Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Yah. It's considered a bad indicator if they don't immediately reup.
Yah. It's considered a bad indicator if they don't immediately reup.
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
With any type of counseling, one often gets what one gives.
With any type of counseling, one often gets what one gives.
lkwdblds
Crusader
The Movie, "Going Clear"
Purple Haze invited me to go to the ARC Lite theater in Hollywood yesterday to see the new HBO Documentary about COS, "Going Clear." Purple and I decided to arrive early and eat a meal in the the dining room of the Arc Lite. I had visited this theatre twice before, in 1954 for "This is Cinerama" and in 1962 for "It's a Mad Mad World."
Before the movie started we ran into some old timers who recognized us. One was Robert Burns, an ex Scio who lives in Huntington Beach, CA. He's on Facebook and put on a large party for exes at his home about 3 years ago. Another guy came up to us and seemed to know me. He turned out to be Mike M. who I remembered as playing classical guitar at the old CCLA. He told me that he also played backup for Jimmy Spheeris, now deceased, who used to come in from New York City and play at CCLA. Suddenly, there was a fig hubub at the entry door as Spanky was entering with an entourage of 3 other women. Spanky appears in the movie as the one who introduced John Travolta to COS. Spanky did not know who Mike and I were but when we told her she gave us both big hugs.
The next action was the arrival of Tory. She came in a small entourage and everyone there immediately went to greet her. Lynne Fountain Campbell was also there and was, as always, her friendly self.
On to the movie, the movie started out in the same manner as Lawrence Wright's book, on which it was based. In it's opening phase of 10 - 15 minutes, it was almost complementary to Hubbard, early Dianetics and early Scientology. Toward the end of the opening segment, Jason Beghe and then Paul Haggis give long and entertaining videos telling how they got in, what they liked and why they stayed. Both then take up why they left and the details of what happened when they decided to leave. The third person to be featured was Mike Rinder. He tells his early history in COS then begins telling of some of his negative experiences. He delves into his relationship with DM and how his position with COS demanded that he lie about certain things. Being forced to lie over and over on public media started to effect his opinion of himself and what he was doing as his life's work. There were many motives for his finally leaving COS but my understanding of what he said was that it all started when he realized that lying was his life's work.
Auditing confessionals are heavily touched upon and it is told that DM ordered major renovations be done on many large orgs and part of every renovation was installing two cameras and a mike in each auditing room. One camera focuses on the meter and the other on the preclears face. Every session given in an auditing room is then taped in this manner. The idea is that if a parishioner, especially a celebrity, ever gets out of line and threatens to leave, COS will be able to control them by threatening to expose these videos to the public.
Rinder also goes into the physical beatings administered by senior execs to staff. Tom De Voght comes on and backs up Rinder's story and also tells of his own experiences. The movie proceeds in chronological order. touching on all the major controversial aspects of COS including forced disconnection from family members.
The opening of the movie mainly concerns LRH. This portion ends upon LRH's death and then touches on how DM was able to take over COS. Things are presented chronologically and in the factual manner of a documentary. Each point presented in this documentary is supported by facts and video interviews and clips. The movie doesn't go for a knockout blow but instead builds slowly and steadily, gaining momentum as it goes. In the end, viewers are left to arrive at their own conclusions.
Oh yes, OT III and the Xenu story are presented in detail in cartoon form. I never really accepted this story but thought that I was the exception. The movie reveals that many, if not most people, rejected the story as being too far fetched to be true. Jason Beghe was extreme is this regard as was Paul Haggis, just to mention two people. Most people reject the story as not plausible but since we were not allowed to talk about it with others, each person feels they are odd man out when they actually hold the majority opinion.
In closing, the movie is very good. It's not an exciting movie and it probably won't go on people's lists as one of the top movies of all time. It is a good, sound and thorough documentary film which needed to be made and has now achieved that goal. Its documentation, fact checking and thoroughness are painstaking. The film makers inform us that they invited existing church members to make videos presenting their views to the public but all such requests were turned down.
I believe that the two topics featured in the movie which will damage COS the most are #1, the existence of disconnection is now permanently established so solidly that if COS spokespeople lie and deny that it exists, they will be made into laughing stocks whom the public will ridicule. #2 will be the knowledge that all auditing sessions in the newer more modern buildings are all being video taped. Why would anyone want to pay money for auditing, knowing going in that everything which they say in session is video taped and that no priest penitant restriction is being used by COS. In fact just the opposite is the truth. If any parishioner is upset with COS and complains about COS to the public, COS won't hesitate for a minute to bring out harmful information which the person has revealed about himself in session. Once this becomes public knowledge, being audited inside a COS church, especially at Flag, should dry up.
COS fights back by not letting their members read the internet, read newspapers, magazines, watch TV news or hear radio news. Doing this may limit the damage for a while but eventually the dam will break since most people ultimately reject being told or ordered what they can and cannot read or watch.
Lakey
Purple Haze invited me to go to the ARC Lite theater in Hollywood yesterday to see the new HBO Documentary about COS, "Going Clear." Purple and I decided to arrive early and eat a meal in the the dining room of the Arc Lite. I had visited this theatre twice before, in 1954 for "This is Cinerama" and in 1962 for "It's a Mad Mad World."
Before the movie started we ran into some old timers who recognized us. One was Robert Burns, an ex Scio who lives in Huntington Beach, CA. He's on Facebook and put on a large party for exes at his home about 3 years ago. Another guy came up to us and seemed to know me. He turned out to be Mike M. who I remembered as playing classical guitar at the old CCLA. He told me that he also played backup for Jimmy Spheeris, now deceased, who used to come in from New York City and play at CCLA. Suddenly, there was a fig hubub at the entry door as Spanky was entering with an entourage of 3 other women. Spanky appears in the movie as the one who introduced John Travolta to COS. Spanky did not know who Mike and I were but when we told her she gave us both big hugs.
The next action was the arrival of Tory. She came in a small entourage and everyone there immediately went to greet her. Lynne Fountain Campbell was also there and was, as always, her friendly self.
On to the movie, the movie started out in the same manner as Lawrence Wright's book, on which it was based. In it's opening phase of 10 - 15 minutes, it was almost complementary to Hubbard, early Dianetics and early Scientology. Toward the end of the opening segment, Jason Beghe and then Paul Haggis give long and entertaining videos telling how they got in, what they liked and why they stayed. Both then take up why they left and the details of what happened when they decided to leave. The third person to be featured was Mike Rinder. He tells his early history in COS then begins telling of some of his negative experiences. He delves into his relationship with DM and how his position with COS demanded that he lie about certain things. Being forced to lie over and over on public media started to effect his opinion of himself and what he was doing as his life's work. There were many motives for his finally leaving COS but my understanding of what he said was that it all started when he realized that lying was his life's work.
Auditing confessionals are heavily touched upon and it is told that DM ordered major renovations be done on many large orgs and part of every renovation was installing two cameras and a mike in each auditing room. One camera focuses on the meter and the other on the preclears face. Every session given in an auditing room is then taped in this manner. The idea is that if a parishioner, especially a celebrity, ever gets out of line and threatens to leave, COS will be able to control them by threatening to expose these videos to the public.
