Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
If all I knew about Lakey was what he had expressed a few posts back, I would say his item is his "family." The grumbling about this, that, or the other thing don't mean squat.
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
If all I knew about Lakey was what he had expressed a few posts back, I would say his item is his "family." The grumbling about this, that, or the other thing don't mean squat.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Well, unlucky. The official name of the Super Power Building is "Mecca" or "Flag Mecca Building" or similar. They don't seem to have settled on it quite yet. See http://www.freedommag.org/planned-to-perfection-scientology-mecca (CofS link).
Maybe once they finally get it open and bombing along merrily, you'll be able to dine in the Taliban Restaurant and drink in the Jihad Bar.
. Can't you just imagine fired-up patrons screaming "JEEEEEEE-HAD!!!"?Paul
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, unlucky. The official name of the Super Power Building is "Mecca" or "Flag Mecca Building" or similar. They don't seem to have settled on it quite yet. See http://www.freedommag.org/planned-to-perfection-scientology-mecca (CofS link).
Maybe once they finally get it open and bombing along merrily, you'll be able to dine in the Taliban Restaurant and drink in the Jihad Bar.
Paul
Now that's funny!
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Face and I were talking. we noticed that among the major hooks that snagged us into Scientology were the people and the parties.
John McMaster came to my mind. He once hit me across the room with a huge affinity flow. My girl friend, Laurie (formerly Noonan, Douglas, now Engelhart) looked at me and said "What did I do to rate that?" It was pretty amazing.KNOWING HIS HISTORY, I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED WHAT OR WHO HE SAW IN ME. Was he hitting on me without a 2D flow, or did he just like me? I don't know.
In general though, the people of Scientology in the 60s and 70s were uptone ( no matter whether they were age 5 or age 70 or in between). The baby boomers through early middle age were particularly alive. The fact that the pill had been distributed since the mid 60s and AIDS hadn't occurred yet, made consorting with the opposite sex very attractive.
In no particular order: there were parties where "Truth or Dare " was played, along with spin the bottle. There were hot tub parties where dozens of nekkid people crammed into a big redwood tank, there were family barbeques where Quentin was a guest or Heber sang and played guitar.
Girls and guys hooked up for short or long relationships.
In the late 60s and early 70s, Deep Throat, the Secretaries, Devil In Miss Jones, Behind the Green Door were all popular flicks to see with a group of friends, most of whom were Class Vl, Vlll, or HSST.
Maybe I'm just stuck, but my posts tend to push back the repression, to the earlier days when fun was a good thing. I now know many ex scientologists never experienced this particular culture. I have to think that my wife and I fostered that culture among our children as best we could.
My wife ( a class Vlll Founding Scientologist for the record) and I were friends for a decade before we ever hooked up. I took her to see "On a Clear Day" and to Fillmore West to see the Incredible String Band when she was preggers with her first kid with hubby #1. Toward the end of her first marriage, she took me to "Flesh Gordon" and "Deep Throat." Hubby #1 is still a good friend of ours. He's now 79 and plays tennis with 40 and 50 year olds on the Stanford campus two or three times a week. We've all stayed connected and ACTIVE.
Our kids were raised with skinny dipping in the waters off Bermuda, in our hot tub, on white water rafting trips ie. a laissez-faire attitude. We took all our kids to "Animal House" when it opened; a relaxed feeling toward sleep overs among their boy friends and girl friends; It wasn't uncommon for us to have parties that lasted loud and long till 3 AM. Most of our kids have lived together with their honeys before getting married.
My wife has a birthday tomorrow. She's going to be 65. This is the same woman who was solo course sup at ASHO wearing a mini skirt and no undies. The same woman, who had tits showing through a light bra and blue blouse that Pete Grant (New Riders of the Purple Sage, Grateful Dead, etc) and I agreed was very hot 40 years ago. (The same woman who made out with Jim McMullin in the ASHO parking lot, with Alan Walter by her pool).
Any way, while no nookie that I know of took place at Aida's party, there was that HUGE FEELING OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH and SAFE SPACE was very much there. It would be really sweet if we could recreate that Camelot like feeling of yesterday, not only for ourselves and our children, but for many future generations to come.
I've tasted it. It is good.
We are having a birthday party with all the kids and grand kids in an hour. It'll last well into the night.
There is a lot to be said for good auditing and keeping clean of case. Talking freely communicating well. Organizing and creating your dreams.
So here's a safe transition into old reality / current present time:
Which swimsuit (swim suit wearer) do you like best? (This is a metered assessment)
PS: Ursula is 74 (Do you believe that?), Farah is dead, and Bo - I saw her last year - she is skinny as to look like she has some eating disorder. It was not a pleasant sight.
