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

[RogerB]

Beautifully put, Roger. I hope you succeed where I have not.


Mark A. Baker

It'll settle down as the charge bleeds off, mate. I saw your intention as good, maybe a mis-word or two . . . . but it only takes a slight miss, either at the catching end or the throwing end, and the game can go against you.

R

 

[Veda]

The book: Scientology
The scholar & editor of the book: James R. Lewis

If you are going to engage in public denigration & smear campaigns at least be specific.

Lewis' credentials & scholarship are both better than yours, admittedly that doesn't say much.

I leave it up to others to determine the value of either the book or the academic contributions made by its contributors. I find the book interesting for the views presented of various religious scholars on those aspects of the Co$ which they individually address. Unlike some others I do not have an attitude which presumes that the role of academic scholarship is to attack that with which I disagree and to support that with which I concur.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. better "hinky" than obsessive.

IMO, you're a manipulator and a B.S artist. Even your response in the below linked post had a manipulative element. (Your "stat" is number of people successfully manipulated.) Perhaps, it's "pathological" and you don't know what you're doing, but I suspect that you do know what you're doing. In any event, I don't want to spend any more time on you.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=437698&postcount=20

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... In any event, I don't want to spend any more time on you.

Thank God for Small Favors!

Is it too much to hope you will extend the same courtesy to others?


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Calling various "hats" identities?

Lakey, I'm sorry you feel spun in from having read my posts. It is clear that you have not understood them. My prose style is a good deal more complex than many, so perhaps this is not terribly surprising.

Of course, I should enjoy being evaluated for, invalidated and lectured down to. What was the matter with me? I believe you should follow Mozart's advice (in my signature line) as regards musical notes when it comes to word usage. Also truths are usually expressed best as simplicities. When something starts to get overly unwiiedly, it is usually a sign that complexity is taking place with a concurrent move away from basic truths.

Roger's post neatly & succinctly focuses on the key issue I was attempting to bring to your attention: the role of one's own considerations in creating the perception of one's problems.

What he said in a couple of sentences, I eventually figured out by wrestling with your complex treatise, but similar to Veda and Blip, I still had the same objections to what you were saying as they did. (see below for further details)

Two points, I did not refer to either entities or "ptsness". Those constitute your interpretation of my remarks. This may have arisen partly from confusion over the meaning of the term "identity".

I'll go back and read your reference. I know you brought up PTSness. When I have more time I will go back and find the post.

Identities relate to the roles which an individual undertakes. The same individual may have conflicting roles due to different roles or activities that individual is engaged in.

As per my earlier example, a woman can be a mother, wife, doctor, etc.. The fact of multiple roles implies multiple games with differing considerations about those games. These different roles rarely align completely. When this is not so an individual very often makes himself wrong through the conflict of those considerations that he himself possesses as a result of these conflicting roles.

You take "hats" such as mother, wife, doctor and equate them with identities. I think you need to see the Word Clearer. When you assert that different identities within me may be at war with each other, how would I know you are refering to two job hats?

This is not a matter of "entities". It is an effect of the identities that one chooses for himself and the considerations he holds about those identities.

Two different identities within the same person, which are opposed to one another. Being OT III, I am going to go with the word "entities" every time and not hats. If my Father hat was going one way and my Work hat another, that would be easy for me to reconcile. I just do a little doubt formula and I have a sane result. Only if their are hidden identities, unseen and residing within people which are opposed is it difficult to look and by inspection reach a sane decision. These hidden identities are "entities" with wills of their own, not various "hats' which people wear. I am going to make an evaluation for your. a violation of the Auditors Code but don't forget know, we are not in session. I assert that you do not fully understand the difference between the word "hats" and the word "identities". I really believe that if you clear up these definitions you will be able to imporve your communication and thinking skills.

Good, bad, or indifferent: Hubbard's dead. At this point only individual consideration's about Hubbard remain. Those considerations are closely related to the differing roles which we have created for ourselves, often multiple roles. These are often conflicted.