Rinder also goes into the physical beatings administered by senior execs to staff. Tom De Voght comes on and backs up Rinder's story and also tells of his own experiences. The movie proceeds in chronological order. touching on all the major controversial aspects of COS including forced disconnection from family members.
The opening of the movie mainly concerns LRH. This portion ends upon LRH's death and then touches on how DM was able to take over COS. Things are presented chronologically and in the factual manner of a documentary. Each point presented in this documentary is supported by facts and video interviews and clips. The movie doesn't go for a knockout blow but instead builds slowly and steadily, gaining momentum as it goes. In the end, viewers are left to arrive at their own conclusions.
Oh yes, OT III and the Xenu story are presented in detail in cartoon form. I never really accepted this story but thought that I was the exception. The movie reveals that many, if not most people, rejected the story as being too far fetched to be true. Jason Beghe was extreme is this regard as was Paul Haggis, just to mention two people. Most people reject the story as not plausible but since we were not allowed to talk about it with others, each person feels they are odd man out when they actually hold the majority opinion.
In closing, the movie is very good. It's not an exciting movie and it probably won't go on people's lists as one of the top movies of all time. It is a good, sound and thorough documentary film which needed to be made and has now achieved that goal. Its documentation, fact checking and thoroughness are painstaking. The film makers inform us that they invited existing church members to make videos presenting their views to the public but all such requests were turned down.
I believe that the two topics featured in the movie which will damage COS the most are #1, the existence of disconnection is now permanently established so solidly that if COS spokespeople lie and deny that it exists, they will be made into laughing stocks whom the public will ridicule. #2 will be the knowledge that all auditing sessions in the newer more modern buildings are all being video taped. Why would anyone want to pay money for auditing, knowing going in that everything which they say in session is video taped and that no priest penitant restriction is being used by COS. In fact just the opposite is the truth. If any parishioner is upset with COS and complains about COS to the public, COS won't hesitate for a minute to bring out harmful information which the person has revealed about himself in session. Once this becomes public knowledge, being audited inside a COS church, especially at Flag, should dry up.
COS fights back by not letting their members read the internet, read newspapers, magazines, watch TV news or hear radio news. Doing this may limit the damage for a while but eventually the dam will break since most people ultimately reject being told or ordered what they can and cannot read or watch.
Lakey
Last edited:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
Lakey, I am only commenting on this detail because I have not yet seen Going Clear so I can't comment on the film. I will probably wait until it hits Amazon or Netflix.
I want to make a point about the OT III issue, what you said, that many who do that level do not 'believe' it.
Think about what I am about to say next carefully folks:
1. If one truly had been in the volcano and remembered it, then belief would not be in play, but memory. An actual recall of something real that happened is not a belief. Scientology claims not to be about beliefs. It claims it is scientific and that we will each find out for ourselves, be able to verify for ourselves, that everything it tells us is true.
2. If a person runs OT III and is an OT yet does not remember OT III, then yes it is a matter of 'belief' whether OT III happened. In which case, there are only two possibilities that arise for that person. First, the OT levels are a sham. Since the person who believes in OT III and ran OT III and has not actually REMEMBERED OT III then OT III either did not happen and OT III is a sham OR OT III did happen and there is something out tech going on since you can't 'run' incidents on the basis of belief. You can only run them on recall. The entire structure of auditing is that one runs out things that actually happened. The difference of OT levels is that instead of running out whatever the file clerk gives, Scientology evaluates for the person and tell us which incidents to run. This is evaluation pure and simple. So if there actually is an OT III, each person would in theory be able to eventually run it on their own without evaluation. Therefore if they run the process on OT III per the hcob and they were untouched by the tech then they must be incorrectly classified OT and should redo all the bridge or else there is no OT level to attain and it's all fabrication.
So either their entire bridge is messed up because they are unable to remember incidents involved with OT III which would mean that they need to redo the bridge so they will remember it for themselves OR the entire bridge is a sham.
I will argue that the latter is the case and that no matter how many times a person redid the bridge, they would never reach joy (times over = certainty). And they would be a bit financially poorer for the attempt. OT III would simply remain a belief and not a memory. Further, the very idea of times over = certainty is a kind of brainwashing or desensitization process. Also worthless.
Lakey, I am only commenting on this detail because I have not yet seen Going Clear so I can't comment on the film. I will probably wait until it hits Amazon or Netflix.
I want to make a point about the OT III issue, what you said, that many who do that level do not 'believe' it.
Think about what I am about to say next carefully folks:
1. If one truly had been in the volcano and remembered it, then belief would not be in play, but memory. An actual recall of something real that happened is not a belief. Scientology claims not to be about beliefs. It claims it is scientific and that we will each find out for ourselves, be able to verify for ourselves, that everything it tells us is true.
2. If a person runs OT III and is an OT yet does not remember OT III, then yes it is a matter of 'belief' whether OT III happened. In which case, there are only two possibilities that arise for that person. First, the OT levels are a sham. Since the person who believes in OT III and ran OT III and has not actually REMEMBERED OT III then OT III either did not happen and OT III is a sham OR OT III did happen and there is something out tech going on since you can't 'run' incidents on the basis of belief. You can only run them on recall. The entire structure of auditing is that one runs out things that actually happened. The difference of OT levels is that instead of running out whatever the file clerk gives, Scientology evaluates for the person and tell us which incidents to run. This is evaluation pure and simple. So if there actually is an OT III, each person would in theory be able to eventually run it on their own without evaluation. Therefore if they run the process on OT III per the hcob and they were untouched by the tech then they must be incorrectly classified OT and should redo all the bridge or else there is no OT level to attain and it's all fabrication.
So either their entire bridge is messed up because they are unable to remember incidents involved with OT III which would mean that they need to redo the bridge so they will remember it for themselves OR the entire bridge is a sham.
I will argue that the latter is the case and that no matter how many times a person redid the bridge, they would never reach joy (times over = certainty). And they would be a bit financially poorer for the attempt. OT III would simply remain a belief and not a memory. Further, the very idea of times over = certainty is a kind of brainwashing or desensitization process. Also worthless.
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
This post showcases what I am coming to realize as "vintage" Maria Cuervo!! Her keen mind slices like a delicate but sharp scythe, to separate fact from fiction. I believe that her above post brings up a subject almost self evident and even axiomatic in simplicity and power. As self evident as her words are, I don't believe that I have ever encountered her principle idea anywhere else in any of the ex scientology sites. Her line of reasoning is strong and direct and yet her principle is simple. Things of that nature usually add up to being basic truths. In all of ESMB and on all sites dealing with Scientology I don't know of anyone besides her who was able to discern that obvious flaw in Hubbard's OT III technology write up. I, for one, never had that thought occur to me, even after all these years of studying scientology and ex sceintology. It's certain that Hubbard himself did not see that obvious flaw in his story when he decreed that we all had to accept the OT 3 materials as Gospel.
