Scientology & Denial

[Gadfly]

The recent post about the "Power of Source" album brought to light for me again a MAJOR weird, yet common aspect of the Scientology experience. DENIAL. One learns now to deny ANYTHING that runs counter to a 100% rah-rah-rah attitude towards all things Scientology, LRH and INT Management. With the "Power of Source" album, Church participants dealt with it a few different ways.

1. One can actually still maintain ones honest viewpoint that it truly sucks, but present a facade to the rest of the Scientology world that you "like it". Few continue to operate at this level, because it is too uncomfortable and mentally stressful to do so, especially when compounded with many other similar observations where something is really OFF, yet one has to "hide" this viewpoint to all other Church members.

2. Assimilate the viewpoint that it is actually "good music" through some weird concatenation of logic and self-denial. One questions oneself along the lines of typical Scientology "beliefs". For instance, "being critical is BAD". "It is just some part of me, as critical, as some SP valence, that makes me see and experience this music as bad". One comes to actually see and like the music!!!!

3. For the true total believer lemming creature, he or she actually experiences it AS GOOD upon the first listening! Those people are so horribly brain-washed that they actually see and experience an entirely different world and reality than most other people.

OK, with that said. Here is an example from my own experience.

Back in about 1980 I remember getting a few letters from "Ron". Yeah, OK, so I was an idiot! I wrote him quite a few times between the mid-1970s and early 1980s. I noticed that the responses were NOT "him". It was simply obvious. Just as it was obvious that certain issues being released were NOT "by him". One gets familiar with things, and one can simply "know". Also, this is back when little "signature abbreviations" started appearing right under the "LRH signature". Initials were included on the bottom left or right of Ron's signature. RED FLAG! For me, I knew instantly that THIS was actually who WROTE the letter. But also, far more obvious to any half-sensible human being, was the fact that the signatures were a "rubber stamp".

Now, many will get a real kick out of this. I wrote it up along LRH Comm lines, since it had to do with the "SO 1" line. I pointed all of this out to a few Org senior executives, and a few, including the LRH Comm, answered, totally sincerely, with, "well, the signatures ARE EXACTLY THE SAME because RON IS OT and can do THAT". I was flabbergasted at the degree of DENIAL, and instantaneous mental dub-in that quickly made sense of nonsense in their over-indoctrinated little minds. For whatever reason, no matter how much I was "in", in the Sea Org, or whatever, I never stopped seeing the obvious.

When I got the response from the LRH Comm INT, it said, "LRH answers all letters personally", "the initials are the person who transcribes the letter from Ron's taped responses", and "No, there is no rubber stamp". They kept pushing the illusion. IT IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS. As if that would somehow make it so. But, sadly, for many people (extreme believers), it DOES "make it so". I read it, giggled to myself, looked at the LRH Comm who I knew well, and said, "do you actually believe this?" It seems she did! Or, she was in such a state of denial that she couldn't pretend anything else. She was obviously NOT comfortable talking about it, and she suggested to me that I STOP talking about it.

It was obvious that Hubbard wasn't writing the letters, it was obvious that the initials were the somebody who wrote the letter, and it was obvious the signatures were rubber stamps. I held up three of my letters, and showed a few people how the LRH signatures were EXACTLY THE SAME. Nobody wanted to LOOK. Most were uncomfortable, and wanted to "get away". They had a very well-developed inner mechanism DEMANDING that all aspects of the illusion remain INTACT. DENIAL.

Within a few years, ED INT took over writing the letters, BEFORE Hubbard dropped the body, because he was so busy researching the "upper levels" (or was he actually dribbling uncontrollably somewhere obsessed with the notion of being overwhelmed with BTs?).

But it gets even weirder. A few people KR'ed me for talking about it. I ended up at Flag, and got pulled in for a Sec Check, from a Class XII auditor, Minty Alexander. They weren't fucking around! "WHO told you that?" Well, I told her, NOBODY told me. I AM THE ORIGINATOR. It is obvious. Anyone can see it. Ack. Ack. Ack. But, my needle was floating, so what can she do? More and more of the same, trying to find out WHO the third party was. I ended the Sec Check, with no major issues. NOBODY ever mentioned it to me again. It was entirely ignored. I was calm, knew what I knew, and no amount of ethics or threats would or could make me budge. I displayed THAT so clearly, that I suppose there wasn't anything else anyone could do.

