haiqu
Patron Meritorious
It's when I see this kind of stuff that I go green with envy for those few lucky souls who had the opportunity to be there at the research phase of this great game. And despite my occasional minor altercations with you, Alan, I do hold you and all original St Hillers in the deepest respect.
When I dropped out last lifetime the tech was barely past the "find a picture and confront it" stage. I came in this time in 1975, after all the very best research was completed, and at a time just prior to the whole thing imploding organizationally. So in effect there were maybe three years during which I could get a feel for what the subject should have been.
There's a great difference between reading about such processes, hearing later from someone who actually ran them, and being in the right time and place to actually participate in history in the making. You've apparently had it all, and since the clock can't be turned back there's nothing I could ever do to compete with that.
Perhaps my frustration with your approach to others lies in this very history. Without making less of your knowingness on the subject, there are a few points which combine to make what you espouse difficult to follow. Amongst those are an apparent rejection of the time track concept in favour of an all-encompassing holographic "now", a lack of presentation of gradients of information and an expectation that others should see things in exactly the same way you do.
Whilst I can grasp most of it there is still much I have to reject, not because of my own inability to see where you're going, but by virtue of the fact that people at lower levels are unlikely to follow it. And in that regard, only one well-versed in basic Scientology or very advanced in some other approach - such as your Buddhist monks - could truly get it. By occasionally playing devil's advocate I had hoped to inspire you to detail the foundations from which you arrived at your philosophy.
The genius of Hubbard's approach is that he continued to simplify and expand the lower runway, so that others could follow. What I get continuously from your messages could be easily interpreted as frustration at the apparent stupidity of others, or simple arrogance. I've concluded that neither is correct, and that you simply assume everyone to have the same background of knowledge and/or case improvement. You might like to address that in your current review of the body of data you're working on.
Meanwhile I'll be starting on the famed Wall of Tapes soon, and perhaps having finally gotten an inkling into the breadth of research on which you base your findings and conclusions I'll be able to participate further in a way that makes sense to you. Not that this is my ultimate goal, since spiritual advancement and complete understanding will always be coloured by personal cognition.
Anyhow, I hope the above goes some way to smoothing what has otherwise become somewhat of a games condition between us recently. But please note that I am not stupid by any measure, and nor do I consider you to be so.
haiqu