Maria, I can't believe that you claim that you don't have much natural aptitude for math because the type of reasoning which you display in your post above seems to me to be similar to the reasoning of the best mathematicians such as Leibniz, Euler, Gauss and Reimann, not to mention Euclid and Archimedes from Greek antiquity. Back around 300 BC in ancient Greece, well before the Arabic number system was in use and when systems such as the Roman numerals were used for doing arithmetic, the ancient Greeks became very interest in prime numbers, numbers such as 2,3,5.7,11,13.... which had the property that they could not be factored, the only factors they had were themselves and one, i.e. 5 = 1 times 5.
The natural question arose as to whether the set of prime numbers was infinite or whether there was a last primer number and after that all numbers were made up of 2 or more factors. Back in Euclid's time, about 300 BC, with a rudimentary number system which was very hard to use, the problem appeared to be beyond man's ability to solve. The biggest numbers societies deal with in those times probably had to do with shipping and commerce where numbers in the thousands might arise. Try and divide 3,983 units of money by 873 bags of grain, using Roman numerals and you will see what I mean. In ancient times, dealing with numbers of that size was taught only in Universities.
So then here comes Euclid, seeking a way to determine if there is a largest prime number. Maybe only one person in a million would have any chance whatever to solve this problem but Euclid was able to do it with ease using a very short proof not even involving and actual arithmetic but mainly involving logic . To see how Euclid did it, if any one is interested, here is a link to his solution: https://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
Even in today's world, even in a university Math class, it would be interesting to see how many students could figure out the solution to this problem on their own. It takes cleverness, originality and creativity to solve it but the actual solution is surprisingly simple. I would guess that in a typical university freshman math class, less than 1% would be able to solve this problem. Maybe at Cal Tech or MIT the percentage might rise to 25% or perhaps even higher because only the ultimate math brainiacs can gain admittance to such institutions.
In closing, I want to once again thank Maria for her "vintage" post.
Lakey
This post showcases what I am coming to realize as "vintage" Maria Cuervo!! Her keen mind slices like a delicate but sharp scythe, to separate fact from fiction. I believe that her above post brings up a subject almost self evident and even axiomatic in simplicity and power. As self evident as her words are, I don't believe that I have ever encountered her principle idea anywhere else in any of the ex scientology sites. Her line of reasoning is strong and direct and yet her principle is simple. Things of that nature usually add up to being basic truths. In all of ESMB and on all sites dealing with Scientology I don't know of anyone besides her who was able to discern that obvious flaw in Hubbard's OT III technology write up. I, for one, never had that thought occur to me, even after all these years of studying scientology and ex sceintology. It's certain that Hubbard himself did not see that obvious flaw in his story when he decreed that we all had to accept the OT 3 materials as Gospel.
Maria, I can't believe that you claim that you don't have much natural aptitude for math because the type of reasoning which you display in your post above seems to me to be similar to the reasoning of the best mathematicians such as Leibniz, Euler, Gauss and Reimann, not to mention Euclid and Archimedes from Greek antiquity. Back around 300 BC in ancient Greece, well before the Arabic number system was in use and when systems such as the Roman numerals were used for doing arithmetic, the ancient Greeks became very interest in prime numbers, numbers such as 2,3,5.7,11,13.... which had the property that they could not be factored, the only factors they had were themselves and one, i.e. 5 = 1 times 5.
The natural question arose as to whether the set of prime numbers was infinite or whether there was a last primer number and after that all numbers were made up of 2 or more factors. Back in Euclid's time, about 300 BC, with a rudimentary number system which was very hard to use, the problem appeared to be beyond man's ability to solve. The biggest numbers societies deal with in those times probably had to do with shipping and commerce where numbers in the thousands might arise. Try and divide 3,983 units of money by 873 bags of grain, using Roman numerals and you will see what I mean. In ancient times, dealing with numbers of that size was taught only in Universities.
So then here comes Euclid, seeking a way to determine if there is a largest prime number. Maybe only one person in a million would have any chance whatever to solve this problem but Euclid was able to do it with ease using a very short proof not even involving and actual arithmetic but mainly involving logic . To see how Euclid did it, if any one is interested, here is a link to his solution: https://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
Even in today's world, even in a university Math class, it would be interesting to see how many students could figure out the solution to this problem on their own. It takes cleverness, originality and creativity to solve it but the actual solution is surprisingly simple. I would guess that in a typical university freshman math class, less than 1% would be able to solve this problem. Maybe at Cal Tech or MIT the percentage might rise to 25% or perhaps even higher because only the ultimate math brainiacs can gain admittance to such institutions.
In closing, I want to once again thank Maria for her "vintage" post.
Lakey
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
I was for years a computer programmer....mostly web apps. But you know, I didn't do work requiring math, except perhaps vote tabulating type numbers, averages etc. for the purpose of graphs and grids. I never did reach college calculus. My math is purely boolean either/or or in the switch category: here are a bunch of multiple choice options, depending on the input to the function then do one of them. So I admit I can be logical and notice little tiny outpoints, but my logic is structural. If given x sentence I can look at it and tell you what's wrong with it without fail. The way that I will do this is first looking at the logical organization of something I am reading. If what is claimed is the same old thing claimed since Socrates first began philosophizing, then I am aware of most arguments which destroy a specific logic and I can see that my opponent is working in a vacuum, naive of the ancient failure of their claims. Without realizing it, most of what Scilons and FZers post is the same stuff hashed out since 5000 years ago. Scn was never all that original. The only novel parts are space opera sc-fi and the emeter and the jargon. Most of the time I see arguments on some point here and I can only sigh since the truth of it has been gone over until it was death warmed over BEFORE Scientology even was dreamed up by LRH. A common error is to conflate issues and deal with them as if they were one. So part of seeing the logical structure is to determine what the thesis or theses are and destroy them one by one. While I want to be gentle about it, unfortunately I am trained to destroy arguments. That is what an advanced degree in philosophy offers - deep understanding of arguments given on many subjects throughout history + learning how to argue thus destroy the arguments of others.
I love Leibniz and Reimann, and also Godel even though I can't read his math since I don't understand it. For Leibniz, which I did teach to my students in philosophy, I would read his philosophical works not the others. For reimann I can only read him via secondary sources. I have read him via Deleuze, and I have read ALL of Deleuze. For Godel I can read none but I have read via secondary sources enough to get a sense of a few concepts, and also via Deleuze. Basically, I get my math via philosophy. If I were young now, I would definitely study maths but since my mother was a mathematician and topologist, I think I avoided the field. LOL. Never was deep into Spinoza although Aristotle I have studied all. Actually, if I gave the list of what I have studied and read in depth, not sure it would fit here. But most of philosophy is wrong of course. And ALL of Scientology is wrong. And understanding Nietzsche and Deleuze as I do, I could NEVER again even entertain the slightest thought that Scn in any aspect, no matter how low on the bridge, is worth 2 cents. Sorry. BTW, Nietzsche is revolted by those movements that led up to the nazis. But his sister Elisabeth was into it all, and she is the one who USED Nietzsche that way. So please do not blame Nietzsche, as he is often blamed, since that is entirely a wrong understanding of Nietzsche. True the nazis USED him via Elisabeth. False that he would ever have approved. There are numerous 'varieties' of Nietzschean-isms, all over the political spectrum. I'm not that interested in ologies or isms etc. so I ignore all that.
