Personal confession and accusation

uniquemand

Unbeliever
While that does sound like coincidence, it doesn't mean that intention played no role. The problem is, we can't go back and do it again without the prepcheck. Coming to the conclusion that the prepcheck made the job offer come in seems like magical thinking to me.

Can your own "counter-intention" prevent you from receiving things that you consciously want? I think that is most definitely the case, but typically because your "counter-intention" shows up in your actions to sabotage yourself. A conflicted person doesn't normally come across as confident as a person who is not conflicted. Perhaps there are other subtle cues that could come across. For example, when dating, if someone asks you if you love them, and you hesitate, hedge, and eventually say "yes, I love you", it is pretty obvious that either you don't, or something stands in the way of your certainty, or you don't trust them with that information, etc. The idea that "the universe knows", or that "karma" changes with prepchecking, or any other auditing... well, it's speculative at best, and at worst, wishful thinking based on misinformation.

This doesn't mean I haven't had what appeared to be magical moments like this.
 

Moosejewels

Patron Meritorious
Love you, but must inform you, you know Ron and Buddha are one in the same, Ron says so in Hymn of Asia.
L. Ron Maitreya isn't it. I remember when the book came out (Hymn of Asia) and the corresponding event ocurred. Music was used to enhance the mood and moment. It was magical.
I was still immersed in scientology and gung ho. When the message dawned on me that he considered himself the Buddha of this age, I was amazed and totally sold on the idea. Dumb Ass (me).
I've been a practicing Buddhist for many years (post-blow). I'd better end this post now for fear of creating a most uncivilised post.
 
Last edited:
Love you, but must inform you, you know Ron and Buddha are one in the same, Ron says so in Hymn of Asia.

Actually not. The Buddha was Gautama Siddhartha. The Hymn of Asia was Hubbard's attempt to claim the identity of Maitreya, a disciple of Gautama, and traditionally reputed to be the next great teacher of Buddhism.


Mark A. Baker
 
Geez. What BULLSHIT! Sure people are responsible for their own actions. BUT . . .

IDEAS run the world. ...

To quote a prominent poster on this board: Geez. What BULLSHIT!

Ideas do not run the world. People do. People act in accordance with the ideas & considerations they may hold. Some of those ideas they may freely choose for themselves. These are typically a minority of the views they may hold. Most ideas are held out of social convention, primarily due to their family upbringing, educations, religious indoctrination, and the process of inculcation in the cultural values of the societies in which they are embedded.

Nonetheless, each individual is personally responsible for the ideas he holds and the actions he undertakes in manifesting those ideas. If they don't like their own conduct, they are free to change the considerations they may have which lead to such actions.

The dirty little truth is most people are uncomfortable & unwilling to challenge the ideas they share in common with their communities out of fear of social ostracization. Peer pressure is what truly rules the world. It does so by controlling the actions in which individuals are willing to be seen to engage. Only comparatively rarely are individuals willing to buck the mores of their community. The caution of "what would the neighbor's think" is what generally passes for wisdom in human societies.


Mark A. Baker
 
I apologize if I gave the impression that I don't think that ideas can be dangerous. Of course they can. Particularly if people allow themselves to be lied to. Was Hubbard a good hypnotist and con-man? Absolutely.

Had me pretty good for a while.

Wuss. :eyeroll:

It's not the idea that is dangerous. It's the lunatic running around enforcing the idea on others.


Mark A. Baker
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Ideas are like viruses. If you are unfamiliar with the term "meme", check it out. If a person has a good bullshit detector (familiar with logical fallacies, has streetsense, is wise, etc.), then they will generally be able to tell when an idea is dangerous, and when it is not. However, most of us go through periods where our bullshit detector is down (young, stupid, stressed, etc.), and we can be vulnerable to dangerous memes.

Hubbard created Dianetics and Scientology as a viral meme, and it is extremely dangerous. Some have found ways of handling it with care and deriving information from it, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.
 

Lucretia

Patron with Honors
I have been reading PC folders for the past few weeks. Programs, auditor thinks and all that mumbo jumbo to help me piece together the truth and work through what has happened to me and others.

Auditors, myself included become quite arrogant. The more I read, the more I saw how the help was really not help, oh to the auditors and C/S's writing this crap, they were justified, but the snide remarks are just so blatant it is astounding and disgusting.

I had a similar experience when I was new on staff many moons ago, but the folders I read were ethics folders. Now there was a wake up call if ever there was one, but I stayed in 30 years after that. The way I looked at it was that the tech could not possibly be wrong, so the people must be wrong. I think the arrogance you see and the mean bitchy comments are all an effort to defend the indefensible - the tech does not work, so in effect the poor pc's are so degraded they are almost fair game. If they were in any sort of condition they would not still be hanging on to their outnesses - see, still their fault. Whether auditors are born arrogant (personally I don't think so) or acquire arrogance - it all amounts to the same thing. $cn is a crock of shit and it don't give a damn except for the money of course.

