What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

A problem with me is that I am philosophically trained. So I don't combine topics and issues as if they entailed or were intrinsic to one another. Just sayin'. I don't think that walking away is the same as not looking back or one's happiness level or one's duty or obligation or one's definition of friendship or the locale of the relation that one is questioning in relation to the issues raised.

Each of those is a separate topic for me.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

One last thing, based on my previous couple of posts.
I place Scientology and related self-help techniques on the side of forces that insecure and unsteady and must assault and dissect life and pursue the quest of knowledge and of being cause. It is pitiful but there you have it.....

This is not clear to me. Maybe re-phraze?

You oppose the quest for knowledge?
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is not clear to me. Maybe re-phraze?

You oppose the quest for knowledge?

I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life.

there are so many basic things that are just not understood...or talked about....or agreed upon....

But groups/cults want to go off into the stratosphere anyway....

That was one of the allures of the Cult of Hubbard...."IT" was suppose to have been figured out and researched....

Basic things, I supposed...had been "taped"....but naw....nope...and weren't......

I studied and studied...( in the Cult ) and figured answers would be forthcoming...but weren't...

No doubt there is a mountain of written and taped info....but it is a mountain of spew....for a large part.

Not that I didn't have many incredible insights...that led to changes...and awareness that grew....but it was more reading between the lines for me that did it....

Wow....what a fiasco it turned out to be.....
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life.

For reasons I won't explain on a message board in the middle of a perfectly sweet afternoon, this makes me want to hug you, so I will. :hug:

Sometimes there is no reason. Sometimes there is no meaning. Sometimes things can be that pure. :)
 
Re: Should a Person Let a Former Friend Know That He/She is No Longer a Friend?

I think that what I wrote applies in every case, without exception. That is what I was trying to say....I know you want to see your situation as an exception. But I don't see how it is.

Also, I don't believe in conforming so i don't understand why you or anyone would conform to 'guidelines'.

Humans need to get off the teet. That is my opinion. (I am not referring to you, just saying, in general.)

I wanted to comment on this post. If you read my story of being on the Apollo, you see that I had a mid level executive job for 3 weeks. There was no Hat write up and I was told to do Hubbard style Data Evaluations even though I had not done the Hubbard Data Evaluator's Course. I was given one evaluation to do. I came up with the right "Why" in a matter of minutes but I did not use any of Hubbard's procedures to arrive at my answer. In fact, I had figured out the answer when I was back at CCLA prior to coming to Flag. My corrected "why" was not acted upon for 25 years but became implemented around 1998!

After 3 weeks, I was busted from my post and place on the EPF work detail and worked their for 5 weeks after which time I routed off of the Apollo. That small bit of exposure was all that I knew and all that I based my Apollo story one.

The person, who was my friend for 18 - 24 months had spent many years working closely with Hubbard in top executive positions, or so he says. I don't even know if this is true or not. The person seems very knowledgeable as to what was going on on the Apollo and later, the Flag Land Base so I am accepting his claims as being true. Whether it is true or not, he knew much more about how things were run on the Apollo and at the Flag land base than I ever knew. That I am certain of. It is just a matter of exposure, he was exposed to Hubbard and the Apollo in a high executive capacity for years while my exposure was only 3 weeks as CCLA Programs Chief and 5 weeks on the Flag EPF.

Considering our relative backgrounds and the fact that both of us are smart and perceptive, he should know much more due to his enormous advantage over me in the amount of exposure which he had to Hubbard versus the extremely limited amount of exposure which I had.

I don't know about conforming to anyone or conforming to guidelines. I am shooting for truth and for accuracy. If I have 8 weeks of exposure on the Apollo in mid level and low level positions and he has 10 years or more in high level positions, I am going to accept that he is much more knowledgeable on the subject of the Apollo than I am. If he and I form a friendship and we are both talking about the Apollo or the Flag Land Base, I am going to defer to him and learn from him. There is very little that he could have learned from me as regards the goings on at the Yacht Apollo and a great deal which I could learn from him. That is just a no brainer!!

So when the two of us had differences in our stories, I tended to go along with his position. He was my friend and he had much more exposure to Hubbard than I did. If he corrected me on any subject having to do with Flag, I would revise my opinion to coincide with his opinion. When I first arrived on ESMB, I was in that weird area where so many ex Scios are. I had totally cut from CoS about 5 years earlier, I still thought highly of Hubbard and his Tech and thought that DM had ruined CoS and that Hubbard was a saint. or more accurately a partially flawed saint. I was looking for help in understanding the workings of CoS. It was pretty obvious that even with Hubbard at the helm, most people ended up losing big time, myself included.