I am only limited on arguing if the arguments are mathematical and outside of my scope since I can't understand the logic in order to make any argument about it. If the belief, meme, thought, story arc or what have you is in a speaking not math language THEN yes I can do something there.
I was for years a computer programmer....mostly web apps. But you know, I didn't do work requiring math, except perhaps vote tabulating type numbers, averages etc. for the purpose of graphs and grids. I never did reach college calculus. My math is purely boolean either/or or in the switch category: here are a bunch of multiple choice options, depending on the input to the function then do one of them. So I admit I can be logical and notice little tiny outpoints, but my logic is structural. If given x sentence I can look at it and tell you what's wrong with it without fail. The way that I will do this is first looking at the logical organization of something I am reading. If what is claimed is the same old thing claimed since Socrates first began philosophizing, then I am aware of most arguments which destroy a specific logic and I can see that my opponent is working in a vacuum, naive of the ancient failure of their claims. Without realizing it, most of what Scilons and FZers post is the same stuff hashed out since 5000 years ago. Scn was never all that original. The only novel parts are space opera sc-fi and the emeter and the jargon. Most of the time I see arguments on some point here and I can only sigh since the truth of it has been gone over until it was death warmed over BEFORE Scientology even was dreamed up by LRH. A common error is to conflate issues and deal with them as if they were one. So part of seeing the logical structure is to determine what the thesis or theses are and destroy them one by one. While I want to be gentle about it, unfortunately I am trained to destroy arguments. That is what an advanced degree in philosophy offers - deep understanding of arguments given on many subjects throughout history + learning how to argue thus destroy the arguments of others.
I love Leibniz and Reimann, and also Godel even though I can't read his math since I don't understand it. For Leibniz, which I did teach to my students in philosophy, I would read his philosophical works not the others. For reimann I can only read him via secondary sources. I have read him via Deleuze, and I have read ALL of Deleuze. For Godel I can read none but I have read via secondary sources enough to get a sense of a few concepts, and also via Deleuze. Basically, I get my math via philosophy. If I were young now, I would definitely study maths but since my mother was a mathematician and topologist, I think I avoided the field. LOL. Never was deep into Spinoza although Aristotle I have studied all. Actually, if I gave the list of what I have studied and read in depth, not sure it would fit here. But most of philosophy is wrong of course. And ALL of Scientology is wrong. And understanding Nietzsche and Deleuze as I do, I could NEVER again even entertain the slightest thought that Scn in any aspect, no matter how low on the bridge, is worth 2 cents. Sorry. BTW, Nietzsche is revolted by those movements that led up to the nazis. But his sister Elisabeth was into it all, and she is the one who USED Nietzsche that way. So please do not blame Nietzsche, as he is often blamed, since that is entirely a wrong understanding of Nietzsche. True the nazis USED him via Elisabeth. False that he would ever have approved. There are numerous 'varieties' of Nietzschean-isms, all over the political spectrum. I'm not that interested in ologies or isms etc. so I ignore all that.
I am only limited on arguing if the arguments are mathematical and outside of my scope since I can't understand the logic in order to make any argument about it. If the belief, meme, thought, story arc or what have you is in a speaking not math language THEN yes I can do something there.
Last edited:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
What I love - Leibniz.
Leibniz: the entire theory of the monad/soul is amazingly complex and I have studied it and taught it. It's what finally did convince me that all the enlightenment free will, the consciousness, Descartes "I think" and its importance, blah blah, was claptrap. Therefore since I can't be a Cartesian there is NO Way I could be a scientologist as the family tree goes Descartes -> Kant -> a few others I won't name -> Freud -> versions of the New Age mumbo jumbo mixed in -> LRH
Reimann: the topological arrangement of space such that it folds and allows for wormholes and repetitions along the cuts and joins. This contributes a lot to Deleuze's thought, meaning Reimann has interesting implications in philosophy and cosmology. He (Deleuze) did write a book on Leibniz.
What I love - Leibniz.
Leibniz: the entire theory of the monad/soul is amazingly complex and I have studied it and taught it. It's what finally did convince me that all the enlightenment free will, the consciousness, Descartes "I think" and its importance, blah blah, was claptrap. Therefore since I can't be a Cartesian there is NO Way I could be a scientologist as the family tree goes Descartes -> Kant -> a few others I won't name -> Freud -> versions of the New Age mumbo jumbo mixed in -> LRH
Reimann: the topological arrangement of space such that it folds and allows for wormholes and repetitions along the cuts and joins. This contributes a lot to Deleuze's thought, meaning Reimann has interesting implications in philosophy and cosmology. He (Deleuze) did write a book on Leibniz.
Last edited:
ILove2Lurk
Lisbeth Salander
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
Personally, I think this is a significant point being he discovered and promoted a fully realized "science" of the mind and spirit.
I mean truthfully the key question would be: "Do I want to follow in his exact footsteps and end up in the same state late in life?"
If I can be that real and blunt.
Did they say he died of natural causes or did they delve into the Sarge revelations?
Personally, I think this is a significant point being he discovered and promoted a fully realized "science" of the mind and spirit.
I mean truthfully the key question would be: "Do I want to follow in his exact footsteps and end up in the same state late in life?"
If I can be that real and blunt.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
What they did is show a video of the event held a few days after LRH's death where a very young looking DM spoke and announced the shore story that LRH accomplished his mission here and was moving on to study a level so advanced that before it could be studied, one had to first shed his or her Earthly body since the body was just an impediment which would get in the way of succeeding with the study.
I never for a moment believed that phony Shore Story, a "Shore Story: to end all shore stories that DM probably consulting with Norman Starkey and Pat Broeker came i[ wotj. reasoning that if they told the truth and admitted that LRH had been in poor health for years, had had several strokes and died of a stroke at age 74, it was likely that thousands of parishioners would immediately leave COS enmasse.
They would think, "Where are the superpowers, where is being cause, objectively and subjectively over matter, energy. space and time? Why shell out $650. $750, even $1,000 an hour for auditing if you were going to have a series of strokes and die of a stroke at age 74? A phony shore story had to be concocted and that weak and easy to see through shore story was the best that trio of senior execs could come up with. IT WAS SO MUCH AN AD HOC SOLUTION TO EXPLAIN AWAY LRH'S DEATH THAT NOTHING COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS.
At that time, I was still gung ho on Scientology and even though I saw through this childishly naive shore story, I never even considered leaving COS. Captain Bill Robertson came up with much better shore stories, just be delving into Space Opera.