You are a brave one Ethicsbait. Keep us posted!!
 
DB, you have to have access to folders to know of what I speak. I just did a fes with numerous auditors. I know most of them. The things they say are said about them by other auditors, we all know this but we keep doing it. Yea, All these auditors have different personalities, and some you would say and believe are the most caring of people, and for the most part they are, except they follow Scn doctrin and to that degree are not caring (see uniquemand’s post), but once you’re a interned class IV or above, that’s what I was talking about in my original post.

Yeah, I don't doubt what you're saying.
 
Yes, people act on words, particularly when they are spoken with authority by people they believe. Nonetheless, it is they who are responsible for their actions.

Again, Hubbard is dead. The present regime in the Church that forwards his "command intention" is guilty of that.

The point, though, isn't to establish guilt, or to punish people. It's to wake them up, get them to take responsibility for ferreting out the truth, cease working for "the beast", and hopefully LEARN.

Why would you need to get anyone to take resposibility for ferreting out the truth?

If people are (already) responsible for their own actions, they are responsible for not ferreting out the truth, not someone else.
Can you get them to be responsible without taking responsibility for them, yourself, to do that?
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Well, the fact that people are responsible for themselves and for their understanding may not be known to them, or fully grokked. They might still expect others to do it for them, or blame others for not doing it for them, etc.

Being responsible and taking responsibility are different concepts.
 
Ideas are like viruses. If you are unfamiliar with the term "meme", check it out. If a person has a good bullshit detector (familiar with logical fallacies, has streetsense, is wise, etc.), then they will generally be able to tell when an idea is dangerous, and when it is not. However, most of us go through periods where our bullshit detector is down (young, stupid, stressed, etc.), and we can be vulnerable to dangerous memes.

Hubbard created Dianetics and Scientology as a viral meme, and it is extremely dangerous. Some have found ways of handling it with care and deriving information from it, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.

:eyeroll:

A virus is just a packet of information wrapped in a protein shell. The host is the active component of a viral system.

Hosts may or may not 'like' virii. Hosts may ostracize or attack other hosts that have been 'infected' by 'bad' virii. But the virus remains nothing but a bit of coded information in a protective wrapper. Nothing 'dangerous' about a virus until a host starts acting on that information. Indeed, the information encoded in the virus may be absolutely necessary to the larger ecosystem, and even serve an essential function for the well being of the larger group of the host species, whatever the effect on an individual host.

Ideas aren't dangerous. Idiots with ideas are dangerous. :yes:


Mark A. Baker
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
By the way, if anyone thinks that session confidentiality exists, you would be sorely mistaken. If you state in session you are looking at OT material on line or anything else not kosher, ethics is informed.


Great stuff Hat. Thank you. It’s interesting, you have evil, and I don’t care what anyone says, it’s evil to put that in your folder, then you have EVERYONE who reads your folder thinking this bad thing about you. The story you tell happens all the time. It’s a wonder people are not more screwed up.

You have all these people, 18 year old ethics officers, Homophobe auditors, eccentric ED’s all adding their personal opinion of whys and wherewithal’s about this person and why they are doing what they are doing and what should be done about it. IT IS ALL BULLSHIT!!!

Every one of these people making judgments on others is also cheating on their wife, is shy, has anger problems, watches porn, steals out of the cookie jar, invalidates kids, you name it, they are doing it themselves then judging others and saying what should be done to others with the same or different problems, its ridiculous.

This is true.

When I was auditing in an Org (and even BEFORE I was auditing), I pretty much knew all the big secrets of the PCs in the Org because they are discussed openly by the C/S, ED, Qual sec and others. There is zilch confidentiality in Orgs and if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
:eyeroll:

A virus is just a packet of information wrapped in a protein shell. The host is the active component of a viral system.

Hosts may or may not 'like' virii. Hosts may ostracize or attack other hosts that have been 'infected' by 'bad' virii. But the virus remains nothing but a bit of coded information in a protective wrapper. Nothing 'dangerous' about a virus until a host starts acting on that information. Indeed, the information encoded in the virus may be absolutely necessary to the larger ecosystem, and even serve an essential function for the well being of the larger group of the host species, whatever the effect on an individual host.

Ideas aren't dangerous. Idiots with ideas are dangerous. :yes:


Mark A. Baker

In that case, I invite you to sleep at night with some Hantavirus under your tongue. You should be perfectly safe as long as you don't act on its information.
 

smartone

My Own Boss
Reading this thread, it reminded me when I was auditing a PC in a tiny room in AOLA. We were going poketa, poketa along when this look of horror crossed my PC's face. The video camera I had precariously balanced on it's tripod in the corner came crashing down on my head. We collapsed in stitches and I remarked well I suppose that's not going to be a pass. Then we collapsed in stitches again, tears of laughter.
 
don't know if you noticed, but Ron is dead.

people are responsible for their own actions.