I was trying to flesh out my experience there and see what was good about CoS and what was bad about it. Many people played major parts in helping me formulate my current positions on CoS. I learned a lot from perhaps 10 or so key people and this individual was one of those ten. As he clarified various aspects of CoS and helped me understand the truth of it much better, I felt obligated to him. While I was his friend, I was able to express my gratitude in several ways. Once he became my adversary, I no longer can do that.

As far as conforming to him or to some guidelines, I just don't do that for anyone or anything!! I go all out not to be a conformist. That being said, I am able to realize when someone knows more about various areas of life than I do. In such cases, I do not conform to them but I defer to them and attempt to learn from them.!! Thus, I defer to Einstein in Physics, I defer to Mozart, Bach and Beethoven in music composition, I defer to Van Gogh and Monet in painting, I defer to Somerset Maugham and Dostoyevski in story telling ability, I defer to Maria in philosophy, I defer to several of my opinion leaders as regards the subject of CoS. I defer to M.L. King in understanding racial relations, I defer to Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks in breaking down religious bigotry, etc.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

there are so many basic things that are just not understood...or talked about....or agreed upon....

But groups/cults want to go off into the stratosphere anyway....

That was one of the allures of the Cult of Hubbard...."IT" was suppose to have been figured out and researched....

Basic things, I supposed...had been "taped"....but naw....nope...and weren't......

I studied and studied...( in the Cult ) and figured answers would be forthcoming...but weren't...

No doubt there is a mountain of written and taped info....but it is a mountain of spew....for a large part.

Not that I didn't have many incredible insights...that led to changes...and awareness that grew....but it was more reading between the lines for me that did it....

Wow....what a fiasco it turned out to be.....

That reading between the lines....I felt that even in college....somehow I had no idea where I was going even though I thought I did. In the end I went somewhere entirely different that I did not expect.

But the Scientology 'answers' leave no room for in between the lines. That would be a hidden tech of some sort. What I don't like about quests for knowledge is that it many times assumes there is a Truth...when it's more like you say above which I bolded.
I was thinking of quest for truth in a quixotic way. Actually a quixotic quest would be more honest since it would be a quest without having pat answers already. Scientology just kills any uniqueness that occurs between the thought processes of beings. Like today, I obviously have a way of approaching things that was different than Lakey's...in Scientology there is only one way and everyone has to conform to it. I think the world is better if there are many unique perspectives. The quest, that there is an inner journey, is more important than the knowledge attained many times or maybe they end up being the same thing?

So that mountain of spew. I wonder if it can be recycled into something useful like grocery bags or chairs or......
 
Re: Should a Person Let a Former Friend Know That He/She is No Longer a Friend?

I wanted to comment on this post. If you read my story of being on the Apollo, you see that I had a mid level executive job for 3 weeks. There was no Hat write up and I was told to do Hubbard style Data Evaluations even though I had not done the Hubbard Data Evaluator's Course. I was given one evaluation to do. I came up with the right "Why" in a matter of minutes but I did not use any of Hubbard's procedures to arrive at my answer. In fact, I had figured out the answer when I was back at CCLA prior to coming to Flag. My corrected "why" was not acted upon for 25 years but became implemented around 1998!

After 3 weeks, I was busted from my post and place on the EPF work detail and worked their for 5 weeks after which time I routed off of the Apollo. That small bit of exposure was all that I knew and all that I based my Apollo story one.

The person, who was my friend for 18 - 24 months had spent many years working closely with Hubbard in top executive positions, or so he says. I don't even know if this is true or not. The person seems very knowledgeable as to what was going on on the Apollo and later, the Flag Land Base so I am accepting his claims as being true. Whether it is true or not, he knew much more about how things were run on the Apollo and at the Flag land base than I ever knew. That I am certain of. It is just a matter of exposure, he was exposed to Hubbard and the Apollo in a high executive capacity for years while my exposure was only 3 weeks as CCLA Programs Chief and 5 weeks on the Flag EPF.

Considering our relative backgrounds and the fact that both of us are smart and perceptive, he should know much more due to his enormous advantage over me in the amount of exposure which he had to Hubbard versus the extremely limited amount of exposure which I had.

