The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Everybody sleepin in on a Saturday mornin Its 6:00 a.m.!Let's shake a tail! Rise and shine!
OK, now that you're up...its time for beddy bye
OK, now that you're up...its time for beddy bye
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Explain please.
You're up early
Damn. Now I have to write the post I earlier deleted.
I will try to be clear yet brief.
Just roll back everything you know about a GPM. I do that and find that the perception of a GPM is dependent on the perception and consideration of other theory and consideration that may or may not be true and factual.
Scientology theory is like a house of cards. I am not saying it is not useful from time to time. I am saying Hubbard brought it to market positioned as Truth, or Truth Finding Procedure.
Take Dianetics for example. The theory is that if you completely review a loss or an engram, it will erase, and you, the client, will feel grand. If that happened it's wonderful. If that didn't happen, there is another theory, or two, or more to explain why not. There must be an earlier similar hanging it up. Or a hidden command phrase. Or it's not what happened to the client; it's something the client did to another. And so on.
If there is an earlier similar that does not release, there is an earlier similar still. Now you have a timetrack model from which to build this house of cards. You audit conception, but you are still not "Clear." And someone comes along with an apparent fantasy recall that when run gives great relief. What does that mean? Hey! Human beings must be basically spiritual in nature!
Now take spirit, label it timeless and deathless. What does that mean? It means the timetrack model must go on forever and ever! But wait! Everything has a beginning and an end and I have been to the beginning of the track but I still have my case, so what does that mean? It means there must be an earlier physical universe!
And so it goes. One item claimed as Truth giving birth to another and another. "If 'A' observation is true then 'B' supposition must naturally follow," is the logic behind that. The supposition becomes the new Truth. Now put the clients to work, have them observe this phenomena. They will feel better for having done the observation and the work. They do not feel better because it is necessarily True.
Spirit is the only Truth there is. Yet even that is debatable among some of us.
The question, do GPMs exist?
Yes... And no.
It depends on how much of that house of cards is supporting the idea for you. Earlier I mentioned that it is possible to run things into the case or a being's awareness while running things out. The "technical" explanation -- or sales pitch -- is that a case has to be setup to run GPMs or some other process. That means certain things have to be run in on the mind and awareness of the client before GPMs come to acceptance and view. Remember, these theories are dependent on each other like a house of cards.
I am not saying people have not had marvelous gains from adopting the theory then running with it. I am just saying it is not Truth. We are dealing with a mental/spiritual exercise. The gain is in the participation and the doing much like physical exercise. A person can feel quite good for having participated in an exercise program that they ~can do~, one on a proper gradient that fits the person's interests and physical capabilities. Sounds like good C/Sing, no? Quit exercising and those apparent gains eventually go away. Just like auditing.
Just like any auditing that did not lead to Truth. Truth does not go away.
The best auditing gives the client a change of perception. Perception, that's Axiom 1, 2, 3.
AXIOM 3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.
How's that?
FoTi
Crusader
Yes my mom was worse off emotionaly and physically. Her father left when she was 2 and her sister was 3. There was also mention that he had molested the girls. This left her family without a father and without an income. She was extremely poor growing up, never had the proper nutrition and only had enough money for a candy bar for lunch at school. I could see her resentment in the pictures of her and her sister when they were very little.
I don't know how they managed to survive financially, but my mother said that her mother had a lot of men in her life and the neighborhood mothers forbid their kids to play with her because of her mother's activities, so she was ostracized not because of anything she did but because of her mom.
She was very ill with intestinal problems and cholitis when she was 6, almost died and that carried on with her for the rest of her life until she finally lost most of her insides through operations towards the end of her life.
From the time she was 6 she took care of herself and the house because her mom was never around when she came home from school. She had 2 uniforms for school and one pair of shoes and when holes wore in the sole, she and her sister put newspaper in their shoes to keep from walking on the ground.
Her grandfather had a fishing boat and he would tie the girls to the boat and take them out on the water. My mother didn't know how to swim and she was terrified. She had such a fear of the water that she never could learn how to swim even after she grew up and we had a pool in our back yard.
She was smarter than the average bear and was ahead of her class in school. She designed clothes for money in high school - she was artistic, but only used it for business purposes. She chose her classes in high school for business so that she could get a good secretarial job after she graduated.
Her sister got pregnant in high school and she had to help her sister take care of that problem which was upsetting to both of them.
After she graduated high school she got a good job with the Hawaiian Steamship Co., then she had to help support her mother and grandmother. She pretty much had that job of helping them out for the rest of her life until they died. Neither one of them had much of anything so she was always helping with things that they needed. She was very responsible. It was like it was her duty in life to take care of everybody and she did it and resented them for it.
