Question on Natural Clear

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
Seeing as how Helena hasn't addressed this, I'll tell you my understanding of it;

Helena did up to and including OT5 in the CofS, left the CofS and continued on the fabled Bridge in Ron's Org up to RO's "Excalibur" (or thereabouts). She'll probably correct this (if it's incorrect) and/or fill in the blanks sooner or later. :)
I just saw this. Yes, that's right, although I later also did RO OT 9-10-11 (Phoenix) and started OT 12 (Super Power for OT's). At that point I became totally stuck, but I'll post more on that tomorrow.

I like to think of Excalibur as "NOTS with something extra". That something extra fills in the technical flaw in NOTS.

Suggest: always allow 24 to 48 hours for a response to a question.

Helena
 

Leland

Crusader
I just saw this. Yes, that's right, although I later also did RO OT 9-10-11 (Phoenix) and started OT 12 (Super Power for OT's). At that point I became totally stuck, but I'll post more on that tomorrow.

I like to think of Excalibur as "NOTS with something extra". That something extra fills in the technical flaw in NOTS.

Suggest: always allow 24 to 48 hours for a response to a question.

Helena

Helena, is there any relationship between Captain Bill Robertson's Excalibur....and the Excalibur that LRH talked about?
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
In my observation, ex-scientologists may become just as prone to that "one-size-fits-all" mindset as any scientologist ever was. So many Exes seem to have adopted a favorite solution to the problem of "How to rationalise Hubbard/scientology".

"It's all hypnotism, it's all rhetoric, it's all brainwashing, it's all... whatever."

It's kinda cute in a somewhat annoying way! :)

Lol, you trollin' me, bro? :biggrin:

Not at all. I disagree with your fallacious generalities and appeals to ridicule towards Ex's. Anon's have an old saying, "stay on target." Elcon, the Dwarfenfuhrer, OSA, $cientology, front groups, etc. are the target, not Ex's. :yes:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Not at all. I disagree with your fallacious generalities and appeals to ridicule towards Ex's. Anon's have an old saying, "stay on target." Elcon, the Dwarfenfuhrer, OSA, $cientology, front groups, etc. are the target, not Ex's. :yes:

Which "fallacious generalities" would those be?
Which "appeals to ridicule towards Ex's" are you talking about?
Dox or GTFO!
(Your own strawman misinterpretations don't really count as dox, btw.)
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
In my observation, ex-scientologists may become just as prone to that "one-size-fits-all" mindset as any scientologist ever was. So many Exes seem to have adopted a favorite solution to the problem of "How to rationalise Hubbard/scientology".

"It's all hypnotism, it's all rhetoric, it's all brainwashing, it's all... whatever."

It's kinda cute in a somewhat annoying way! :)

“Whenever you are about to find fault with someone, ask yourself the following question: What fault of mine most nearly resembles the one I am about to criticize?”
- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Ex's do the best they can dealing with the aftermath of having been in a cult and do marvelously exposing $cientology for what it is, a criminal mafia organization hiding behind religious cloaking.

I didn't believe you when you said, "Sure. No arguments here." I wonder why. :whistling:

[HIGHLIGHT]Sure. No arguments here.[/HIGHLIGHT]

My comment was just in response to ITYIWT's little joke preceding it. It's not that serious. :)

But, just for the record, you didn't actually address the thing I said, you just used Rhetoric...

oops, there goes ITYIWT...

Sorry about that, Chief!
Naturally.

Predictably:

Lol, you trollin' me, bro? :biggrin:

Not at all. I disagree with your fallacious generalities and appeals to ridicule towards Ex's. Anon's have an old saying, "stay on target." Elcon, the Dwarfenfuhrer, OSA, $cientology, front groups, etc. are the target, not Ex's. :yes:

Which "fallacious generalities" would those be?
Which "appeals to ridicule towards Ex's" are you talking about?
Dox or GTFO!
(Your own strawman misinterpretations don't really count as dox, btw.)