I don't know about conforming to anyone or conforming to guidelines. I am shooting for truth and for accuracy. If I have 8 weeks of exposure on the Apollo in mid level and low level positions and he has 10 years or more in high level positions, I am going to accept that he is much more knowledgeable on the subject of the Apollo than I am. If he and I form a friendship and we are both talking about the Apollo or the Flag Land Base, I am going to defer to him and learn from him. There is very little that he could have learned from me as regards the goings on at the Yacht Apollo and a great deal which I could learn from him. That is just a no brainer!!

So when the two of us had differences in our stories, I tended to go along with his position. He was my friend and he had much more exposure to Hubbard than I did. If he corrected me on any subject having to do with Flag, I would revise my opinion to coincide with his opinion. When I first arrived on ESMB, I was in that weird area where so many ex Scios are. I had totally cut from CoS about 5 years earlier, I still thought highly of Hubbard and his Tech and thought that DM had ruined CoS and that Hubbard was a saint. or more accurately a partially flawed saint. I was looking for help in understanding the workings of CoS. It was pretty obvious that even with Hubbard at the helm, most people ended up losing big time, myself included.

I was trying to flesh out my experience there and see what was good about CoS and what was bad about it. Many people played major parts in helping me formulate my current positions on CoS. I learned a lot from perhaps 10 or so key people and this individual was one of those ten. As he clarified various aspects of CoS and helped me understand the truth of it much better, I felt obligated to him. While I was his friend, I was able to express my gratitude in several ways. Once he became my adversary, I no longer can do that.

As far as conforming to him or to some guidelines, I just don't do that for anyone or anything!! I go all out not to be a conformist. That being said, I am able to realize when someone knows more about various areas of life than I do. In such cases, I do not conform to them but I defer to them and attempt to learn from them.!! Thus, I defer to Einstein in Physics, I defer to Mozart, Bach and Beethoven in music composition, I defer to Van Gogh and Monet in painting, I defer to Somerset Maugham and Dostoyevski in story telling ability, I defer to Maria in philosophy, I defer to several of my opinion leaders as regards the subject of CoS. I defer to M.L. King in understanding racial relations, I defer to Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks in breaking down religious bigotry, etc.
Lakey

I was going to say that I defer to you when it comes to discussions of music. The knowledge you expressed was mind-blowingly beyond anything I could have ever learned/offered/understood in a lifetime.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That reading between the lines....I felt that even in college....somehow I had no idea where I was going even though I thought I did. In the end I went somewhere entirely different that I did not expect.

But the Scientology 'answers' leave no room for in between the lines. That would be a hidden tech of some sort. What I don't like about quests for knowledge is that it many times assumes there is a Truth...when it's more like you say above which I bolded.
I was thinking of quest for truth in a quixotic way. Actually a quixotic quest would be more honest since it would be a quest without having pat answers already. Scientology just kills any uniqueness that occurs between the thought processes of beings. Like today, I obviously have a way of approaching things that was different than Lakey's...in Scientology there is only one way and everyone has to conform to it. I think the world is better if there are many unique perspectives. The quest, that there is an inner journey, is more important than the knowledge attained many times or maybe they end up being the same thing?

So that mountain of spew. I wonder if it can be recycled into something useful like grocery bags or chairs or......

I wasn't staff....so perhaps a different perspective on it.

I had many wonderful "events" in the Cult....

Reading between the lines was just my way of relating to my world and my view and seeing how it could help me...grow and learn.

But I agree with you...glad I got out before I went any farther...

I do believe that the Cult DOES attempt to kill uniqueness, as you say...
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I wasn't staff....so perhaps a different perspective on it.

I had many wonderful "events" in the Cult....

Reading between the lines was just my way of relating to my world and my view and seeing how it could help me...grow and learn.

But I agree with you...glad I got out before I went any farther...

I do believe that the Cult DOES attempt to kill uniqueness, as you say...

Yes and it is good at making balloons, blowing them up, or else living inside of them...in bubble world. Hehe.
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That reading between the lines....I felt that even in college....somehow I had no idea where I was going even though I thought I did. In the end I went somewhere entirely different that I did not expect.