My mother was very beautiful and she ended up marrying a rich playboy, who, when she got pregnant took her to a doctor for an abortion and she was in the doctor's office for two weeks with blood poisoning - she almost died. She never went back to him and went back to work as secretary to the head of the Health Dept in L.A.
She met my dad right around the time of the depression. He was a poor student going to chiropractic college. She was drop dead gorgeous and had a job and she thought he had potential. He talked her into marrying him.
She supported the two of them through 6 years of chiropractic college, bought a house and a car all on a secretary's salary. That's what you could do back in those days. She had two abortions during these depression years because they could not afford a child and then she had a tuberal pregnancy and the doctor told her she would not be able to have children. She believed him. My father graduated from college right before I was born. She quit working and he took over the hat of breadwinner. She stayed home and took care of me and the house and the yard and was not happy about having to give up her career to stay home and be a housewife and mother. My father had one patient, took that money and went into business manufacturing vitamins for doctors. He thought all physical problems came from poor nutrition. He eventually ended up with several companies and became an entrepreneur and made a lot of money.
She was a little tiny, gorgeous, 5'2" doll who was very strong and could be rather ferocious. I remember one time my father was out of town on business and it was just me and her in the house and I was probably about 9 or 10. In the middle of the night she heard someone outside. There was a sword over the fireplace that had belonged to my dad's grandfather during the civil war. Instead of calling the police, she grabs the sword and opens the door, sword in hand like a little warrior, and scares the shit out of the guys who were rummaging through my dad's car. They ran like hell and hopped in their car and drove off, never to return. She was tough and a survivor and a no nonsense kind of person.
My dad had a tendency to do things that really got her goat. Like the time before I was born that he wasn't home and she had company and the sheriff shows up at her front door to reposes her car because my dad had hocked it or borrowed on it without bothering to tell her about it and the bill hadn't been paid. Or the time when I was around 10 that my mother suddenly found out that he had another daughter from a previous marriage when he told her before they got married that he had no children from that marriage. Boy, did the shit hit the fan then and my mother thought that I took sides with him because I went out to dinner with him and this other daughter one evening. She wouldn't join the party and from then on we were both her enemies and she constantly took swipes at my dad and resented the hell out of me for even being alive. She wanted a divorce but my dad talked her into staying together he said because of me, and she stoicly stayed and hated every minute of it.
She had a rough life and didn't like people. I felt sorry for her. Sometimes I hated her. Sometimes I loved her. It was very confusing. I was hoping that auditing would help to undo the mess in both of their lives.
Lakey, my parents didn't route into the org to help out. I don't know why you insist on that viewpoint. My mother came in to get auditing to try to handle being sick with cancer and hopefully get rid of it because of what the doctor, who was in the SO, told her and my father. This was before there was such a thing as an illegal PC. My father was there with her.....he brought her in. She was not in good enough shape to come in by herself.
If the auditing had taken place in the field, like some of the auditors in the Freezone today, none of the crap that happened would have taken place. My mom and I would have had wins, I would have finished college, and even my dad when he saw results might have tried it. Maybe not, he did have things in his past that he couldn't talk to me about, I don't know if he would have been able to talk to an auditor. I don't know what those things were, other than it had something to do with sex.
lkwdblds
Crusader
I agree with the post accept for one point you made.
Ted, your discertation or theory, if you will, makes good sense to me. In your fourth paragraph, "Scientology theory is like a house of cards......" This take on Scientology reveals the Scientology theory is patterned after Euclid's theories about Geometry. The whole theory is based upon a set of axioms, i.e. "self evident truths" I believe that Hubbard's choice to pattern Dianetics, and later Scientology around a set of axioms was a wise choice made by Hubbard.
In geometry, the parallel postulate, also called Euclid's fifth postulate because it is the fifth postulate in Euclid's Elements, is a distinctive axiom in Euclidean geometry. It states that:
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
Euclidean geometry is the study of geometry that satisfies all of Euclid's axioms, including the parallel postulate. A geometry where the parallel postulate cannot hold is known as a non-Euclidean geometry. Geometry that is independent of Euclid's fifth postulate (i.e., only assumes the first four postulates) is known as absolute geometry (or, in other places known as neutral geometry
This axiom says basically that parallel lines never meet no matter how far you extend them out. Accepting this postulate as being true along with the other basic Euclidian axioms gives the world a "WORKABLE" system. Something that works 100% of the time in the everyday world which our senses perceive.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the concept of space being curved and not flat emerged and if this were to be the case, Euclid's 5th element goes down the tubes. Space is postulated to bend in the vicinity of mass in the new theories. For the workaday world, this bending is negligible but in outer space where light is racing around, the bending in the vicinity of stars and even more so with groups of stars, is quite significant and Euclidean geometry can not be applied.
Euclid propounded a system which is 100% workable for all practical applications on Earth although it needs to be modified when dealing with applications in outer space. So it is with Hubbard, he never claimed that he had more than a "WORKABLE" system, not the ultra ultimate system.