Commodore L RON Hubbard resumed his former name of Elron Elray, and was called back to serve the Galaxy back at headquarters on some distant planet in the Markabian star sytem of our Galaxy. He is currently active their serving in that capacity and Captain Bill communicates to him daily via telepathy. In fact the old Galactic fight song from millions of years past still exists and is proudly sung by Captain Bill and his enlightened followers. At the Galaxy Bowl, the fight song is avidly played while Elron Elray and his loyal officer minions muster the power to once again defeat and subjugate the evil Overlord of this sector of the Galaxy, the one and only Xenu.
Why couldn't DM and company come up with a shore story like that? That one would have really boomed the stats! Hip, Hip, Hooray for Elron Elray. If and when Ron has to run for re election, his campaign slogan would be the snazzy motto, "ALL THE WAY WITH ELRON ELRAY!"
Lakey
What they did is show a video of the event held a few days after LRH's death where a very young looking DM spoke and announced the shore story that LRH accomplished his mission here and was moving on to study a level so advanced that before it could be studied, one had to first shed his or her Earthly body since the body was just an impediment which would get in the way of succeeding with the study.
I never for a moment believed that phony Shore Story, a "Shore Story: to end all shore stories that DM probably consulting with Norman Starkey and Pat Broeker came i[ wotj. reasoning that if they told the truth and admitted that LRH had been in poor health for years, had had several strokes and died of a stroke at age 74, it was likely that thousands of parishioners would immediately leave COS enmasse.
They would think, "Where are the superpowers, where is being cause, objectively and subjectively over matter, energy. space and time? Why shell out $650. $750, even $1,000 an hour for auditing if you were going to have a series of strokes and die of a stroke at age 74? A phony shore story had to be concocted and that weak and easy to see through shore story was the best that trio of senior execs could come up with. IT WAS SO MUCH AN AD HOC SOLUTION TO EXPLAIN AWAY LRH'S DEATH THAT NOTHING COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS.
At that time, I was still gung ho on Scientology and even though I saw through this childishly naive shore story, I never even considered leaving COS. Captain Bill Robertson came up with much better shore stories, just be delving into Space Opera.
Commodore L RON Hubbard resumed his former name of Elron Elray, and was called back to serve the Galaxy back at headquarters on some distant planet in the Markabian star sytem of our Galaxy. He is currently active their serving in that capacity and Captain Bill communicates to him daily via telepathy. In fact the old Galactic fight song from millions of years past still exists and is proudly sung by Captain Bill and his enlightened followers. At the Galaxy Bowl, the fight song is avidly played while Elron Elray and his loyal officer minions muster the power to once again defeat and subjugate the evil Overlord of this sector of the Galaxy, the one and only Xenu.
Why couldn't DM and company come up with a shore story like that? That one would have really boomed the stats! Hip, Hip, Hooray for Elron Elray. If and when Ron has to run for re election, his campaign slogan would be the snazzy motto, "ALL THE WAY WITH ELRON ELRAY!"
Lakey
ILove2Lurk
Lisbeth Salander
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
Did you run into the goon squad outside
the theater handing out goldenrods?
View attachment 9730the theater handing out goldenrods?
:wink2:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
I watched Mullholland Falls again.WOW. Pt I of my review. Sorry it has to be in parts
What a great movie. It's a canonical neo-noir crime movie, including black and white parts. It's a necessary movie to have watched, especially if someone lives in LA. LOL.
Love the opening credits, the home movie video, reminiscent of a secret cam panning and watching at all times, an all seeing eye. And from this the scene switches to the hidden camera in Allison's (Jennifer Connelly) bedroom mirror which allows us to see the gorgeous and tender strip scene. The black stocking is canonical! Every male should repeat that action at least once in their life. And what a body on her. Sh**. It is spooky and touching, the scene of her sleeping there covered in a sheet and flower petals at the end of the strip and sex....because it foreshadows the affair's end, and her corpse (found in the desert a couple scenes later).
The next scene explains the joke of the movie's title, and also that after all, this is LA, NOT America. So what happens here certain falls within LA operating procedure. LOL. The guy that ends up beat up and thrown over the 'falls' is thrown over by the cop who stars, Nick Nolte, and other cops who are with him.
Nolte at first seems this sort tough guy but also an average Joe with a lovely, although not Connelly-georgeous, wife (Melanie Griffith) and a nice house etc. My theory is that he is attracted to Griffith and loves her, but heck, he is a guy, so later that's why he sleeps with Connelly, becomes smitten with her. An opportunity appeared. So he falls in love with Connelly but he loves his wife too. His pain to discover that Connelly/Allison made love with the character Malkovich plays, General Timms, is obvious. Later Allison's gay friend identifies Max/Nolte at the guy Allison said can't turn anyone down. Ouch.
I love the sets for this film, the old-fashioned room that Allison lives in, the nicer house that Max and his wife are kissing in at the beginning. It is really intense when Max lies in Allison's pink bed and smells her handkerchief, running his own lovemaking "film" / memory with her (in his mind). Lots of good actors, Madsen and others. I love the scene where Max/Nolte OD's the pedophile as the pedophile begs Allison, "Jesus Christ, call the cops!" and Max says, "I am the cops" as he sticks him with the hypodermic. I do not smoke but when Allison offers Max a cigarette by bringing it to his lips, I can see why he would not be able to refuse to 'smoke'. It was definitely a metaphor of his affair with her. He could not turn her down anymore than he could turn down that cigarette. The minute she put that in his mouth he was through. She illustrated the difference between herself and his wife. The wife is entirely tame, under his thumb. Allison has tamed him, left him a sodding mess. Maybe this is why he left her, in part....destroyed her. Guilt over cheating on his wife but knowledge that should he leave his wife for Allison she would NEVER be tamed, turned into a wife. He doesn't believe in weakness. Being weak or being cruel. So he avoids being weak and leaves Allison and he avoids being cruel by keeping the affair from the wife. And this is part of the current plot, running side by side with flashback scenes, how to get back the hidden film from the mirror, of himself and Allison and taken by Jimmy Fields (Andrew McCarthy) who plays Allison's gay best friend. so Max is a cop. He wants to restore order, and his own domestic tranquility. He wants things less complicated, he says, to carry his own water. But things keep happening to prevent that, right in the periphery of the camera....
I have watched this movie multiple times. It's always amazing and surprising...more soon.
What a great movie. It's a canonical neo-noir crime movie, including black and white parts. It's a necessary movie to have watched, especially if someone lives in LA. LOL.
Love the opening credits, the home movie video, reminiscent of a secret cam panning and watching at all times, an all seeing eye. And from this the scene switches to the hidden camera in Allison's (Jennifer Connelly) bedroom mirror which allows us to see the gorgeous and tender strip scene. The black stocking is canonical! Every male should repeat that action at least once in their life. And what a body on her. Sh**. It is spooky and touching, the scene of her sleeping there covered in a sheet and flower petals at the end of the strip and sex....because it foreshadows the affair's end, and her corpse (found in the desert a couple scenes later).
The next scene explains the joke of the movie's title, and also that after all, this is LA, NOT America. So what happens here certain falls within LA operating procedure. LOL. The guy that ends up beat up and thrown over the 'falls' is thrown over by the cop who stars, Nick Nolte, and other cops who are with him.