But the Scientology 'answers' leave no room for in between the lines. That would be a hidden tech of some sort. What I don't like about quests for knowledge is that it many times assumes there is a Truth...when it's more like you say above which I bolded.
I was thinking of quest for truth in a quixotic way. Actually a quixotic quest would be more honest since it would be a quest without having pat answers already. Scientology just kills any uniqueness that occurs between the thought processes of beings. Like today, I obviously have a way of approaching things that was different than Lakey's...in Scientology there is only one way and everyone has to conform to it. I think the world is better if there are many unique perspectives. The quest, that there is an inner journey, is more important than the knowledge attained many times or maybe they end up being the same thing?

So that mountain of spew. I wonder if it can be recycled into something useful like grocery bags or chairs or......

Outstanding post!!

As regards Scientology, since this is the USA and they do have a right to exist and to compete with other groups for the minds of men and women and for the dollar, I feel that what should happen to them is that their religious exemption be cancelled but that Miscavige, Inc corporation should be allowed to survive as a for profit self betterment group.

In this scenario, they would have to pay a fair wage, adhere to minimum wage laws and pay overtime as well as participate in providing health insurance for their employees, etc. Their success or failure would depend solely upon how the public perceives their level of exchange. They would have a big initial advantage in that they are sitting upon $3 billion or so in funds.

My guess is that under current management Scientology, as a for profit corporation dealing in self betterment, would not be able to survive very long. Maybe after a couple of years, that $3 billion nest egg would deteriorate by 10% to 20% and their CEO and his Board of Directors would probably vote to shut down operations, sell off all their extensive assets and the CEO would take most of the money and distribute the rest to the employees and the share holders and shut down operations and go live the good life on some secluded island paradise.

IMHO, Scientology would not be a viable self betterment group if they had to survive on their own merits and on the worthiness of their Training and Processing. If they wanted to stay in business, they would probably do best concentrating on servicing Celebrities. Maybe they could find a profitable niche running acting schools or teaching art or music academies or things of that nature. They do have a long experience of being successful with servicing high profile celebrities. That would be their best shot if they wanted to stay in business. As a self betterment group, their prices are just way too high to have any chance at all in succeeding with the general public.
Lakey.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Outstanding post!!

As regards Scientology, since this is the USA and they do have a right to exist and to compete with other groups for the minds of men and women and for the dollar, I feel that what should happen to them is that their religious exemption be cancelled but that Miscavige, Inc corporation should be allowed to survive as a for profit self betterment group.

In this scenario, they would have to pay a fair wage, adhere to minimum wage laws and pay overtime as well as participate in providing health insurance for their employees, etc. Their success or failure would depend solely upon how the public perceives their level of exchange. They would have a big initial advantage in that they are sitting upon $3 billion or so in funds.

My guess is that under current management Scientology, as a for profit corporation dealing in self betterment, would not be able to survive very long. Maybe after a couple of years, that $3 billion nest egg would deteriorate by 10% to 20% and their CEO and his Board of Directors would probably vote to shut down operations, sell off all their extensive assets and the CEO would take most of the money and distribute the rest to the employees and the share holders and shut down operations and go live the good life on some secluded island paradise.

IMHO, Scientology would not be a viable self betterment group if they had to survive on their own merits and on the worthiness of their Training and Processing. If they tried to stay in business, they would probably do best concentrating on servicing Celebrities. Maybe they could find a profitable niche running an acting school or teaching art or music academies or things of that nature. They do have a long experience of being successful with servicing high profile celebrities. That would be their best shot if they wanted to stay in business. As a self betterment group, their prices are just way too high to have any chance at all in succeeding with the general public.
Lakey.

Well I doubt their religious status is going away soon...but I wonder if now as a recognized religion they should start to give free services to people who want their services and can verify their inability to pay. Every other religion gives free counseling and other services and allows those with no money to participate. A religious group should not be so beholden to a business model and abandon its believers once they have squeezed them of all their assets. I have a story that is VERY SAD to tell along those lines and I will do so as soon as I can.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I was thinking about what would cause me to turn on a friend. I guess it would be very difficult for that to happen since the person would have to have done something evil to me, acted in a manner devoid of love. In that case I would feel no loyalty and would not explain my sudden disappearance from the communication.

I think those sorts of things are a rare and extreme worst case scenario for me in real life.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I was thinking about what would cause me to turn on a friend. I guess it would be very difficult for that to happen since the person would have to have done something evil to me, acted in a manner devoid of love. In that case I would feel no loyalty and would not explain my sudden disappearance from the communication.