It seems that when any person disagrees or notices a major outpoint, BUT doesn't rock the boat, and still contributes in some way (I was SO staff at the time), that it gets ignored. JUST DON'T TALK ABOUT IT, though nobody ever said that to me.

The main point is how Scientologists at ALL levels DENIED what was obvious, and seem to actually have DUBBED-IN explanations and justifications to have the outpoints make sense. I observed THAT sort of mental nonsense right from just about DAY ONE with the Church of Scientology. It killed me how people so often DENIED the obvious and made sense of self-created nonsense to "make it all fit".

Can any reader notice, confront, admit or find any similar example where you or others flat out DENIED something that was VERY obvious. How did they do it? What stream of absurd logic was used? How did they justify it?

I noticed the same thing with how Church members tried to make sense of the altered definition of the second dynamic. Amazing mental gymnastics. Amazing justifications and concatenations of "stupid" logic. Quite entertaining to watch. I would always comment to myself, "and THESE people, who can't even confront the convoluted workings of their own minds are the SAVIORS of Planet Earth?" Somehow, I don't think so.

This is a MAJOR aspect of the Scientology experience. It involves "cognitive dissonance", the mental mechanism that allows one to maintain an IDEA or BELIEF despite all evidence to the contrary! The details of how any person does this within the Scientology framework has always fascinated me. Of course, it goes on here more than many other places because of the 1) strict ideology, and 2) incredible pressure coming down ALL lines enforcing the charade and illusion.

 

[Alanzo]

This goes on in any religion because adherence to any religion is not fundamentally rational, but emotional.

All religions fulfill a deep emotional need in the adherent, possibly different for each individual.

So to ask someone to be entirely rational about their deep emotional needs is asking quite a lot.

Don't you think?

 

[Gadfly]

This goes on in any religion because adherence to any religion is not fundamentally rational, but emotional.

All religions fulfill a deep emotional need in the adherent, possibly different for each individual.

So to ask someone to be entirely rational about their deep emotional needs is asking quite a lot.

Don't you think?

No. :confused2:

I never had much problem seeing what was there, and I also "wanted it to be true".

But then, "truth" always took a front seat FAR above "personal emotional needs" as far as I was concerned.

And, while it may go on "to some degree" in "all religions", and in science, and in philosophy, and in politics, etc., it goes on to a MUCH more severe degree in the C of S due to the setup of the whole operation.

 

[Species8472]

You may remember a lecture that talked about black balls or golden balls - some kind of electronic anchor point or some such bullshit - located in the body. Well I experienced that phenomenon - you just kind of go along with whatever the auditor tells you 'whats that, there, what you just thought of' - you get some incredibly random connections. Well I knew I was inventing this crap about electronic balls, but it was reading when I was telling the auditor, and it was blowing down, and it felt kind of good - some kind of mysteriously impossible LRH phenomenon became real to me. Carry on like that for a couple of sessions, and it becomes a real experience - not something you just invented - as real as some kind of lucid dreaming experience - When I found myself telling someone else about this black ball stuff - out of session - and they were in awe of my experience. Dangerous stuff this, I knew I was contributing to the mystery.

The books and lectures sow the seed of all the wackey ideas well before you get into session.

But ask this of a scientologist. Why must they first read about all these phenomenon before they can experience it?

 

[AngeloV]

But ask this of a scientologist. Why must they first read about all these phenomenon before they can experience it?

Excellent point.

