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

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I vote Hats to be the funniest person on this thread!

Where do you get this sort of nonsense from anyway?

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I vote Hats to be the funniest person on this thread!

Where do you get this sort of nonsense from anyway?

My mom has old lady friends in google groups who forward stuff like this to each other's emails. It's like being a member of a chain letter club for chrissakes. Everyone in the entire address book gets a copy...then this repeats itself from every vector. That's why a lot of it is old.
Hey, if ya work the mouse just right he beats himself up.

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Shit, Hats, it's too early in the morning for that kind of thing . . . .

I'm lucky I've had my first swig of coffee, otherwise my mind might have closed down on me!

R

 

[Vinaire]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This quote of LRH's that Lakey and Ted refer to:


Yes . . . note he uses the words/phrases "willing to" and "want to" . . .

This of course speaks to his evil and insanity.

Had he been sane he would have expressed the sentiment in the terms that one has to be able to . . . but not choose to.

It is interesting to observe the specificity of his word choice and slip up of revealing his true self here.

RogerB

http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t...958d41a8877612271&th=816&goto=18514#msg_18594

 

[Ted]

Conscious Listening

This video is not yet up on youtube. Here it is from the TED website.

"In our louder and louder world, says sound expert Julian Treasure, 'We are losing our listening.' In this short, fascinating talk, Treasure shares five ways to re-tune your ears for conscious listening -- to other people and the world around you.


5 Ways to Listen Better

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey old chap - your mind is just not twisted enough to understand Hubbard at all. You're far too A to B, as the saying goes. Not devious enough. Your need the mind of a criminal lawyer, or a politician or a pope or someone like that, the mind of a paranoid Machiavellian con-man. THEN you may begin to understand!

Thanks, that really indicates as being correct! I appreciate the tip!!!
Lakey

 

[Vinaire]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is better to leave Hubbard alone. There is no knowledge there.

But discuss LRH data all you want. You may learn something new.

.

 

[Jachs]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is better to leave Hubbard alone. There is no knowledge there.

But discuss LRH data all you want. You may learn something new.

.

I could have sworn you said leave Hubbard alone theres no knowledge there

but discuss Hubbards knowledge all you want, you may learn something new.

Knowledge, data whats the difference.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is better to leave Hubbard alone. There is no knowledge there.

But discuss LRH data all you want. You may learn something new.

.

Vin, it appears to me that you have changed a bit over the last year and a half or so. At one time, in late 2009, I believe that you felt that there was something worthwhile in Hubbard. I remember that you were studying the OT levels in a new unit of time to see if you could get something out of them.

To be sure, you cautioned us that there were pitfalls in Hubbard but at that time, correct me if I'm wrong, you were not saying that there is no knowledge there.

Of course, one's point of view can change on a message board such as this and that is a good thing and is expected but am I correct in noticing that you have moved further away from Hubbard here in 2011 than you were in late 2009?
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Vin, it appears to me that you have changed a bit over the last year and a half or so. At one time, in late 2009, I believe that you felt that there was something worthwhile in Hubbard. I remember that you were studying the OT levels in a new unit of time to see if you could get something out of them.

To be sure, you cautioned us that there were pitfalls in Hubbard but at that time, correct me if I'm wrong, you were not saying that there is no knowledge there.

Of course, one's point of view can change on a message board such as this and that is a good thing and is expected but am I correct in noticing that you have moved further away from Hubbard here in 2011 than you were in late 2009?
Lakey

The "Reply to the Thread" button is frozen and won't work so I am replying to my own previous post.

I just received something in today's email from the same Scientologist who sent me that Hubbard quote yesterday from PDC lecture #47 which I did not like. This quote which I got today seemed to contain some truth for me, here it is:

“Did you ever see anybody at a gambling table who cared desperately and who had to win? Did you ever see him win? Not in this universe. But this fellow who’s sitting there and he doesn’t care — if he got the money he’d take it out and throw it in a spittoon. And there that fellow sits with the dollars rolling in on him. And he’s getting a higher and higher stack of win. But then one day he gets married or something, he’s threatened to lose his job and he says, ‘I’ve always won at gambling. Now I think I’ll go back and play. I’ll make some money.’ He’s done. He goes back and he loses and loses and loses and loses and loses.

“Well, he was able to take a very grand view of all this at first. Then later on, when it became serious to him . . . You know, the way to get ahead in the world is work hard and save your money and be respectful — respectful and polite and willing and very agreeable to your superiors. This is the old formula and yet it’s dismaying to go around and find the (quote) ‘captains of industry’ and find out that they’re a whole bunch of pirates and bums. They were never respectful to anybody. It’s just incredible, yet there they sit in command of large works and industries. They didn’t save their money. They don’t save their money. They are not cautious with their investments. They buy the doggonedest things. They get into the worst possible scrapes and trouble and seem to keep right on going and getting right out of them again.

