The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I agree with all your points. I think I believed all this earlier when we discussed it. Our March discussion concerned some "withhold" which I had with a close family member back in 1983. A THAT TIME, I was totally gung ho in Scientology and believed that I had to give up that withhold. For some time now, maybe since 2003 or so I stopped believing that to be true! So actually, we did not disagree at the time I was discussing this with you. Spilling the truth is definitely not appropriate and that's why I referred to the tendency to do that as a "compulsion" Actually, the 1983 incident played a major role in changing my mind and weening me from accepting Hubbard's take on the subject.
Hubbard had a maxim saying, When in doubt communicate!" That did not seem too bad to me. If you really wanted to communicate or if you were in doubt about whether or not to communicate, then this maxim advised you to communicate. However, if you knew that you should not communicate then you should not do so. As far as lying, I hate to lie, and would almost never lie so I would never be in doubt about lying, If I had to lie I would prefer to just not communicate.
Where I need to improve is when I know that I should not communicate but have a strong urge, or compulsion to communicate anyway. I have tended to do that for most of my life. As a kid, it worked pretty good, in grade school and junior high; one gets a reputation of being a modern day Abe Lincoln. As an adult, it is a bad thing to do. You tend to irritate people and make enemies. Believe me, I know from experience, especially here on ESMB, having an inner drive to communicate when you know you shouldn't is a very damaging trait. I've worked on improving this compulsion for a long time but have had at best only limited success.
One thing about my version is that I don't suffer guilt if I withhold, that is not at all a driving factor for me. Something else is driving me. If I knew what it was then most likely it would not be present but I don't know and so it is still there but is continually being reduced in scope as I get older.
Lakey
I agree with all your points. I think I believed all this earlier when we discussed it. Our March discussion concerned some "withhold" which I had with a close family member back in 1983. A THAT TIME, I was totally gung ho in Scientology and believed that I had to give up that withhold. For some time now, maybe since 2003 or so I stopped believing that to be true! So actually, we did not disagree at the time I was discussing this with you. Spilling the truth is definitely not appropriate and that's why I referred to the tendency to do that as a "compulsion" Actually, the 1983 incident played a major role in changing my mind and weening me from accepting Hubbard's take on the subject.
Hubbard had a maxim saying, When in doubt communicate!" That did not seem too bad to me. If you really wanted to communicate or if you were in doubt about whether or not to communicate, then this maxim advised you to communicate. However, if you knew that you should not communicate then you should not do so. As far as lying, I hate to lie, and would almost never lie so I would never be in doubt about lying, If I had to lie I would prefer to just not communicate.
Where I need to improve is when I know that I should not communicate but have a strong urge, or compulsion to communicate anyway. I have tended to do that for most of my life. As a kid, it worked pretty good, in grade school and junior high; one gets a reputation of being a modern day Abe Lincoln. As an adult, it is a bad thing to do. You tend to irritate people and make enemies. Believe me, I know from experience, especially here on ESMB, having an inner drive to communicate when you know you shouldn't is a very damaging trait. I've worked on improving this compulsion for a long time but have had at best only limited success.
One thing about my version is that I don't suffer guilt if I withhold, that is not at all a driving factor for me. Something else is driving me. If I knew what it was then most likely it would not be present but I don't know and so it is still there but is continually being reduced in scope as I get older.
Lakey
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
One must understand something here: the "ability" to withhold does not allow for something to be withheld as a reaction to the fear of it being known by others. So one cannot withhold something as a solution to any problem.
An example of the ability to withhold would be an alcoholic who, after a successful Exp Grade Two, is able to withhold himself from boozing whenever he chooses and is also able to have a drink when he so chooses. I knew one such.
Or a person who no longer compulsively uses foul language when trying to express himself. He is able to not do that.
Or a girl who "can't say no" and who automatically allows anyone in town to shag her. This doesn't mean she's going to be celibate thereafter - it means she is more discriminating in her choice of partner.