Let's make no mistake, this about laughing at Gib shaming him into silence with unnamed others as a misrepresentation stereotype of "so many Ex's" who according to you think "It's all hypnotism, it's all rhetoric, it's all brainwashing, it's all... whatever. It's kinda cute in a somewhat annoying way!" :)

How do you know what so many Ex's are thinking about the cult? You don't. Trying to make fun of Ex's and Gib in particular I suppose because you feel better about yourself afterwards is immature.

This is one of only a few places Ex's can come talk about psychology, rhetoric, brainwashing and whatever else Ex's want to discuss so perhaps you're annoying for not seeing the compassionate side of this, which is why I posted that Marcus Aurelius quote in the first place.

My suggestion is since you want to play your "role" as the critic of the critics with fallacious garbage start your own thread. No doubt multitudes of Ex's will flock there wanting to hear your revelations from on high as to how they are recovering from the cult incorrectly, what are permissible subjects of discussion, how they should feel about $cientology, living up to your standards and other wholesome tidbits. Invite Claire and Mark to help you too.
 
Last edited:

The_Fixer

Class Clown
Rhetoric!

I'm a waiting at the bottom of that cliff to catch you babe.....

Howzat for nefarious intentions?

I really wish they had one of them emoticons of Groucho Marx fanning his eyebrows up and down here sometimes...
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Rhetoric!

I'm a waiting at the bottom of that cliff to catch you babe.....

Howzat for nefarious intentions?

I really wish they had one of them emoticons of Groucho Marx fanning his eyebrows up and down here sometimes...

I wonder how Gib feels being the butt end of so many jokes now when he only wanted to help others understand Elcon's mindfuck. Happy hunting everyone, the feeding frenzy will drown out Gib's yells for mercy now that he's down.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Ok this thread has become entirely too silly. As a result I'm in the mood for mischief and deviancy.

I'm going to cave you all in by asking Rhetorical questions!

:omg:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I wonder how Gib feels being the butt end of so many jokes now when he only wanted to help others understand Elcon's mindfuck. Happy hunting everyone, the feeding frenzy will drown out Gib's yells for mercy now that he's down.


Gib isn't "down" Free ... he took my silliness in the way it was intended (a lighthearted jab). I expect he already knows he's appears to be a little bit obsessed with a certain subject that will never again be mentioned, by me.

If you really want to have a go at someone over this, have a go at me (hang on a moment though, I'll just need to find my big girl knickers and put them on, so I can cope).

:biggrin:
 

Jump

Operating teatime


Did I miss something? I like the rhetoric stuff. My personal thanks to Gib for highlighting the rhetoric angle and explaining it. Could those who dont like it just scroll past? Yeah, rhetorical question :coolwink:

Excuse me while I race Fixer to the bottom of that cliff . . .

:hysterical:


 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
...

Let's make no mistake,...

And yet you just did!

You should re-read that series of posts and find out what I was referring to when I said "no arguments".

You're over-analysing this and reading odd things into a simple observation: Some people (many of them Exes) become fixated on "one-size-fits-all" answers eg: hypnotism, brainwashing, the R word, etc. to the question of "wtf is it with scientology/ists?". Perhaps you disagree or can't/won't see that. It's just my opinion based on observation.

It's not intended to make less of Gib, I like him very much and I believe he knows that.

I also appreciate his input about the use of rh***ric and have noted several times that we all use it whenever we're writing or speechifying in an effort to persuade. (See what I did there?)

You seem to be taking exception to my comments lately and we end up getting into these back and forth tit-for-tats. It doesn't particularly bother me but, seriously, you're seeing things in my posts which just aren't there and adding a lot of straw to the discussion.
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
Helena, is there any relationship between Captain Bill Robertson's Excalibur....and the Excalibur that LRH talked about?
LRH's Excalibur is an unpublished book, which, according to rumor, was left unpublished because it contained too much data for us mere earthdwellers and/or has had pieces published elsewhere.

CBR named his OT 8 Excalibur as a tribute to the unpublished book. This is the only connection.

Helena
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
And yet you just did!