Well, the fact that people are responsible for themselves and for their understanding may not be known to them, or fully grokked. They might still expect others to do it for them, or blame others for not doing it for them, etc.

Being responsible and taking responsibility are different concepts.


How do these ideas go together (BTW you did not not say in the "Ron is dead" post, what the implication was. It is not easy to see which post you were responding to.)
 

GLH

Patron
When I was auditing in an Org (and even BEFORE I was auditing), I pretty much knew all the big secrets of the PCs in the Org because they are discussed openly by the C/S, ED, Qual sec and others. There is zilch confidentiality in Orgs and if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken.
This from the most ethical people on the planet. How would you ever know if this stuff ever works especially when it would have to be all subjective but the fact of the matter of all this nose up the camels ass portending to be objective. I must say that I had a friend who went through some of this shit at AO but I thought it was an anomaly not SOP. Did anybody read the auditors code or try to follow it or am I still so fucking naive! Second thought don't answer that. How could you help but not come out of there degraded and fucked up. Disgusting doesn't even come close to covering it. My God I must have anger issues! :angry: :duh: :)
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
How do these ideas go together (BTW you did not not say in the "Ron is dead" post, what the implication was. It is not easy to see which post you were responding to.)

I'm saying that when I act, it doesn't matter whether or not someone else told me to act, if they lied to me about whether that act is a good thing, etc. Ultimately, when I act, it is I who am responsible for that act. Others can be accused of influencing me, the environment could be characterized as influencing me, but ultimately, it was me who acted.

I might not take responsibility for it. I might pretend I didn't do it. I might accuse others of having deceived me, or state that the environment was stressful or confusing, and therefore responsible for my action. This doesn't change my responsibility. It just means I won't take responsibility for the acts.

This doesn't mean that I am not compassionate with people who have done things that they think are reprehensible upon review, but it doesn't change their responsibility.

Ron didn't make me do it. Nor did the Church. I did.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Ron didn't make me do it. Nor did the Church. I did.

Are you forgetting the incredible amount of "pressure" exerted by the Church, in the way of per policy staff and public behaviors, towards other staff and public?

Scientology is that subject that teaches and forces the horrendously strong application of ideas like dedication, persistance, Tone 40, 8C, HARD SELL (very hard sell), no back off, never giving up, pushing, pushing and more pushing until the environment conforms to ones will.

Those same pressures are constantly exerted on and against staff and public. I, again, will have to disagree with you.

Example:

A man stands with a gun pointing at your head, and tells you that if you don't cut off your right thumb, that he will order his friend to execute your daughter. While it IS true, when all is said and done, that it will be YOU who chooses, decides and takes resonsibility to cut off the thumb, there is a bit more involved than "ONLY I DID IT"! There is more going on than isolated units of personal repsonsibility (examining people as entriely unrelated separate units, as opposed to taking a more holistic and organic view).

You and Baker push this to an absurd extreme.

It IS true that a person, for any action to occur, must direct the body and make it act. Of course, in some severe and extreme way, in a world without influences, the person might be thought of as being "the captain of his ship". But, IDEAS often contain the seeds that define and describe the ACTIONS any person will take once any person accepts the idea - and there are many cases, from modern advertising, to cult manipulation and control, like in Scientology, where people act on what they come to believe following great amounts of carefully planned psychological pressure and external influence.

Now, someone can say, while sticking their chest out, that "all people are basically responsible for what they accept and do". Huffing and puffing like some right-wing rugged-individual type. THEORETICALLY, that is correct. But, having it be some theoretical fact that people are responsible for their actions is far different from intelligent & aware people TAKING resonsibility for the ideas he or she accepts, and for the actions that follow.

IN FACT, most people are not at all aware of "accepting ideas". To most people it is NOT even a choice. People just come to believe what they do and will, often due to aggressive forces in the environment aiming and acting to GET YOU to accept and act on some idea or set of ideas. The dynamics of all that remains unconscious to most people. Most are NOT aware of the many strings pulling them in many different directions. In a perfect world with perfectly aware intelligent people, MAYBE the idea of "personal responsibility" might begin to have anything to do with REALITY.

I can guarantee that pretty much everyone reading this simply believes what each does out of some natural evolution of notions for each person. It might be a grand IDEAL that each person is "responsible" for the ideas he or accepts, but it is just that - an ideal. That is NOT the way it is in nature - meaning the way it happens to real people in involvement with a real world.

Also, one needs to pull back and view the larger picture, where the person and the envionment function as an organic whole, that only APPEARS as separate things, with separate motivations, when one gets up too close and introverts on arbitrary aspects of the detailed thing.