And so on. It's an ability rarely attained in the usual HGC's who just go along with the checklist of processes and when all have "been run" get the guy to attest completion. But it is mentioned by LRH in early materials.
One must understand something here: the "ability" to withhold does not allow for something to be withheld as a reaction to the fear of it being known by others. So one cannot withhold something as a solution to any problem.
An example of the ability to withhold would be an alcoholic who, after a successful Exp Grade Two, is able to withhold himself from boozing whenever he chooses and is also able to have a drink when he so chooses. I knew one such.
Or a person who no longer compulsively uses foul language when trying to express himself. He is able to not do that.
Or a girl who "can't say no" and who automatically allows anyone in town to shag her. This doesn't mean she's going to be celibate thereafter - it means she is more discriminating in her choice of partner.
And so on. It's an ability rarely attained in the usual HGC's who just go along with the checklist of processes and when all have "been run" get the guy to attest completion. But it is mentioned by LRH in early materials.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I go further and probably don't fully agree on the limits you set for this.
I go further and probably don't fully agree on the limits you set for this.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I disagree with Hubbard about when in doubt.
I disagree with Hubbard about when in doubt.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Fear is just for me another tool in the confessor's torture kit. Ignore it, refuse to speak; this too will pass.
In the end I don't care about niceties and rules and what others expect. I have yet to hear why a human being should tell anything to another unless they feel like it and think it's ok to do.
Any 'agreement' [phrased like a rule] to communicate fully to me feels bad, like someone is insecure and needs somehow to be communicated to and to communicate.
Everything [including communication] has to be done willingly, through one's own desire at any given moment otherwise it is worthless.
This is so important given that manipulators like CoS will play on emotions and loyalty to give the impression that one has to stick with an agreement.
So yesterday, when someone was not being evil, I agreed to tell them things.
Today they now seem to have shifted, and are behaving in an evil way.
Why should anyone be bound by yesterday's rule since in my opinion the other side [not me] cancelled the agreement when they choose to be jerks.
Which is why it's better to skip such weird agreements and just do what is right at any given moment based on what one feels is ok to do.
Fear is just for me another tool in the confessor's torture kit. Ignore it, refuse to speak; this too will pass.
In the end I don't care about niceties and rules and what others expect. I have yet to hear why a human being should tell anything to another unless they feel like it and think it's ok to do.
Any 'agreement' [phrased like a rule] to communicate fully to me feels bad, like someone is insecure and needs somehow to be communicated to and to communicate.
Everything [including communication] has to be done willingly, through one's own desire at any given moment otherwise it is worthless.
This is so important given that manipulators like CoS will play on emotions and loyalty to give the impression that one has to stick with an agreement.
So yesterday, when someone was not being evil, I agreed to tell them things.
Today they now seem to have shifted, and are behaving in an evil way.
Why should anyone be bound by yesterday's rule since in my opinion the other side [not me] cancelled the agreement when they choose to be jerks.
Which is why it's better to skip such weird agreements and just do what is right at any given moment based on what one feels is ok to do.
Last edited:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Well isn't it convenient if what is ok to withhold and what is not ok to withhold is up to the psycho interrogator.
Well isn't it convenient if what is ok to withhold and what is not ok to withhold is up to the psycho interrogator.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Why am I not surprised?
I used that maxim for about 32 years. It seemed to work well for me as a catch all type phrase. Definitely, it was not a perfect piece of tech but it was workable. There is no doubt that it did not work optimally every time I used it. The incident in 1983 is one example where it didn't work. Still, over a long period in my life, it was better than what I had been doing previously. Now that I'm older and hopefully a bit wiser, I am not following that datum any longer and am achieving better results now than I did for those 32 years.
For me, that datum was an intermediate solution, it worked better than what I was using but I eventually outgrew it and went to something even better.
Lakey
Why am I not surprised?