The only point you make which I do not agree with is the following:
Everything has a beginning and an end and I have been to the beginning of the track but I still have my case, so what does that mean? It means there must be an earlier physical universe!
I believe that both parts of the the statement are too generalized, both the opening clause and then the conclusion that the opening clause means that there must be an earlier physical universe.
By just going to the beginning of the track, I do not believe that Hubbard theory states that you will automatically eliminate your entire case. More would have to be done than just going there. Perhaps he reasoned that you would have to get there alone, without any encumbrances such as entities being appended to you, and once you got there, you would have to look and see things, "as-is" things, perhaps create things and so forth.
Getting there does not demand that their be an earlier physical universe. There probably are many earlier physical universes but that point is not relevant to Hubbard's development of a workable system for this physical universe. To me, it seems a key and basic assumption must be that each being decides "to be" outside of any time stream. A being wills itself into being and it exists and it assumes a viewpoint. To this point, it has no aberrations, no timetrack, not even any space, etc.. The being creates some space to view, a tiny bit of time is implicit in the creaton of its intital space and the being starts postulating and perceiving and it is off and runing.
Where did the being come from? It separated out from a larger body of theta or Brahman as the Hindu religion states. In fact, by the act of separating from something, space itself is already implied. Where did the main body of theta come frome. Well the main body of theta is cause, it is never effect. Being cause, it justs exists timelessly outside of any time construct. It is the creator of time so it does not exist within time. Cause is cause, there is no earlier cause.
Everything else in your post I am onboard with but with two points #1 having a workable system and #2 the logic leading to an earlier physical universe I take some issue with and have fleshed out those two concepts to some degree based on my own opinions.
Lakey
Damn. Now I have to write the post I earlier deleted.
I will try to be clear yet brief.
Just roll back everything you know about a GPM. I do that and find that the perception of a GPM is dependent on the perception and consideration of other theory and consideration that may or may not be true and factual.
Scientology theory is like a house of cards. I am not saying it is not useful from time to time. I am saying Hubbard brought it to market positioned as Truth, or Truth Finding Procedure.
Take Dianetics for example. The theory is that if you completely review a loss or an engram, it will erase, and you, the client, will feel grand. If that happened it's wonderful. If that didn't happen, there is another theory, or two, or more to explain why not. There must be an earlier similar hanging it up. Or a hidden command phrase. Or it's not what happened to the client; it's something the client did to another. And so on.
If there is an earlier similar that does not release, there is an earlier similar still. Now you have a timetrack model from which to build this house of cards. You audit conception, but you are still not "Clear." And someone comes along with an apparent fantasy recall that when run gives great relief. What does that mean? Hey! Human beings must be basically spiritual in nature!
Now take spirit, label it timeless and deathless. What does that mean? It means the timetrack model must go on forever and ever! But wait! Everything has a beginning and an end and I have been to the beginning of the track but I still have my case, so what does that mean? It means there must be an earlier physical universe!
And so it goes. One item claimed as Truth giving birth to another and another. "If 'A' observation is true then 'B' supposition must naturally follow," is the logic behind that. The supposition becomes the new Truth. Now put the clients to work, have them observe this phenomena. They will feel better for having done the observation and the work. They do not feel better because it is necessarily True.
Spirit is the only Truth there is. Yet even that is debatable among some of us.
The question, do GPMs exist?
Yes... And no.
It depends on how much of that house of cards is supporting the idea for you. Earlier I mentioned that it is possible to run things into the case or a being's awareness while running things out. The "technical" explanation -- or sales pitch -- is that a case has to be setup to run GPMs or some other process. That means certain things have to be run in on the mind and awareness of the client before GPMs come to acceptance and view. Remember, these theories are dependent on each other like a house of cards.
I am not saying people have not had marvelous gains from adopting the theory then running with it. I am just saying it is not Truth. We are dealing with a mental/spiritual exercise. The gain is in the participation and the doing much like physical exercise. A person can feel quite good for having participated in an exercise program that they ~can do~, one on a proper gradient that fits the person's interests and physical capabilities. Sounds like good C/Sing, no? Quit exercising and those apparent gains eventually go away. Just like auditing.
Just like any auditing that did not lead to Truth. Truth does not go away.
The best auditing gives the client a change of perception. Perception, that's Axiom 1, 2, 3.
AXIOM 3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.
How's that?
Ted, your discertation or theory, if you will, makes good sense to me. In your fourth paragraph, "Scientology theory is like a house of cards......" This take on Scientology reveals the Scientology theory is patterned after Euclid's theories about Geometry. The whole theory is based upon a set of axioms, i.e. "self evident truths" I believe that Hubbard's choice to pattern Dianetics, and later Scientology around a set of axioms was a wise choice made by Hubbard.
