Scientology Tech Evaluated

[Zinjifar]

Oh, I don't know. Hubbard did intend to burn his name into history, as you're so fond of pointing out ad nauseum. And he seems to be succeeding, since even you are contributing to this end. Being controversial sure is one way to do that.

Think about it.

haiqu

Notice is one thing.

Would I buy it for a dollar?

Not bloody likely

Zinj

 

[Veda]

Oh, I don't know. Hubbard did intend to burn his name into history, as you're so fond of pointing out ad nauseum. And he seems to be succeeding, since even you are contributing to this end. Being controversial sure is one way to do that.

Think about it.

haiqu

Hubbard, first and foremost, wanted to create an effect, have an impact, leave his mark.

That trumped everything else.

You think about that.

You're the one who's living in his 'Twilight Zone' doll house.

http://www.freezone.org/cbr/e_tbr_05.htm

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=387

 

[Veda]

Bill Robertson, whose 'Excalibur' you are doing, believed that L. Ron Hubbard was the reincarnated Buddha. And I'd find the link and post it, but I don't feel like wading through the Ron's Orgs lunacy right now. I'm sure you've read it though.

Remember the 'Advance!' magazine covers, from the 1970s, that featured drawings of Hubbard as the Buddha?

It's a given in Scientology that Hubbard was/is the reincarnated Buddha. And you know that. The question is, why are you lying about it? Lying to others or lying to yourself? Which ever it is, it's not good.

As for the booklet that Hubbard called 'The Russian Brainwashing Manual', it was a major 'flub', on so many levels, that it's almost mind boggling.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=387

I should have included these links in the post initially.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=9535&postcount=74

Despite the contention, I'm still attempting to help you. You're too big for that Scientological 'Twilight Zone' Doll House.

If I thought you belonged there, I wouldn't bother.

 

[Terril park]

Hi haiqu.
It is your ability to quote "Am I Mettaya?" out of context that concerns me. So let's put it in context:

We can win
Because our work
Will hold in Check
The Forces That Destroy.
You cannot lose
By following here.
Your Destiny Awaits.

I go
I am amongest you
As a mortal Man
I can appear
To you in
Day or sleep.
I love you.

Am I Metteyya?
I have spoken to you.
You wiLL study soon.
Meanwhile
Good-bye.

As you can see he is more than asking a question, Hubbard is attempting to establish a case. It is in fact, a rhetorical question, is it not? This certainly validates Veda's position, right?

David

I see this as a study tech message. An exhortation
to study, and come to know.

He is smart. Perhaps there is a positioning of him with Buddha ( good PR)

It is inspirational.

Some may say bullshit( I have it on good authority. )

It does show his brilliance in the subject of PR. And maybe he meant some of it.

We may partake or not of this, as is the case with all of the subject.

 

[Zinjifar]

I see this as a study tech message. An exhortation
to study, and come to know.

He is smart. Perhaps there is a positioning of him with Buddha ( good PR)

It is inspirational.

Some may say bullshit( I have it on good authority. )

It does show his brilliance in the subject of PR. And maybe he meant some of it.

We may partake or not of this, as is the case with all of the subject.

Holy shit.

If anything, your interpretation is more embarassing than the vainglorious self-promotion itself

Zinj

 

[haiqu]

Despite the contention, I'm still attempting to help you. You're too big for that Scientological 'Twilight Zone' Doll House.

If I thought you belonged there, I wouldn't bother.

If I thought you had anything better to offer, I'd probably listen.

And I preferred Alanzo's "huge jockstrap with the boots attached" to your Doll House allusion. At least he has a sense of humour.

haiqu

 

[Vinaire]

It is just too arrogant for any person to think that he can help another person by convincing him or her of one's viewpoint.

Such a person is marketing other-determinism while alluding to free speech and self-determinism.

He is, probably, deceiving even himself.

.

 

[Veda]

It is just too arrogant for any person to think that he can help another person by convincing him or her of one's viewpoint.

Such a person is marketing other-determinism while alluding to free speech and self-determinism.

He is, probably, deceiving even himself.

.

Convincing another of one's viewpoint? Huh?

It's suggesting another look at some data.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=9535&postcount=74

I'm so glad I'm not a Scientologist.

Otherwise I'd be "invalidated" right now.

And an "invalidated" Scientologist never forgets!

Oi vey.

