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

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;NRtvqT_wMeY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg60Az10A_E[/video]

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;3j8mr-gcgoI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j8mr-gcgoI[/video]


So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Sorry about the 90s alternative...I am now drifting out of it with some Pink Floyd for you....

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;Fk0V_GGa2XM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0V_GGa2XM[/video]

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/so...uz-homecoming-of-historic-hawaiian-surfboards

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/santa-cruz-celebrates-thr_b_524758.html

This link gives more detail about the three princes.

"A ceremony honoring the three Hawaiian princes who first introduced surfing to Santa Cruz--and to the mainland of the Americas--will take place at Lighthouse Point, in Santa Cruz, Friday, April 9 at 11:30 a.m."

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/santa-cruz-celebrates-thr_b_524758.html

This link gives more detail about the three princes.

"A ceremony honoring the three Hawaiian princes who first introduced surfing to Santa Cruz--and to the mainland of the Americas--will take place at Lighthouse Point, in Santa Cruz, Friday, April 9 at 11:30 a.m."

Within the HuffPo article there is a broken link that was supposed to go to the Good Times article about the three princes.

Here is a working link to the Good Times article: http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/s...over-stories/936-riders-of-the-sea-spray.html


And a short excerpt:
"By all accounts, the middle week of July in 1885 was a glorious one in Santa Cruz. Tourists from throughout the Central Valley were flocking to the bustling seaside community to escape the sweltering summer heat of the interior. The city’s hotels and boarding houses were bulging with visitors, and so, too, were the bourgeoning businesses along Santa Cruz’s fabled waterfront—the Dolphin, Neptune and Liddell bathhouses, and the beachside Free Museum.

The South Pacific Coast Railroad had been completed in 1880—linking Santa Cruz not only to the far reaches of the state, but to the entire country—and, suddenly, summertime tourism was emerging as an important piston in the city’s economic engine."

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Sorry for being picky on the HuffPo article. Used to work in web and just out of habit was checking their links to make sure they are all working. Well I keep finding more broken links, not only the one to Good Times, including the one for Santa Cruz parks site. Gee. I thought HuffPo was a professional outfit....

Still, the information given there is good.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

View attachment 10690

Very clever play on words.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Very clever play on words.
Lakey

So is esmb going to change your screen name to Lakey?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So is esmb going to change your screen name to Lakey?

No, I just tried to log in this morning and it worked. Probably they will cancel the Lakey screen name. I would like to switch to Lakey for my screen name but its too big of a hassle for the small benefit it yields. My friends just refer to me as Lakey anyway so I've just decided to leave well enough alone. Lakey is a bonafide surname, I once built for a Mr. E. Lakey in Lakewood, in fact he built two jobs with me.
.
Lkwdblds oops, I mean Lakey

PS: My Dad stated Lakewood Custom Builders in 1966 with a partner. They wanted to be called Long Beach Builders but the name was already taken so they tried Lakewood Builders and that was also taken so they came up with Lakewood Custom Builders. That's what it was from 1966 to 1992 when my Dad retired. I had to get a new license to operate on my own and at that point, I opted just for Lakewood Builders which was then available. Just think if they chose Long Beach Builders, my screen name would now be Lngbbchblds. Wow, what a mouth full. Someone might damage their teeth or bite their tongue trying to pronounce that name!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The March King

I attended a show yesterday featuring a lot of young dancers, dancing everything from ballet to rock to marches. It was all girls, ages 3 1/2 to adult but most about ages 7 to 17. There was beautiful music, beautiful costumes and beauftiful dancing. Near the beginning of the show they danced to a Scott Joplin rag and the to a group of four marches by John Phillip Sousa. Sousa was a very talented composer and became known as the March King.

I believe that no one has ever posted a Sousa video or a march of any kind on this thread. Also, I don't recall anything ever being posted by Joplin either. I think I will remedy that.