I used that maxim for about 32 years. It seemed to work well for me as a catch all type phrase. Definitely, it was not a perfect piece of tech but it was workable. There is no doubt that it did not work optimally every time I used it. The incident in 1983 is one example where it didn't work. Still, over a long period in my life, it was better than what I had been doing previously. Now that I'm older and hopefully a bit wiser, I am not following that datum any longer and am achieving better results now than I did for those 32 years.
For me, that datum was an intermediate solution, it worked better than what I was using but I eventually outgrew it and went to something even better.
Lakey
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I guess I don't see the connection of when in doubt and communication.
Any wise business person will tell you that if something is doubtful, do more research, be a bit cautious, and then, after gaining a bit more confidence in the matter, act.
Only a fool acts impulsively 'when in doubt', why, because they don't know they are in doubt, and don't know who they are and don't know squat. So they just compulsively communicate thinking something will 'stick'.
So. Think of communication as money. Something valuable. Now consider if when in doubt communicate [spend money].
Of course not! Since that means throwing money out the window before one knows what one is spending it on! Just impulsively.
I guess I don't see the connection of when in doubt and communication.
Any wise business person will tell you that if something is doubtful, do more research, be a bit cautious, and then, after gaining a bit more confidence in the matter, act.
Only a fool acts impulsively 'when in doubt', why, because they don't know they are in doubt, and don't know who they are and don't know squat. So they just compulsively communicate thinking something will 'stick'.
So. Think of communication as money. Something valuable. Now consider if when in doubt communicate [spend money].
Of course not! Since that means throwing money out the window before one knows what one is spending it on! Just impulsively.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
To me, there is value in the old fashioned hand shake. My boss hired me in January, 2014. We verbally agreed on an annual salary and he wanted to just shake hands and not sign a contract. I shook with him. This was the way a lot of business was done in earlier times.
As long as both sides stick to the agreement, I believe that both parties should continue to uphold the agreement. Of course at any given time, they can agree to change the agreement and shake hands on a new agreement.
Now if either party cheats and/or fails to uphold his or her half of the agreement, the agreement is immediately voided. That is the way I like to operate. My boss was from England and he grew up with some pretty honest people and went to a trade school where this protocol was followed. Both he and I shook hands and fulfilled our agreements to each other as we stated we would. Of course, it is not possible to always agree on things with just a handshake because it requires honesty and integrity from both parties.
If both parties are honest and have integrity, I believe the handshake and one's word of honor constitute the ultimately best way to carry out a business arrangement or any other form of working together.
I don't agree with just doing what you feel is ok to do at any given moment. You could operate this way but I believe that first you must get the other party's agreement that this is ok. If the party you are working with agrees that it is ok then things should work out well. If you don't get the other party's agreement up front, and act unilaterally, I do not think that things are likely to work out between you and the party whom you are working with.
Lakey
To me, there is value in the old fashioned hand shake. My boss hired me in January, 2014. We verbally agreed on an annual salary and he wanted to just shake hands and not sign a contract. I shook with him. This was the way a lot of business was done in earlier times.
As long as both sides stick to the agreement, I believe that both parties should continue to uphold the agreement. Of course at any given time, they can agree to change the agreement and shake hands on a new agreement.
Now if either party cheats and/or fails to uphold his or her half of the agreement, the agreement is immediately voided. That is the way I like to operate. My boss was from England and he grew up with some pretty honest people and went to a trade school where this protocol was followed. Both he and I shook hands and fulfilled our agreements to each other as we stated we would. Of course, it is not possible to always agree on things with just a handshake because it requires honesty and integrity from both parties.
If both parties are honest and have integrity, I believe the handshake and one's word of honor constitute the ultimately best way to carry out a business arrangement or any other form of working together.
I don't agree with just doing what you feel is ok to do at any given moment. You could operate this way but I believe that first you must get the other party's agreement that this is ok. If the party you are working with agrees that it is ok then things should work out well. If you don't get the other party's agreement up front, and act unilaterally, I do not think that things are likely to work out between you and the party whom you are working with.
Lakey
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Well that last paragraph I will never agree to. But thank you for explaining. I find the idea of needing another party's agreement concerning my own actions...weird. And, not always should things work out. Having things work out is not a necessity or a given either.
