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

[lkwdblds]

I believe you are suffering from a misconception

In Scientology, I understood the conditions were to be applied to a current life....and auditing was supposed to handle the past life track. If one believes that one has lived many, many lives over millions or billions of years, how would one ever do an amends for all of the bad deeds one might have done over that long period of time? I never saw anyone having to do amends for the overts they ran out in session as regards their past life or lives. The act of running out the overts and getting the charge off of them - as-ising the basic so that it wouldn't occur any longer or be bothering the person any longer so that they could live a better life was the action that I saw being done in Scientology.

Did you ever read about or hear LRH saying anything about doing amends for past life overts?

I'm also wondering why LRH is only communicating with Blue or TMT.

FoTi, I don't know where you got the idea that ethics conditions were to be applied only to a current life. Certainly when a person is brand new, they are often asked to look only this life. If they spouted off past life overts and withholds, those incidents are likely to be dub ins and the person would get no gain whatever from doing ethics conditions on a dubbed in life. That is probably how you picked up that concept.

When you are doing ethics on an OT type of person, where the person has demonstrated that he/she has excellent past life recall I would think the one life restriction would not apply.

In my opinion, and I don't fully know this, but I think that one of the major reasons everyone has agreed to undergo body death is that that process is sold to beings on the alledged merit of the concept that they are being given a COMPLETE NEW START. Also, they are sold that they don't have to worry about being found out about any longer.

HYPOTHETICAL SALES PITCH TO SELL BEINGS on "BODY DEATH"
Here ye, here ye...Be freed from all past transgressions! Just imagine how fresh and new you felt when you first were aware of being aware! Now you can recapture that feeling if you sign on with us and agree with BODY DEATH!! Another Great Benefit is that you no longer have to worry about being found out! People will no longer be able to tell that you are the person who committed that old crime. Have fun anew and never worry about being recognized for having done an earlier crime. GET THAT BRAND NEW START WHICH YOU DESERVE AND AS AN ADDED BONUS, YOU ARE HELPING SAVE THE PLANET! Yes, population will be controlled and only young vibrant people will be using the planet's resources. It sounds good and like Scientology, there are some real benefits to this system but there is also a downside.

I am speculating that part of that downside is that many transgressions against others occur without the perpetrator being called to account. He simply lets his body die if he is too burdened with guilt. The may be a key component of the downward spiral of the Physical Universe. Again I am just guessing.

One other thing, FoTi, if one does confront past live out ethics, he does not have to run out trillions and gazillions of individual incidents. He can be contrite for having harmed others and do some kind of penance for a whole batch or catefory of transgressions. It would be something like putting together a class action lawsuit. One lawsuit could handle a million offenses. Similarly a million out 2D transgressions could be atoned for with just one handling.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Hmm... it's tough not knowing exactly who I'm conversing with.

Wally is in, doesn't see eye to eye with me on anything. Dolores passed away in June - see my blog about that. Jana huh? We divorced in about 75. She married a pretty nice guy from the SLC Scn center and last I heard was still in Scn.

I haven't thought about Sarah for a while. Back in about '69 I did some "tours" for ASHO and Sarah went with me on one of them.

D

David, I hadn't read the blog when I responded. I just saw your picture, and knew who you were.

Your blog righteously rocks!

You may or may not remember me. My name is Ed Berwick. When we rubbed elbows, my girl friend was either Laurie Noonan, Martha Weller, or Gail Pollock. (depending on Santa Clara, ASHO, CC times)

This is what I looked like in 1966 (on the right)

This is the band, People!. I hung out with them. Photo is from 2 or 3 years ago.

this is a recent family photo (I'm on the right)

This is a recent pic of my wife, Teri. You would remember her as Teri Spickler.

Did you say horse country? This is a friend and I taking a break during an endurance race.

Our youngest daughter galloping down the beach

Two quick comments:

Kingsley didn't own Santa Clara when you were there. Gifford Pinchot did.

Kingsley acquired it later.

The Los Gatos Org, where Dolores' memorial was held is in San Jose. Before it was an org, it was a mission. It started in my living room back in about 1973 in Willow Glen. There were ten people on our original comm course. That is probably way more than they have tonight.

Scientology was a lot easier sell before 1980.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Maybe they are the only people here who like to talk about it, but there are secretly many others?

Like all the people who *know* they were Jesus Christ in a past lifetime but don't like to brag about it.