Nolte at first seems this sort tough guy but also an average Joe with a lovely, although not Connelly-georgeous, wife (Melanie Griffith) and a nice house etc. My theory is that he is attracted to Griffith and loves her, but heck, he is a guy, so later that's why he sleeps with Connelly, becomes smitten with her. An opportunity appeared. So he falls in love with Connelly but he loves his wife too. His pain to discover that Connelly/Allison made love with the character Malkovich plays, General Timms, is obvious. Later Allison's gay friend identifies Max/Nolte at the guy Allison said can't turn anyone down. Ouch.
I love the sets for this film, the old-fashioned room that Allison lives in, the nicer house that Max and his wife are kissing in at the beginning. It is really intense when Max lies in Allison's pink bed and smells her handkerchief, running his own lovemaking "film" / memory with her (in his mind). Lots of good actors, Madsen and others. I love the scene where Max/Nolte OD's the pedophile as the pedophile begs Allison, "Jesus Christ, call the cops!" and Max says, "I am the cops" as he sticks him with the hypodermic. I do not smoke but when Allison offers Max a cigarette by bringing it to his lips, I can see why he would not be able to refuse to 'smoke'. It was definitely a metaphor of his affair with her. He could not turn her down anymore than he could turn down that cigarette. The minute she put that in his mouth he was through. She illustrated the difference between herself and his wife. The wife is entirely tame, under his thumb. Allison has tamed him, left him a sodding mess. Maybe this is why he left her, in part....destroyed her. Guilt over cheating on his wife but knowledge that should he leave his wife for Allison she would NEVER be tamed, turned into a wife. He doesn't believe in weakness. Being weak or being cruel. So he avoids being weak and leaves Allison and he avoids being cruel by keeping the affair from the wife. And this is part of the current plot, running side by side with flashback scenes, how to get back the hidden film from the mirror, of himself and Allison and taken by Jimmy Fields (Andrew McCarthy) who plays Allison's gay best friend. so Max is a cop. He wants to restore order, and his own domestic tranquility. He wants things less complicated, he says, to carry his own water. But things keep happening to prevent that, right in the periphery of the camera....
I have watched this movie multiple times. It's always amazing and surprising...more soon.
Last edited:
Gib
Crusader
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
I hope you don't mind, but I cross posted your post here to another tread.
I hope you don't mind, but I cross posted your post here to another tread.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Terril park
Sponsor
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
How do you differentiate between believes in OT 3 and remembering
OT 3?
However it is not uncommon to mock up whole track incidents
to run. This is not out tech in principal.
Not with creative processing a very powerful tool. I've
seen TV magicians running it to great effect very quickly.
Even did it briefly myself with results I never knew.
An excellent case can be made for this.
However one may look again at this section of the auditors
code. Is it always wrong? For example in discussion forums
such as this one may give new-evaluated- data and it can be
very useful. Happens every day with any luck.
Much comments on logical reasoning which may be helpful
to many. Despite being evaluation.
"e·val·u·ate (ĭ-văl′yo͞o-āt′)
tr.v. e·val·u·at·ed, e·val·u·at·ing, e·val·u·ates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or amount of: evaluate the damage from the flood.
2. To determine the importance, effectiveness, or worth of; assess: evaluate teacher performance. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically."
From Scn Dict " Telling the PC what to think of his case"
Putting a PC on OT 1,2,3 does not necessarily tell the PC what to think of his case. I give myself as an example as I didn't believe the theory
in the first place. Yet got extraordinary wins.
Someone has just posted somewhere here that most on these levels didn't believe the OT 3 story. I surveyed this and came to the same conclusion.
I did run it without C/S instruction in fact. My second go I had
a C/S instruction to do stuff I did before and that prompted me to address the endocrine system. My idea.Thus more to run
Not sure how valid the bridge is. Lower levels seem golden.
Upper levels seem to me in the realm of creative processing.
Redoing the bridge seems to involve inval. Met some who have done 5 CCRDs. Not happy campers.
Thanks for the conversation.
How do you differentiate between believes in OT 3 and remembering
OT 3?
However it is not uncommon to mock up whole track incidents
to run. This is not out tech in principal.
Not with creative processing a very powerful tool. I've
seen TV magicians running it to great effect very quickly.
Even did it briefly myself with results I never knew.
An excellent case can be made for this.
However one may look again at this section of the auditors
code. Is it always wrong? For example in discussion forums
such as this one may give new-evaluated- data and it can be
very useful. Happens every day with any luck.
Much comments on logical reasoning which may be helpful
to many. Despite being evaluation.
"e·val·u·ate (ĭ-văl′yo͞o-āt′)
tr.v. e·val·u·at·ed, e·val·u·at·ing, e·val·u·ates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or amount of: evaluate the damage from the flood.
2. To determine the importance, effectiveness, or worth of; assess: evaluate teacher performance. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically."
From Scn Dict " Telling the PC what to think of his case"
Putting a PC on OT 1,2,3 does not necessarily tell the PC what to think of his case. I give myself as an example as I didn't believe the theory
in the first place. Yet got extraordinary wins.
Someone has just posted somewhere here that most on these levels didn't believe the OT 3 story. I surveyed this and came to the same conclusion.
I did run it without C/S instruction in fact. My second go I had
a C/S instruction to do stuff I did before and that prompted me to address the endocrine system. My idea.Thus more to run
Not sure how valid the bridge is. Lower levels seem golden.
Upper levels seem to me in the realm of creative processing.
Redoing the bridge seems to involve inval. Met some who have done 5 CCRDs. Not happy campers.
Thanks for the conversation.
Veda
Sponsor
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
That's untrue, and you know it.
Here's Rey Robles - Master of Ceremonies and Chief Executive Officer of the upcoming Freezone conference - giving a talk to "All Loyal Officers" (reincarnated from 75 million years ago):
Here's a description of the Ron's Org Bridge - See "Operating Thetan 3': http://www.ronsorg.ch/english/bridgeenglish.htm
And here's Xenu's SP Declare: http://www.freezone.org/cbr/sector9/e_sob20.htm
Ron's Orgs is the largest and most successful FZ group.
That's untrue, and you know it.
Here's Rey Robles - Master of Ceremonies and Chief Executive Officer of the upcoming Freezone conference - giving a talk to "All Loyal Officers" (reincarnated from 75 million years ago):
Here's a description of the Ron's Org Bridge - See "Operating Thetan 3': http://www.ronsorg.ch/english/bridgeenglish.htm
And here's Xenu's SP Declare: http://www.freezone.org/cbr/sector9/e_sob20.htm
Ron's Orgs is the largest and most successful FZ group.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: I watched Mullholland Falls again.WOW. Pt I of my review. Sorry it has to be in p
Funny, Maria, you focused a lot on the love triangle between the Nolte character, his wife and the intoxicatingly beautiful Jennifer Connelly character. I treated this as a sub plot and thought the main plot had to do with the Nolte character and his organization, all L.A.P.D. officers, having a power struggle with the military arm of the Federal Government as to whether the LAPD had any right to investigate a murder within the LA City limits if that murder was on a military base located within the L.A .city limits. The military said the LAPD had no jurisdiction while Nolte and all of his team felt strongly that they had the right to solve the murder, particularly Nolte who had some skin in the game, both figuratively and in literally since the murdered person just had sex with the Nolte character the previous day and not only that but Nolte was married and cheating on his wife.