“And you sit around and say, ‘Well, the fellow is going to come to grief sooner or later.’ And after you’ve said that for about forty years, why, you get a little apathetic about it, but you just know that right will triumph in the end. And of course, the end of that track is MEST. Well, the fellow who hopes this, by the way, is already pretty well on that track and he’ll be MEST before the other fellow will, because the other fellow can still bend the MEST universe around and he doesn’t have to agree with it too much.”
— L. Ron Hubbard, The Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Opening: What Is To Be Done in Course
The thing is you can bend the MEST universe. We help people with this at Celebrity Centre International every day. Answer the questions below to give me a better idea of how I can best help you!
1. Have you ever been desperate about getting up The Bridge?
2. Give me an example of something serious about your efforts to get up The Bridge.
3. What barriers do you have currently in getting to the top of The Bridge?

Don’t forget to forward this e-mail to everyone you know.
Much Love."

Lakey

 

[Vinaire]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I could have sworn you said leave Hubbard alone theres no knowledge there

but discuss Hubbards knowledge all you want, you may learn something new.

Knowledge, data whats the difference.

There is no knowledge in figuring out people's intentions. That is just old ladies' gossip. One actually sees a version of one's own intention actually.

True knowledge resides in the examination of data out there and spotting consistencies and inconsistencies among that data.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Vin, it appears to me that you have changed a bit over the last year and a half or so. At one time, in late 2009, I believe that you felt that there was something worthwhile in Hubbard. I remember that you were studying the OT levels in a new unit of time to see if you could get something out of them.

To be sure, you cautioned us that there were pitfalls in Hubbard but at that time, correct me if I'm wrong, you were not saying that there is no knowledge there.

Of course, one's point of view can change on a message board such as this and that is a good thing and is expected but am I correct in noticing that you have moved further away from Hubbard here in 2011 than you were in late 2009?
Lakey

What I mean is that there is no knowledge in discussing Hubbard the person, his intentions, etc. That is waste of time. The man is dead. Leave him alone.

But there is a lot of knowledge in the data isolated, organized, and originated by Hubbard. Hubbard's data has definitely been inspirational to me.

.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I could have sworn you said leave Hubbard alone theres no knowledge there

but discuss Hubbards knowledge all you want, you may learn something new.

Knowledge, data whats the difference.

Quite a bit, actually.

The subject of scientology is not the same thing as l.ron hubbard. The confusion of the two has been a source for a great many people's distress.

There is much in the subject of scientology which can be of use. LRH plays no part in that.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What I mean is that there is no knowledge in discussing Hubbard the person, his intentions, etc. That is waste of time. The man is dead. Leave him alone.

But there is a lot of knowledge in the data isolated, organized, and originated by Hubbard. Hubbard's data has definitely been inspirational to me.

.

Aha! Thank you for clearing that up, I am glad that I asked. I agree with you on both points.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Quite a bit, actually.

The subject of scientology is not the same thing as l.ron hubbard. The confusion of the two has been a source for a great many people's distress.

There is much in the subject of scientology which can be of use. LRH plays no part in that.


Mark A. Baker

Well stated! I believe that Hubbard himself stated that same concept in several of his taped lectures. Of course, as someone pointed out very recently (maybe Jachs?), Hubbard himself did not follow his own teachings.

If you tried to disagree with Hubbard the man, pressure was brought to bear upon you to change your ways and go into full agreement with him in his personal opinions as well as his teachings.

Actually, after several occurances of this type where we were forced to agree with Hubbard the man, an astute Scientologist should have taken this as a red flag and started heading for the exit doors out of the "church". I, for one, was not that smart.
Lakey

 

[Jachs]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Quite a bit, actually.

The subject of scientology is not the same thing as l.ron hubbard. The confusion of the two has been a source for a great many people's distress.

There is much in the subject of scientology which can be of use. LRH plays no part in that.


Mark A. Baker

Not the same i agree, but in comparing Hubbard in relation to what he produced is valid.' Policy' and 'tech' flowed thru & out from Hubbard.

Looking at Scientology personalities, it doesnt look like Scn has altered them, same as Hubbard throughout his life, it didnt make him serene, but i could say it extended his indifference, but personality trait wise he remained unaltered, so it is with many scns. Hubbard called it cleared cannibal. Their abilities may have changed, they may have felt euphoric , more full of glee, expanded their games reach, but base flaws remained, could be all referenced around the policy and atmosphere of Scn.