Paul

I was Charlie McCarthy in a past life


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jTLa3Xirgc&feature=related

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I love your stories, Carmelo.....keep 'em comin'.

Thank you. There are so many things to do in life besides ruminate about Scientology.

 

[Leon]

FoTi, I don't know where you got the idea that ethics conditions were to applied only to a current life. Certainly when a person is brand new, they are often asked to look only this life. If they spouted off past life overts and withholds, those incidents are likely to be dub ins and the person would get no gain whatever from doing ethics conditions on a dubbed in life. That is probably how you picked up that concept.

When you are doing ethics on an OT type of person, where the person has demonstrated that he/she has excellent past life recall I would think the one life restriction would not apply.

In my opinion, and I don't fully know this, but I think that one of the major reasons everyone has agreed to undergo body death is that that process is sold to beings on the alledged merit of the concept that they are being given and COMPLETE NEW START. Also, they are sold that they don't have to worry about being found out about any longer.

HYPOTHETICAL SALES PITCH TO SELL BEINGS on "BODY DEATH"
Here ye, here ye...Be freed from all past transgressions! Just imagine how fresh and new you felt when you first were aware of being aware! Now you can recapture that feeling if you sign on with us and agree with BODY DEATH!! Another Great Benefit is that you no longer have to worry about being found out! People will no longer be able to tell that you are the person who committed that old crime. Have fun anew and never worry about being recognized for having done an earlier crime. GET THAT BRAND NEW START WHICH YOU DESERVE AND AS AN ADDED BONUS, YOU ARE HELPING SAVE THE PLANET! Yes, population will be controlled and only young vibrant people will be using the plantet's resources. It sounds good and like Scientology, there are some real benefits to this system but there is also a downside.

I am speculating that part of that downside is that many transgressions against others occur without the perpetrator being called to account. He simply lets his body die if he is too burdened with guilt. The may be a key component of the downward spiral of the Physical Universe. Again I am just guessing.

One other thing, FoTi, if one does confront past live out ethics, he does not have to run out trillions and gazillions of individual incidence. He can be contrite for having harmed others and do some kind of penance for a whole batch or catefory of transgressions. It would be something like putting together a class action lawsuit. One lawsuit could handle a million offences. Similarly a million out 2D transgressions could be atoned for with just one handling.
Lakey

The muddle and confusion that ALL CofS attempts at ethics handlings got into was (a) mixing the dynamics instead of keeping them seperate, and (b) not dealing fully with the first dynamic before venturing into others.

One must get the person to be ethical as regards his own this lifetime beingness, regardless of what groups he may be a part of. Until you have the person fully in ethics as regards him/herself you are truly wasting your time trying to get him to be ethical anywhere else. Any so called result you do get will be the guy being "obedient" and a "good group member". It goes without saying that such an adopted beingness in a group must be a false beingness on the first dynamic, in other words a dramatisation of something Treason.

If one has not thoroughly done Mary Freeman's ethics program one has not done ethics at all. One has at best only gone through a few steps of it on a "let's pretend" basis.

 

[Leon]

The surname for my earlier post is McClaughry. He gave a very good transmissionof info from LRH.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

open source research on Alzheimer’s

from today's NY Times
August 12, 2010
Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s
By GINA KOLATA
In 2003, a group of scientists and executives from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the drug and medical-imaging industries, universities and nonprofit groups joined in a project that experts say had no precedent: a collaborative effort to find the biological markers that show the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain.

Now, the effort is bearing fruit with a wealth of recent scientific papers on the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s using methods like PET scans and tests of spinal fluid. More than 100 studies are under way to test drugs that might slow or stop the disease.

And the collaboration is already serving as a model for similar efforts against Parkinson’s disease. A $40 million project to look for biomarkers for Parkinson’s, sponsored by the Michael J. Fox Foundation, plans to enroll 600 study subjects in the United States and Europe.

The work on Alzheimer’s “is the precedent,” said Holly Barkhymer, a spokeswoman for the foundation. “We’re really excited.”

The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

“It was unbelievable,” said Dr. John Q. Trojanowski, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s not science the way most of us have practiced it in our careers. But we all realized that we would never get biomarkers unless all of us parked our egos and intellectual-property noses outside the door and agreed that all of our data would be public immediately.”

Biomarkers are not necessarily definitive. It remains to be seen how many people who have them actually get the disease. But that is part of the research project.