Here is a medley of 8 Marches by Sousa with some very interesting information about him also being presented in the video as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlNwvcoRuHs

Here is a piece by Scott Joplin called Bethena's Waltz. It's not one of his best known pieces but I'm posting it because I used to play it when I was married. We had a baby grand piano at home, which she still has. My daughter took lessons for 14 years and plays very well. I was not in her league but I could play this Joplin piece fairly well. I really liked to play the syncopated rhythm, which Joplin is famous for. I have a pretty good knack for playing syncopation, for an amateur. Anyway here is Bethena's Waltz by the great Scott Jooplin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eazwucoR2iI

Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

My comments are in purple prose. My citations of Hubbard's 'conditions' are in black. Below is a criticism of the very concept of lower conditions , which in CoS are used as a way to discipline and control human beings. According to Hubbard, "There also exist operating states below Non-Existence." After I explain why this is BS I will move to the upper conditions, which in my opinion are more fkn messed up than the lower ones.....and after I finish analyzing each condition, I may make comments on them in general, overall. This entry is incomplete at present, only containing comments on the lower conditions.

P.S. All my training in the past is now brought to bear on this following explanation. I don't even view this explanation as philosophical, since for me the ethics conditions are 'fictional'. So what I am doing is speaking of fictions that have been believed and that have harmed human beings. I hope it helps someone, even one person.

Beginning with Liability. My own comments in purple prose, befitting a 'girl' C/S [blush].

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

LIABILITY

Hubbard writes:

"Below Non-Existence there is the Condition of Liability. The being has ceased to be simply non-existent as a team member and has taken on the color of an enemy. It is assigned where careless or malicious and knowing damage is caused to projects, organizations or activities. It is adjudicated that it is malicious and knowing because orders have been published against it or because it is contrary to the intentions and actions of the remainder of the team or the purpose of the project or organization. It is a liability to have such a person unwatched as the person may do or continue to do things to stop or impede the forward progress of the project or organization and such a person cannot be trusted." [Excerpt]

This condition is out strangely out of sequence since it implies a dedicated effort to impede and to deceive, when in actuality it seems that below non-existence would be Doubt, not Liability. Or else it could be reworked to show that the liability was a pattern that will lead to doubt but that begins from a non-existence that is not corrected and that becomes a habitual stupidity. For in order to be in Liability, one would have to already be in treason or enemy, below Doubt altogether. For Hubbard says that the person cannot be trusted and they take on the color of enemy, that they do knowing damage.

It seems to me that usually above Doubt one would be a Liability not intentionally but simply because having been in non-existence so long one got into bad habits, made destructive choices etc. If this were the correct definition, then yes, a liability would be present. Since it matters not if the liability is intentional or not; it is what it is.

I admit this is not my normal topic and it's not very philosophical a concept either. The reason for liability is not intentional but usually that a person is not trained or aware of the job they are doing, are not able to do it, thus they remain in non-existence perpetually. Imagine a doctor in the 14th century trying to do surgeries who does not know about bacterial infections. Thus the non-existence appears as if it were existence: as if the person really did occupy a space, and could function in it, and believe they can! The person may even believe they know what they are doing, even though they do not.

Someone is a liability when they cannot perform a task and they are holding the space or position of that task and it is assumed they are not in non-existence, that is, that they are capable. It is impossible for a person trained in a task to be in non-existence, even on their first day on the job. A doctor hired by a hospital knows how to do perform his tasks, period, if he was properly trained. Non-existence is only then a reality if someone is inappropriately staffed. Or, in relation to a specific scene in which one can be quickly genned in by one's superiors. These specific scenes are usually generalized and do not impact the particular skills of a person. So the non-existence is trivial, always is, unless the person is incorrectly put into a point in space to occupy which he is not qualified to occupy.

I will attempt to look at upper conditions later. Actually they are more messed up than the lower. But let's begin at the ground floor.

The 'formula' for Liability:

"The formula of Liability is:
1. Decide who are one’s friends.
2. Deliver an effective blow to the enemies of the group one has been pretending to be part of despite personal danger.
3. Make up the damage one has done by personal contribution far beyond the ordinary demands of a group member.
4. Apply for reentry to the group by asking the permission of each member of it to rejoin and rejoining only by majority permission. And if refused, repeating (2) and (3) and (4) until one is allowed to be a group member again."

It is really pointless this formula, given my previous points. One can be friends and puppies together all we want but if the person is not suited to a position in space they cannot succeed - or occupy it, despite wishful thinking. They can only fail, regardless of good intentions.