As Blip and Veda both pointed out, considerations are not all about Hubbard which remain. There are Books, Packs, Dictionaries, Films Audios, Videos all of which remain. His intention remains (albeit in altered form due to DM). He has armies of loyal staff still enforcing fair game and disconnection policies. His second dynamic restrictions still remain, his demand that one not think as an individual still remains. The man's spirit is still very much alive and well. Basing various conclusions on a the statement that at this point only individual considerations remain is buying into False Data. I am going to evaluate for you again. You need to demonstrate the difference between a consideration of a deceased man and books , back, audios, videos and instructions left behind by that man wihich are currently still being enforced by his successors. I believe that once you see the difference there, you will be able to think more clearly.

Any "ties" that bind remain wholly our own. It is up to us to eliminate them.

Things change. What you carry with you is up to you.

Enough said.


Shalom.
Mark A. Baker

As to the "ties" that remain, what if I feel it is honest and ethical to retain some of the "ties" and choose not to eliminate them? Do I have the right to do that in your world view?

Here is your post #3743 written on the 17th, 4 days ago. I am wrong about you using the term PTS so I will retract that!

Sorry, Lakey, I'm gonna do a fundamental violation and evaluate for you, but then I'm not your auditor.

The consideration that "it led me to be a smaller being" is a self invalidation. It stems from the tendency to evaluate self in terms of an adopted IDENTITY and in terms of internalized expectations. It is also a "ser fac". It is a very very common "ser fac". Mothers typically want their daughters to marry doctors & millionaires, not busboys or artists.

The fact is that which makes you a "bigger being" is creating that which is of interest to YOU, not that for which you gain another's approval. We get trained to fulfill other's expectations, and not to "let others down". This conflict of motivations is something we all recognize and yet we all have varying degrees of difficulty realizing it in our own lives.

What CO & Roger have been discussing recently on this thread goes right to the heart of this issue of "self vs identity". Hope their comments help.


Mark A. Baker

I don't think that post is appropriate to put up on this board. It is pretended knowledge. You are pontificating about me as if you have me all figured out and you have the abilitiy and authority to point out my shortcommings. By doing this, on the surface you give the appearance of being concerned about me and being helpful. However, I did not ask for all this in depth advice from you and none of it all indicates to me as being correct. If you sincerely are concerned and want to set me straight, I can live with that but you should do it the way Rog does it. Give a piece of tech in a concise form and then ask a few poignant questions which get the other person to look. That will get you a good result. If I have some questions for you or seeks your opinion, I will get back to you and ask for it. I do not believe that asserting your opinion when it has not been sought out is going to win you very many friends.

You seem to have a technique established as Veda suggests. You cherry pick some fairly innocuous line out of someone's post and challenge it. You then tell the person that you are going to evaluate for them but it is Okay to do that because you are not their auditor. You then evaluate, attempting to make the person look like a lost soul and a buffoon and actually when it comes right down to basics, you invalidate that person and do a little partial dead agent number on him. The next step in your ruse is to offer advice. You dictate and pontificate where the person has gone astray as you see it and then give a lot of your opinions as to why he is screwed up. Finally, you offer the person remedies of your chosing to give the impression that you are concerned about the person and are really trying hard to help him.

IT IS A CAREFULLY LAYED OUT DEAD AGENTING SCHEME TO BRING THE PERSON DOWN IN GRADIENTS, JUST A LITTLE BIT EACH DAY. And with me, you have started picking up the pace, 3 major put downs in the last 4 days! Like Veda, I do not know if you are doing this intentionally or not but also, like him, I lean towards this being done intentionally rather than the alternate of it being done unknowingly. I sincerely hope I am wrong in that assessment!

As CO has noticed, all of a sudden, I have developed more cajones so be forwarned that if you are planning a program to dead agent me, you might as well stop right now because it will not succeed and you will come out of it as the one who ends up being dead agented.

Your last two words finnally give us some grounds for agreement. Enough said!

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

for those who like Kafka

Lost Kafka writings resurface, trapped in trial

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago
JERUSALEM – It seems almost Kafkaesque: Ten safety deposit boxes of never-published writings by Franz Kafka, their exact contents unknown, are trapped in courts and bureaucracy, much like one of the nightmarish visions created by the author himself.

The papers, retrieved from bank vaults where they have sat untouched and unread for decades, could shed new light on one of literature's darkest figures.