The idea for the collaboration, known as ADNI, for Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, emerged about 10 years ago during a casual conversation in a car.

Neil S. Buckholtz, chief of the Dementias of Aging Branch at the National Institute on Aging, was in Indianapolis, and Dr. William Potter, a neuroscientist at Eli Lilly and his longtime friend, was driving him to the airport.

Dr. Potter had recently left the National Institutes of Health and he had been thinking about how to speed the glacial progress of Alzheimer’s drug research.

“We wanted to get out of what I called 19th-century drug development — give a drug and hope it does something,” Dr. Potter recalled in an interview on Thursday. “What was needed was to find some way of seeing what was happening in the brain as Alzheimer’s progressed and asking if experimental drugs could alter that progression.”

Scientists were looking for biomarkers, but they were not getting very far.

“The problem in the field was that you had many different scientists in many different universities doing their own research with their own patients and with their own methods,” said Dr. Michael W. Weiner of the San Francisco Department of Veterans Affairs, who directs ADNI. “Different people using different methods on different subjects in different places were getting different results, which is not surprising. What was needed was to get everyone together and to get a common data set.”

But that would require a huge effort. No company could do it alone, and neither could individual researchers. The project would require 800 subjects, some with normal memories, some with memory impairment, some with Alzheimer’s, who would be tested for possible biomarkers and followed for years to see whether these markers signaled the disease’s progression.

Suddenly, in the car as he drove Dr. Buckholtz to the airport, “everything just jelled,” Dr. Potter said, adding, “Maybe this was important enough to get people to work together and coordinate in a way that hadn’t been possible before.”

The idea, Dr. Buckholtz said, was that the government’s National Institutes of Health “could serve as an honest broker between the pharmaceutical industry and academia.”

Soon, Dr. Richard J. Hodes, the director of the National Institute on Aging, was on the phone with Dr. Steven M. Paul, a former scientific director at the National Institute of Mental Health who had recently left to head central-nervous-system research at Eli Lilly. Dr. Paul offered to ask other drug companies to raise money.

It turned out to be relatively easy to get companies to agree, Dr. Paul said. It had become clear that the problem of finding good diagnostic tools was huge and complex. “We were better off working together than individually,” he said.

A critical aspect of the project was the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, which was set up by Congress to raise private funds on behalf of the institutes. Dr. Paul was on its board.

In the end, the National Institute on Aging agreed to pay $41 million, other institutes contributed $2.4 million, and 20 companies and two nonprofit groups contributed an additional $27 million to get the project going and sustain it for the first six years. Late last year, the institute contributed an additional $24 million and the foundation was working on a renewal of the project for another five years that would involve federal and private contributions of the same magnitude as the initial ones.

At first, the collaboration struck many scientists as worrisome — they would be giving up ownership of data, and anyone could use it, publish papers, maybe even misinterpret it and publish information that was wrong.

But Alzheimer’s researchers and drug companies realized they had little choice.

“Companies were caught in a prisoner’s dilemma,” said Dr. Jason Karlawish, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “They all wanted to move the field forward, but no one wanted to take the risks of doing it.”

Many people look askance at collaborations with drug companies, and often that attitude is justified, Dr. Karlawish said.

But not in this case. To those who are skeptical, he says, “My answer to them is ‘get over it.’ ”

He went on: “This one makes sense. The development of reliable and valid measures of Alzheimer’s disease requires such large science with such limited returns on the investment that it was in no one company’s interest to pursue it.”

Companies as well as academic researchers are using the data. There have been more than 3,200 downloads of the entire massive data set and almost a million downloads of the data sets containing images from brain scans.

And Dr. Buckholtz says he is pleasantly surprised by the way things are turning out.

“We weren’t sure, frankly, how it would work out having data available to everyone,” he said. “But we felt that the good that could come out of it was overwhelming. And that’s what’s happened.”

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

from the NY Times

August 12, 2010, 1:07 PM
Running With Your Dog
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Runner’s World magazine this month has a great special section on running with your dog. In addition to lots of great photos, it’s filled with useful information. Among the stories:

Five Reasons to Run With Your Dog: Number one: a wagging tails reminds us that “running should be joyful.”

The Best Breeds for Runners: A great chart that breaks down, among other things, the best breeds for long, slow runs (standard poodles and dalmatians), running on trails (border collies) and most obedient running companions (Labradors and golden retrievers, of course).

Running Accessories for Dogs: Where to find the best power bones, poop bags and travel bowls.