In geometry, the parallel postulate, also called Euclid's fifth postulate because it is the fifth postulate in Euclid's Elements, is a distinctive axiom in Euclidean geometry. It states that:
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
Euclidean geometry is the study of geometry that satisfies all of Euclid's axioms, including the parallel postulate. A geometry where the parallel postulate cannot hold is known as a non-Euclidean geometry. Geometry that is independent of Euclid's fifth postulate (i.e., only assumes the first four postulates) is known as absolute geometry (or, in other places known as neutral geometry
This axiom says basically that parallel lines never meet no matter how far you extend them out. Accepting this postulate as being true along with the other basic Euclidian axioms gives the world a "WORKABLE" system. Something that works 100% of the time in the everyday world which our senses perceive.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the concept of space being curved and not flat emerged and if this were to be the case, Euclid's 5th element goes down the tubes. Space is postulated to bend in the vicinity of mass in the new theories. For the workaday world, this bending is negligible but in outer space where light is racing around, the bending in the vicinity of stars and even more so with groups of stars, is quite significant and Euclidean geometry can not be applied.
Euclid propounded a system which is 100% workable for all practical applications on Earth although it needs to be modified when dealing with applications in outer space. So it is with Hubbard, he never claimed that he had more than a "WORKABLE" system, not the ultra ultimate system.
The only point you make which I do not agree with is the following:
Everything has a beginning and an end and I have been to the beginning of the track but I still have my case, so what does that mean? It means there must be an earlier physical universe!
I believe that both parts of the the statement are too generalized, both the opening clause and then the conclusion that the opening clause means that there must be an earlier physical universe.
By just going to the beginning of the track, I do not believe that Hubbard theory states that you will automatically eliminate your entire case. More would have to be done than just going there. Perhaps he reasoned that you would have to get there alone, without any encumbrances such as entities being appended to you, and once you got there, you would have to look and see things, "as-is" things, perhaps create things and so forth.
Getting there does not demand that their be an earlier physical universe. There probably are many earlier physical universes but that point is not relevant to Hubbard's development of a workable system for this physical universe. To me, it seems a key and basic assumption must be that each being decides "to be" outside of any time stream. A being wills itself into being and it exists and it assumes a viewpoint. To this point, it has no aberrations, no timetrack, not even any space, etc.. The being creates some space to view, a tiny bit of time is implicit in the creaton of its intital space and the being starts postulating and perceiving and it is off and runing.
Where did the being come from? It separated out from a larger body of theta or Brahman as the Hindu religion states. In fact, by the act of separating from something, space itself is already implied. Where did the main body of theta come frome. Well the main body of theta is cause, it is never effect. Being cause, it justs exists timelessly outside of any time construct. It is the creator of time so it does not exist within time. Cause is cause, there is no earlier cause.
Everything else in your post I am onboard with but with two points #1 having a workable system and #2 the logic leading to an earlier physical universe I take some issue with and have fleshed out those two concepts to some degree based on my own opinions.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Thanks for the added data FoTi.
FoTi, as to your parents routing into the Org to do services for selfish reasons, maybe I was reading too much into her actions. Most parents of that generation, the generation which lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II were skeptical of Scientology. My parents were very skeptical of it as were the parents of every parent I ever met. In my life, the only parents who were pro Scientology were those who were already in it or who were born into it. Every single set of parents of a young person who expressed an interest in Scientology or took a class there was very skeptical and suspicious of it. My parents were that way, the Todhunter's parents were that way, Bev Carter's parents were that way, my FSM Harry's mom was that way, Mike Goldstein's parents were that way, expecially his Mom. I probably met thirty or so sets of parents from 1970 on and ALL of them were leery with their child being in Scientology and very suspicious of it.
I transfered this notion I had to your parents and they were initially leery of you getting involved and wanted you very much to complete your college program before you got too deeply involved with Scientology. Knowing they were suspicious of it, I assumed they came on lines at least partly in an effort to smooth the waters in their relationship with you. Of course, doctors are big opinion leaders for the parents of that generation and your Scientology Doctor telling them that Scientology auditing could handle her cancer weighed heavily in them routing into ASHO. You know best why they routed in, if it was for selfish reasons and not at least partly to smooth the waters with you, then I stand corrected.
Your comments about what might have been had you been able to take services at something similar to today's Freezone are very inciteful. What you are saying is that there is enough workability in Scientology tech that when delivered in a caring and non stat driven environment, the three lives of yourself and your parents would have been made better, much better than the way the things ended up for you receiving your services at CCLA and ASHO. This is an astute observation which you have made. Please take some solace in that young people of today now have an opportunity, 35 years later, to receive some real gains in the Freezone without having their lives destroyed and their family disconnected from. Telling your story on ESMB goes a long way towards ensuring that future young people will not fall into the same trap that you did. Your suffering was not in vain, your powerful story will save others from having their lives destroyed.