There is no way to make up the damage since they have not the capacity to do so. They can wag their tail all day and want to be friends and continue to fail.

Now I will move to doubt and see what emerges.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

deleted

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

DOUBT

"When one cannot make up one’s mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project, a condition of Doubt exists."

It is interesting that all the formulas, as I look at them now, are all psychologized according to friend/enemy. When in fact, doubts are often very topic-specific. Perhaps from the let me brainwash these idiots so they will be here and do as I say like nice robots sort of thinking, this formula of doubt is either/or enough, black and white enough that we must always live in the GPM of us vs. them. Of with us or against us.

In actuality doubt is simply a form of not-knowing something, and sometimes, doubt is a good sign since it helps us realize we are making a mistake and don't know what we think we know. That is called scientific thinking. Now I don't want to support scientific thinking, since it too is merely one form of logic humans have at their disposal. BUT, I will say that not being able to make up one's mind here is limited by LRH to the topic of individual, group or organization or project. This is very shortsighted since it means that ethical decisions have been reduced to those elements, as if somehow they could be. Which is not true. When one is in doubt that one loves this girl or another, that is not a lower condition, merely a possible true decision a being has to make on an existential basis concerning another and if that other is good for them. If one is in doubt of a group, organization or project, the same features come into view. That we CAN doubt is a feature of human intelligence. It means we have free will. It means we can a weigh a thing to see if it feels right or not. Surely, if one continued to doubt someone or something, then one would FALL INTO liability since one's actions would not be true. Thus liability, again, appears below doubt, IF we are psychologizing the 'conditions' as Hubbard does so here. Now, if we are looking at a more banal way of thinking of doubt, having to do with being unfamiliar and not being sure, then again, doubt is a survival quality. It is assumed of course that one wants to make good decisions. The doubt itself is not ever in question or a problem, in my view. Doubt is merely a state of not being sure, which is certainly different than Non-existence, which is a state of not even being aware of existing in a position, as I discussed in the part here on the condition of Liability.

Now we can only demonize doubt if in advance there is an absolute position or rule in place which states that this or that IS the correct position and that to doubt it is evil. Thus only that way is man's natural doubting talent turned into a demon. But let us look at the formula and see what emerges from that brief look:


"The Doubt formula is:
1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all bias and rumor.
2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.
3. Decide on the basis of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.
4. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
5. Evaluate one’s own or one’s group, project or organization’s statistics.
6. Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.
7. Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organization one has remained in or joined.
8. Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one’s status."

Well this tells us that we must brush aside bias, even of an absolute right view. That is not too bad.... But the problem is that doubt here is based on quantitative realities like stats. Hitler had great stats! And yet he was a monster. So what are we dealing with? Logic or something else? Logic here says, follow the stats, screw the white rabbit. My view is that stats can be a factor in settling doubt, i.e., one's actions do speak louder. However there are many actions that are not rewarded and that are not viewed as successful. I mean, look at me, I am definitely an esmb flop, yet, in some weird way, I still manage to make a point or two. But stats are not involved in that, and often stats impede one from having a clear view of value. For example, Van Gogh slaved away painting and yet during his life was a failure. His weekly 'stat' sucked. But after his death, much later on, suddenly now he is very valuable. Value is often an untimely thing. It arrives and remains unseen. Stats cannot deal with that issue. All they can do is quantities, like a machine. This is a worry, that human decisions be based on quantity and not on qualitative discernment. Yes, this point I make seems to fit #4. The problem is that 4 is misplaced, should precede three. You see, a decision cannot be made until the intentions are KNOWN. But 3 asks us to decide before we know the intentions. A weird glitch here. Maybe Hubbard was high and transposed 3 and 4?

A further point is on 7. It is extremely sad to base LIFE on statistics. One needs to be embedded in the qualitative things in order to even do 7. But often in the 'clarification' and defining of 7, qualitative factors are nulled. Thus Scn has little regard for families. Since that qualitative factor which could enrich it is viewed as an inhibitor to statistics.