Training Your Dog for Endurance: You wouldn’t run long distances without training, and neither should your dog.

People Who Run With Dogs: The post includes a fun video showing a photo shoot and interviews of people who run with dogs, including one great story of a dog in Alaska who saved its owners from a mother bear with cubs.

 

[Leon]

One further comment re ethics - having to do penance or amends or whatever you call it is a complete load of bullshit. Sure, when your ethics are in you may well want to make the world a better place, but it can never be a requirement to be met before forgiveness can be given - forgiveness is also a bullshit concept.


ETHICS, Ethics is the application of reason and good sense in the attainment of optimum survival. Fully applied, ethics would strive for the highest level of survival for the individual, the family, the group, mankind, and all else besides taken collectively.

More than anything else Ethics refers to the base from which one is operating. Ethics is the stance one takes in life, it is who and what one considers oneself to be. It is the position from which one acts. Ethics is the base. It is that which is decided upon and exercised by oneself in accordance with one’s belief in one’s own honour, integrity and good reason, and is applied by oneself as the most optimum solution along one’s own eight dynamics.

The subject of ethics deals with the rehabilitation of that inherently good and strong person, and in the survival actions which then flow from him or her in acordance with and in harmony with their basic goodness. It brings into alignment one’s BEINGNESS, DOINGNESS and HAVINGNESS.

A being is as ethical as he is sane; he is as sane as he is ethical. The two words are exact synonyms


I grant you though that a person asserting his own rightness with regard to harmful things he has done to others will likely be so out of valence that he finds it hard to access that basic beingness who he really is. But there are steps to handle that.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

One further comment re ethics - having to do penance or amends or whatever you call it is a complete load of bullshit. Sure, when your ethics are in you may well want to make the world a better place, but it can never be a requirement to be met before forgiveness can be given - forgiveness is also a bullshit concept.


ETHICS, Ethics is the application of reason and good sense in the attainment of optimum survival. Fully applied, ethics would strive for the highest level of survival for the individual, the family, the group, mankind, and all else besides taken collectively.

More than anything else Ethics refers to the base from which one is operating. Ethics is the stance one takes in life, it is who and what one considers oneself to be. It is the position from which one acts. Ethics is the base. It is that which is decided upon and exercised by oneself in accordance with one’s belief in one’s own honour, integrity and good reason, and is applied by oneself as the most optimum solution along one’s own eight dynamics.

The subject of ethics deals with the rehabilitation of that inherently good and strong person, and in the survival actions which then flow from him or her in acordance with and in harmony with their basic goodness. It brings into alignment one’s BEINGNESS, DOINGNESS and HAVINGNESS.

A being is as ethical as he is sane; he is as sane as he is ethical. The two words are exact synonyms


I grant you though that a person asserting his own rightness with regard to harmful things he has done to others will likely be so out of valence that he finds it hard to access that basic beingness who he really is. But there are steps to handle that.

Back in the late 60s, a professional hit man got auditing. He went Clear. He had a wife and family. He was arrested and put in jail for many years. When a being's responsibility level comes up, he is his / her own best ethics officer.

There was a Jewish guy about 15 years ago. Despite being Jewish, he had a picture of Hitler on his desk. He loved the man. It turned out that the guy had been tried and convicted at Nuremberg. The more he faced up to what he had done, the more possessions he lost. He lost his job, his truck, his house.

 

[lkwdblds]

A little thought process regarding this post.

One further comment re ethics - having to do penance or amends or whatever you call it is a complete load of bullshit. Sure, when your ethics are in you may well want to make the world a better place, but it can never be a requirement to be met before forgiveness can be given - forgiveness is also a bullshit concept.


ETHICS, Ethics is the application of reason and good sense in the attainment of optimum survival. Fully applied, ethics would strive for the highest level of survival for the individual, the family, the group, mankind, and all else besides taken collectively.

More than anything else Ethics refers to the base from which one is operating. Ethics is the stance one takes in life, it is who and what one considers oneself to be. It is the position from which one acts. Ethics is the base. It is that which is decided upon and exercised by oneself in accordance with one’s belief in one’s own honour, integrity and good reason, and is applied by oneself as the most optimum solution along one’s own eight dynamics.

The subject of ethics deals with the rehabilitation of that inherently good and strong person, and in the survival actions which then flow from him or her in acordance with and in harmony with their basic goodness. It brings into alignment one’s BEINGNESS, DOINGNESS and HAVINGNESS.