Just think, FoTi, if only one person is saved from experiencing what you experienced in C of S, then your terrible ordeal was not in vain. It takes a lot of strength and courage to open up and tell a story such as yours and expose all your dirty laundry to the public. I, for one, want to commend you for being so brave and having the needed confront to share your story with others.
Lakey
FoTi, as to your parents routing into the Org to do services for selfish reasons, maybe I was reading too much into her actions. Most parents of that generation, the generation which lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II were skeptical of Scientology. My parents were very skeptical of it as were the parents of every parent I ever met. In my life, the only parents who were pro Scientology were those who were already in it or who were born into it. Every single set of parents of a young person who expressed an interest in Scientology or took a class there was very skeptical and suspicious of it. My parents were that way, the Todhunter's parents were that way, Bev Carter's parents were that way, my FSM Harry's mom was that way, Mike Goldstein's parents were that way, expecially his Mom. I probably met thirty or so sets of parents from 1970 on and ALL of them were leery with their child being in Scientology and very suspicious of it.
I transfered this notion I had to your parents and they were initially leery of you getting involved and wanted you very much to complete your college program before you got too deeply involved with Scientology. Knowing they were suspicious of it, I assumed they came on lines at least partly in an effort to smooth the waters in their relationship with you. Of course, doctors are big opinion leaders for the parents of that generation and your Scientology Doctor telling them that Scientology auditing could handle her cancer weighed heavily in them routing into ASHO. You know best why they routed in, if it was for selfish reasons and not at least partly to smooth the waters with you, then I stand corrected.
Your comments about what might have been had you been able to take services at something similar to today's Freezone are very inciteful. What you are saying is that there is enough workability in Scientology tech that when delivered in a caring and non stat driven environment, the three lives of yourself and your parents would have been made better, much better than the way the things ended up for you receiving your services at CCLA and ASHO. This is an astute observation which you have made. Please take some solace in that young people of today now have an opportunity, 35 years later, to receive some real gains in the Freezone without having their lives destroyed and their family disconnected from. Telling your story on ESMB goes a long way towards ensuring that future young people will not fall into the same trap that you did. Your suffering was not in vain, your powerful story will save others from having their lives destroyed.
Just think, FoTi, if only one person is saved from experiencing what you experienced in C of S, then your terrible ordeal was not in vain. It takes a lot of strength and courage to open up and tell a story such as yours and expose all your dirty laundry to the public. I, for one, want to commend you for being so brave and having the needed confront to share your story with others.
Lakey
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Lakey, thank you for your contribution to my statement.
My point about the house of cards is further supported by what you write. You have simply, and in accord with scientology philosophy, added some cards to the stack. BTW, these cards of which I write are not from the same deck. Many different decks are involved.
There is a timetrack model of case, and thus a timetrack style of processing. There is a no-timetrack model and a different style of processing for that.
I am favoring a no-timetrack for myself although there are times when the timetrack model serves very well. The downside of the timetrack model is that it always, by inherent design, places the client at effect. In a particular section of the model, the client can be perceived as cause, yet the overarching container is one of effect.
I initially deleted my post because I felt it would fly into the face of fixed ideas or pet theories. I did not want to write a book to explain myself. After reading Hats lengthy post I just wanted to say that marketing something and calling it Truth does not make it Truth. That one "truth" gives birth to other "truths" all of which may or may not be ultimately True. And sometimes when a lot of auditing has been done on something to no resolution that, maybe, there are incorrect assumptions and untruths in the procedures being used.
My perception of Hats is that she is a pretty sharp cookie. We have planned to get together some time. I expect that a chat over coffee or tea should prove to be mutually enjoyable and philosophically rewarding.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Excellent post - On your main point I fully agree!
Great Ted,
In the first two paragraphs which I highlighted in blue, I have never heard of the non time track type of case. If you have a link to this, I sure would like to study it further!
The third paragraph which I highlighted in blue, seems to be the main point of your post and concerns the concept that calling something truth does not make it truth. This concept is EXTREMELY well taken.
I admit that I did not make this distinction in the 70's 80's and 90's when I did all my services. Hubbard would say, this is true and give us some strange hat pack such as the Xenu story on OT III. I would think, "Wow, this is weird, this couldn't be true." Then I would audit it and the needle and TA would behave as Hubbard predicated and I would get cognitions similar to what Hubbard predicated and I would think, "Wow, Hubbard is correct again! What a genius he is!" Each time this happened, it further reinforced the concept of Hubbard's infallability into my psyche until I was finally NEARLY a total Ronbot. I say NEARLY because thank God, there was a shred of integrity that Hubbard could never get to vanish. It took dozens of Sea Org members trying to ruin the lives of my Children, long after Hubbard had died, but when my kids were attacked, I quickly awoke from my stupor and dumped my involvement in C of S.