John McMaster came to my mind. He once hit me across the room with a huge affinity flow. My girl friend, Laurie (formerly Noonan, Douglas, now Engelhart) looked at me and said "What did I do to rate that?" It was pretty amazing.KNOWING HIS HISTORY, I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED WHAT OR WHO HE SAW IN ME. Was he hitting on me without a 2D flow, or did he just like me? I don't know.
In general though, the people of Scientology in the 60s and 70s were uptone ( no matter whether they were age 5 or age 70 or in between). The baby boomers through early middle age were particularly alive. The fact that the pill had been distributed since the mid 60s and AIDS hadn't occurred yet, made consorting with the opposite sex very attractive.
In no particular order: there were parties where "Truth or Dare " was played, along with spin the bottle. There were hot tub parties where dozens of nekkid people crammed into a big redwood tank, there were family barbeques where Quentin was a guest or Heber sang and played guitar.
Girls and guys hooked up for short or long relationships.
In the late 60s and early 70s, Deep Throat, the Secretaries, Devil In Miss Jones, Behind the Green Door were all popular flicks to see with a group of friends, most of whom were Class Vl, Vlll, or HSST.
Maybe I'm just stuck, but my posts tend to push back the repression, to the earlier days when fun was a good thing. I now know many ex scientologists never experienced this particular culture. I have to think that my wife and I fostered that culture among our children as best we could.
My wife ( a class Vlll Founding Scientologist for the record) and I were friends for a decade before we ever hooked up. I took her to see "On a Clear Day" and to Fillmore West to see the Incredible String Band when she was preggers with her first kid with hubby #1. Toward the end of her first marriage, she took me to "Flesh Gordon" and "Deep Throat." Hubby #1 is still a good friend of ours. He's now 79 and plays tennis with 40 and 50 year olds on the Stanford campus two or three times a week. We've all stayed connected and ACTIVE.
Our kids were raised with skinny dipping in the waters off Bermuda, in our hot tub, on white water rafting trips ie. a laissez-faire attitude. We took all our kids to "Animal House" when it opened; a relaxed feeling toward sleep overs among their boy friends and girl friends; It wasn't uncommon for us to have parties that lasted loud and long till 3 AM. Most of our kids have lived together with their honeys before getting married.
My wife has a birthday tomorrow. She's going to be 65. This is the same woman who was solo course sup at ASHO wearing a mini skirt and no undies. The same woman, who had tits showing through a light bra and blue blouse that Pete Grant (New Riders of the Purple Sage, Grateful Dead, etc) and I agreed was very hot 40 years ago. (The same woman who made out with Jim McMullin in the ASHO parking lot, with Alan Walter by her pool).
Any way, while no nookie that I know of took place at Aida's party, there was that HUGE FEELING OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH and SAFE SPACE was very much there. It would be really sweet if we could recreate that Camelot like feeling of yesterday, not only for ourselves and our children, but for many future generations to come.
I've tasted it. It is good.
We are having a birthday party with all the kids and grand kids in an hour. It'll last well into the night.
There is a lot to be said for good auditing and keeping clean of case. Talking freely communicating well. Organizing and creating your dreams.
So here's a safe transition into old reality / current present time:
Which swimsuit (swim suit wearer) do you like best? (This is a metered assessment)
PS: Ursula is 74 (Do you believe that?), Farah is dead, and Bo - I saw her last year - she is skinny as to look like she has some eating disorder. It was not a pleasant sight.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
[...]
Which swimsuit (swim suit wearer) do you like best? (This is a metered assessment)
PS: Ursula is 74 (Do you believe that?), Farah is dead, and Bo - I saw her last year - she is skinny as to look like she has some eating disorder. It was not a pleasant sight.
It's a trick question! I like them all!
As for the writeup, I can see that the '60s and '70s are responsible for my condition.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
None of the above. Wrong Items the lot of them.
Attached is something more to my taste.
Mark A. Baker
Attachments
thetanic
Gold Meritorious Patron
My first choice is pasty redheads, but they tend not to look so great in bathing suits.
Second choice is surfer dudes, like McC:
http://www3.whig.com/whig/blogs/aliveandwell/?p=560
Second choice is surfer dudes, like McC:
http://www3.whig.com/whig/blogs/aliveandwell/?p=560
I think I was talking in general terms. I doubt that it will be necessary for one to pervade and fully become every pat of dog poop in the world, nor every pile of vomit and filth that there is. But in general - one would be willing and able to pervade and be any mest anywhere.