A being is as ethical as he is sane; he is as sane as he is ethical. The two words are exact synonyms


I grant you though that a person asserting his own rightness with regard to harmful things he has done to others will likely be so out of valence that he finds it hard to access that basic beingness who he really is. But there are steps to handle that.

Interesting post and it led me to think of an interesting hypothetical situation.

Let us say that there are two men, Joe and then Bill who works for Joe. Lets say that Joe is married and has to leave the country for a long business trip. While Joe is gone, Bill has an affair with Joe's wife Mary and then she helps Bill embezzle $5 milliion out of Joe's business. Subsequently Bill and Mary take off with the money and go to live in Paris. Joe is enraged and hires a private investigator to track them down.

Once found, Bill and Mary defend what they have done and choose to stay together and believe that they are justified in taking Joe's money and runing off. Joe threatens them with prosecution and imprisonment but offers them a way out. He says that he will not prosecute if they run "some steps" at the "Church of the New Faith", and run those steps until they recover their true beingness. He tells them that once in their true beingness, their innate goodness will be recovered and then they will put ethics in on themselves and do what they feel is Ethical.

Bill and Mary agree and run these steps and recover their true beingnesses and then decide that they have done nothing wrong, that they both love each other and should stay together and that it was really Bill's efforts in the business and Mary's support of Joe that led to the business making the money. They decide not to give it back and also to keep living together. Joe decides to do the "basic steps" as well and when he is done, he decides that the money and the wife belong to him and Bill is a criminal.

NOW BASED ON YOUR POST, LEON, WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN NEXT? SHOULD JOE JUST GIVE BILL A HAND SHAKE, WISH HIS WIFE AND BILL THE BEST AND MOVE BACK TO HIS HOME ALONE? Joe, in his natural state, feels that he was duped and goes back on his word and takes Bill and Mary to court. Joe wins the case hands down and gets his $5 million back but he then fires Bill. Now that Bill is out of a job and is broke Mary decides to leave him, and returns to Joe. Before Joe takes her back, he makes Mary undergo some more counseling at the Church and then do an ammends project. Mary and Joe then resume their lives. Bill serves out some kind of term for his embezzlement and then resumes his life.

If I read your first paragraph correctly, you believe that the lawsuit, Joe getting his money and his wife back, Mary doing an ammends and Bill losing Mary and Bill serving some time in the clinker are all a complete load of bullshit. The only other viable alternative I can see would be for Joe to shake hands with Bill and give Mary a hug and wish Bill and Mary continued success in their lives and then return home by himself and accept his $5 million loss.

CALL ME OLD FASHIONED OR NAIVE BUT I THINK THAT THE LAW SUIT, THE RETURN OF THE MONEY AND THE RESTORATION OF THE MARRIAGE ARE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF ETHICS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. Maybe one should not call it Ethics but something else such as justice or the application of Morals. Whatever one calls it, some force had to be applied to make Joe "whole" again after his wife and money were stolen. Waiting for the guys ethics level to rise up so he will somehow lose control of one's wife and one's money sounds good in theory but not too many people are going to apply that in the workaday world. I could happen or more likely will never happen. If it did happen, it may take years or perhaps decades before the perpetrator comes to senses and repents on his own. In society, I really do not see any victim taking the option of waiting for the person to come to his senses on his own. To me, while this is possible and occasionally may happen, it would be "pie in the sky" to adopt that system as one's Standard Operating Procedure.

ANOTHER THORNY PROBLEM WHEN ADDRESSING THESE TYPES OF ISSUES I see some sort of inconsistency. The whole discussion started by showing an LRH quote that contained wisdom and then remarking that LRH did not live by his own writings and thus at the end of his life he ended up all fucked up and he brought thousands of other beings down with him.

Now, in your example, you use LRH as the SOURCE of what Ethics is all about. I have been guilty of doing this myself. Nevertheless, in an article basically demeaning LRH, I do not think his defintions and treatises on Ethics should be applied. We have been duped by him in the past by taking him at face value as being 100% correct and I, for one, am working on altering this behavior pattern. As a result, I think that the definition of Ethics which we use should not come from LRH's pen but from the pens of scholars and/or philosophers who were ethical themselves. Citing a man who turned out to have led a very unethical life as one's ultimate authority on Ethics just does not make sense.
Lakey

 

[thetanic]

A marriage needs to be a trust relationship, and I don't see how Mary could be trusted after that point, even if she claims to have changed. Then again, someone who'd stayed with her that long might be similar enough in other ways....

