The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[strativarius]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

...

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Just out of curiosity, how do you account for the existence of the Universe if there is no creator? Do you apply the Western University approach, the Big Bang theory. or any particular alternate spiritual theory? Is it enough for an agnostic to just not know or do most of you hold to some sort of theory? I'm just really interested in this topic?
Lakey

how about the eternal "I don't know"?

Just keep researching and measuring and observing and maybe we will solve it.

Please remember that having a hypothesis doesn't give you any more of a leg to stand on than not having one.

 

[MrNobody]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Dilemma of Criticizing Exes What a pure joy ESMB would be if people just discussed topics <snip>

If people just discussed topics, this garbage pile of a thread wouldn't even be 1 % of it's size - and would be readable. Since you love your stats so much: How many posts are really ON Topic in this thread about "The old days - Apollo 1973"?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Dilemma of Criticizing Exes What a pure joy ESMB would be if people just discussed topics and no one ever criticized any one else. Sadly, IMHO, everyone soon finds out upon reading here that that is not the case! Everyone is going to receive personal criticism sooner or later on ESMB. THE QUESTION IS NOT HOW TO AVOID IT BUT HOW TO HANDLE IT!

Some fight back, some ignore it, some try to make logical arguments to change people's minds. I tended to attempt the logical argument path but if that failed and the other party continued his criticism and would not agree to disagree then I fought back. When a person fights back, it is usually ugly. A lot of very negative energy is stirred up, tensions and stress often build up. Fighting back is very taxing, it makes enemies.

Maria, I think the way you handle this problem is one of the best ways I have seen. You don't fight. you aren't heavy handed but you get your points across without ending up looking like a wimp, even though you don't fight. I don't know how you feel on the inside but just watching you in actioin, I felt that there was something there to be learned from your approach. When an argument arises, it seems to be best to be lighthearted and use a little humor. Those seem to be the keys to avoiding a big brouhaha!

Prior to your arriving here, I thought that anyone who did not agree with any of the tech was blind to a certain extent, not visually of course but spiritually. I remember talking this over with Purple Haze on several occasions. TR2 helped me; without learning Tr2, my life would have been hell. I observed that if a person was having an upset or problem, just by listening to them intently and giving an acknowledgment to them every now and then, that seemed to help the person feel better about their problems.

When you came along, you were asserting, and are still asserting, that every shred of tech is crap. I brought up TR 2 to you and your answer was that that knowledge was available elsewhere, at a lower price and without signing away your life. Okay, fair enough, we were able to move beyond that point.

Still, you are the first person I know who believes that every scrap of Hubbard's tech is garbage whom I can agree with enough to have a major discussion with on any topic. What I think is the difference is that you have more OTHER knowledge behind you than me and most, if not all, of those on ESMB. You can fall back on things which none of us have ever learned. I did quite a bit of reading for about 20 years and then stopped. I had a Bachelor's degree in Math and then stopped. Even so, I am better educated than most exes. A few others on ESMB have a lot of knowledge as well but they use it by being pompous and dictatorial. You, though having a lot of education which we have not been exposed to, tend to be modest and since you are also kindhearted, you make no effort to force your opinions down our throats.

That's my analysis of what is different between you and other people on ESMB who believe that all Hubbard's tech was crap. You are basing your beliefs on superior knowledge gained through reading and especially through your studies of philosophy. Many others arrive at the same conclusions as you do regarding tech but they arrive there mainly for emotional reasons, maybe having some relative die while in CoS, for example

All that many of us know about certain subjects is what we learned from Hubbard. We give him credit, even if he stole it from another source. You usually know where the knowledge originally came from in the first place and you know that Hubbard had nothing to do with it. That, I believe, is the difference between us. We definitely apply things which we think were created by Hubbard and get a positive result most of the time We give Hubbard the credit even though he may not deserve it.
Lakey

I don't remember what TR 2 is? Maybe it will come to me.

A problem I have, but thank you for the remarks, is the idea of life or even spirituality as a resource, to be harvested for a result. Thus we mine for raw materials, use them, and everything becomes utilitarian. We can hardly think in terms that do not include results. Thus we acquire each other and things. It seems insane to do things that do not produce a wanted effect. In contrast would would be a view in which value was already there to be left as is, without harvest. It is hard to put in words, maybe a view that does not use life for ends, in a utilitarian greedy way. Lots of Western thought has this, not just Scientology, which probably inherited it. There is a book about the history of magic/mysticism which talks about this 'extractive' attitude. The name is Arcana Mundi if I remember correctly.

Its the not that if or not Hubbard tech works but the whole attitude of needing things to work, like a broken record. Maybe the wrong flow, always in and never out. I will check and see if I covered it and respond again if not.

 

[SPsince83]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

how about the eternal "I don't know"?