Maria inferred to me that my character Lakey had similarities to the Nolte character. I should be so lucky, having a totally devoted and lovely woman at home as my wife and then cheating on my wife and having an earth shaking love affair with the intoxicatingly beautiful Jennifer Connelly character. As much as I would have like to be similar to the Nolte character, I can't natch his sexual prowess. Whatever similarities we might have, and again I should be so lucky, would have to be in how Nolte handles his career and how he handles the truth.
Lakey
Funny, Maria, you focused a lot on the love triangle between the Nolte character, his wife and the intoxicatingly beautiful Jennifer Connelly character. I treated this as a sub plot and thought the main plot had to do with the Nolte character and his organization, all L.A.P.D. officers, having a power struggle with the military arm of the Federal Government as to whether the LAPD had any right to investigate a murder within the LA City limits if that murder was on a military base located within the L.A .city limits. The military said the LAPD had no jurisdiction while Nolte and all of his team felt strongly that they had the right to solve the murder, particularly Nolte who had some skin in the game, both figuratively and in literally since the murdered person just had sex with the Nolte character the previous day and not only that but Nolte was married and cheating on his wife.
Maria inferred to me that my character Lakey had similarities to the Nolte character. I should be so lucky, having a totally devoted and lovely woman at home as my wife and then cheating on my wife and having an earth shaking love affair with the intoxicatingly beautiful Jennifer Connelly character. As much as I would have like to be similar to the Nolte character, I can't natch his sexual prowess. Whatever similarities we might have, and again I should be so lucky, would have to be in how Nolte handles his career and how he handles the truth.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
I think that the Ron's Org plus Ray Robles small group constitutes the entire FZ at this time. Back in 2010 and 2011 there was an L.A. Group, nominally headed up by Diana CLass VIII with a few helpers. That group has pretty much dissolved since that time. Trey''s field practice is the only remnant left of the L.A. group that is currently doing anything. Oh there are a few isolated field auditors here and there giving sessions but there is no real organization and they are not really part of the FZ. Also, no one seems to be giving training; the little that is being delivered in L.A. is almost all auditing and no training. There may some FZ activity in the SF Bay area, or Oregon and Washington State and that is about it.
Lakey
I think that the Ron's Org plus Ray Robles small group constitutes the entire FZ at this time. Back in 2010 and 2011 there was an L.A. Group, nominally headed up by Diana CLass VIII with a few helpers. That group has pretty much dissolved since that time. Trey''s field practice is the only remnant left of the L.A. group that is currently doing anything. Oh there are a few isolated field auditors here and there giving sessions but there is no real organization and they are not really part of the FZ. Also, no one seems to be giving training; the little that is being delivered in L.A. is almost all auditing and no training. There may some FZ activity in the SF Bay area, or Oregon and Washington State and that is about it.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
I put all of my comments in red above.
Lakey
How do you differentiate between believes in OT 3 and remembering
OT 3?
For me, if I remember any incident (including OT 3), that means that I can see pictures of the incident in my "mind's eye". If asked questions about it, I can look at my pictures and give colors, smells, times and all manner of details with some level of certainty. If I believe in it but don't remember it, that means that I have no pictures of my own to look at but that some authority figure has dictated to me that the incident did happen. The authority figure had enough clout such that I would believe that what he told me happened is true. Unless he told me the details of what happened, I would be very hard pressed to give any details of my own. My only recourse would be to say that I have no memories of the incident and its details or to make up a version of my own, just so I will have something there, my dub in, to run.
However it is not uncommon to mock up whole track incidents
to run. This is not out tech in principal.
Someone may do this, but why bother. As I understand Dianetic and Scientology theory, we are going for a discharge of harmful energy and harmful commands resulting from actual incidents which happened to a person in his past. If a person simply mocks up whole track incidents simply for the hell of it or so that he might have something to run, these incidents will not be Engrams or Secondary Engrams or even locks. They are simply mock ups and if the pc looks at them, they may vanish but if they do, the PC will not get any charge off his case and neither should he be able to have any cognitions nor very good indicators. His end phenomena might be, "Oh, I just blew my mock up", how cool is that? I don't see any case gain in doing this.
Not with creative processing a very powerful tool. I've
seen TV magicians running it to great effect very quickly.
Even did it briefly myself with results I never knew.
An excellent case can be made for this.
Definition from LRH Technical Dictionary - Creative Processisng - #1 The exercise by which the pc is actually putting up the physical univers. #2 consists of having the preclear make, with his own creative energies of mock-up.
Creative Processing was mentioned favorably by LRH in several of his early lectures. By the early 60's it was dropped in favor of some newer theories. I was in COS from 1970 to 2001 and never heard it mentioned even one time at the L.A Org, CCLA, ASHO, AOLA and Flag except being mentioned on some tapes at ASHO which we were required to hear. Never was Creative Processing used or even mentioned in my 31 years in COS.
It seems as if LRH had some early success with it in the late 50's or thereabouts, developed it further and then dropped it, never to be heard from again except for listening to old tapes. From this, I concluded that if it had any major or long term value, LRH would have kept it but he did not keep it on his bridge. Therefore my same objection to running Creative Processing is the same objection above which I made for running mock ups.
However one may look again at this section of the auditors
code. Is it always wrong? For example in discussion forums
such as this one may give new-evaluated- data and it can be
very useful. Happens every day with any luck.
Much comments on logical reasoning which may be helpful
to many. Despite being evaluation.
"e·val·u·ate (ĭ-văl′yo͞o-āt′)
tr.v. e·val·u·at·ed, e·val·u·at·ing, e·val·u·ates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or amount of: evaluate the damage from the flood.
2. To determine the importance, effectiveness, or worth of; assess: evaluate teacher performance. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically."
From Scn Dict " Telling the PC what to think of his case"
Clearly, the definition from the Scn Dict is the proper definition to use when discussing auditing. In life in general, it is very possible and very okay for a person with rocks taken from a mine to ask an assayer if there is a lot of gold in those rocks. Also, a friend may ask a friend to evaluate a movie for him before he decides to purchase a ticket to the movie. This type of evaluating, as per your definitions 1,2 and 3 are fine. Just as Clearly, it is not okay for someone to tell a PC what to think of his case. That is simply a major violation of the Auditor's Code and it is a High Crime in Scientology Ethics for anyone to do that. Doing that will always result in messing up someone's case and that is the reason why LRH put it in the Auditor;s Code. I am really surprised, Terril, that you opinion is to be lax on this matter and be sort of reasonable about it.
Putting a PC on OT 1,2,3 does not necessarily tell the PC what to think of his case. I give myself as an example as I didn't believe the theory
in the first place. Yet got extraordinary wins.