On the other hand you may wish to audition for an upcoming production of the Sound of Music where you will be given the chance to romp around sining of you willing you are to be sleighbells the jingle and warm little kittens with mittens and so on. Who knows, it may be exactly what the universe wants of you.
I'm copy/pasting this so I can look at it while I reply to Vinaire.
To have a universe it must be considered first. And it must be considered from a NULL viewpoint that is beyond consideration.
A universe would consist of beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter. The NULL viewpoint would be beyond beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter.
Implication here is that these all get mocked up in fell swoop. An all or nothing scene. When I was stomping around this area of track with Robert Ducharme some years ago it seemed to me more that we started of with simply an awareness of self, then awareness of others came into it. No space here, but clearly time was beginning already. Then the idea of perceptions creeped into it all and with that the beginnings of space, though not space as we know it. Then communication with the others (no space here, all telepathy type exchange, so there is time) and then creations to be viewed in a "space" seperate to our own "locations", which all brought about some more space.
The universe would start with the assumption of BEINGNESS. At the core of this beingness would reside the NULL viewpoint
NOTE: The phrase “NULL viewpoint” is a placeholder like “zero.” No definition for “NULL viewpoint” is provided here other than that it is beyond beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter.
If there is no awareness there nor any beingness, then how could we even know it once existed? I could just as easily say that all of my actions are caused by a little red dot nine inches in front of my nose which is beyond all possibility of being perceived in any way by anyone ever. What would be the usefulness of such a claim? Zilch. I think the same goes for saying that at the core of beingness is a null point. It serves no purpose at all.
The moment universe comes into BEING it becomes AWARE of itself. Thus, it acquires a VIEWPOINT.
One can be aware of oneself without viewing anything. There can be awareness without any viewpoint at all.
This universe has scope. That scope defines its SPACE.
A mere play on words. How is it different to saying "A universe has SPACE. That space defines its scope"?
This universe persists. That persistence defines its TIME.
No. An unchanging object can be timeless. Time is shown through change and through sequence and through memory of what was which can then be compared to what is and differences perceived. Knock out any one of these three and time disappears.
This universe symbolizes creative activity. That activity defines its ENERGY.
"Symbolizes"? This may be an odd choice of a word. Do you have a better one?
This universe is something. That somethingness defines its MATTER.
Same play onn words as earlier - "something" and "matter" are interchangeable; therefor you have a tautol;ogy.
The universe, which comes into existence, is a system of BEINGNESS, AWARENESS (viewpoint), SPACE, TIME, ENERGY and MATTER.
Well, this mest one yes. But there can be universe which contain none of these. Consider your own universe of Mathematics - it has patterns and relationships but has none of the words you have capitalised in the para above.
The components of BEINGNESS and AWARENESS (viewpoint) are regarded as “spiritual.”
Again, the word "components" here is troublesome. Do you have a better one?
Oh wait - I thought you meant that there are components which together make up Beingness. But maybe you mean that beingness and AAwareness are two components of the universe and these two are both spiritual components.
The components of SPACE, TIME, ENERGY and MATTER are regarded as “physical.”
“Spiritual” and “physical” are two aspects of the same system.
OK. Up to here for now.
cheers,
L
To have a universe it must be considered first. And it must be considered from a NULL viewpoint that is beyond consideration.
A universe would consist of beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter. The NULL viewpoint would be beyond beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter.
Implication here is that these all get mocked up in fell swoop. An all or nothing scene. When I was stomping around this area of track with Robert Ducharme some years ago it seemed to me more that we started of with simply an awareness of self, then awareness of others came into it. No space here, but clearly time was beginning already. Then the idea of perceptions creeped into it all and with that the beginnings of space, though not space as we know it. Then communication with the others (no space here, all telepathy type exchange, so there is time) and then creations to be viewed in a "space" seperate to our own "locations", which all brought about some more space.
The universe would start with the assumption of BEINGNESS. At the core of this beingness would reside the NULL viewpoint
NOTE: The phrase “NULL viewpoint” is a placeholder like “zero.” No definition for “NULL viewpoint” is provided here other than that it is beyond beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter.
If there is no awareness there nor any beingness, then how could we even know it once existed? I could just as easily say that all of my actions are caused by a little red dot nine inches in front of my nose which is beyond all possibility of being perceived in any way by anyone ever. What would be the usefulness of such a claim? Zilch. I think the same goes for saying that at the core of beingness is a null point. It serves no purpose at all.
The moment universe comes into BEING it becomes AWARE of itself. Thus, it acquires a VIEWPOINT.