There is a Yin and Yang here, and the two cannot be separated.

Yin: There is a person with a mind. A person with a mind can create and entertain "ideas". The truth of falsity of the idea is irrelevant when noticing ONLY that a person does do this - creates and entertains ideas.

Yang: The idea contains a "model", or "seed", or "pattern", or "blueprint" for all sorts of attitudes, thoughts, views, biases, and ACTIONS for ANY person who accepts and thinks with the "idea". The IDEA does have a "sort" of existance of its own, even though granted, yes, it can ONLY exist in the mind of a sentient being. But also, an idea can be written down on paper, or recorded in words, and remain entirely dormant, yet INTACT and posssessing all the power it can have, ONCE any person contacts and thinks with the idea.

BOTH factors are key.

Yes, a person SHOULD be made aware that he or she alone is entirely responsible for accepting and acting upon any IDEA. In the end, the idea is irrelevant.

But also, the person would never even think to act in certain ways if he or she hadn't be approached with the idea, fed the idea, indoctrinated with the idea, force fed the idea, given mass amounts of admiration for agreeing with the idea, and so forth.

There is no human world without IDEAS.

And, ideas have no power at all until accepted and entertained by some person.

Saying that an idea is "bad" simply means that the blueprint for "bad behavior" exists in the details of the significance of the idea itself. Describing something as a "bad idea" is slang, and can have different meanings.

As far as Scientology goes there are plenty of ideas, that when acted upon result in "bad behavior". The potential for this bad behavior is contained IN THE IDEA. Of course, this won't happen until some person entertains the idea and acts upon it in some way. This is easy to understand in Scientology because the ideas are so clearly spelled out in policies and tapes.

The concept of forced disconnection exists AS AN IDEA. As an idea it has the potential to almost ALWAYS have negative results when applied. In that regard the IDEA itself contains the potential for "bad" or "harm". And when any Church member accepts, think with and applies the idea, then harm often follows.

The same with many other ideas of Hubbard's, that are EXACTLY spelled out, like KSW, hard sell, control the public onto services, take as much money as possible, destroy all enemies, lying is entirely acceptable, etc.

As long as the details of the idea exists on paper, on tape, or in some person's mind, the "idea" exists. But, an idea can die, when and if all copies of it are destroyed, and any person with the slightest notion of the idea is eradicated. That is why dictators like to burn all the books containing any sort of criticism or competition, and to murder everybody who thinks such things. If an idea no longer exists in any dormant form, on paper, on tape, on a video, or on a CD, and is not being considered by ANY human being, then the IDEA is effectively DEAD.

IN a very real way, IDEAS do have an existance of their own. They are born, they survive, they decay and they die. IDEAS undergo the cycle of action. Just like the world around you, an IDEA only has meaning or value if you BREATHE LIFE into some aspect of it. An idea is no different than ANY other relationship you have with something "out there". Of course, in the end, it is YOU that must bring life to the idea, by entertaining it, just as it is YOU who bring life to a relationship with your spouse, with your children, with your job, or with anything else. Just as you would with any aspect of some Dynamic!

In Scio-terms, IDEAS exist as a part of the seventh dynamic. While IDEAS may be largely "invisible" aspects of existance, just as are most things of the seventh dynamic, they do cause MANY REAL effects in the physical realm. In fact a GREAT DEAL of the dramas of life for humanity are due to some person or group of people accepting and choosing to act in conformity with some IDEA or set of IDEAS. Man is often "idea-driven". Any person following some ideology is a good example of THAT.

Ideas DO exist. They do have power. In a very real sense, they "influence" the person who accepts the idea(s).

There are TWO sides to this coin, and BOTH sides must be considered. The truth is not one or the alone, but both together, in a dynamic relationship between any person and some idea.

+++++++++++++
 
Last edited:
... Example:

A man stands with a gun pointing at your head, and tells you that if you don't cut off your right thumb, that he will order his friend to execute your daughter. While it IS true, when all is said and done, that it will be YOU who chooses, decides and takes resonsibility to cut off the thumb, there is a bit more involved than "ONLY I DID IT"! There is more going on than isolated units of personal repsonsibility (examining people as entriely unrelated separate units, as opposed to taking a more holistic and organic view).

You and Baker push this to an absurd extreme. ...

:lol:

YOU cite an example of coercion at the point of a gun and then accuse ME of taking things to an extreme absurdity?

When did you have a gun held to your head, G?

:roflmao: :dieslaughing:

People succumbed to peer pressure because they didn't want to face the prospects of severe changes to their life styles. That was horrible coercion. It worked because the individuals preferred to 'blend in with the group' rather than stand up for themselves & their own integrity.

I gather that for you 'I was only obeying orders' is an acceptable excuse. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 
Top