I disagree. Why put him there unless you are tacitly communicating to him that he has all these incidents on his case. Maybe, if you had the pc check each of those items for reads first before running them what you say might be okay but that is not being done. What is being done is ordering them to run it and that tacitly implies, in lieu of checking first by meter, that all of those items are there.
Someone has just posted somewhere here that most on these levels didn't believe the OT 3 story. I surveyed this and came to the same conclusion.
Great, I posted that and am glad you agree with me.
I did run it without C/S instruction in fact. My second go I had
a C/S instruction to do stuff I did before and that prompted me to address the endocrine system. My idea.Thus more to run
Not sure how valid the bridge is. Lower levels seem golden.
Upper levels seem to me in the realm of creative processing.
Redoing the bridge seems to involve inval. Met some who have done 5 CCRDs. Not happy campers.
Thanks for the conversation.
I put all of my comments in red above.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: Mama in Italy update
We took two 25 year old Travelpro Rollaboards to Italy. Travelpro Rollaboards were created by pilots. They stow in the overhead bin, and they roll.We've had these since they were brand new. They've seen every continent except the two polars.
Other tourists, by in large, stuffed big heavy clunky suitcases in baggage, and had the pleasure of manhandling them on and off trains and metros. We realized, when I did laundry a week into the trip, that we had packed way too much. Next time we'll just bring one Rollaboard.
Packing light makes travel a lot easier.
In addition to clothes, toothpaste, etc. I packed a mini iPad and a full size Bluetooth keyboard, plus my iPhone with AT&T International plan and Apple iCloud. All the pictures got saved to the cloud, so our kids could see what we were doing.
They gave us names of restaurants to eat at, people to see, sights, etc. It's funny when your kids know France, Italy, Rome and Florence better than we do. We always encouraged travel.
Venice is built on islands for defense from hordes. Surrounded by water, this wealthy city state wasn't prone to being sacked.
To stabilize the buildings they grew trees in the ground. Wood underwater - under water level doesn't rot.
Marco Polo and his parents were from Venice. Hence Venice was the key trading port for goods from the East.
Taking buses in Venice, you grab a boat at bus stops along the grand canal. They are pretty similar to the ferries of Bermuda and San Francisco.
The narrow alleys, built 2,000 years ago, before cars and Mack Trucks are just delightfully picturesque.
Venice attracts fashion. There are loads of name shops plus as many more high fashion shops.
Like Rome, Venice has religious history and art coming out its ears.
Photos to follow.
Sent from my iPhone
Lakey for Mama
We took two 25 year old Travelpro Rollaboards to Italy. Travelpro Rollaboards were created by pilots. They stow in the overhead bin, and they roll.We've had these since they were brand new. They've seen every continent except the two polars.
Other tourists, by in large, stuffed big heavy clunky suitcases in baggage, and had the pleasure of manhandling them on and off trains and metros. We realized, when I did laundry a week into the trip, that we had packed way too much. Next time we'll just bring one Rollaboard.
Packing light makes travel a lot easier.
In addition to clothes, toothpaste, etc. I packed a mini iPad and a full size Bluetooth keyboard, plus my iPhone with AT&T International plan and Apple iCloud. All the pictures got saved to the cloud, so our kids could see what we were doing.
They gave us names of restaurants to eat at, people to see, sights, etc. It's funny when your kids know France, Italy, Rome and Florence better than we do. We always encouraged travel.
Venice is built on islands for defense from hordes. Surrounded by water, this wealthy city state wasn't prone to being sacked.
To stabilize the buildings they grew trees in the ground. Wood underwater - under water level doesn't rot.
Marco Polo and his parents were from Venice. Hence Venice was the key trading port for goods from the East.
Taking buses in Venice, you grab a boat at bus stops along the grand canal. They are pretty similar to the ferries of Bermuda and San Francisco.
The narrow alleys, built 2,000 years ago, before cars and Mack Trucks are just delightfully picturesque.
Venice attracts fashion. There are loads of name shops plus as many more high fashion shops.
Like Rome, Venice has religious history and art coming out its ears.
Photos to follow.
Sent from my iPhone
Lakey for Mama
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Movie, "Going Clear"
more tomorrow since it is so late here but a question for now- what is the point of inventing incidents and creative processing...why would it be needed to remove charge from non-existent incidents? In scn the goal is to remove charge. So what good comes of removing fictional creative charge? OT 2 gpms are supposed sources of charge as is OT 3. When one runs an incident one recalls it. Nothing in OT 3 says to mock it up. Or invent it. If one cannot recall it then how is the incident to be run out? Believe in the incident and believe in where the pilot...? Are you say one use visualization to imagine OT 3 happened so that then this fiction and its charge can be removed plus the fictional BTs? I know you asked questions and I hope to get to them after 3-4 pm ET. Thank you.
How do you differentiate between believes in OT 3 and remembering
OT 3?
However it is not uncommon to mock up whole track incidents
to run. This is not out tech in principal.
Not with creative processing a very powerful tool. I've
seen TV magicians running it to great effect very quickly.
Even did it briefly myself with results I never knew.
An excellent case can be made for this.
However one may look again at this section of the auditors
code. Is it always wrong? For example in discussion forums
such as this one may give new-evaluated- data and it can be
very useful. Happens every day with any luck.
Much comments on logical reasoning which may be helpful
to many. Despite being evaluation.
"e·val·u·ate (ĭ-văl′yo͞o-āt′)
tr.v. e·val·u·at·ed, e·val·u·at·ing, e·val·u·ates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or amount of: evaluate the damage from the flood.
2. To determine the importance, effectiveness, or worth of; assess: evaluate teacher performance. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically."
From Scn Dict " Telling the PC what to think of his case"
Putting a PC on OT 1,2,3 does not necessarily tell the PC what to think of his case. I give myself as an example as I didn't believe the theory
in the first place. Yet got extraordinary wins.
Someone has just posted somewhere here that most on these levels didn't believe the OT 3 story. I surveyed this and came to the same conclusion.
I did run it without C/S instruction in fact. My second go I had
a C/S instruction to do stuff I did before and that prompted me to address the endocrine system. My idea.Thus more to run
Not sure how valid the bridge is. Lower levels seem golden.
Upper levels seem to me in the realm of creative processing.
Redoing the bridge seems to involve inval. Met some who have done 5 CCRDs. Not happy campers.
Thanks for the conversation.
more tomorrow since it is so late here but a question for now- what is the point of inventing incidents and creative processing...why would it be needed to remove charge from non-existent incidents? In scn the goal is to remove charge. So what good comes of removing fictional creative charge? OT 2 gpms are supposed sources of charge as is OT 3. When one runs an incident one recalls it. Nothing in OT 3 says to mock it up. Or invent it. If one cannot recall it then how is the incident to be run out? Believe in the incident and believe in where the pilot...? Are you say one use visualization to imagine OT 3 happened so that then this fiction and its charge can be removed plus the fictional BTs? I know you asked questions and I hope to get to them after 3-4 pm ET. Thank you.
- Status