Your essay, Ted, really helps in explaining what happens. That meter will read the way Hubbard predicts if you believe something is true even if it is not actually true; you may feel better and have a feeling of achievment simply by completing a long and arduous course of study or a long and arduous drill such as doing blinkless TR0 for 2 hours and passing. Everyone is in euphoria when they pass this drill and they may be falsely attributing their euphoria to Hubbard's tech when in reality it stems merely from relief of not further having to do the drill plus the euphoria of completing such an arduous and challenging task.
Its thrilling about you meeting up with Hats. What a delight for both of you! Keep us up to date on that meeting.
Lakey
Lakey, thank you for your contribution to my statement.
My point about the house of cards is further supported by what you write. You have simply, and in accord with scientology philosophy, added some cards to the stack. BTW, these cards of which I write are not from the same deck. Many different decks are involved.
There is a timetrack model of case, and thus a timetrack style of processing. There is a no-timetrack model and a different style of processing for that.
I am favoring a no-timetrack for myself although there are times when the timetrack model serves very well. The downside of the timetrack model is that it always, by inherent design, places the client at effect. In a particular section of the model, the client can be perceived as cause, yet the overarching container is one of effect.
I initially deleted my post because I felt it would fly into the face of fixed ideas or pet theories. I did not want to write a book to explain myself. After reading Hats lengthy post I just wanted to say that marketing something and calling it Truth does not make it Truth. That one "truth" gives birth to other "truths" all of which may or may not be ultimately True. And sometimes when a lot of auditing has been done on something to no resolution that, maybe, there are incorrect assumptions and untruths in the procedures being used.
My perception of Hats is that she is a pretty sharp cookie. We have planned to get together some time. I expect that a chat over coffee or tea should prove to be mutually enjoyable and philosophically rewarding.
Great Ted,
In the first two paragraphs which I highlighted in blue, I have never heard of the non time track type of case. If you have a link to this, I sure would like to study it further!
The third paragraph which I highlighted in blue, seems to be the main point of your post and concerns the concept that calling something truth does not make it truth. This concept is EXTREMELY well taken.
I admit that I did not make this distinction in the 70's 80's and 90's when I did all my services. Hubbard would say, this is true and give us some strange hat pack such as the Xenu story on OT III. I would think, "Wow, this is weird, this couldn't be true." Then I would audit it and the needle and TA would behave as Hubbard predicated and I would get cognitions similar to what Hubbard predicated and I would think, "Wow, Hubbard is correct again! What a genius he is!" Each time this happened, it further reinforced the concept of Hubbard's infallability into my psyche until I was finally NEARLY a total Ronbot. I say NEARLY because thank God, there was a shred of integrity that Hubbard could never get to vanish. It took dozens of Sea Org members trying to ruin the lives of my Children, long after Hubbard had died, but when my kids were attacked, I quickly awoke from my stupor and dumped my involvement in C of S.
Your essay, Ted, really helps in explaining what happens. That meter will read the way Hubbard predicts if you believe something is true even if it is not actually true; you may feel better and have a feeling of achievment simply by completing a long and arduous course of study or a long and arduous drill such as doing blinkless TR0 for 2 hours and passing. Everyone is in euphoria when they pass this drill and they may be falsely attributing their euphoria to Hubbard's tech when in reality it stems merely from relief of not further having to do the drill plus the euphoria of completing such an arduous and challenging task.
Its thrilling about you meeting up with Hats. What a delight for both of you! Keep us up to date on that meeting.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
Roger's 10 cents . . . hey, inflation: what can I say.
Right items, Ted . . . . particularly the coffee and chat with Hats
The girl has a brain, even if with less of the nose she says she once had! 
See, Hats? We pay attention to what the talent on the thread write.
The trap with Scn is that it is now a focus on the negative and the "what is wrong to be fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed ad nauseam!!!"
And that is a huge blunder because that focuses you on, well, all of the negatives, inabilities and "can'ts!"
It omits a correct and proper address to your positives, your abilities, powers, virtuous attributes, etc!
If you want problems, do the Scn thing and focus on . . . nay look for . . . the what is wrong.
For this reason I do not personally recommend doing the CC platens thing as Carmelo proposed, and I concur with Hats's wisdom in declining the idea.
As has been noted, the material contains some positive notions and also their dichotomous negatives. It is also proposed that these are "implants that we all have had" . . . well that might be true for some, but wrong item for others.
In any event, it is dicky little shit compared to your own power and own developed hung up intentions (both negative and positive) as they were expressed and implemented during your existence.
Also, even if one has been subjected to the "implants" not all of the putative items are necessarily live for you and/or "on your case" from having been accessed and triggered into action.