In the past week, the pages have been pulled from safety deposit boxes in Tel Aviv and Zurich, Switzerland, on the order of an Israeli court over the objections of two elderly women who claim to have inherited them from their mother.

"Kafka could easily have written a story like this, where you try to do something and it all goes wrong and everything remains unresolved," said Sara Loeb, a Tel Aviv-based author of two books about the writer. "It's really a case of life imitating art."

Literary experts in both cities are sifting through the boxes, and the contents are expected to be of priceless literary and monetary value. What exactly is there remains unknown, but the papers include handwritten manuscripts, letters and various literary works by the famed Jewish Czech writer, said Meir Heller, an attorney for the Israeli National Library, which also claims ownership of the trove.

Loeb says the cache could include endings to some of Kafka's major works, many of which remained unfinished in his lifetime.

"We could find out about his methods, his style, how his art was created, how he built a text," she said.

Kafka, a Prague native who wrote in German, was one of the most influential writers of the 20th century, known for his surreal tales of everyman protagonists crushed by mysterious authorities or twisted by unknown shames. His works have become classics, like "The Metamorphosis," in which a salesman wakes up transformed into a giant insect, and "The Trial," where a bank clerk is put through an excruciating trial without ever being told the charges against him.

But the newly emerged writings won't see the light of day until the Israeli court unravels the tangled question of the collection's rightful owner.
The case boils down to the interpretation of the will of Max Brod, Kafka's longtime friend and publisher. Kafka bequeathed his writings to Brod shortly before his own death from tuberculosis in 1924, instructing his friend to burn everything unread.

Brod ignored Kafka's wishes and published most of what was in his possession, including the novels "The Trial," "The Castle" and "Amerika."
But Brod, who smuggled some of the manuscripts to pre-state Israel when he fled the Nazis in 1938, didn't publish everything. Upon his death in 1968, Brod left his personal secretary, Esther Hoffe, in charge of his literary estate and instructed her to transfer the Kafka papers to an academic institution.
Instead, for the next four decades, Hoffe kept the papers in her Tel Aviv apartment and in safety deposit boxes in Tel Aviv and Zurich banks.
She sold some of the items for hefty sums. In 1988, for instance, Hoffe auctioned off the original manuscript of "The Trial" at Sotheby's in London. It went for $1.8 million to the German Literature Archive in Marbach, north of Stuttgart.

When Hoffe died three years ago at age 101, she left the collection to her two daughters, Eva Hoffe and Ruth Wiesler, both Holocaust survivors like herself.

But the Israeli National Library has long claimed the papers, saying Brod intended for the collection to end up in its hands. It filed an injunction against the execution of Hoffe's will.

"As long as Esther Hoffe was alive, she was responsible, she could still say, 'I am handling it,'" said Heller, the library's lawyer. "The late Mrs. Hoffe did not do what the late Mr. Brod asked her to do and deposit the documents in the national library. ... The will was not honored, it was desecrated."

Oded Hacohen, a lawyer for Eva Hoffe, said Brod's will gave the collection to her mother as a gift and gave her the right to bequeath it to the Israel National Museum or any institution of her choosing, in Israel or abroad, under whatever conditions she decides. He cited a 1974 Tel Aviv District Court ruling backing that interpretation and quoting Brod's will.

That means, he said, Eva Hoffe inherited the documents legally and is free to do with them as she pleases, including selling them to the German Literature Archive, which has been negotiating with her to buy the remaining Kafka and Brod papers.

"Esther Hoffe dedicated her life to publishing Brod's works. ... Brod wrote in his will that her family should enjoy the profits," Hacohen said.

Heller retorts that the will only refers to royalties, not ownership, and didn't give Esther Hoffe the right to hand the collection to her heirs. He argued in court that since she failed to pick an archive to receive the documents, the court should do so. Heller contended in court that the Israeli National Library was Brod's first preference, saying he had evidence Brod wrote a later will bequeathing his literary estate directly to it.

The Tel Aviv Family Court ordered the collection opened a year ago, saying it wants to know what is there before deciding who owns it. That ruling won't come until experts are done inspecting the papers, which could take several weeks.