 

[Gadfly]

You may remember a lecture that talked about black balls or golden balls - some kind of electronic anchor point or some such bullshit - located in the body. Well I experienced that phenomenon - you just kind of go along with whatever the auditor tells you 'whats that, there, what you just thought of' - you get some incredibly random connections. Well I knew I was inventing this crap about electronic balls, but it was reading when I was telling the auditor, and it was blowing down, and it felt kind of good - some kind of mysteriously impossible LRH phenomenon became real to me. Carry on like that for a couple of sessions, and it becomes a real experience - not something you just invented - as real as some kind of lucid dreaming experience - When I found myself telling someone else about this black ball stuff - out of session - and they were in awe of my experience. Dangerous stuff this, I knew I was contributing to the mystery.

The books and lectures sow the seed of all the wackey ideas well before you get into session.

But ask this of a scientologist. Why must they first read about all these phenomenon before they can experience it?

You don't have to first read into it to have it affect you. I had MANY things affect me that I had never first read about, and had no expectations of results. I would say that as far as something like OT III goes, then YES, there is a great deal of expectation of what is going to happen (since it has been very well spelled out to you).

But also, the IMAGINATION is a POWERFUL thing. Largely unexplored in terms of aspects, abilities, power, relationships to reality, etc. I mocked up the golden balls too, on my own. Many years ago now. I had fun. But, I knew that I wasn't "discovering what was already there", but simply that I was PUTTING something there. But, I had an already fairly wide familiarity with "other practices" and knew of the notion that "one creates ones own reality" THROUGH the imagination.

Being in fear of mocking up is not a good thing. But then, most people have limited experiences in the area, and it remains shrouded in some mystery.

 

[Lurker5]

Denial isn't just in Scn

Gadfly, this kind of denial exists everywhere, not just in Scn. Been there and done that myself, in my personal life. BIG Lessons to be learned by doing that, as we all pay a price for our illusions - one way or another. First you PRETEND, then it BECOMES.

Later on, after lessons learned, however many times it took to get real, you just learn to be polite and not say what you are thinking - unless asked - and then, only as long as it is safe and wise to speak up. Just ask any man, who answered his sig other's question "Do these jeans/this dress make me look fat?"

 

[Dulloldfart]

I noticed the same thing with how Church members tried to make sense of the altered definition of the second dynamic.

That always seemed to me to be mountains/molehills.

I copied this just now from http://www.scientology.org/news-media/faq/pg014.html:

The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a sexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the second dynamic (b) is the family unit including the rearing of children. This can be called the sex dynamic.

Isn't that the definition in FOT, ignoring the infamous "[as a sexual] or bisexual [activity]" insertion?

Paul

 

[Alanzo]

This thread reminds me of when I was a little boy.

I had an imaginary friend named "Carpo".

I actually saw Carpo. He looked kind of like the "Lucky Charms" elf character, but his suit and hat were not green, but red. He didn't have any legs, really, he got around by appearing here and there.

He and I talked a lot.

One day, Carpo and I were in the back alley, setting fire to a bunch of dry grass I had put into a little pile. My mother was a kind of "new age" person, and she read a lot of books and talked about them a lot. I overheard a conversation that she had with someone else, telling them that "Christ had already come to earth and that he was operating right now somewhere, and he would reveal himself soon."

As I watched the dry grass go up in flames in the back alley that day, Carpo told me that the Messiah is a writer, and that he is on planet earth right now, and it is your duty in life to go find him. It made me feel very special. It made me feel that I was part of a larger group, much bigger and more important than my family, and that I was destined for greatness.

When I grew up and got into Scientology, I did a course where you learn to audit Dianetics, and the first processes you practice come from the book "Self Analysis".

My twin, Charles Lakes, was running me on the process "Recall a time when you had a friend."

I had a HUGE cognition: CARPO WAS REAL!!!

It all came together for me. Carpo told me that the messiah was a writer and that it was my mission in life to go find him, and here I was! I had found him!!!

These experiences were from a kind of inner imagination world that I think everybody has. (Maybe not...maybe I'm revealing too much about myself here )

Scientology seeks to make your inner life real. It is the fundamental teaching behind "8-8008". This is also what hypnosis does. It works with your inner imagination, your "own universe", where everything is magical, and does not have to operate on the binding restraints of the physical universes' laws. Others have called it "magical thinking".

In your own universe, anything can happen.