 

[Class12]

Scientology Technology Evaluated

Outside of Scientology, simply stated, a problem consists of a goal, barriers, freedoms and various courses of action, as do games. A problem becomes a game if it is seen as a challenge. On the other hand, if a person is overwhelmed, it becomes a crisis.

Inside Scientology, a problem is seen as intention and counter-intention, and the problem is solved by the removal of the counter-intention. ...

Regards, David.

Dear David, I have always understood a problem a effort/counter-effort NOT as intention/counter-intention. Perhaps this is why I have always succeeded in handling problems and problems processes on pcs.

A barrier is the counter effort. The goal, is the effort.

Defining a problem a intention/counter-intention is actually confusing it with PTS. This data has been spread around in later years due to some people "reinterpreting the tech.

Only the acutely PTS (and paranoid) will view any problem as the sole product of counter-intention, because in order to do so, he will have to create imaginary enemies or introvert by digging within himself to find his own alleged counter-intention.

It then becomes a succesful control mechanism and nothing else.

Pierre

This is of course the road to Insanity and a clear description of the current path undertaken by the Church.

 

[NonScio]

Dear David, I have always understood a problem a effort/counter-effort NOT as intention/counter-intention. Perhaps this is why I have always succeeded in handling problems and problems processes on pcs.

A barrier is the counter effort. The goal, is the effort.

Defining a problem a intention/counter-intention is actually confusing it with PTS. This data has been spread around in later years due to some people "reinterpreting the tech.

Only the acutely PTS (and paranoid) will view any problem as the sole product of counter-intention, because in order to do so, he will have to create imaginary enemies or introvert by digging within himself to find his own alleged counter-intention.

It then becomes a succesful control mechanism and nothing else.

Pierre

This is of course the road to Insanity and a clear description of the current path undertaken by the Church.

Sounds like a lot of warmed over, repackaged Hegelian dialectics.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marx, Lenin, Stalin built a whole
New World Order on Dialectical materialism, it grew (like a cancer)
for 70 some years, destroyed millions, and finally imploded as a result
of its own "internal contradictions" (as a marxist would say) or simply
as a result of its utter stupidity.

Actually, as I understand Hubbard, his idea was that the entire MEST
universe was a result of "intention(thesis)/counterintenion (antithesis)"
resulting in a synthesis (mass). The Thetan puts out a "beam" (intention),
another Thetan puts out a counter "beam" (counterintention), and where
the two "beams" collide, a "ridge" of matter is formed. Sort of like
some super wave interference. The "ridge" disappears ("as isses") when
a Thetan observes ("duplicates") it. This, of course, is the complete
opposite of what modern quantum theory postulates, i.e. that a quantum
probability wave collapses into "reality" (MEST) when it is observed.
Modern quantum physics yields consistant results in prediction of
phenomena. The very computers we use would not be possible if
quantum physics was "wrong".

So Hubbard took a little bit of this, a little bit of that, waved his magic
wand and presto, "Scientology". Like Shakespeare's witches kettle,
"eye of newt" etc.."boil, boil, toil and trouble". Only very little of the
"this and that" which Hubbard threw into his brew was actual hard,
verifiable Science. Instead of science fact, he threw in bits and
pieces of philosophical speculation which had been hashed about for
thousands of years. The resulting unpredictabiltiy of his "results"
is totally predictable! "Scientology", what a misnomer! Perhaps
Scatology would be more approriate.

 

[Vinaire]

Sounds like a lot of warmed over, repackaged Hegelian dialectics.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marx, Lenin, Stalin built a whole
New World Order on Dialectical materialism, it grew (like a cancer)
for 70 some years, destroyed millions, and finally imploded as a result
of its own "internal contradictions" (as a marxist would say) or simply
as a result of its utter stupidity.

Actually, as I understand Hubbard, his idea was that the entire MEST
universe was a result of "intention(thesis)/counterintenion (antithesis)"
resulting in a synthesis (mass). The Thetan puts out a "beam" (intention),
another Thetan puts out a counter "beam" (counterintention), and where
the two "beams" collide, a "ridge" of matter is formed. Sort of like
some super wave interference. The "ridge" disappears ("as isses") when
a Thetan observes ("duplicates") it. This, of course, is the complete
opposite of what modern quantum theory postulates, i.e. that a quantum
probability wave collapses into "reality" (MEST) when it is observed.
Modern quantum physics yields consistant results in prediction of
phenomena. The very computers we use would not be possible if
quantum physics was "wrong".