All a person really needs to deal with is that which is actually their current "case" scenario that opens to them (or gets in the way) as they progress in dealing with their life.
A safe course of action is the program/book by Alan Walter: "The Holistic Workbook" . . . this is a book you use solo (though it could be processed) as an address to all the "power" concepts and words you engage with in your life. The book takes you through a very safe course of "clean-slating" all these key words/concepts you deal with in your life.
The book is a complete package deal.
Now that is empowering . . . no risk of being accessed into the paradigm of that this implant stuff and all its related other "items" are to be resisted because they are from one of those frightening awful "implants."
And the advantage of doing the Holistic Workbook is that you are dealing your own power not some putative other power that is supposed to be "more than you/affecting/determining and dominating you."
And for Hats, I'd make sure she has the very most up-to-date version of the Clean-Slate R/D
Rog
Right items, Ted . . . . particularly the coffee and chat with Hats
The girl has a brain, even if with less of the nose she says she once had! See, Hats? We pay attention to what the talent on the thread write.The trap with Scn is that it is now a focus on the negative and the "what is wrong to be fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed ad nauseam!!!"
And that is a huge blunder because that focuses you on, well, all of the negatives, inabilities and "can'ts!"
It omits a correct and proper address to your positives, your abilities, powers, virtuous attributes, etc!
If you want problems, do the Scn thing and focus on . . . nay look for . . . the what is wrong.
For this reason I do not personally recommend doing the CC platens thing as Carmelo proposed, and I concur with Hats's wisdom in declining the idea.
As has been noted, the material contains some positive notions and also their dichotomous negatives. It is also proposed that these are "implants that we all have had" . . . well that might be true for some, but wrong item for others.
In any event, it is dicky little shit compared to your own power and own developed hung up intentions (both negative and positive) as they were expressed and implemented during your existence.
Also, even if one has been subjected to the "implants" not all of the putative items are necessarily live for you and/or "on your case" from having been accessed and triggered into action.
All a person really needs to deal with is that which is actually their current "case" scenario that opens to them (or gets in the way) as they progress in dealing with their life.
A safe course of action is the program/book by Alan Walter: "The Holistic Workbook" . . . this is a book you use solo (though it could be processed) as an address to all the "power" concepts and words you engage with in your life. The book takes you through a very safe course of "clean-slating" all these key words/concepts you deal with in your life.
The book is a complete package deal.
Now that is empowering . . . no risk of being accessed into the paradigm of that this implant stuff and all its related other "items" are to be resisted because they are from one of those frightening awful "implants."
And the advantage of doing the Holistic Workbook is that you are dealing your own power
not some putative other power that is supposed to be "more than you/affecting/determining and dominating you."And for Hats, I'd make sure she has the very most up-to-date version of the Clean-Slate R/D
Rog
nw2394
Silver Meritorious Patron
The trap with Scn is that it is now a focus on the negative and the "what is wrong to be fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed ad nauseam!!!"
And that is a huge blunder because that focuses you on, well, all of the negatives, inabilities and "can'ts!"
It omits a correct and proper address to your positives, your abilities, powers, virtuous attributes, etc!
If you want problems, do the Scn thing and focus on . . . nay look for . . . the what is wrong.
That's the one thing where Kn and I somewhat part company.
Sometimes someone can be so buried under negatives that it is necessary to unburden them - at least for a bit. Indeed there can be a lot of negatives to unburden before someone looks around and realises that there is perhaps a little more than just negative stripping. It has taken me the better part of a lifetime!
Indeed, Kn communicates (or at least its PR, sales stuff does) so much on the positive that for a long time I found it to be quite a turn off and did not and would not have made any sort of reach for it in the first place.
So there is a place for running negatives.
Nick
When a guy is drowning in a pool of S-H-one-T then there are two things that can be done. Well, three if you believe what some people on this board claim.
You can sholvel the crap out of the pool until the guy becomes visible and able to raise his head above it. This correlates to negative gain auditing.
You can grab the guy by the scruff of his neck and pull him out of the pool. This correlate4s to positive gain auditing.
You can assert that the pool of S-H-one-T is all Hubbard's delusion that you have been hypnotised into believing.
Contrary to what Roger says Scio does include a lot of positive gain auditing, especcially on the Lower Grades. Though admitttedly, I too find far to much emphasis on negative gains on the upper levels. Objectives too are for positive gain.
Both types of gain are valuable when dealing with a case. The Kn thing I don't much ageree with is always focussing only on what the guy says he wants handled. The bank is a self-protective mechanism and will likely lead such a person into never handling his case fully. Only superficailly on a feel-good basis.
That's 2 NZ cents. What's the exchange rate these days?
You can sholvel the crap out of the pool until the guy becomes visible and able to raise his head above it. This correlates to negative gain auditing.