Just keep researching and measuring and observing and maybe we will solve it.

Please remember that having a hypothesis doesn't give you any more of a leg to stand on than not having one.

God is an untested and unfalsifiable concept. A mere hypothesis at best. The default position is non-acceptance of an unverifiable assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The universe is evidence of the universe. That's all.

It's easy to consider wishful flights of fancy to be real. And mythos is a vital part of culture. But I am not a 6' 2" 220# power hitting, great fielding 3rd baseman no matter WHAT I believe.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Delayed reaction to TR2.

I Don't even like TR2. The 'rule' of enforced ack. What crap.

Sometimes silence is sufficient as an answer. Also, one is free not to acknowledge. I do this and I reserve that ability to hold an answer at bay, to let it fall into a void. I used to get yelled at for not acknowledging. It was quite a telltale now that I look back on what I refused to acknowledge. Now I am glad I didn't do it and proud to have been scolded for it. I like not having to do it unless I choose. And not by ack words either. Unless I feel like it and find it the appropriate response.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

God is an untested and unfalsifiable concept. A mere hypothesis at best. The default position is non-acceptance of an unverifiable assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The universe is evidence of the universe. That's all.

It's easy to consider wishful flights of fancy to be real. And mythos is a vital part of culture. But I am not a 6' 2" 220# power hitting, great fielding 3rd baseman no matter WHAT I believe.

Yes, as I said before, that spiritual things are not logical or provable, that is absolutely correct every word you said.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

About that turtle. Anyone who would claim that animals do not have souls are really dumb.

Even the medieval Christian scholars agreed that animals have souls.

perfectly good ones too.

That turtle is really awesome for working so hard to push that ball around and for keeping track of his dog-opponent's every move.
Now THAT I find way more interesting than how slow the thread was for the last day or so.

It's fascinating to see such a determined being at work.

Seems to me that most people who believe that humans have souls also believe that animals have souls and vice versa. I do have a question as to how far down the food chain animal souls go.

For example, take an ant colony, I don't believe that each ant has a sole but rather the entire colony has a sole and this one sole motivates each and every ant. A similar phenomena may occur with plant life. For fish or birds, it seems one soul motivates an entire school or flock. You see a flock of geese moving at high speed in one direction and then they change direction. The whole flock changes direction instantly, there is absolutely no delay as one would expect there to be. The change is as precise or more precise as that done by any human drill team!
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Dilemma of Criticizing Exes What a pure joy ESMB would be if people just discussed topics and no one ever criticized any one else. Sadly, IMHO, everyone soon finds out upon reading here that that is not the case! Everyone is going to receive personal criticism sooner or later on ESMB. THE QUESTION IS NOT HOW TO AVOID IT BUT HOW TO HANDLE IT!

Some fight back, some ignore it, some try to make logical arguments to change people's minds. I tended to attempt the logical argument path but if that failed and the other party continued his criticism and would not agree to disagree then I fought back. When a person fights back, it is usually ugly. A lot of very negative energy is stirred up, tensions and stress often build up. Fighting back is very taxing, it makes enemies.

Maria, I think the way you handle this problem is one of the best ways I have seen. You don't fight. you aren't heavy handed but you get your points across without ending up looking like a wimp, even though you don't fight. I don't know how you feel on the inside but just watching you in actioin, I felt that there was something there to be learned from your approach. When an argument arises, it seems to be best to be lighthearted and use a little humor. Those seem to be the keys to avoiding a big brouhaha!

Prior to your arriving here, I thought that anyone who did not agree with any of the tech was blind to a certain extent, not visually of course but spiritually. I remember talking this over with Purple Haze on several occasions. TR2 helped me; without learning Tr2, my life would have been hell. I observed that if a person was having an upset or problem, just by listening to them intently and giving an acknowledgment to them every now and then, that seemed to help the person feel better about their problems.

When you came along, you were asserting, and are still asserting, that every shred of tech is crap. I brought up TR 2 to you and your answer was that that knowledge was available elsewhere, at a lower price and without signing away your life. Okay, fair enough, we were able to move beyond that point.

Still, you are the first person I know who believes that every scrap of Hubbard's tech is garbage whom I can agree with enough to have a major discussion with on any topic. What I think is the difference is that you have more OTHER knowledge behind you than me and most, if not all, of those on ESMB. You can fall back on things which none of us have ever learned. I did quite a bit of reading for about 20 years and then stopped. I had a Bachelor's degree in Math and then stopped. Even so, I am better educated than most exes. A few others on ESMB have a lot of knowledge as well but they use it by being pompous and dictatorial. You, though having a lot of education which we have not been exposed to, tend to be modest and since you are also kindhearted, you make no effort to force your opinions down our throats.