I've been kinda quiet because someone important to me, though not someone I knew well, was dying, and has passed on.

His insights were deep enough that, upon meeting him the first time and speaking with him for a few minutes (couldn't have been more than 20 minutes, probably more like 10), it turned my life around. He had a way of seeing through the human bullshit into the deeper mattter beyond.

Never someone who did any Scn, but someone who asked auditor-like questions and had natural ability that way.

 

[Ted]

The Dalai Lama Says...

Dalai Lama: "It is self-evident that a generous heart and wholesome actions lead to greater peace and that their negative counterparts bring undesirable consequences. Happiness arises from virtuous causes. If we truly desire to be happy, there is no other way to proceed but by way of virtue: it is the method by which happiness is achieved. And, we might add, that the basis of virtue, its ground, is ethical discipline."


Hubbard had a self-interest in his definitions of ethics. What I mean is, he twisted and bent another's understandings to his own advantage.

It might be yet another aspect of scientology that he required of others, but did not apply to himself. Take for example, the Power Formula. It is a lengthy missive, much longer than the explanations of the other Conditions. In Simplicity there is Power. This writing is not simple. On the last page hubbard draws his conclusions which are then used as the Power Formula. Assuming it is correct, he still did not apply his own formula. Apparently he did not recognize that he had many people working for him who would have done anything requested or granted him any privilege. As regards Power, hubbard had it but could not use it. Instead of dying in a ditch as he writes of Bolivar, hubbard died in hiding, in a Bluebird motorhome, when he had riches at his disposal.

To further understand ethics, study Aristotle. That is a good beginning.

From http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm

Aristotle applied the same patient, careful, descriptive approach to his examination of moral philosophy in the Eqikh Nikomacoi (Nicomachean Ethics). Here he discussed the conditions under which moral responsibility may be ascribed to individual agents, the nature of the virtues and vices involved in moral evaluation, and the methods of achieving happiness in human life. The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality — what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person?

Every activity has a final cause, the good at which it aims, and Aristotle argued that since there cannot be an infinite regress of merely extrinsic goods, there must be a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. (Nic. Ethics I 2) This end of human life could be called happiness (or living well), of course, but what is it really? Neither the ordinary notions of pleasure, wealth, and honor nor the philosophical theory of forms provide an adequate account of this ultimate goal, since even individuals who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be happy.

According to Aristotle, things of any variety have a characteristic function that they are properly used to perform. The good for human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire proper function of human life as a whole, and this must be an activity of the soul that expresses genuine virtue or excellence. (Nic. Ethics I 7) ... It goes on... Philosophy Pages

 

[RogerB]

Dalai Lama: "It is self-evident that a generous heart and wholesome actions lead to greater peace and that their negative counterparts bring undesirable consequences. Happiness arises from virtuous causes. If we truly desire to be happy, there is no other way to proceed but by way of virtue: it is the method by which happiness is achieved. And, we might add, that the basis of virtue, its ground, is ethical discipline."


Hubbard had a self-interest in his definitions of ethics. What I mean is, he twisted and bent another's understandings to his own advantage.

It might be yet another aspect of scientology that he required of others, but did not apply to himself. Take for example, the Power Formula. It is a lengthy missive, much longer than the explanations of the other Conditions. In Simplicity there is Power. This writing is not simple. On the last page hubbard draws his conclusions which are then used as the Power Formula. Assuming it is correct, he still did not apply his own formula. Apparently he did not recognize that he had many people working for him who would have done anything requested or granted him any privilege. As regards Power, hubbard had it but could not use it. Instead of dying in a ditch as he writes of Bolivar, hubbard died in hiding, in a Bluebird motorhome, when he had riches at his disposal.

To further understand ethics, study Aristotle. That is a good beginning.

From http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm

Aristotle applied the same patient, careful, descriptive approach to his examination of moral philosophy in the Eqikh Nikomacoi (Nicomachean Ethics). Here he discussed the conditions under which moral responsibility may be ascribed to individual agents, the nature of the virtues and vices involved in moral evaluation, and the methods of achieving happiness in human life. The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality — what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person?