Hubbard even gives you the justification for operating on a delusional basis in the physical universe with his "illusion vs actuality vs delusion" teachings.

The problem with trying to be totally rational all the time is that "your own universe", while it is delusional in the physical universe, is still the source for personal meaning in your life. To abandon it completely, for me at least, is to turn my life gray and very lifeless, and quite pointless.

I want to believe that I am destined for greatness. It makes me feel good. I want to believe that I am part of a larger whole. I want to believe that there is meaning to life, that the shit that happens, happens for a reason, and all I need to do is find it.

I have tried the completely rational approach to living in the physical universe. Just like the completely imaginary approach, it leads to bullshit, too.

I believe that the physical universe is a kind of holographic projection that we, as spirits, are not part of. I believe that we are inserted into this holographic projection, and are looking at it, but the source of ourselves is elsewhere, in another universe where Carpo is real.

And I'm sticking with it.

 

[Dulloldfart]

This thread reminds me of when I was a little boy.

I had an imaginary friend named "Carpo".

I actually saw Carpo. He looked kind of like the "Lucky Charms" elf character, but his suit and hat were not green, but red. He didn't have any legs, really, he got around by appearing here and there.

He and I talked a lot.

Are you sure he was imaginary? Not joking here. Very young children often (I read) can still perceive and interact with spiritual beings in their vicinity, that older people have lost the ability to perceive. We assume they are not real because we can't perceive them.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

There's a bit of a difference between a 'Mary had an Immaculate Conception' or 'Transubstantiation' or 'Allah loves you' and 'Ron reads and answers all His own mail'

Don't you think?

The former are somewhat mysterious bits of revealed Truth; the latter a flat out lie.

Zinj

 

[nozeno]

This thread reminds me of when I was a little boy.

I had an imaginary friend named "Carpo".

I actually saw Carpo. He looked kind of like the "Lucky Charms" elf character, but his suit and hat were not green, but red. He didn't have any legs, really, he got around by appearing here and there.

He and I talked a lot.

One day, Carpo and I were in the back alley, setting fire to a bunch of dry grass I had put into a little pile. My mother was a kind of "new age" person, and she read a lot of books and talked about them a lot. I overheard a conversation that she had with someone else, telling them that "Christ had already come to earth and that he was operating right now somewhere, and he would reveal himself soon."

As I watched the dry grass go up in flames in the back alley that day, Carpo told me that the Messiah is a writer, and that he is on planet earth right now, and it is your duty in life to go find him. It made me feel very special. It made me feel that I was part of a larger group, much bigger and more important than my family, and that I was destined for greatness.

When I grew up and got into Scientology, I did a course where you learn to audit Dianetics, and the first processes you practice come from the book "Self Analysis".

My twin, Charles Lakes, was running me on the process "Recall a time when you had a friend."

I had a HUGE cognition: CARPO WAS REAL!!!

It all came together for me. Carpo told me that the messiah was a writer and that it was my mission in life to go find him, and here I was! I had found him!!!

These experiences were from a kind of inner imagination world that I think everybody has. (Maybe not...maybe I'm revealing too much about myself here )

Scientology seeks to make your inner life real. It is the fundamental teaching behind "8-8008". This is also what hypnosis does. It works with your inner imagination, your "own universe", where everything is magical, and does not have to operate on the binding restraints of the physical universes' laws. Others have called it "magical thinking".

In your own universe, anything can happen.

Hubbard even gives you the justification for operating on a delusional basis in the physical universe with his "illusion vs actuality vs delusion" teachings.

The problem with trying to be totally rational all the time is that "your own universe", while it is delusional in the physical universe, is still the source for personal meaning in your life. To abandon it completely, for me at least, is to turn life gray and very lifeless, and quite pointless.

I want to believe that I am destined for greatness. It makes me feel good. I want to believe that I am part of a larger whole. I want to believe that there is meaning to life, that the shit that happens, happens for a reason, and all I need to do is find it.

I have tried the completely rational approach to living in the physical universe. Just like the completely imaginary approach, it leads to bullshit, too.