For a while I have been thinking of all this, although what I am posting remains purely stream of consciousness - now at this very moment all this crap just comes to me like manna from the sky so I can share the madness that is 'the lower conditions.' So please, I hope someone comment or help me sort out these weird states. Because maybe after this I will go through the entire tone scale, tone by tone, and explain the fallacy of those tones. LOL. Let us have fun working out what is true for us. And right now what is true for me is that the lower conditions are, as Morpheus spoke, a prison for the mind.



PS I love and cherish to be an esmb flop! I HATE stats with a passion! Thank you!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

ENEMY

"When a person is an avowed and knowing enemy of an individual, a group, project or organization, a Condition of Enemy exists."

Well, this condition leaves out a very important detail. For it never mentions the quality of a group or individual or project or organization. It is perfectly ok to choose an enemy if that enemy is unhealthy. Yet the condition does not allow for this distinction, that one might be an enemy validly. Does not CoS consider it ok to have enemies? Of course it does. So too, the condition of enemy is too sketchy. The reason it is sketchy, actually, super dodgy, is that when it is applied by an EO the EO assumes a position of power in relation to the poor f&^k who he assigns the condition to. Therefore a predetermined outcome is assumed in every case. An outcome in which finding out who you really are really means : find out who the EO wants you to be.

"The formula for the Condition of Enemy is just one step: Find out who you really are."

This formula is just fine. There is only one problem, and that is that if it's true that humans have reactive minds, pictures, whole universes of sh*t in there, then how on earth can they ever EP this formula without becoming OT. See the problem? To find out who you really are is IMPOSSIBLE in this world by following the pattern given here in the condition. For to do so one would have to become a squirrel, explore, have experiences, etc. Now to do that means that one was FREE to truly find out who one really is. But in reality, one is not to do any of the above. Instead, one is to find out who you really are by obeying the EO and kissing his royal tush. So therefore we can only ever find out who the EO wants us to be, never who we are. That is the lovely mystical trap that is laid for us every fkn time we run the condition of Enemy. So imagine, one is in the gulag, and the torturer will let us go back to our cell as long as we are who we should be, slaves, and as long as we agree with the dogma he is spewing each time the body gets a new lashing. And there you have it: find out who you really are. A few more BEATINGS should help you remember the answer : don't give up! lol.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

TREASON

"Treason is defined as betrayal after trust.
The formula for Treason is very correctly and factually “Know that you are. It will be found, gruesomely enough, that a person who accepts a post or position and then doesn’t function as it, will inevitably upset or destroy some portion of an organization.

By not knowing that he is the __________ (post name), he is committing treason in fact.
The results of this can be found in history. A failure to be what one has the post or position name of will result in a betrayal of the functions and purposes of a group.
Almost all organizational upsets stem from this one fact:

A person in a group who, having accepted a post, does not know that he is a certain assigned or designated beingness is in Treason against the group."

It seems here to me that treason is confused with liability, if it were rightly understood, since one would not be in liability if one understood that they are at some position {place} and, in seeing that, further understand their own ability to hold that position or not. See what is weird here is that treason and liability are inverted, absolutely inverted. Because one cannot be in treason if they do not know that they are committing it! Treason implies knowledge of one's moral choice, and what is strange is that Hubbard assumes that one has it in liability but that by the time one reaches treason one is no longer aware of one's crimes!

But this is impossible as the entire definition of treason, historically, implies the dark choice of betraying a trust. A trust cannot be betrayed if one did not know what they are doing. One cannot be accused of sinning if one did not even know it was a sin! Animals for example are free of sins because they are unaware of moral parameters to existence. The logic here is very confused and a bit sophomoric. If this were the definition of liability I could hardly have complained, well, maybe a little. But for Treason this definition is just OFF as OFF can be.



"The formula for the Condition of Treason is:
Find out that you are."

Seems that this would fit better right under NON-EXISTENCE, as I explained already before.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And yes, I may blog these conditions, once I have all the lower and upper done. Just to have them all together in one tidy little pile.
EDIT: Done - http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?932-The-Ethics-Conditions-the-FAKE-conditions-of-life (The Ethics conditions = the FAKE conditions of life)

Actually, if these conditions were reworked it may have saved many a poor bloke all those hundreds of hours of useless RPF. Sigh. But then, that will NEVER happen since the desire/intention/etc. is not to move a being into a good or freer condition but to push him into the depths of the abyss.