Every activity has a final cause, the good at which it aims, and Aristotle argued that since there cannot be an infinite regress of merely extrinsic goods, there must be a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. (Nic. Ethics I 2) This end of human life could be called happiness (or living well), of course, but what is it really? Neither the ordinary notions of pleasure, wealth, and honor nor the philosophical theory of forms provide an adequate account of this ultimate goal, since even individuals who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be happy.

According to Aristotle, things of any variety have a characteristic function that they are properly used to perform. The good for human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire proper function of human life as a whole, and this must be an activity of the soul that expresses genuine virtue or excellence. (Nic. Ethics I 7) ... It goes on... Philosophy Pages

Yes this is good Ted. I highlight in red the part that sums it up. Leon's post is good also.

For those who've read Hubbard's HCO PLs on Ethics and the Conditions, you will remember the little line from 1967 (which I will paraphrase from memory) "that we have to make the penalties for for being in a lower condition so horrible, that no one would ever want to be in them." (This quote is from the HCO PL that introduced the Condition of Liability formula, in 1967, from memory.)

I write the above because Hubbard demonstrably was into rule by domination, control and fear. He spoke of "love" . . . but sure as hell did not practice it, instead he rules by fear as was demonstrated by the orders of behavior he gave to the first SO missionaire officers (the stabbing a dirk into the ceiling trick in St. Hill).

And the orgs today are run on the basis of fear.

This is the antithesis of the facilitating of volitional personal and group ethical conduct (as in the example cited in the quote of Socrates).

Scn "ethics" as practiced is an exercise in the over-ruling of personal volition and sovereignty and of trust in the individual to personally be responsible and able to operate in the most ethical and optimum manner . . . . Hubbard demonstrably denied and over-ruled that fine notion by his behavior, orders written and given verbally, and by his statement I cite from 1967.

Scn ethics as practiced in orgs denies and prevents an individual from rising up to the optimum level of personal trust in self of ethical conduct execution. It is replaced by domination and control of the individual by way of the use of fear.

RogerB

 

[Ted]

Yes this is good Ted. I highlight in red the part that sums it up. Leon's post is good also.

For those who've read Hubbard's HCO PLs on Ethics and the Conditions, you will remember the little line from 1967 (which I will paraphrase from memory) "that we have to make the penalties for for being in a lower condition so horrible, that no one would ever want to be in them." (This quote is from the HCO PL that introduced the Condition of Liability formula, in 1967, from memory.)

I write the above because Hubbard demonstrably was into rule by domination, control and fear. He spoke of "love" . . . but sure as hell did not practice it, instead he rules by fear as was demonstrated by the orders of behavior he gave to the first SO missionaire officers (the stabbing a dirk into the ceiling trick in St. Hill).

And the orgs today are run on the basis of fear.

This is the antithesis of the facilitating of volitional personal and group ethical conduct (as in the example cited in the quote of Socrates).

Scn "ethics" as practiced is an exercise in the over-ruling of personal volition and sovereignty and of trust in the individual to personally be responsible and able to operate in the most ethical and optimum manner . . . . Hubbard demonstrably denied and over-ruled that fine notion by his behavior, orders written and given verbally, and by his statement I cite from 1967.

Scn ethics as practiced in orgs denies and prevents an individual from rising up to the optimum level of personal trust in self of ethical conduct execution. It is replaced by domination and control of the individual by way of the use of fear.

RogerB

Aristotle, not Socrates.

Hubbard attempted to convince us that His Cause was virtuous. It was not. As he wrote in 8008, "Cause is motivated by the future." Hubbard's future was all about smashing his name into history. "I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form, even if all the books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."

My contributions were virtuous. Your contributions were virtuous. We contributed based on agreed upon policy. His contributions were pretentious and deceitful having an underlying motivation contrary to his written statements.

 

[lkwdblds]

The last three posts are very much NEEDED!

Aristotle, not Socrates.

Hubbard attempted to convince us that His Cause was virtuous. It was not. As he wrote in 8008, "Cause is motivated by the future." Hubbard's future was all about smashing his name into history. "I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form, even if all the books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."

My contributions were virtuous. Your contributions were virtuous. We contributed based on agreed upon policy. His contributions were pretentious and deceitful having an underlying, motivation contrary to his written statements.[/QUOTE]

The last three posts, two by Ted and one by Roger are sorely needed by ex Scientologists. The two paragraphs above which I put in bold type are a beautiful summation of what we have been talking about. They say it all with an economy of words. I am going to do a paste / copy and stick them down in my thread, "A Nutshell Summary of LRH"

If someone believes the two paragraphs to be true, it is my opinion that they should not use LRH Source materials as the backbone to build an argument around. Since LRH did write much which did have wisdom in it, it is probably okay to cite LRH, but when doing so it must always be understood that the information must be taken with a "grain of salt" or as they said so beautifully in Latin, "Caveat Emptor" - Let the buyer beware."
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Aristotle, not Socrates.

