dub-in." ...

A rose by any other name ...

Still, ... as you wish, Buttercup.

... His interpretations he calls wins.

Are you willing to concede then, per your definition, that his wins are "dub-ins?"

Probably not.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Absolutely not.

His wins are his wins. They are real for him and he is entitled to his own evaluation thereof.


Here's a valuable thought from one of my favorite books. I can not recommend the book too highly.

I invite you to ponder the following thought as expressed therein.

... I have often been very moved by how you can help people to help themselves by helping them to discover their own truth, a truth whose richness, sweetness, and profundity they may never have suspected.The sources of healing and awareness are deep within each of us, and your task is never under any circumstances to impose your beliefs but to enable them to find these within themselves.

- Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying

You may recall having encountered a similar idea elsewhere at some point in your life. It's well worth the time taken for reflection.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

So you will concede then that the ide of OTs being totally responsible is bullshit then? ...

I never made that claim so what need have I to concede it?



I've never met anyone who was "totally responsible". The most responsible individual I've known was never a scientologist, although that person did cross paths with an offshoot of EST at one point.

All in all, many of the OTs I have known have been quite responsible in their daily lives, arguably more so than is common among the general population. But certainly by no means all. Almost all of these left off involvement with the church at least 25 years ago, usually after failed attempts at rectifying clear outpoints of scientology management. Given the time period, factors of generation and differences in scientology epochs may therefore account for some aspects of this observation.


Mark A. Baker

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Reality, it's SUCH a drag ....

It's very real to me that I can fly, so please don't invalidate my win and at least attempt to be intelligent and respectful, if you must respond at all.

I'm just going to nip out for a quick spin across the tree tops ... see you all soon darlinks.






Splat.

 

[Panda Termint]

Don't forget the parachute.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

And with that new spin your remarks were utterly pointless.

No one who posts on this board posts "neutral" remarks in the sense you now claim. All remarks arise from some specific perspective, one necessarily not shared by all the board participants.

Yours is a feeble attempt to claim "neutrality" for views of which you may approve and assert as "provocative" those of which you do not approve. Pull the other leg, it has bells on.





Because they express his perspective on a topic of interest to many. He has as much right as anyone else on the board to express his views. You needn't like them, but should you choose to respond you might at least attempt to do so intelligently and respectfully.





A rose by any other name ...

Still, ... as you wish, Buttercup.






Absolutely not.

His wins are his wins. They are real for him and he is entitled to his own evaluation thereof.


Here's a valuable thought from one of my favorite books. I can not recommend the book too highly.

I invite you to ponder the following thought as expressed therein.





You may recall having encountered a similar idea elsewhere at some point in your life. It's well worth the time taken for reflection.


Mark A. Baker

Again you're falling back on the same evasive victim argument...

Now it's "He has as much right as anyone else on the board to express his views.."

Nobody said or implied he didn't.

And I did not imply or say that some views I agree with are neutral and others aren't

My point was that no views are neutral.

You are arguing with yourself and spinning around in circles.

You're not an enlightened source of wisdom here, Mark.

You are no better or worse than the rest of us.

But as I said before, at least some of us put our ideas on the line and stand by them or fall with them.

But you just take cheap shots at people's character with lofty pronouncements.

Take a stand, Mark.

Put your ideas on the line with the rest of us.

Don't just camouflage yourself with pointless criticisms of others characters.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Thanks, TAJ. I'm confident that you don't think personal insults are any kind of substitute for reasoned discussion. That (personal insult) was all I was referring to in my original commentary.

BTW, I doubt very much that Geir (or any good-hearted person) would have countenanced the cost of his wins in terms of the human suffering of others had he (or any of us) known of those things. I think you missed with that.

I think if someone did not know it was because they did not want to know.

For people who claimed each step brought with it increased knowingness they sure seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to know.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark,

I notice that you rarely express your own opinion but only take shots at what other people say.

Many times your comments are spot on for spotting the nuances overlooked by posters.

But I noticed when your criticisms of others are accurately critiqued you then slip into posting negative inuendoes about the other posters character.

At least most of us are willing to put our ideas on the line and stand by them and defend them, and eventually learn from others what we've overlooked.

You should join the club.

You may learn something new.

The Anabaptist Jacques

1. I've expressed my views frequently on this board and continue to do so from time to time. I have in the past been particularly generous in my responses to inquiries concerning my views despite much deliberate hectoring and animus on the part of others.

2. I've been out for 30 years. Most of this stuff is rather 'old hat' to me and I haven't nearly the continuing emotional investment that many others on the board demonstrate.