So Hubbard took a little bit of this, a little bit of that, waved his magic
wand and presto, "Scientology". Like Shakespeare's witches kettle,
"eye of newt" etc.."boil, boil, toil and trouble". Only very little of the
"this and that" which Hubbard threw into his brew was actual hard,
verifiable Science. Instead of science fact, he threw in bits and
pieces of philosophical speculation which had been hashed about for
thousands of years. The resulting unpredictabiltiy of his "results"
is totally predictable! "Scientology", what a misnomer! Perhaps
Scatology would be more approriate.

You cannot understand Hubbard or Vedas without first understanding Scientology Axiom # 1 or BRAHMA.

.

 

[Alanzo]

You cannot understand Hubbard or Vedas without first understanding Scientology Axiom # 1 or BRAHMA.

.

And the only way to understand that is to read the Upanishads.

So just read the Upanishads.

 

[NonScio]

Understand Axiom 1?

"Life is basically a Static" ???

"a static has no mass, no wavelength" etc?

"Life" as described in the axiom is not "Life" as I understand it.
To be alive is to have a biological body capable of growth and
reproduction. A definiton of "Life" as having no mass is ridiculous
and is totally contrary to any accepted scientific and commonly
understood definition.

Axiom 1 might be an interesting definition of "Beingness" or "Spirit"
or "Soul" or somesuch, but certainly not "Life"

Man, or "humankind" is body and spirit...everything we recognize
as "alive" has a body of some sort...from bacteria to grey whales.
Whether they all have a spirit is debateable...that they all
have bodies is not. A Body is made of matter, matter has mass.

Axiom 1 is intellectual static...the kind of noise you might hear on
your AM Radio during a thunderstorm...meaningless.

 

[Little Bear Victor]

And the only way to understand that is to read the Upanishads.

So just read the Upanishads.

It'll become clearer as you read the rest of the Vedic literature. Slowly but surely. Or at least slowly.

 

[Vinaire]

Understand Axiom 1?

"Life is basically a Static" ???

"a static has no mass, no wavelength" etc?

"Life" as described in the axiom is not "Life" as I understand it.
To be alive is to have a biological body capable of growth and
reproduction. A definiton of "Life" as having no mass is ridiculous
and is totally contrary to any accepted scientific and commonly
understood definition.

Axiom 1 might be an interesting definition of "Beingness" or "Spirit"
or "Soul" or somesuch, but certainly not "Life"

Man, or "humankind" is body and spirit...everything we recognize
as "alive" has a body of some sort...from bacteria to grey whales.
Whether they all have a spirit is debateable...that they all
have bodies is not. A Body is made of matter, matter has mass.

Axiom 1 is intellectual static...the kind of noise you might hear on
your AM Radio during a thunderstorm...meaningless.

Here is the problem.

People are stuck with the mass, and have lost all their capability of producing that mass in the first place.

.

 

[NonScio]

Here is the problem.

People are stuck with the mass, and have lost all their capability of producing that mass in the first place.

.

Well, as the old saying goes, "you can't have your cake and eat it too"!

To be alive, to participate in "Life", you need a body, ergo you are
"stuck with the mass" as long as you are alive. When you are
"dead" you are no longer encumbered with a body, but alas, you
are no longer alive! Static you may be, alive ya ain't!

 

[Vinaire]

Well, as the old saying goes, "you can't have your cake and eat it too"!

To be alive, to participate in "Life", you need a body, ergo you are
"stuck with the mass" as long as you are alive. When you are
"dead" you are no longer encumbered with a body, but alas, you
are no longer alive! Static you may be, alive ya ain't!

I know that is the Semitic viewpoint. But I subscribe to the Vedic viewpoint.

If you know how to create your cake out of nothing... you can have as many cakes as you want and eat them too.

There is no scarcity.

.

 

[Alanzo]

It'll become clearer as you read the rest of the Vedic literature. Slowly but surely. Or at least slowly.

And don't call me Shirley.

 

[Vinaire]

And don't call me Shirley.

.

 

[NonScio]

I know that is the Semitic viewpoint. But I subscribe to the Vedic viewpoint.

If you know how to create your cake out of nothing... you can have as many cakes as you want and eat them too.

There is no scarcity.

.

Sounds great, so long as you have the recipe for the cake! Some would
say that if you use the Scientology recipe, you get nothing but
Clam Cakes.

Christianity postulates a self rising cake...so long as you use the correct yeast (Jesus Christ). Jews are partial to non rising cakes (matzoh)
which are really good in soup.