I believe that the physical universe is a kind of holographic projection that we, as spirits, are not part of. I believe that we are inserted into this holographic projection, and are looking at it, but the source of ourselves is elsewhere, in another universe where Carpo is real.

And I'm sticking with it.

I think you made that up.

 

[Gadfly]

There's a bit of a difference between a 'Mary had an Immaculate Conception' or 'Transubstantiation' or 'Allah loves you' and 'Ron reads and answers all His own mail'

Don't you think?

The former are somewhat mysterious bits of revealed Truth; the latter a flat out lie.

Zinj

Ah, someone actually gets it!

But then, interestingly YOU have NEVER be stuck in the Scn trap!

That might explain why some seem to be having some sort of a "reaction" against what seems so simple & obvious to me! :confused2:

And sure, we all have a LARGE subjective universe. I do too! But then, I am VERY well aware that it is entirely of MY OWN MAKING! Most people do NOT view it that way. And, I have no concern whether anyone else sees it the same way or not, as I do. I don't care. But, many or even most people view many aspects of ones own subjective universe as "if it were objective fact", they base their subjectivity on buying into some aspect of the available options "out there", and they DESIRE others to view it in the SAME WAY! Humans desiring agreement from other humans. Yuck. Wanting and desiring that others "think" along some framework that YOU accept and approve. Yuck. To the degree you do ANY OF THAT is simply a very good measurement of how much "ego" you have "left" still to address and handle. But most people have no interest in confronting any of that. Scientologists very much included!

The line between subjective and objective is VERY blurry indeed, for most people. The problem always arises when some group of bafoons wants to RAM their unique little world of subjectivity down everyone else's throats (Scientology being only one of many)!

I hate to be the one to have to say it, but "subjective", and the imaginary division between "subjective" and "objective", is just another aspect of "ego" and "attachment". In the big picture of long term spiritual evolution, "emotional needs" are meaningless. They disappear, IF one actually grows along the way. Of course, some don't like that idea, the idea of "growth", because it implies that something is wrong with being "human" just as you are (there is), and will hold onto whatever vestige of "ego" one can for as long as possible. I am sure that is not a popular viewpoint to some. Oh well. What else is new? :confused2:

Buddha said that a long time ago, in his discussions of "ego" and "attachment", and look how far THAT idea has taken hold into the minds and practices of modern "human beings"? Not very. Some people took the aspect of "betterment" from Scientology, and having turned away from Scientology, decided to toss all concepts of "betterment" and "improvement" in the garbage with everything else. That is NOT a bright thing to do. Way too general of a dislike. Very stupid thing to do, grasshopper. There can be, and very much is, "growth", "improvement" and "development", on emotional, mental and spiritual levels, outside of the Scientology paradigm.

Scientology often involves promoting complete lies. The Church organization is very adept at misrepresenting "facts" as something else. Hubbard created entire "techs" to do so. To the degree that any person buys into these, regardless of some trumped up "emotional need", or justification of "subjectivity", doesn't change the fact that this person is buying into and helping to CREATE and FORWARD some complete LIE! But, lying to oneself is always the FIRST part.

I find it interesting how many people still like to JUSTIFY it it in some way. It seems some, even who claim to be far out, still resonate with some aspect of the Scn charade! As Paul Simon might say, "Still deluded after all these years"?

 

[Alanzo]

Are you sure he was imaginary? Not joking here. Very young children often (I read) can still perceive and interact with spiritual beings in their vicinity, that older people have lost the ability to perceive. We assume they are not real because we can't perceive them.

Paul

Well, Carpo is not the only imaginary friend that I have had.

In fact, a good friend of mine, Brad, died a couple of months ago, and he and I talked quite a bit after he died. He and another friend of mine, Kelly, who is still alive, would meet together every Christmas Eve and drink beer since we were teenagers. This was the first Christmas eve we met without Brad.

So Kelly and I were sitting there in his four seasons room, drinking beer. And, big as you please, Brad "appeared" in the room with a big red Christmas present in his hands. He was just standing there smiling. Kind of gleaming, in fact.