You could look at the ARC triangle and Hubbard and say there are parallels with his indifference and choosing Clinical Affinity , that is one example of a good reason to study Huubbard in relation to his theories.

 

[Vinaire]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Not the same i agree, but in comparing Hubbard in relation to what he produced is valid.' Policy' and 'tech' flowed thru & out from Hubbard.

Looking at Scientology personalities, it doesnt look like Scn has altered them, same as Hubbard throughout his life, it didnt make him serene, but i could say it extended his indifference, but personality trait wise he remained unaltered, so it is with many scns. Hubbard called it cleared cannibal. Their abilities may have changed, they may have felt euphoric , more full of glee, expanded their games reach, but base flaws remained, could be all referenced around the policy and atmosphere of Scn.

You could look at the ARC triangle and Hubbard and say there are parallels with his indifference and choosing Clinical Affinity , that is one example of a good reason to study Huubbard in relation to his theories.

Are you talking about some kind of learning disability? Or, are you talking about inconsistency in Scientology data? Hubbard is just a reference point. To say that everything that flowed through Hubbard is right, or that everything that flowed through Hubbard is wrong, is simply an opinion generated by the observer.

Basically, you seem to be saying that Scientology auditing does not really improve a person. That is an interesting observation and it requires an understanding what is meant by "improvement."

To me, improvement in this context means, "reduction of confusion." This is the viewpoint from the East. A reduction in confusion will definitely improve a person and make him less complicated, less computational, and free flowing.

If after all that auditing, a person is still confused, or has simply gathered more explanations for his confusion (as observed from him being more computational), then he has definitely not improved. That would mean that Scientology auditing is missing something. Is that how you see it?

I do find that Scientology provides Scientologists with more vocabulary and ways to be judgmental rather than having an understanding. "Oh! he is so 1.1." "He is acting that way because he has overts." Etc.

If people become more judgmental after Scientology auditing, then, in my opinion, Scientology auditing has failed.

.

 

[Jachs]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Are you talking about some kind of learning disability? Or, are you talking about inconsistency in Scientology data? Hubbard is just a reference point. To say that everything that flowed through Hubbard is right, or that everything that flowed through Hubbard is wrong, is simply an opinion generated by the observer.

Basically, you seem to be saying that Scientology auditing does not really improve a person. That is an interesting observation and it requires an understanding what is meant by "improvement."

To me, improvement in this context means, "reduction of confusion." This is the viewpoint from the East. A reduction in confusion will definitely improve a person and make him less complicated, less computational, and free flowing.

If after all that auditing, a person is still confused, or has simply gathered more explanations for his confusion (as observed from him being more computational), then he has definitely not improved. That would mean that Scientology auditing is missing something. Is that how you see it?

I do find that Scientology provides Scientologists with more vocabulary and ways to be judgmental rather than having an understanding. "Oh! he is so 1.1." "He is acting that way because he has overts." Etc.

If people become more judgmental after Scientology auditing, then, in my opinion, Scientology auditing has failed.

.

I think we have moved off the point.

I agree with you that removing confusion is good.

im not saying people haven't changed or haven't overcome flaws with looking at their minds..

The point was discussing scn principles instead of Hubbards personality, you were saying Hubbard and his subject are two different matters, separate them.

Im saying that to understand scn, looking at hubbards personality , his traits and the traits of scn can reveal clues.

The example of the ARC triangle i gave, comparing Hubbards indifference , clinical type personality, confronting personality, (rather than an experiencing personality), he chose Affinity for the ARC triangle. already its a confront thing, love is not a confront, its an experience, its close, hubbard didnt get close, i doubt he really handled much on his case, and i suspect others dont run deep on auditing thru using Affinity, its more of a confront that be it.

This is why its worthwhile to keep the Hubbard in the loop, not always but sometimes.

 

[Vinaire]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I think we have moved off the point.

...

Let me restate what I am trying to say.

(1) There is an apparent SELF that seems to be the source of some data (knowledge).

(2) The data (knowledge) may be studied without any attention to SELF.

(3) In fact, data may be looked at without any consideration given to its source. So, one may look at VEDA and TORAH side by side and gain a new understanding.

(4) Consideration of ‘source’ seems to introduce bias, and color the ‘understanding.’

(5) To me using SELF as the apparent ‘source’ to evaluate data simply adds confusion and bias, and should be avoided.

(6) If one wants to discuss SELF, then discuss that SELF as such and not mix it with data. The same data can come from different sources. A datum is not necessarily exclusive to a certain source. Many critics on ESMB seem to make the error of assuming that.

.

 

[uniquemand]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You seem to be neglecting relativity.

Point of view ("self") is integral to what is seen.