You should re-read that series of posts and find out what I was referring to when I said "no arguments".

You're over-analysing this and reading odd things into a simple observation: Some people (many of them Exes) become fixated on "one-size-fits-all" answers eg: hypnotism, brainwashing, the R word, etc. to the question of "wtf is it with scientology/ists?". Perhaps you disagree or can't/won't see that. It's just my opinion based on observation.

It's not intended to make less of Gib, I like him very much and I believe he knows that.

I also appreciate his input about the use of rh***ric and have noted several times that we all use it whenever we're writing or speechifying in an effort to persuade. (See what I did there?)

You seem to be taking exception to my comments lately and we end up getting into these back and forth tit-for-tats. It doesn't particularly bother me but, seriously, you're seeing things in my posts which just aren't there and adding a lot of straw to the discussion.

I think you are talking about the tendency to oversimplify the way Scientologists believe in Scientology. If so I would agree. It would be very convenient if all Scientologists signed off on a full disclosure of all the down sides on their first day and then if they continued on we could condemn them for being fully supportive of the damage caused, but great effort is put into concealing the down side. It unfolds in different ways at different rates for everyone at the same time they are being coached to self censor. There are some very decent people trying to do good things with Scientology and it is not real to them that anything is wrong with it.

Gib is right to interject these dialogues about the old philosophers and rhetoric (yes, there, I said it.... rhetoric) for several reasons. It helps to guide the discourse toward a meaningful debate to have a basic understanding of the subject of debate. The other thing is, LRH did study this stuff. The old philosophers understood that definitions were critical to an intellectual exercise. If a person controlled the definitions in a debate then he controlled the debate and if a person controlled the rules of the use of definitions in debate then they controlled the philosophy. A Scientologist is someone who is using the definitions and the rules of definitions created and controlled by LRH within their personal belief system and it is a belief system based on rhetoric, not intellectual critical thinking. There might be some logical tidbits sprinkled in to lend it credibility but the loophole is on the next page or in an LRH Order (Otherwise known as a Hidden Data Line).

LRH did not create study tech from nothing. Much of this does trace directly back to groups such as the Sophists and in their day it was absolutely refined and used to manipulate governments and populations for money and power. We can use condemnation and clever rhetoric to try and get Scientologists to see the light or get other people to oppose it but we should be able to back up our position intellectually or we will just be operating at the same level as Scientology.

Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric, Rhetoric,
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I wonder how Gib feels being the butt end of so many jokes now when he only wanted to help others understand Elcon's mindfuck. Happy hunting everyone, the feeding frenzy will drown out Gib's yells for mercy now that he's down.

FBM, isn't your reaction a bit over the top?

Is there any ONE of us, including ITYIWT, Panda, myself and even HH, who has NOT been the butt of jokes now and then? So what? Gib has enough confidence and self-esteem to know he is well loved here, that everybody has faults and that being human is JUST FINE.

I go off on tangents sometimes. Who doesn't? So what? I have days I sign off just embarrassed at how stupid my comments are that day. So? It's just a day. Bad typing, or tired, or whatever. Gib brings up lots of good stuff and gets plenty of thanks and acknowledgement. He's recovered far more than you give him credit for. He's not weak and sniveling in the corner. Not the Gib I know - and we're all QUITE proud of him (even if some of us are sick of the rh word. :coolwink:)
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
LRH's Excalibur is an unpublished book, which, according to rumor, was left unpublished because it contained too much data for us mere earthdwellers and/or has had pieces published elsewhere.

CBR named his OT 8 Excalibur as a tribute to the unpublished book. This is the only connection.

Helena

I was thinking about this today while in the hammock with the laziest dog in the world.

SURVIVE is the basis of the unpublished LRH manuscript from the 1930s. Ron's Org's Excalibur is about established heirarchies, the 'hats' (the identities, roles and their goals) and the suppressive beings or holders in your organizational structures. This is not too much different than the idea of the Kabbalistic tree with its various sephiroth; levels from which other realities or entities are being created/ controlled into manifestation. What I realized while thinking about the influences Ron was exposed to in the 30s was that he was enthralled with the magic of putting things into creation in the world of substance. He was interested in what techniques makes a solid and how to reverse that flow. Most of the PDC lectures were about this stuff.