You can grab the guy by the scruff of his neck and pull him out of the pool. This correlate4s to positive gain auditing.
You can assert that the pool of S-H-one-T is all Hubbard's delusion that you have been hypnotised into believing.
Contrary to what Roger says Scio does include a lot of positive gain auditing, especcially on the Lower Grades. Though admitttedly, I too find far to much emphasis on negative gains on the upper levels. Objectives too are for positive gain.
Both types of gain are valuable when dealing with a case. The Kn thing I don't much ageree with is always focussing only on what the guy says he wants handled. The bank is a self-protective mechanism and will likely lead such a person into never handling his case fully. Only superficailly on a feel-good basis.
That's 2 NZ cents. What's the exchange rate these days?
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
YES!!!!^^^^^^^^^^
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Jack Horner's use of help
Jack Horner's "clearing help bracket" has 6 questions:
1. In relation to __________how could you help another?
2. In relation to __________how could another help yourself?
3. - 5. (same question reworded with the other 3 flows: you help yourself, another help him/herself, another help another)
6.How could ______________ help you?
Usually run on positive qualities and their opposites (like knowledge/ignorance, truth/untruth etc.) - the six questions on one side, then the other, back and forth. Not a quickie process - can apparently always be run to the point where the client transcends the automaticity of the positive/negative connotations of the concepts, i.e. begins to see that ignorance is an important and useful quality as is knowledge, etc.
Jack Horner's "clearing help bracket" has 6 questions:
1. In relation to __________how could you help another?
2. In relation to __________how could another help yourself?
3. - 5. (same question reworded with the other 3 flows: you help yourself, another help him/herself, another help another)
6.How could ______________ help you?
Usually run on positive qualities and their opposites (like knowledge/ignorance, truth/untruth etc.) - the six questions on one side, then the other, back and forth. Not a quickie process - can apparently always be run to the point where the client transcends the automaticity of the positive/negative connotations of the concepts, i.e. begins to see that ignorance is an important and useful quality as is knowledge, etc.
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Yep!
Yeah, Mark, I was thinkin' the same thing! Classic lines, well propotioned to the overall face...a face I could paint!
Yeah, Mark, I was thinkin' the same thing! Classic lines, well propotioned to the overall face...a face I could paint!
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I want to draw the attention of our tech mavens to the recent comments on identities, gpms, & L's which Trey Lotz made at the recent FZ convention. Anon Kat has posted them on the convention thread.
Homework Assignment: I'd like to see some constructive commentary elaborating on other aspects or views of Trey's theme.
Mark A. Baker
Homework Assignment: I'd like to see some constructive commentary elaborating on other aspects or views of Trey's theme.
Mark A. Baker
nw2394
Silver Meritorious Patron
Well, dunno. My father saw the world in the Royal Navy during the war and hated the whole damn place apart from Capetown in South Africa. My mother only ever wanted to emigrate to NZ if she ever went anywhere. Obviously they couldn't agree so never went anywhere - which is probably why I am not where you are.
Nick
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Irrelevant sidebar:
"Help" was the first process run on me in scientology. I'd come in to try auditing. Was immediately put on a comm course and then allowed to get "life repair". The processes run were the standard tech equivalent of the above.
HUGE MAJOR VGIs & COMPLETE "BLOW OUT".
I'd been regged for 2 intensives. It took about 3/5 of one.
Conclusion: scientology does work although effects vary based on circumstances & practitioners.
Mark A. Baker
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Yeah!!!
Yippee!!! 
you two be NICE to each other, now!!!
Lakey, thank you for your contribution to my statement.
My point about the house of cards is further supported by what you write. You have simply, and in accord with scientology philosophy, added some cards to the stack. BTW, these cards of which I write are not from the same deck. Many different decks are involved.
There is a timetrack model of case, and thus a timetrack style of processing. There is a no-timetrack model and a different style of processing for that.
I am favoring a no-timetrack for myself although there are times when the timetrack model serves very well. The downside of the timetrack model is that it always, by inherent design, places the client at effect. In a particular section of the model, the client can be perceived as cause, yet the overarching container is one of effect.
I initially deleted my post because I felt it would fly into the face of fixed ideas or pet theories. I did not want to write a book to explain myself. After reading Hats lengthy post I just wanted to say that marketing something and calling it Truth does not make it Truth. That one "truth" gives birth to other "truths" all of which may or may not be ultimately True. And sometimes when a lot of auditing has been done on something to no resolution that, maybe, there are incorrect assumptions and untruths in the procedures being used.
My perception of Hats is that she is a pretty sharp cookie. We have planned to get together some time. I expect that a chat over coffee or tea should prove to be mutually enjoyable and philosophically rewarding.
Yippee!!!
you two be NICE to each other, now!!!
- Status