Well that last paragraph I will never agree to. But thank you for explaining. I find the idea of needing another party's agreement concerning my own actions...weird. And, not always should things work out. Having things work out is not a necessity or a given either.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I take your point, Leon, but just so that nobody here gets the wrong idea, the EP (as Attested) of Expanded Grade Two is:
"Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life."
(attested on all 4 Flows)
I take your point, Leon, but just so that nobody here gets the wrong idea, the EP (as Attested) of Expanded Grade Two is:
"Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life."
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I guess I don't have room in me to even admit that there was any use for any Hubbard anything in my life. So I can't think of any case where anything he came up with worked, seemed to work, or should have worked.
Sigh.
I guess I don't have room in me to even admit that there was any use for any Hubbard anything in my life. So I can't think of any case where anything he came up with worked, seemed to work, or should have worked.
Sigh.
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I think Lakey and Maria are both right. It's good and right to keep to the agreements you've made with honest and decent people, and for those a verbal agreement and a handshake should suffice.
However, if you subsequently find that the other party to the agreement is shonky (as the CofS is, in spades), you should not feel bound to keep to an agreement which may lead to you violating your personal ethics or even the laws of the land.
I think Lakey and Maria are both right. It's good and right to keep to the agreements you've made with honest and decent people, and for those a verbal agreement and a handshake should suffice.
However, if you subsequently find that the other party to the agreement is shonky (as the CofS is, in spades), you should not feel bound to keep to an agreement which may lead to you violating your personal ethics or even the laws of the land.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I don't see why a person would enter into anything, a marriage, raising a child, a job, a class having a pet, taking on a study without wanting the thing to go forward successfully, which is what I mean by things working out. In nearly everything we do, there is another person involved.
Typically, we could consider a marriage, there are two people involved, if they don't want it to work out then why get married. If you don't want your job to work out why do it. It seems very basic to me, really, it almost has to be a given. If one doesn't want things to work out then it seems to me that all one is doing is wasting their time.
So people enter into agreements wanting things to work out and so as to best assure that things will work out, the two people involved establish a set of rules to follow so that their actions will dovetail and work harmoniously. Once the parameters are established, both parties shake hands on the agreement and each person handles their portion of the project.
Other points of view are very interesting to observe and study. Oftentimes one can learn something from another approach so believe in being open to other approaches.
However, unless both parties want the arrangement to work out and they can both agree to uphold a set of ground rules, there is no viable way in which they can possible work together. I thought both those two factors were total givens. I am really surprised to find out that you do not believe they are. Well, live and learn. I for one must have those two factors in place before I take on any kind of project with another person.
A project has to have some sort of predictability. You have to know that if you do such and such, the person who your are working with will respond with their such and such. You are spending your time hoping to gain new information. new skils, new wisdom, new understandings. IMHO, you can't just "fly blind" and not have some idea of how your associate is going to respond
Doing that is a waste of time and instead of learning things you will become less wise, feel uncomfortable and become immersed in disagreements and arguments. Instead of gaining wisdom and more understanding of life, you lose understanding and become less than you were before commencing such a study.
I don't even see how your preferred way of operating could possibly work. You are saying that it is not necessary to want the activity to work out, you don't want to establish any ground rules nor agreements with other parties involved in your activity and you just want to do what you feel like doing at any given time. When two or more people participate in any such activity I simply can't envision anything but failure for such an activity. I don't think it wise to waste a lot of time and effort on something that must, by its very nature, result in failure.
Lakey
I don't see why a person would enter into anything, a marriage, raising a child, a job, a class having a pet, taking on a study without wanting the thing to go forward successfully, which is what I mean by things working out. In nearly everything we do, there is another person involved.
Typically, we could consider a marriage, there are two people involved, if they don't want it to work out then why get married. If you don't want your job to work out why do it. It seems very basic to me, really, it almost has to be a given. If one doesn't want things to work out then it seems to me that all one is doing is wasting their time.