That's my analysis of what is different between you and other people on ESMB who believe that all Hubbard's tech was crap. You are basing your beliefs on superior knowledge gained through reading and especially through your studies of philosophy. Many others arrive at the same conclusions as you do regarding tech but they arrive there mainly for emotional reasons, maybe having some relative die while in CoS, for example

All that many of us know about certain subjects is what we learned from Hubbard. We give him credit, even if he stole it from another source. You usually know where the knowledge originally came from in the first place and you know that Hubbard had nothing to do with it. That, I believe, is the difference between us. We definitely apply things which we think were created by Hubbard and get a positive result most of the time We give Hubbard the credit even though he may not deserve it.
Lakey

Forgot to say that I don't think how much philosophy I know compared to what others know, in the end, gives me an iota of superiority. I really don't feel that way. It may seem that this gives me an edge but I disagree. It's not what I know, the definitions. And it's not that I am right because of things I know. That is not how I think things work and if I thought that I'd be a pompous ass.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Seems to me that most people who believe that humans have souls also believe that animals have souls and vice versa. I do have a question as to how far down the food chain animal souls go.

For example, take an ant colony, I don't believe that each ant has a sole but rather the entire colony has a sole and this one sole motivates each and every ant. A similar phenomena may occur with plant life. For fish or birds, it seems one soul motivates an entire school or flock. You see a flock of geese moving at high speed in one direction and then they change direction. The whole flock changes direction instantly, there is absolutely no delay as one would expect there to be. The change is as precise or more precise as that done by any human drill team!
Lakey

I don't know exactly what the truth of that is but I do know that since ancient times some philosophers have agreed with that idea, such as Plotinus.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Delayed reaction to TR2.

Idon't even like TR2. The 'rule' of enforced ack. What crap.

Sometimes silence is sufficient as an answer. Also, one is free not to acknowledge. I do this and I reserve that ability to hold an answer at bay, to let it fall into a void. I used to get yelled at for not acknowledging. It was quite a telltale now that I look back on what I refused to acknowledge. Now I am glad I didn't do it and proud to have been scolded for it. I like not having to do it unless I choose. And not by ack words either. Unless I feel like it and find it the appropriate response.

Fine, so TR2 doesn't work for you. It worked for me and many others who I know and talk to. As soon as I learned it, it changed me from an extreme introvert to being mildly extroverted. When I was at Aerojet General in Azusa in 1971, I had some time to kill waiting for my computer runs to come back from the computer. I would walk around the cubicles of people, talking to guys and women. After I did the TR's course, everybody started telling me their life story. I looked interested but it was not an act, I was interested in learning about people's lives and person after person, especially the women, started telling me the most intricate details of their lives.

When I made my rounds the next day, they would motion me to come in and they immediately started telling me the most recent updates on their previous stories. It seemed to me that many people had a hunger to tell others about their lives. I didn't do anything with the data they gave me, but they all seemed to feel better and brighten up once they told me.

Before TR2, only a few people who I worked with were talking to me. After TR2 strangers were telling me their life stories. That is the Gospel truth. I assumed that my TR 2 was causing the change. Maybe I figured wrong but then I would have to invent some other explanation. I thought this was good thing in my life and the fact that I became a good listener seemed to help the other people as well.

Apparently, you did not have the same experience with TR 2 as I did. I have no problem with that.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

A big mistake from the view of science or logic is to mix domains by trying to prove or argue logically the existence of spiritual reality. It is using apple genes to produce a Panda. Nonsensical.

Which is a reason why I wrote in my blog entries here that Scientology has zero tech or science in it. None. I hope my friends here who do believe in tech tolerate this personal view of mine. Not meant as a put down.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Fine, so TR2 doesn't work for you. It worked for me and many others who I know and talk to. As soon as I learned it, it changed me from an extreme introvert to being mildly extroverted. When I was at Aerojet General in Azusa in 1971, I had some time to kill waiting for my computer runs to come back from the computer. I would walk around the cubicles of people, talking to guys and women. After I did the TR's course, everybody started telling me their life story. I looked interested but it was not an act, I was interested in learning about people's lives and person after person, especially the women, started telling me the most intricate details of their lives.

When I made my rounds the next day, they would motion me to come in and they immediately started telling me the most recent updates on their previous stories. It seemed to me that many people had a hunger to tell others about their lives. I didn't do anything with the data they gave me, but they all seemed to feel better and brighten up once they told me.

Before TR2, only a few people who I worked with were talking to me. After TR2 strangers were telling me their life stories. That is the Gospel truth. I assumed that my TR 2 was causing the change. Maybe I figured wrong but then I would have to invent some other explanation. I thought this was good thing in my life and the fact that I became a good listener seemed to help the other people as well.

Apparently, you did not have the same experience with TR 2 as I did. I have no problem with that.
Lakey

I did not recall TR2 had to do with listening.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

how about the eternal "I don't know"?