Brad was an alcoholic who killed himself with alcohol, just like the character in "Leaving Las Vegas". He'd been fired from his job about a year and a half ago for being drunk, and I saw very clearly at the time that he saw it as his chance to eliminate his final barrier to his addiction. He could now drink all day, every day, with nothing to stop him.

Brad had led a very sad life. His only daughter had died in a tragic accident when she was an infant, and when he was in his early 20's, he'd had a car accident that left him with moderate brain damage and a shattered leg that had a recurring bone infection for the rest of his life. Kelly and I were always on a "Brad Project" where we were trying to help him.

In the last year or so, it became too much to bear for me, seeing him kill himself. Addicts are very bad to have around, if you are trying to live a healthy life. I tried to get him to check himself in to a rehab center, and he of course refused. And so I finally had to cut myself off from talking to him. I still helped him do stuff if he asked me, but I stopped socializing with him, and pretty much stayed away from him. Kelly and a few other friends never cut themselves off from him like I did.

So now it was Christmas Eve, and Brad is standing there with a big red Christmas present in his hands, gleaming. I started laughing and I looked at Kelly and I said, "Right now, are you getting any thoughts that seem to have different kind of quality to them? Are you seeing any pictures in your mind?"

He said no.

Brad then told me that it had been very difficult to get anyone to talk to him since he had died. He wanted everyone to know that he was okay, and no one was getting the message.

I told Kelly what Brad had just said.

Kelly still wasn't getting anything. He said that he thinks about Brad a lot, but he doesn't think Brad talks to him.

Brad was one of the funniest guys I had ever known. His sense of irony was unmatched in my circle of friends. He then said something that made me burst into tears and laughter all at the same time.

He said, "Al, you have been my best friend since I've been dead. You are now the only one who will talk to me."

From the viewpoint of the physical universe, this incident was simply my magical thinking giving me a way out of my own guilt for abandoning one of my best friends during a life and death situation, and just letting him die.

But in my universe, it was simply a continuation of my relationship with my friend.

People who justify for L Ron Hubbard are not lying. They have a deep emotional need to believe that Ron is actually answering their mail. So when they sec check you, and they shun you, they are simply doing their best to keep up their beliefs so that their emotional needs do not get the better of them.

There are people who have said that we, as human beings, CAN NOT know the truth of our own existence. We rejected that when we became Scientologists. We KNEW that we could KNOW.

There was a guy named "Alex" who used to be a member of this board. He used to argue here that choice was senior to knowledge.

I now know what he meant.

 

[Gadfly]

Alanzo, I have MANY imaginary realities, that I deal with routinely. If I discussed the details of some of those here, some might say I am "insane". Whatever. :confused2: I don't care, at all. I have ZERO interest in garnering agreement from others (on a personal level).

But I have NO EMOTIONAL NEED for anyone else to accept or agree and continue any "subjective" charade. Do you see the difference?

One CAN be "big enough" to have a subjective universe, and NOT have any emotional need for it to "be true" in any "objective way".

Maybe that isn't real to you.

It is real to me that "emotional needs" can be transcended. And, that THAT is a good thing. That doesn't mean that one can't LOVE all that is - because LOVE can exist far above what is usually known as an "personal emotional reaction or response". Again, THAT is an aspect of "ego".

As I see it, one will never truly know the amazing meaning of the expansive term "love" until one does actually transcend the bounds of all things personal (including "emotional needs").

Alanzo, you talk about these "emotional needs" as if they matter, and as if they are are some legitimate justification for delusion. Now maybe, you are simply observing and describing what seems to be happening with these people. I can agree with that. These people DO what you describe to some degree. For me though, it is NOT OK.

Alanzo, often people who "justify for L. Ron Hubbard" ARE lying. When I saw the LRH Comm squirm and exhibit high degrees of discomfort talking to me about this subject of LRH letters, it was OBVIOUS that she was undergoing large amounts of inner stress and turmoil. No small amount of that. It was very apparent. She COULD see what I was saying WAS TRUE. She even said so. She and others agreed. BUT, she FLIP-FLOPPED, snapping from one viewpoint to another, due to the pressure exerted by her own adopted belief system and interiorized mechanism of control. It isn't one or the other as far as lying goes. It, like everything else, exists on some gradient, and people are aware of it to SOME degree. It is NOT all one of the other.