So people enter into agreements wanting things to work out and so as to best assure that things will work out, the two people involved establish a set of rules to follow so that their actions will dovetail and work harmoniously. Once the parameters are established, both parties shake hands on the agreement and each person handles their portion of the project.
Other points of view are very interesting to observe and study. Oftentimes one can learn something from another approach so believe in being open to other approaches.
However, unless both parties want the arrangement to work out and they can both agree to uphold a set of ground rules, there is no viable way in which they can possible work together. I thought both those two factors were total givens. I am really surprised to find out that you do not believe they are. Well, live and learn. I for one must have those two factors in place before I take on any kind of project with another person.
A project has to have some sort of predictability. You have to know that if you do such and such, the person who your are working with will respond with their such and such. You are spending your time hoping to gain new information. new skils, new wisdom, new understandings. IMHO, you can't just "fly blind" and not have some idea of how your associate is going to respond
Doing that is a waste of time and instead of learning things you will become less wise, feel uncomfortable and become immersed in disagreements and arguments. Instead of gaining wisdom and more understanding of life, you lose understanding and become less than you were before commencing such a study.
I don't even see how your preferred way of operating could possibly work. You are saying that it is not necessary to want the activity to work out, you don't want to establish any ground rules nor agreements with other parties involved in your activity and you just want to do what you feel like doing at any given time. When two or more people participate in any such activity I simply can't envision anything but failure for such an activity. I don't think it wise to waste a lot of time and effort on something that must, by its very nature, result in failure.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I respect you for your opinion in a way. You are upholding your views against a lot of counter intention by many others, some very stupid people but also some well intended people. It is admirable to stand alone against group type thinking. It really takes courage and the willingness to stand alone against many others. I admire that trait in you.
All that being said, perhaps you are going too far in taking the stand which you are taking that every last word of Hubbard's is crap.
That fact is that there are no absolutes in our physical universe. Even Hitler was right on some things. They make a joke that under him the trains ran on time. No, its more than that, he quickly brought the German economy back to life and instituted full employment, prosperity and national pride in a country that was dying. He built the autobahns and gave us the VW, he loved his dog, "Blonde" and took good care of her, he was a vegetarian. The evil he did was thousands of times worse than the good he did but he did do a little good.
My point is that nothing or no one is totally 100% bad or evil. What if you conceded that someone cleaned up a misunderstood word by looking the word up in a dictionary and using it in a few sentences. Nothing would change for you. Your main thrust would still be that Hubbard's tech was extremely destructive. If you could just allow a small win like that to stand without going out of your way to negate it. What difference would it make? It is insignificant in the big picture of things. You should go after Hubbard on the big stuff; that is where you shine! Your blogs are very good and very convincing and are well written.
If Hitler did a handful of good things among all his evils, perhaps Hubbard did the same. If you don't believe that to be true, then you don't have to change your mind but if someone tells of a small win like looking up a word. maybe just let it slide without comment. That's my opinion on what you wrote above.
Lakey
I respect you for your opinion in a way. You are upholding your views against a lot of counter intention by many others, some very stupid people but also some well intended people. It is admirable to stand alone against group type thinking. It really takes courage and the willingness to stand alone against many others. I admire that trait in you.
All that being said, perhaps you are going too far in taking the stand which you are taking that every last word of Hubbard's is crap.
That fact is that there are no absolutes in our physical universe. Even Hitler was right on some things. They make a joke that under him the trains ran on time. No, its more than that, he quickly brought the German economy back to life and instituted full employment, prosperity and national pride in a country that was dying. He built the autobahns and gave us the VW, he loved his dog, "Blonde" and took good care of her, he was a vegetarian. The evil he did was thousands of times worse than the good he did but he did do a little good.