Just keep researching and measuring and observing and maybe we will solve it.

Please remember that having a hypothesis doesn't give you any more of a leg to stand on than not having one.

Nice post! Just 3 lines and all 3 are powerful! I liked the things I learned working with Vinnay, on this thread and on Facebook. As far as solving "it", the question of how the Universe came to be what it is now will never be known by me, at least in this life. The stuff that Vinnay worked out is helpful only in that it provides a possible solution as to how some things may have come to be.

Maybe a good analogy would be a pilot flying a small plane over the Pacific Ocean and having his navigational equipment go out. He is able to find a good flashlight on board his plane and that gives him a bit more certainty as to where he is going. Maybe turning on the flash light enables him to turn on some outside lights on the plane. The flash light can't reveal to him how to safely cross the Pacific but it does give him a little bit more security as to where he is going. That's about how I view theories of the Universe.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Nice post! Just 3 lines and all 3 are powerful! I liked the things I learned working with Vinnay, on this thread and on Facebook. As far as solving "it", the question of how the Universe came to be what it is now will never be known by me, at least in this life. The stuff that Vinnay worked out is helpful only in that it provides a possible solution as to how some things may have come to be.

Maybe a good analogy would be a pilot flying a small plane over the Pacific Ocean and having his navigational equipment go out. He is able to find a good flashlight on board his plane and that gives him a bit more certainty as to where he is going. Maybe turning on the flash light enables him to turn on some outside lights on the plane. The flash light can't reveal to him how to safely cross the Pacific but it does give him a little bit more security as to where he is going. That's about how I view theories of the Universe.
Lakey

I don't see, fitting in with my other post,
the quest of consciousness or the I to conquer.
The example is good for things like safety or food
or shelter. But often the urge to solve is almost
pathological.

 

[Free Being Me]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Science, philosophy, education and life are predicated on the humbling self honest admission of ignorance, meaning, "I don't know." If any person is telling you they have the answers to life, the universe and everything, then you are talking with a bullshit artist using rhetorical nonsense towards his or her target audience. Elcon being a prime example. Pseudo-intellectual/philosophers who don't grasp this simple concept of "I don't know" are egotistical frauds mentally masturbating circular garbage pontificating endlessly for gravitas. Why do they do it? I don't know.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I did not recall TR2 had to do with listening.

I'm embarrassed to admit this but you are right! Looking in the Tech Dictionary, TR2 only is about acknowledging which is a full stop on a communication and which is a method of controlling.

What I was using was a combination of "Listen Style Auditing" paired up with "Half Acknowledgment"

For "Listen Style Auditing" Hubbard says only, "Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting." For Half Ack, he says, "Somes a pc gets scared or lonesome and you have to give him an uh-huh to encourage him."

So you are correct and I am wrong about attributing my wins to TR2. That being said, those wins still came from Hubbard's tech, a combination of Listen Style Auditing along with Half Acknowledgements. My story as related in my last post did occur but it was a combination of Listen Style Auditing and Half Acks which enabled me to get my co workers to talk.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Science, philosophy, education and life are predicated on the humbling self honest admission of ignorance, meaning, "I don't know." If any person is telling you they have the answers to life, the universe and everything, then you are talking with a bullshit artist using rhetorical nonsense towards his or her target audience. Elcon being a prime example. Pseudo-philosophers who don't grasp this simple concept of "I don't know" are egotistical frauds mentally masturbating circular garbage pontificating endlessly for gravitas. Why do they do it? I don't know.

Good post. Assuming of course that philosophers who DO grasp this simple concept of "I don't know" are okay, I would totally agree with your post.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't see, fitting in with my other post,
the quest of consciousness or the I to conquer.
The example is good for things like safety or food
or shelter. But often the urge to solve is almost
pathological.

Maria, I am a little confused. I responded to Mick's post and then you responded to my post to him that that you don't see my reply to Mick fitting in with your other post. Help!, I am trying to be respectful and work with you but can you please clear up for me what you are talking about?
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

A big mistake from the view of science or logic is to mix domains by trying to prove or argue logically the existence of spiritual reality. It is using apple genes to produce a Panda. Nonsensical.

Which is a reason why I wrote in my blog entries here that Scientology has zero tech or science in it. None. I hope my friends here who do believe in tech tolerate this personal view of mine. Not meant as a put down.

I don't know what to make of this post. Your second sentence makes sense to me as a legitimate point of view. On the first sentence, the only Panda I know is Panda Termint. What domains are being mixed. I like to keep the physical and spiritual domains separate. Vinnay has chosen to mix them in his work, believing that the word Universe, should be used in the fullest sense of the word so there is not a separate physical Universe and spiritual Universe. From my point of view, I like it better when they are separated.
Lakey