As always, I could be wrong.

 

[Zinjifar]

There was a guy named "Alex" who used to be a member of this board. He used to argue here that choice was senior to knowledge.

I now know what he meant.

Well, there are wise and unwise choices too.

But, you may remember a little story from Castaneda, about a cat that was being taken in to be 'put to sleep' and that got away. And, Don Juan suggested that Carlos' *choice* should be to believe that the cat survived and lived on happily, because it was a 'tale of power'.

However, there's a difference to maintaining a belief that Nkumbo Wananabe of Nigeria is really going to send you $20 million once you pay his solicitor $2,000. Or that Ron gives a fuck what you write to Him.

Zinj

 

[Gadfly]

However, there's a difference to maintaining a belief that Nkumbo Wananabe of Nigeria is really going to send you $20 million once you pay his solicitor $2,000. Or that Ron gives a fuck what you write to Him.

Zinj

Hey!!! You mean he isn't going to really send me the 20 mil now that I sent him the money order??? I gave him my bank routing number, and everything!

 

[GreyWolf]

I'm not in denial! I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!

Actually I remember there were quite a few times when people would try to tell me about some out policy or out tech thing that had happened to them and my response was to say "go see the D of P, or Go see the ethics officer".
So yeah, I guess I was in denial.

Bob

 

[Alanzo]

Well, there are wise and unwise choices too.

But, you may remember a little story from Castaneda, about a cat that was being taken in to be 'put to sleep' and that got away. And, Don Juan suggested that Carlos' *choice* should be to believe that the cat survived and lived on happily, because it was a 'tale of power'.

However, there's a difference to maintaining a belief that Nkumbo Wananabe of Nigeria is really going to send you $20 million once you pay his solicitor $2,000. Or that Ron gives a fuck what you write to Him.

Zinj

Yes. There are good choices and bad choices.

I was thinking about this just yesterday. It was regarding the concept of COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

When I was a Scientologist, I did not know about COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS, and the quality of my choices suffered as a result.

When I was a Scientologist, I thought only in terms of BENEFIT, and I ignored the costs. The BENEFIT of TOTAL SPIRITUAL FREEDOM was everything. I kept my eyes on the prize and never thought in terms of cost. I gave up every freedom to achieve TOTAL FREEDOM, and never noticed.

Also, earlier in my life, I hardly ever was able to pick up chicks. As a result, I hardly ever got laid. The COSTS of being rejected, or taking home a wacko, were all I looked at. Standing there in the bar, presently having no woman to have sex with, I never noticed that the BENEFITS of systematically going up to each unattached and relatively attractive woman in the bar, and landing a great woman, were actually infinite - especially since I have no woman right now. So never seeing the benefits of being a complete horn-dog and hitting on every woman in my vicinity were lost on me.

Now, I think in terms of a COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS with almost everything in my life.

That's why I've chosen to be an Ex-Scientologist who still believes in the reality of a "theta universe".

See?

COST/BENEFIT.

DENIAL has its benefits, too, as well as its costs.

 

[Gadfly]

Cost/benefit might have some meaning to a personal ego (or business) traipsing through life, but it has little value past that. This is just another version of Hubbard's "survive/succumb" balancing act. More of the same old nonsense where something or some activity is trying to "survive" within and against everything else. More duality.

That is just some weird version of "greatest good for the greatest number". Good = benefit; Bad = Cost. Just balance it out!

Cripes, the Muslim kid putting on the C4 belt of explosives also conducts some sort of "cost versus benefit" analysis when choosing to blow up the bus of school children in the name of his "Islamic cause".

Earth and all its various dramas can easily and probably best be understood as nothing but a complex interaction of various "egos flaunting themselves". Each trying to maximize (personal) "benefit" and reduce (personal) "cost". Yawn. So boring.