I think those sorts of things are a rare and extreme worst case scenario for me in real life.

Those reasons are not at all why the person I have been talking about plus several others turned on me. Since none of them have actually voiced their grievances, it was up to me to talk to some mutual friends and take some other steps to figure out why they turned on me.

There seem to be two major areas which have some merit and three other areas which don't have merit and just have to do with their aberrations.

First the two areas with validity:
#1. I was lax with security, giving out too many actual names or times and places, thus enabling CoS to figure out who they are.

#2. They believed that I was putting out some inaccurate data just from memory.

I made a concerted effort to clean up those two points years ago. Anyone who reads the thread now would be hard pressed to find any traces of those past transgressions.

The 3 areas with no validity:
#3. The fact that I mention stats, particularly the stat of how many hits the thread has. Many people just can't stand that I do that. I believe that it reminds them of the horrible way in which CoS focuses on stats. Seeing any stats being mentioned, to them, is like a bull seeing red, they just go berserk.

#4. The fact that I find any merit at all in some pieces of Hubbard Tech. This is a major button for at least 1/3 of the people on ESMB. You just can't say that even one piece of Hubbard's tech helped you in any way. If you do that, basically they apply Hubbard's Fair Game policy against you. Their rationale is that by doing that you may cause new people to sign up for Hubbard tech out in the Independent field or even worse, heaven forbid, seek services inside CoS. In their minds this makes you Fair Game.

#5. This factor has to do with jealousy. They combine jealousy with item #3, stats. They see 2 million views, 2110 pages on the thread and 21,000 replies and are unwilling to give me any of the credit at all for those stats. The fact that I might be a good writer or know some interesting things about a lot of areas of life is taboo for them. They know they are smarter than me and know much more about the history and practices of Scientology but I am being read more so they take it upon themselves to try and knock me off of my perch.

Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life.

I sort of get that but take a different view. By the way does this not describe yourself,
a philosophy student and teacher?

I think one can make an analogy with Zen archery. One spends years perfecting
all required techniques with much practice. Until one no longer worries about
practice and technique and one just shoots. I think if a person wants to fathom
the meaning of life that is likely to be a good path for him. Will lead him to
being more able to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I sort of get that but take a different view. By the way does this not describe yourself,
a philosophy student and teacher?

I think one can make an analogy with Zen archery. One spends years perfecting
all required techniques with much practice. Until one no longer worries about
practice and technique and one just shoots. I think if a person wants to fathom
the meaning of life that is likely to be a good path for him. Will lead him to
being more able to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery

Two points Terril:
#1 - As to Maria's comment about opposing knowledge from an oppressive source, I don't think that description applies in the least to her being a philosophy student and teacher. Philosophy is a recognized source of wisdom developed from the thoughts and words of many philosophers over thousands of years. There is no one "Source" of philosophy who claims to have mankind's only workable system of attaining knowledge and wisdom. Philosophy does not break up families nor shun and disconnect from those who don't believe that it is the world's only valid wisdom. Frankly, I don't think you could have chosen a worse analogy than suggesting that Maria's career as a student and teacher of philosophy might also be considered oppressive.

On the other hand, I can't speak for her on my next point so I will speak for myself. No one here on this thread doubts that you have a working understanding of Scientology tech and that you believe strongly that you have achieved gains through using Scientology tech and that you believe that others can benefit from that tech as well if they receive their tech in the Free Zone or Independent Scientology field rather than today's CoS.

#2. I salute your for the gains you have made using LRH tech. More power to you and if you get more people to do services in the Indy field, that is your business and I am not against your doing that.

I share Maria's comments regarding oppressive purveyors of knowledge. Oppression comes in many forms, mainly having to do with focusing too much on money rather than benefits for the people being helped, oppressive laws stating with certainty that all technologies other than that of the Oppressor's are invalid and that if anyone in your family or circle of friends does not agree with the Oppressor's technology and speaks out about that, said person must be disconnected from and shunned.

I personally don't see that anything Maria is doing or saying in the field of philosophy has any oppressive element in it whatsoever. To the contrary, her activities in the field of philosophy are the antithesis of oppression.

As to your activities in the field of independent Scientology, I do not find your views and actions oppressive either. That is all I wanted to say on this topic.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I sort of get that but take a different view. By the way does this not describe yourself,
a philosophy student and teacher?