My point is that nothing or no one is totally 100% bad or evil. What if you conceded that someone cleaned up a misunderstood word by looking the word up in a dictionary and using it in a few sentences. Nothing would change for you. Your main thrust would still be that Hubbard's tech was extremely destructive. If you could just allow a small win like that to stand without going out of your way to negate it. What difference would it make? It is insignificant in the big picture of things. You should go after Hubbard on the big stuff; that is where you shine! Your blogs are very good and very convincing and are well written.
If Hitler did a handful of good things among all his evils, perhaps Hubbard did the same. If you don't believe that to be true, then you don't have to change your mind but if someone tells of a small win like looking up a word. maybe just let it slide without comment. That's my opinion on what you wrote above.
Lakey
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
These "EPs" as given on the Grade chart were derived from asking preclears what they got out of the auditing they had and then promoting that as being the "EP". But there is something recursive about doing this - it just holds up a generalised mirror telling the preclear what he probably got.
Behind the scene there is the task of getting someone genuinely "up the bridge" and developing in him the abilities that he would need (in relation to his bank and his dynamics) to do higher levels. So there are EPs for the preclear and EPs for the auditor/CS. These last ones are nowhere clearly written up but are gleaned from a more thorough understanding of the Tech. (or Tek, as someone calls it)
As regards the discussion re 'When in doubt, communicate. I always found it interesting to see how often Hubs violates his own writings. Read the Doubt formula in the ethics conditions and you'll find a totally different set of things you ought to do when you are in "doubt". But don't anyone please never waste your time trying to get anywhere by applying those formulas. Unless you do them right and do them under the guidance of a person familiar with (Yes, here it comes) Mary Freeman's work on the subject.
And no, I won't tell you what that is all about. The rundown is only shared with trained auditors who have have the actions run on them to a successful result. (Isn't it interesting - I have never seen these materials disclosed on the internet. Hmmm.)
I take your point, Leon, but just so that nobody here gets the wrong idea, the EP (as Attested) of Expanded Grade Two is:
"Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life."
(attested on all 4 Flows)
These "EPs" as given on the Grade chart were derived from asking preclears what they got out of the auditing they had and then promoting that as being the "EP". But there is something recursive about doing this - it just holds up a generalised mirror telling the preclear what he probably got.
Behind the scene there is the task of getting someone genuinely "up the bridge" and developing in him the abilities that he would need (in relation to his bank and his dynamics) to do higher levels. So there are EPs for the preclear and EPs for the auditor/CS. These last ones are nowhere clearly written up but are gleaned from a more thorough understanding of the Tech. (or Tek, as someone calls it)
As regards the discussion re 'When in doubt, communicate. I always found it interesting to see how often Hubs violates his own writings. Read the Doubt formula in the ethics conditions and you'll find a totally different set of things you ought to do when you are in "doubt". But don't anyone please never waste your time trying to get anywhere by applying those formulas. Unless you do them right and do them under the guidance of a person familiar with (Yes, here it comes) Mary Freeman's work on the subject.
And no, I won't tell you what that is all about. The rundown is only shared with trained auditors who have have the actions run on them to a successful result. (Isn't it interesting - I have never seen these materials disclosed on the internet. Hmmm.)
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Grade 2 deals with freeing the person from the "consequences" of overts and witholds. It is supposed to raise the person's Responsibility Level and, seeing as how one of Hubbard's definitions of Responsibility is "The ability to withhold", I have no argument with what you said was part of the EP. That's why I said "I take your point". I was just clarifying the actual stated EP in the light of subsequent Posters asking questions about your comment.
Perhaps that's true, I don't know. So much of scientology's promotional/PR/State Of Case etc is derived from survey results and bears little resemblance to what might actually be achieved by a given action.
Grade 2 deals with freeing the person from the "consequences" of overts and witholds. It is supposed to raise the person's Responsibility Level and, seeing as how one of Hubbard's definitions of Responsibility is "The ability to withhold", I have no argument with what you said was part of the EP. That's why I said "I take your point". I was just clarifying the actual stated EP in the light of subsequent Posters asking questions about your comment.
Helena Handbasket
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Helena
I've lost count of the number of shonky people that have been in my life.
Helena
- Status