"The library does not intend to give up the cultural assets that legally belong to it and thus to the Israeli and Jewish people," said David Blumberg, chairman of the Israel National Library, which is a nonprofit and non-governmental body.

Ulrich von Buelow, the director of manuscripts at the German Literary Archive, said Brod and Esther Hoffe had frequent discussions with the archive over placing the material there.

"We are interested in having the manuscripts because we have so many others, also from Brod, and so many letters that would complement them," von Buelow said.

Whatever they contain, the piles of handwritten material will keep historians and researchers busy for years, Heller said.

Aside from previously unknown versions of Kafka's work, the trove could give more insight on Kafka's personal life, including his relationship with his lover, Dora Diamont. It may include papers that Kafka gave to Diamont but were stolen by the German Gestapo from her Berlin apartment in 1933, later obtained by Brod after World War II.

Loeb suspected that Brod kept many of the documents away from the public for fear their publication could compromise his friend's legacy.
"Kafka was very critical. He was not an easy man," she said. "Maybe Brod was worried that this could ruin his image."

___
Associated Press writers Melissa Eddy in Berlin and Bradley Klapper in Geneva contributed to this report.

 

[Leon]

Hubbard's integrity, or lack there of, is not ever an issue.

All that matters is one's own integrity in using the materials that he, or anyone else, developed and published.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Hubbard's integrity, or lack there of, is not ever an issue.

All that matters is one's own integrity in using the materials that he, or anyone else, developed and published.

I disagree, Leon. Years ago I valued Hubbard's words immensely, and collected them, and studied them. As I learned more and more about the man, I valued his words less and less. Now, I find that I cannot trust a single word he said in his entire lifetime. In any particular instance he may have spoken the truth as he saw it, or he may have knowingly lied, and there is no way at all to tell the difference except in those cases when it is obvious (like the missing 2nd wife).

So, for example, he writes about a process. He says when audited it produces such and such a result. But does it routinely do that? Did it ever? Did he ever actually audit it on anyone, even himself or his dog? He says a particular action in policy produces such and such a result. Does it? Did it ever?

All I can trust is that the wording of a process or a policy is such and such, assuming the evil transcriptionists didn't screw it up. And for 25 million words, or whatever, that isn't fucking much at all.

Paul

 

[Vinaire]

Lakey, I'm sorry you feel spun in from having read my posts. It is clear that you have not understood them. My prose style is a good deal more complex than many, so perhaps this is not terribly surprising.

Roger's post neatly & succinctly focuses on the key issue I was attempting to bring to your attention: the role of one's own considerations in creating the perception of one's problems.

Two points, I did not refer to either entities or "ptsness". Those constitute your interpretation of my remarks. This may have arisen partly from confusion over the meaning of the term "identity".

Identities relate to the roles which an individual undertakes. The same individual may have conflicting roles due to different roles or activities that individual is engaged in.

As per my earlier example, a woman can be a mother, wife, doctor, etc.. The fact of multiple roles implies multiple games with differing considerations about those games. These different roles rarely align completely. When this is not so an individual very often makes himself wrong through the conflict of those considerations that he himself possesses as a result of these conflicting roles.

This is not a matter of "entities". It is an effect of the identities that one chooses for himself and the considerations he holds about those identities.

Good, bad, or indifferent: Hubbard's dead. At this point only individual consideration's about Hubbard remain. Those considerations are closely related to the differing roles which we have created for ourselves, often multiple roles. These are often conflicted.

Any "ties" that bind remain wholly our own. It is up to us to eliminate them.

Things change. What you carry with you is up to you.

Enough said.


Shalom.
Mark A. Baker

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=450067&postcount=126

.

 

[Vinaire]

Hubbard's integrity, or lack there of, is not ever an issue.

All that matters is one's own integrity in using the materials that he, or anyone else, developed and published.

It is neither the integrity of Hubbard nor the integrity of any person viewing the materials that matters.

In my view it is the integrity of materials themselves that matters. Interpret "integrity" here as consistency.

If Hubbard paraphrased Buddhist material, it does not make Buddhist material bad. If somebody misinterprets Buddhist materials, then that does not make Buddhist material bad either.