3. Accordingly I don't see it as unusual that at this time I should be more likely to express a view in response to another's post than as an origination. Been there, had the cognition.

4. I've stood my ground defending my expressed views, often while being viciously and personally attacked for daring to be "politically incorrect" in accordance with the personal prejudices of various cliques on the board.

5. Only a few have ever dared to post in defense of my right to express my views, whether they agreed with me or not.

6. How many times have you stood up publicly for freedom of my speech, TAJ? How many times when the dogs were barking and the lynch mob mentality ran amok? You have done a few times. I fully acknowledge that.

7. How does the number stack up with the personal attacks I have endured in which you either joined in or sat idly by?


And you are one of those whom I have found to be among the reasonable & fair minded among the discussants. Either freedom of speech belongs to everyone or it belongs to no one. People have the right to discuss ideas on this board. That includes people such as Geir and myself. It also includes ideas such as Geir's thoughts concerning his experiences with the scientology ot levels.

One thing of which I've always been a big supporter was the right to freedom of speech. On a public forum such as this, civility is a reasonable expectation. Accordingly I've sought to play by those rules and have for the most part done so. It's not unreasonable to hold others to the same expectations.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

1. I've expressed my views frequently on this board and continue to do so from time to time. I have in the past been particularly generous in my responses to inquiries concerning my views despite much deliberate hectoring and animus on the part of others.

2. I've been out for 30 years. Most of this stuff is rather 'old hat' to me and I haven't nearly the continuing emotional investment that many others on the board demonstrate.

3. Accordingly I don't see it as unusual that at this time I should be more likely to express a view in response to another's post than as an origination. Been there, had the cognition.

4. I've stood my ground defending my expressed views, often while being viciously and personally attacked for daring to be "politically incorrect" in accordance with the personal prejudices of various cliques on the board.

5. Only a few have ever dared to post in defense of my right to express my views, whether they agreed with me or not.

6. How many times have you stood up publicly for freedom of my speech, TAJ? How many times when the dogs were barking and the lynch mob mentality ran amok? You have done a few times. I fully acknowledge that.

7. How does the number stack up with the personal attacks I have endured in which you either joined in or sat idly by?


And you are one of those whom I have found to be among the reasonable & fair minded among the discussants. Either freedom of speech belongs to everyone or it belongs to no one. People have the right to discuss ideas on this board. That includes people such as Geir and myself. It also includes ideas such as Geir's thoughts concerning his experiences with the scientology ot levels.

One thing of which I've always been a big supporter was the right to freedom of speech. On a public forum such as this, civility is a reasonable expectation. Accordingly I've sought to play by those rules and have for the most part done so. It's not unreasonable to hold others to the same expectations.


Mark A. Baker

And what you are being hypocritical about here Mark is that this was in no way a discussion about his freedom of speech.

I spoke entirely about his content.

And I think you know that and are purposely trying to create a straw man fallacy here to avoid addressing my points concerning the content of his posts.

He did the same thing.

And that is why I pointed out in an earlier post this fall back maneuver of crying "right to free speech" when it is the content that is being addressed.

I can't unplug his computer, nor would I want to.

So to cry freedom of speech is a red herring.

You spend a lot of time defending this entity called Geir.

At least on OT8 Geir realized he is not Mark A. Baker.

but it seems that you haven't yet realized you're not Geir Iseme. (It's a joke, don't get upset).

Seriously though, I object to his content.

A content to me which is simply the sneaky promotion of Hubbard's ideas in the guise of instucting us poor hobo novus about life.

I see it as dishonest and disingenous.

And I won't let it slide by without commenting.

That's my right to free speech.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I think if someone did not know it was because they did not want to know.

For people who claimed each step brought with it increased knowingness they sure seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to know.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You would prefer to decide for them?

Mental conditioning affects us all, but then you already knew that. Breaking down that conditioning is difficult. One of the neat things about auditing is that it can breakdown unrecognized mental filters which block a person's understanding. That can be highly beneficial to the individual in question. You know that too. Unfortunately, that process can also be turned on its head to the detriment of individuals, which is one of the many reasons why individuals can have widely divergent results from any sort of activity which involves addressing the preconceptions and other mental filters which determine their mental conditioning. But again, you already know all of that.

So why exactly are you objecting to someone else who has chosen to express his views concerning his own experiences and thoughts regarding such activities? His ideas are thoughtful and well-expressed. If he doesn't choose to bother with the sort of unnecessary conflict which can be routinely found in response to similar posts on the board who can really blame him?

In the case of Geir's post with regard ot viii, few enough people have completed the church's bridge that his views on the subject are valuable from that perspective alone. No one need take them as 'the last word' on the topic.


Mark A. Baker