One can be aware of oneself without viewing anything. There can be awareness without any viewpoint at all.
This universe has scope. That scope defines its SPACE.
A mere play on words. How is it different to saying "A universe has SPACE. That space defines its scope"?
This universe persists. That persistence defines its TIME.
No. An unchanging object can be timeless. Time is shown through change and through sequence and through memory of what was which can then be compared to what is and differences perceived. Knock out any one of these three and time disappears.
This universe symbolizes creative activity. That activity defines its ENERGY.
"Symbolizes"? This may be an odd choice of a word. Do you have a better one?
This universe is something. That somethingness defines its MATTER.
Same play onn words as earlier - "something" and "matter" are interchangeable; therefor you have a tautol;ogy.
The universe, which comes into existence, is a system of BEINGNESS, AWARENESS (viewpoint), SPACE, TIME, ENERGY and MATTER.
Well, this mest one yes. But there can be universe which contain none of these. Consider your own universe of Mathematics - it has patterns and relationships but has none of the words you have capitalised in the para above.
The components of BEINGNESS and AWARENESS (viewpoint) are regarded as “spiritual.”
Again, the word "components" here is troublesome. Do you have a better one?
Oh wait - I thought you meant that there are components which together make up Beingness. But maybe you mean that beingness and AAwareness are two components of the universe and these two are both spiritual components.
The components of SPACE, TIME, ENERGY and MATTER are regarded as “physical.”
“Spiritual” and “physical” are two aspects of the same system.
OK. Up to here for now.
cheers,
L
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
We are probably saying the same thing in different ways.
Originally we certainly were the entire universe - this was a 7th dynamic viepoint (just after creating it as the 8th we identified with it and became 7th)
Then we seperated further and declared on part of the universe to be "me" and the rest "not me". equals 6th dynamic. (me was the alive portion, the rest was "dead matter)
Then we bacame only a part of the "alive matter" - there was the alive matter that was "me" and the part that was "not me". Equals 5th dynamic.
And then a smaller part and a smaller part and so on. 2nd dynamic was a part that could still persist through time.
1st dynamic is only a part of a cooperative system which can maybe persist through time.
Now as we turn the cycle around we expand not only through the dynamics but through the entire universe as we grow. And dog-poop is somewhere along the line for us too.
What is the opoosite to neti, neti? Something meaning "all this, and all that, and that too..."
That is the better route.
lkwdblds
Crusader
I admire you for coming over to this thread.
Blip, I admire you for coming over to this thread to state your views! I do not quite get your point. It looks to me as if you are trying to illustrate some inconsistancies between my two posts. I don't see any inconsistencies at first glance.
You did cherry pick my quotes a bit, taking them both out of context from two different posts of mine. The first one, Quote A was addressed to Vinaire concerning the question of why he was participating in a thread where he stated his views and then has endured about 60 pages of text mainly bashing him. Vin responded and my Quote A was my response to his response.
In Quote B, the initial words are not mine, Ted quoted some viewpoints of an author named Castro and I agreed with those comments and my Quote B was an expansion of what I thought about some of Castro's key points.
Bearing in mind the different subjects I was dealing with when I made each quote, if you would please clarify in more detail where you believe I am being inconsistent I would greatly appreciate it. I will review your expanded comments in great detail and if you show me to my satisfaction or that of the regular people who post here that there are serious inconsistencies in my two posts or that I am doing exactly what I accuse you guys of doing, I will retract the offensive part of my most and will admit that my post was in error.
I think it takes a lot of balls for you to come over here and "call them the way you see them". I greatly admire that trait in you and want to encourage it. If I am wrong, I will acknowledge it and correct my post. If I do not think I am wrong, I will let you know in a coureous and respectful manner and you can have more tries at correcting me.
One thing though, Blip, I will never degrade your personally, for stanidng up for your point of view and I will change my mind if I am wrong. Over on Vinaire's thread where I encountered you and many of your buddies, I do not believe that any of your buddies would extend this type of respect and courtesy to those who disagree with them.
That is the difference in a nutshell. I and the people over here are seeking dialogue in an attempt to gain more understanding and we actually grant credence and credibility to people's views which are different from our own. We will change out views when it is shown us that we were wrong. IT IS NOT WHAT YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS BELIEVE BUT IT IS HOW YOU GUYS HANDLE THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AS YOU DO. THAT IS THE ONLY AREA WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS.
Lakey
Blip, I admire you for coming over to this thread to state your views! I do not quite get your point. It looks to me as if you are trying to illustrate some inconsistancies between my two posts. I don't see any inconsistencies at first glance.