But if Hubbard introduced his own materials mixed with Buddhist materials, and Hubbard's materials then stand out as inconsistent with Buddhist materials then I would get rid of that inconsistency without another thought.

It is better to keep out any individuality or identity from the integrity of materials themselves, because those things simply represent extraneous desires.

.

 

[lkwdblds]

Fantastic post Paul !!!

I disagree, Leon. Years ago I valued Hubbard's words immensely, and collected them, and studied them. As I learned more and more about the man, I valued his words less and less. Now, I find that I cannot trust a single word he said in his entire lifetime. In any particular instance he may have spoken the truth as he saw it, or he may have knowingly lied, and there is no way at all to tell the difference except in those cases when it is obvious (like the missing 2nd wife).

So, for example, he writes about a process. He says when audited it produces such and such a result. But does it routinely do that? Did it ever? Did he ever actually audit it on anyone, even himself or his dog? He says a particular action in policy produces such and such a result. Does it? Did it ever?

All I can trust is that the wording of a process or a policy is such and such, assuming the evil transcriptionists didn't screw it up. And for 25 million words, or whatever, that isn't fucking much at all.

Paul

Just a fantastic quality post. It should go into Sweetnesses Golden Quotes. You say it concisely but cover all the bases. Basiscally, this state of affairs vis a vis Hubbard' works is the essence of what I consider are my remaining ties to Hubbard. I would think many of you feel the same but I will not speak for you guys.
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I disagree, Leon. Years ago I valued Hubbard's words immensely, and collected them, and studied them. As I learned more and more about the man, I valued his words less and less. Now, I find that I cannot trust a single word he said in his entire lifetime. In any particular instance he may have spoken the truth as he saw it, or he may have knowingly lied, and there is no way at all to tell the difference except in those cases when it is obvious (like the missing 2nd wife).

So, for example, he writes about a process. He says when audited it produces such and such a result. But does it routinely do that? Did it ever? Did he ever actually audit it on anyone, even himself or his dog? He says a particular action in policy produces such and such a result. Does it? Did it ever?

All I can trust is that the wording of a process or a policy is such and such, assuming the evil transcriptionists didn't screw it up. And for 25 million words, or whatever, that isn't fucking much at all.

Paul

Nor does it matter, Paul. What matters are the ideas themselves.

Inserting Hubbard into the mix, either pro or con, is argumentum ad auctoritatem, the appeal to authority. That may be a convenience often adopted for purposes of study, but it is logically unsustainable.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

Nor does it matter, Paul. What matters are the ideas themselves.

What ideas? Hubbard says in Fundamentals of Thought that mocking up bad legs will as-is a bad leg and create a good leg, or something like that. Will it? I think he is lying. It is PR and bullshit, although there is a grain of truth in it. This isn't an isolated example.

I think I have a somewhat good idea of what is useful in Scientology, but I've been involved with it for 38 years now! A newbie hasn't a prayer of sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

The subject *cannot* be cleaned up from within. Who would do it? Who would be trusted to do it honestly? No-one has the authority to "officially" take Hubbard's work and decide what's good and what's bad, although anyone can do so for himself and whoever looks up to him as an opinion leader.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What ideas?

All of them.

Hubbard says in Fundamentals of Thought that mocking up bad legs will as-is a bad leg and create a good leg, or something like that. Will it? I think he is lying. It is PR and bullshit, although there is a grain of truth in it. This isn't an isolated example.

I know and I would agree with you on this one. Many more too, no doubt. Nonetheless there are some very useful processes and concepts included in the body of work, howsoever they got to be there. And just occasionally Hubbard could produce a real "gem" in one of those extended narcissistic riffs he routinely engaged in and styled as "lectures".

Two of my "pet faves": withholds & missed withholds. Never saw them described before elsewhere before Hubbard, but I find the phenomena as described to be ubiquitous as well as extremely useful to spot.

I take your point about noobs being potentially overwhelmed by the mass of data but it needn't be as difficult as you make it sound. A strong dose of healthy scepticism at the start and absence from or disregard for the Cult of Ron does wonders for an individual's own native ability to differentiate & evaluate.