LRH junior said that what no one understood was that 'Dad was a master adept of the mysteries'. He also said that his dad did not make case gain as others cause his auditors were dealing with 'the construct' and not the real person. :confused2:

When I look at how Ron first tried to take apart GPMs researching ARCXs, problems and valences, I think it's evident he was trying to reverse engineer composite realities . He got consumed in the end.

Magic, I guess, is learning how to create effects out of little or no substance....with the Will. The Golden Dawn adepts of the esoteric levels were kabbalistic minded. They stold the thunder, the Eixir of Life energies (Excalibur) by reverse engineering those entities in creation...imo. There was a reverse flow set up....to the chronic outflow of create, create, create. There are a lot of old Rosicrucian and alchemical symbols to denote this flowing backward and return . The created energy invested in each domain is recouped and formed with intent into a potent personal force. (OT). Whether this eating up ....or conversion is good or bad depends on whether you are on the black or white path.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/tape-by-L-Ron-Hubbard-jr.htm




Ron Hubbard Jr said his dad broke the knee caps of those ascending up the tree. He seemed to feel threatened. He said, (from Nib's occult-oriented view) that if students would catch on to this... they would cut and run. The Elixir of Life tech is theoretically, alchemically forming/ molding, in the active verb sense, that which is externalized from character and identity ( substance). Well, anyhow, this is what I thought about the similarities/ differences between the two Excaliburs. Both seem reminiscent of the 'mass conversion specialists' of old....the alchemists.



http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ur-Phoenix-etc&p=578363&viewfull=1#post578363

Originally posted by Leland

Helena, is there any relationship between Captain Bill Robertson's Excalibur....and the Excalibur that LRH talked about?
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
I didn't believe you when you said, "Sure. No arguments here." I wonder why. :whistling:




Predictably:







Let's make no mistake, this about laughing at Gib shaming him into silence with unnamed others as a misrepresentation stereotype of "so many Ex's" who according to you think "It's all hypnotism, it's all rhetoric, it's all brainwashing, it's all... whatever. It's kinda cute in a somewhat annoying way!" :)

How do you know what so many Ex's are thinking about the cult? You don't. Trying to make fun of Ex's and Gib in particular I suppose because you feel better about yourself afterwards is immature.

This is one of only a few places Ex's can come talk about psychology, rhetoric, brainwashing and whatever else Ex's want to discuss so perhaps you're annoying for not seeing the compassionate side of this, which is why I posted that Marcus Aurelius quote in the first place.

My suggestion is since you want to play your "role" as the critic of the critics with fallacious garbage start your own thread. No doubt multitudes of Ex's will flock there wanting to hear your revelations from on high as to how they are recovering from the cult incorrectly, what are permissible subjects of discussion, how they should feel about $cientology, living up to your standards and other wholesome tidbits. Invite Claire and Mark to help you too.

Thank you FBM. :thumbsup:

Don't worry about Panda and me, others, it's all good. Although you are right in that I felt stifled, and truely wanted to blow. I am just trying to communicate my discoveries about the source and explain it.

Isn't it annoying, that the COS keeps repeating their message of how the COS is expanding in the media, make it stop, I say to myself, as I keep getting mail from the COS since I'm underground.

Thank YOU BIG BLUE, I wish I could write like you.

A rhetoric emotional appeal for a good cause as opposed to hubbards emotional appeal of tone 4 and being a scientologist, the two are worlds apart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO9d2PpP7tQ

And here is an analysis of the commercial. The next logical rhetorical question should be, although the commercial excites emotions, should be, is this organization on the up and up, that reguires due diligence to see and examine how the money donated is used. As opposed to our COS, those monies donated to IAS, Naconon, etc. How are they used?

https://avoiceforthesilent.wordpress.com/rhetorical-analysis/
 

Gib

Crusader
Top