Hubbard attempted to convince us that His Cause was virtuous. It was not. As he wrote in 8008, "Cause is motivated by the future." Hubbard's future was all about smashing his name into history. "I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form, even if all the books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."

My contributions were virtuous. Your contributions were virtuous. We contributed based on agreed upon policy. His contributions were pretentious and deceitful having an underlying motivation contrary to his written statements.[/QUOTE]

The last three posts, two by Ted and one by Roger are sorely needed by ex Scientologists. The two paragraphs above which I put in bold type are a beautiful summation of what we have been talking about. They say it all with an economy of words. I am going to do a paste / copy and stick them down in my thread, "A Nutshell Summary of LRH"

If someone believes the two paragraphs to be true, it is my opinion that they should not use LRH Source materials as the backbone to build an argument around. Since LRH did write much which did have wisdom in it, it is probably okay to cite LRH, but when doing so it must always be understood that the information must be taken with a "grain of salt" or as they said so beautifully in Latin, "Caveat Emptor" - Let the buyer beware."
Lakey

Okay. Fixed the typo. No comma after "underlying."

 

[Blue Spirit]

Waiting For The Reach ?

So, what's happening with The Magic Thetan and his Chronicles? Did he get scared and run away? Is he blown for good? He made a big splash with some promises and split? I hate it when people do that. Seems like he just came here, stirred things up and then left. I don't see that he really had any genuine interest in sharing in the conversations here, or contributing his knowledge and experiences like most of the rest of the folks here do. It was disappointing. Kind of pissed me off.

Maybe he's waiting for more reach and demand ?

He has been very busy with multiple games, and can't spend all of his time on ESMB.

Posting his history is one thing,

while creating new and important

games that will benefit all of us (at least the ones with some havingness)

is of greater importance in my informed opinion.

There is some Great stuff on the way, besides the Chronicles.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Yes Lakey, those posts are excellent.

I saw firsthand that El Ron expected and exacted— aggressively, sometimes viciously—that others play by the rules although Hisself only went by the rules when it was to Hisself’s favor or fancy. Plenty has been written about that by others more credible than I.

Ted’s quote from 8-8008 is perfect and both Roger’s and Ted’s insights are, in part, why I have given Blue my Caveat Emptors re: El Ron. I personally see El Ron’s chicanery as endemic and not “Case Phenomena”.

Of all the things that stick in my craw re: El Ron, Black Scn and Institutional Scn the wanton abusing, savaging and leaching of dedicated, hard working and decent folks is the one that gnaws on me the most.

I never followed or used Ethics “Tech” all that much in my SO career and I had high stats on every post I held. The biggest problem I had “keeping the stats up” was the Rube Goldberg system and the clueless, drunk with power CMO, Networks and Senior “Management”.

Face

 

[lkwdblds]

Well stated Face!

Yes Lakey, those posts are excellent.

I saw firsthand that El Ron expected and exacted— aggressively, sometimes viciously—that others play by the rules although Hisself only went by the rules when it was to Hisself’s favor or fancy. Plenty has been written about that by others more credible than I.

Ted’s quote from 8-8008 is perfect and both Roger’s and Ted’s insights are, in part, why I have given Blue my Caveat Emptors re: El Ron. I personally see El Ron’s chicanery as endemic and not “Case Phenomena”.

Of all the things that stick in my craw re: El Ron, Black Scn and Institutional Scn the wanton abusing, savaging and leaching of dedicated, hard working and decent folks is the one that gnaws on me the most.

I never followed or used Ethics “Tech” all that much in my SO career and I had high stats on every post I held. The biggest problem I had “keeping the stats up” was the Rube Goldberg system and the clueless, drunk with power CMO, Networks and Senior “Management”.

Face

Nicely stated post. We have a nice mix of individuals posting on this area. We run the gamut from those who worked closely with LRH to those who had some staff and Sea Org experience to those who were active in Tech and / or Admin but did not work with LRH directly to Academics who are trying to figure out what the hell happened to cause all this big stir.
Lakey