Mark A. Baker

 

[FoTi]

As to the "ties" that remain, what if I feel it is honest and ethical to retain some of the "ties" and choose not to eliminate them? Do I have the right to do that in your world view?

Here is your post #3743 written on the 17th, 4 days ago. I am wrong about you using the term PTS so I will retract that!

Sorry, Lakey, I'm gonna do a fundamental violation and evaluate for you, but then I'm not your auditor.

The consideration that "it led me to be a smaller being" is a self invalidation. It stems from the tendency to evaluate self in terms of an adopted IDENTITY and in terms of internalized expectations. It is also a "ser fac". It is a very very common "ser fac". Mothers typically want their daughters to marry doctors & millionaires, not busboys or artists.

The fact is that which makes you a "bigger being" is creating that which is of interest to YOU, not that for which you gain another's approval. We get trained to fulfill other's expectations, and not to "let others down". This conflict of motivations is something we all recognize and yet we all have varying degrees of difficulty realizing it in our own lives.

What CO & Roger have been discussing recently on this thread goes right to the heart of this issue of "self vs identity". Hope their comments help.


Mark A. Baker

I don't think that post is appropriate to put up on this board. It is pretended knowledge. You are pontificating about me as if you have me all figured out and you have the abilitiy and authority to point out my shortcommings. By doing this, on the surface you give the appearance of being concerned about me and being helpful. However, I did not ask for all this in depth advice from you and none of it all indicates to me as being correct. If you sincerely are concerned and want to set me straight, I can live with that but you should do it the way Rog does it. Give a piece of tech in a concise form and then ask a few poignant questions which get the other person to look. That will get you a good result. If I have some questions for you or seeks your opinion, I will get back to you and ask for it. I do not believe that asserting your opinion when it has not been sought out is going to win you very many friends.

You seem to have a technique established as Veda suggests. You cherry pick some fairly innocuous line out of someone's post and challenge it. You then tell the person that you are going to evaluate for them but it is Okay to do that because you are not their auditor. You then evaluate, attempting to make the person look like a lost soul and a buffoon and actually when it comes right down to basics, you invalidate that person and do a little partial dead agent number on him. The next step in your ruse is to offer advice. You dictate and pontificate where the person has gone astray as you see it and then give a lot of your opinions as to why he is screwed up. Finally, you offer the person remedies of your chosing to give the impression that you are concerned about the person and are really trying hard to help him.

IT IS A CAREFULLY LAYED OUT DEAD AGENTING SCHEME TO BRING THE PERSON DOWN IN GRADIENTS, JUST A LITTLE BIT EACH DAY. And with me, you have started picking up the pace, 3 major put downs in the last 4 days! Like Veda, I do not know if you are doing this intentionally or not but also, like him, I lean towards this being done intentionally rather than the alternate of it being done unknowingly. I sincerely hope I am wrong in that assessment!

As CO has noticed, all of a sudden, I have developed more cajones so be forwarned that if you are planning a program to dead agent me, you might as well stop right now because it will not succeed and you will come out of it as the one who ends up being dead agented.

Your last two words finnally give us some grounds for agreement. Enough said!

Lakey, I tend to see this the same way you do.

 

[Leon]

I disagree, Leon. Years ago I valued Hubbard's words immensely, and collected them, and studied them. As I learned more and more about the man, I valued his words less and less. Now, I find that I cannot trust a single word he said in his entire lifetime. In any particular instance he may have spoken the truth as he saw it, or he may have knowingly lied, and there is no way at all to tell the difference except in those cases when it is obvious (like the missing 2nd wife).

So, for example, he writes about a process. He says when audited it produces such and such a result. But does it routinely do that? Did it ever? Did he ever actually audit it on anyone, even himself or his dog? He says a particular action in policy produces such and such a result. Does it? Did it ever?

All I can trust is that the wording of a process or a policy is such and such, assuming the evil transcriptionists didn't screw it up. And for 25 million words, or whatever, that isn't fucking much at all.

Paul

If we leave out the upper levels and focus on the grades, which I have the most experisnce of, then I'd venture that, yes, it does in my experience produce the results h stated. And often even more.