You did cherry pick my quotes a bit, taking them both out of context from two different posts of mine. The first one, Quote A was addressed to Vinaire concerning the question of why he was participating in a thread where he stated his views and then has endured about 60 pages of text mainly bashing him. Vin responded and my Quote A was my response to his response.
In Quote B, the initial words are not mine, Ted quoted some viewpoints of an author named Castro and I agreed with those comments and my Quote B was an expansion of what I thought about some of Castro's key points.
Bearing in mind the different subjects I was dealing with when I made each quote, if you would please clarify in more detail where you believe I am being inconsistent I would greatly appreciate it. I will review your expanded comments in great detail and if you show me to my satisfaction or that of the regular people who post here that there are serious inconsistencies in my two posts or that I am doing exactly what I accuse you guys of doing, I will retract the offensive part of my most and will admit that my post was in error.
I think it takes a lot of balls for you to come over here and "call them the way you see them". I greatly admire that trait in you and want to encourage it. If I am wrong, I will acknowledge it and correct my post. If I do not think I am wrong, I will let you know in a coureous and respectful manner and you can have more tries at correcting me.
One thing though, Blip, I will never degrade your personally, for stanidng up for your point of view and I will change my mind if I am wrong. Over on Vinaire's thread where I encountered you and many of your buddies, I do not believe that any of your buddies would extend this type of respect and courtesy to those who disagree with them.
That is the difference in a nutshell. I and the people over here are seeking dialogue in an attempt to gain more understanding and we actually grant credence and credibility to people's views which are different from our own. We will change out views when it is shown us that we were wrong. IT IS NOT WHAT YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS BELIEVE BUT IT IS HOW YOU GUYS HANDLE THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AS YOU DO. THAT IS THE ONLY AREA WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Leon, can you illustrate in addressing OT 8?
Leon, I have not done OT VIII but from what I have heard and read, it is a form of neti, neti,. "Find out who you really are" Well if you examine things and declare, I am not this, I am not that, I am not this........and continue this process long enough, you eliminate all the things that you are not and maybe you you will realize who or what you are.
Could that be applied to OT VIII, I am all of this, all of that and that too, etc. That process, anti neti, net would seem to lead one to the awareness that one is God, you know the sum of an infinite number of viewpoints.
What say you Leon? Please give me more insights into this concept.
Lakey
P.S. - Leon, cancel this post. I just scrolled upwards and read your post #3612 and that answered the questions I asked on this post very well so no need to answer further.
Leon, I have not done OT VIII but from what I have heard and read, it is a form of neti, neti,. "Find out who you really are" Well if you examine things and declare, I am not this, I am not that, I am not this........and continue this process long enough, you eliminate all the things that you are not and maybe you you will realize who or what you are.
Could that be applied to OT VIII, I am all of this, all of that and that too, etc. That process, anti neti, net would seem to lead one to the awareness that one is God, you know the sum of an infinite number of viewpoints.
What say you Leon? Please give me more insights into this concept.
Lakey
P.S. - Leon, cancel this post. I just scrolled upwards and read your post #3612 and that answered the questions I asked on this post very well so no need to answer further.
Last edited:
Vinaire
Sponsor
Vinaire
Sponsor
I do feel that these all get mocked up in one fell swoop... the definitions we are using seems to be different. I am not regurgitating Hubbard's Factors.
To me awareness implies some sort of a viewpoint. A viewpoint is a point of awareness. One cannot be aware without a viewpoint. This is my understanding.
To me persistance cannot take place without the consideration of time even when nothing is changing. Change simply adds another dimension to time.
Self is the universe when it gets mocked up. Further mockups simply add to this universe.
Awareness of self is an aspect of perception.
Scope of that awareness is space.
In my view, space is the introduction of dimensions in terms of awareness. One becomes aware in different ways and that is space. From this point of view time is just another dimension of awareness, hence, an aspect of space.
.
Last edited:
Vinaire
Sponsor
What my understanding of "totally BE everything that is "out there", pervade it, ... etc." is to assume the viewpoint from which something was created.
So, there is smelly and gooey dog poop out there on the street. To me if I have fully understood how it was created then I don't need to proceed beyond that.
I believe that Hubbard's model was great but it needs further tweaking.
.
Vinaire
Sponsor
I don't think so. When one says, "I am not a thetan" one can take the viewpoint of how a thetan came into being.
When one is identifying oneself as a thetan one cannot take that viewpoint and cannot pervade the consideration of thetan.
The above is an example of the application of the process of "neti, neti."
.
- Status