I think one can make an analogy with Zen archery. One spends years perfecting
all required techniques with much practice. Until one no longer worries about
practice and technique and one just shoots. I think if a person wants to fathom
the meaning of life that is likely to be a good path for him. Will lead him to
being more able to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery

I like that analogy Terril.

the thing about philosophy today is that really it's just history of philosophy + logic. Hard to say that I could be either student or teacher of philosophy....just a reader of philosophies and since I have read so much I am familiar enough with the arguments. :)

I have become familiar, unfortunately, with the arguments implicit to Scn 'tech'. As such, I am able to see them in the light of 5000 years of other texts and techs. And I find them flat and uninspiring. It's just my own opinion however. As long as a tech is healthy for someone and it doesn't intrude on me, I will have nothing to say to them in criticism. My criticisms of Scn tech are abstract analyses based on my own experience and the texts, and not directed at specific individuals and their paths as either teachers or students.

You reminded me of a saying. When the student is ready, the teacher appears.....
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Two points Terril:
#1 - As to Maria's comment about opposing knowledge from an oppressive source, I don't think that description applies in the least to her being a philosophy student and teacher. Philosophy is a recognized source of wisdom developed from the thoughts and words of many philosophers over thousands of years. There is no one "Source" of philosophy who claims to have mankind's only workable system of attaining knowledge and wisdom. Philosophy does not break up families nor shun and disconnect from those who don't believe that it is the world's only valid wisdom. Frankly, I don't think you could have chosen a worse analogy than suggesting that Maria's career as a student and teacher of philosophy might also be considered oppressive.

On the other hand, I can't speak for her on my next point so I will speak for myself. No one here on this thread doubts that you have a working understanding of Scientology tech and that you believe strongly that you have achieved gains through using Scientology tech and that you believe that others can benefit from that tech as well if they receive their tech in the Free Zone or Independent Scientology field rather than today's Cos.

#2. I salute your for the gains you have made using LRH tech. More power to you and if you get more people to do services in the Indy field, that is your business and I am not against your doing that.

I share Maria's comments regarding oppressive purveyors of knowledge. Oppression comes in many forms, mainly having to do with focusing too much on money rather than benefits for the people being helped, oppressive laws stating with certainty that all technologies other than that of the Oppressor's are invalid and that if anyone in your family or circle of friends does not agree with the Oppressor's technology and speaks out about that, said person must be disconnected from and shunned.

I personally don't see that anything Maria is doing or saying in the field of philosophy has any oppressive element in it whatsoever. To the contrary, her activities in the field of philosophy are the antithesis of oppression.

As to your activities in the field of independent Scientology, I do not find your views and actions oppressive either. That is all I wanted to say on this topic.
Lakey

I havn't said anything about Maria being oppressive. She said:-

" I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life."

I did comment that if someone is searching for the meaning of life then that
is probably what they should be doing at that time of their life. Maria thinks that
could be oppressive. I take a different view. I think its worthwhile to spend some
portion of life searching for its meaning.

Also Maria was not referring to an oppressive source. She was referring to someone
oppressing themselves by not living life fully. Thats how I understood it anyway.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I havn't said anything about Maria being oppressive. She said:-

" I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life."

I did comment that if someone is searching for the meaning of life then that
is probably what they should be doing at that time of their life. Maria thinks that
could be oppressive. I take a different view. I think its worthwhile to spend some
portion of life searching for its meaning.

Also Maria was not referring to an oppressive source. She was referring to someone
oppressing themselves by not living life fully. Thats how I understood it anyway.

That is right. It COULD be oppressive. Not always, and yes, not living life fully. But each person has to decide for themselves how to interpret that.....
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I havn't said anything about Maria being oppressive. She said:-

" I don't oppose the quest for knowledge, just a certain version of that quest which becomes oppressive to the extent that the person is more concerned with the meaning of life than with life."

I did comment that if someone is searching for the meaning of life then that
is probably what they should be doing at that time of their life. Maria thinks that
could be oppressive. I take a different view. I think its worthwhile to spend some
portion of life searching for its meaning.

Also Maria was not referring to an oppressive source. She was referring to someone
oppressing themselves by not living life fully. Thats how I understood it anyway.

You are correct, Somehow I misread her post and came up with the wrong idea of what it said. I stand corrected.

Lakey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top