For example he says that Rising Scale will change the endocrine balance in a guy - I have found this to be true on those preclears who had endocrine problems. Well I say that - I'm not really one to diagnose such problems medically but I have seen ulcers disappear and digestion improve markedly. Vision too.

Objective Processes, which as far as I know have never been correctly run in the CofS, produces the most startling results when dome thoroughly and correctly, de-PTSing a case and fixing accident-proneness completely.

One can talk oneself into a total mistrust of everything he ever said about anything. But the fact that I and many others have experienced again and again over many years is that good gains are easily and routinely available from auditing. It is not hard to do. generally cases do respond favourably and, when kept at it, improve quite markedly. Even spectacularly sometimes.

You say: As I learned more and more about the man, I valued his words less and less." What I'm getting at with my earlier post is that one's evaluation of the subject Scientology should not be coloured by one's evaluation of Hubbard. They should be two seperate issues. And the value one places on the subject should be based entirely upon the benefits one gets out of it for oneself and others. The test of it is in the application of it, not in the integrity of Hubbard (or the lack of it).

 

[Leon]

What ideas? Hubbard says in Fundamentals of Thought that mocking up bad legs will as-is a bad leg and create a good leg, or something like that. Will it? I think he is lying.

Running the bad leg out with R3R does exactly this. There one is mocking up a bad leg and its supposed origins, etc and getting a good leg. Been there, done that.

I think I have a somewhat good idea of what is useful in Scientology, but I've been involved with it for 38 years now! A newbie hasn't a prayer of sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

Agreed. A newbie will never do it.

The subject *cannot* be cleaned up from within. Who would do it? Who would be trusted to do it honestly? No-one has the authority to "officially" take Hubbard's work and decide what's good and what's bad, although anyone can do so for himself and whoever looks up to him as an opinion leader.

Paul

No one "needs" any sort of "authority" to do it. Absolute;y anyone is free to just go ahead and do it as best he can and start delivering the results. Don't need to bow to Chicago. Just go ahead.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Two of my "pet faves": withholds & missed withholds. Never saw them described before elsewhere before Hubbard, but I find the phenomena as described to be ubiquitous as well as extremely useful to spot.

I agree with that one. But then take a look at HCOB RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND PATTER, well-known to any classed auditor who did any training after 1978. It was probably written by someone other than Hubbard, but considering its date and prominence that is no excuse. The patter for picking up misses is "Who missed it?" and then "What did (they) do to make you wonder whether or not he/she knew?"

That is just bullshit as a question, as anyone who has had MWHs pulled in session knows. Sometimes it works, but sometimes one just looks blank and says "he didn't do anything really" or else lies and says "he looked at me" (or something) while secretly thinking, "that wasn't it but I gotta say something."

As a rough handling it's not too bad, but it misses the point. The point is that a missed withhold occurs at the moment a withhold is restimulated, whether you are wondering about the other person or not. You can be walking down the street and see a policeman and go "uh-oh." The policeman didn't do anything to make you wonder whether or not he knew. You know damn well he doesn't know anything about you smoking a joint at home 30 minutes ago, but all the same the sight of him restimulated (missed) the withhold.

You can be looking at a chair and it restimulates a withhold. The chair genuinely missed the withhold in the terms the question is couched, but then asking the question, "What did the chair do to make you wonder whether or not it knew?" is clearly silly. So what happens is the pc ignores reporting that miss as a miss, as he thinks it isn't one. But it is. Same for the cat, or God, or the TV or whatever in the pc's view triggered the restim. It leaves the pc with BPC, and he isn't going to as-is it because he isn't going to find the right reason, unless he has a very sharp auditor (or is using PaulsRobot ).

Paul

 

[Leon]

The trouble here is that the CofS insists on a literal interpretation and application of commands. The exact patter and nothing else. That in itself is a major stupidity. Any auditor who is worth anything would not fall into this trap.

The more fundamental datum is that the W/H got restimmed and the pc needs to spot the exact point it happened.

 

[Leon]

WTF Posted twice in error.

 

[FoTi]

Objective Processes, which as far as I know have never been correctly run in the CofS, produces the most startling results when dome thoroughly and correctly, de-PTSing a case and fixing accident-proneness completely.

.

So, how are Objective Processes correctly run and how did you learn about this?