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

[FoTi]

That takes notice of a lot of injustice. I'll add a few of my pet peeves: CEO's who run companies into bankruptcy but walk away will $millions in bonus. American Airlines of a few years back comes to mind. In a similar vein, senior execs who falsify stats and/or use creative accounting to jack up their bonuses. Franklin Raines of Freddie Mac comes to mind.

What about Bill Clinton giving the Red Chinese secret military tech in exchange for campaign donations?

Why does it seem that criminal behavior at the highest levels comes from graduates of Ivy League colleges? What are they teaching in school these days?

Just wait until we find out the extent of the financial atrocities since the distribution of TARP funds. Politicians should not be allowed to vote themselves pay raises and perks. None deserve retirement pay if they fail to balance the budget during their watch.

I am tired of old men sending young men, and now women, off to war--especially for specious reasons. Putting a woman in a battle zone is just wrong. I know that some women are into it just as some guys are. But this opens the door to a female draft and that is so very wrong. Sure, there's no draft today, but do not count on it never coming back.

I am disgusted with the way politicians throw money around in the name of foreign aid. If a country needs food or some other item, send it to them. Do not send money. Make certain the people receive the aid, not some small group raking off the top.

I could go on with a long list of observations calling "Bullshit!" at each and every one. I wanted to chime in on the abortion discussion of several days ago. Your bolded text above leads me right into it:

The entire matter of abortion is a female matter. Guys, your duty is to stand by. When the female has made her decision, your duty is to support her in whatever that decision and outcome may be. That's it. You can discuss, provide information, whatever. The moment you attempt to control or sway her opinion, you have stepped over the line.

Abortion is a female matter best left to females. I do not care if you are the representative of some law, written mostly by men. I do not care if you are God's chosen spokesman. If you are packing nuts in a sack, you don't belong in the abortion debate, and with no skin in the game, your opinions on the matter are just that. If the idea of abortion is under consideration, you can reassure the female that she has your support no matter what the decision might be. That's the best you can do. The event, no matter which way it swings, will be traumatic enough with or without support.

Thanks Ted. It's nice to know that at least one man understands.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Thanks, Toady . . . for you I think I'd better add that Hubbard's "tech" is not the tech I refer to that can enable the accomplishment I refer to Hell, NO!

I've been there, done that, tried that and didn't arrive sort of got waylaid along the way with his stuff . . . you know, like parked up a blind ally with nowhere to go and nowhere to turn around

Rog

Yeah, well, lots of us got way up that creek, broke the paddle and couldn't plug the leaks......and I swore those were crocs bumping ever not so gently on the bottom of my little canoe.

Both you and Ted and Face have added immensely to these posts about communication.....what it really is.....what it can be.....and what it ain't !

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Ted
"The entire matter of abortion is a female matter. Guys, your duty is to stand by. When the female has made her decision, your duty is to support her in whatever that decision and outcome may be. That's it. You can discuss, provide information, whatever. The moment you attempt to control or sway her opinion, you have stepped over the line.

Abortion is a female matter best left to females. I do not care if you are the representative of some law, written mostly by men. I do not care if you are God's chosen spokesman. If you are packing nuts in a sack, you don't belong in the abortion debate, and with no skin in the game, your opinions on the matter are just that. If the idea of abortion is under consideration, you can reassure the female that she has your support no matter what the decision might be. That's the best you can do. The event, no matter which way it swings, will be traumatic enough with or without support. "

That is the best - and most true - summation of that I've ever seen !

 

[FoTi]

I always understood the statement...."Communication is the universal solvent"....as referring only to an auditing type situation, where the communication is done in a specific controlled manner, for the benefit of the person receiving the auditing, where two people are working together to resolve something and know what they are doing..... in which case it seems to me to be true, at least it was in my case. Anyway, that's what I thought LRH meant.

There are many types of communication where it is not a solvent....such as two countries or two people at war with each other communicating shit at one another....or one person invalidating another, etc.

 

[RogerB]

Yesssss!!!

Thank you, Rog.

As far as the processing goes and right tech goes...IMHO...that can, for some, in certain circumstances...sometimes...be the "right" pathway for awhile...was for me...even the "bad shit"…this is all part of my individual path.

Every breath taken is "processing"; every moment’s experience is the “right tech”; there is no “State” but "Nothing" ("Native State") and no one is there and no "one" may ever be there and it is not about “one”, it's about all of Us.

Forward, always forward.

Face

Face, Alan Walter said something quite bright in the vein you posted above. He pointed out that: All of life is a process. It's just that you are either doing it negatively or positively.

R

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Face, Alan Walter said something quite bright in the vein you posted above. He pointed out that: All of life is a process. It's just that you are either doing it negatively or positively.

R

Face

 

[Ted]

“C&A” are but manifestations of the “Universal Solvent” and therefore, as long as they are present, any “thing” can act as a conduit.

“C&A” are instinctual in all of Us and we all have these “natural gifts”…they are not a “technique” to be "mastered". “Self Awareness” cannot be taught, it can only be sought; it cannot be learned, it can only be earned; it cannot be attained for the is “Nothing” to gain.

“C&A” need not “attention” on the part of the recipient. “C&A” are subtle, "powerful" and limitless and are inhibited to the degree one wishes for, desires or requires the “attention” of another. “Self Awareness” itself’ is a spiritual ruse but is a pinhole porthole to the “Sea of Awareness”.

To me, if I have to “think about” “C&A” then, by that act alone, I pervert and am "cut off" from the well of “C&A”. There is no “effort” or “use” or “include to “C&A”.

I’ve read every post on Sharone’s thread. What’s your point; “Others are not communicating properly but I am?” Or, “they’re not duplicating me and therefore not learning the proper way to communicate or the fact that my viewpoint is right?” Or, “I’m “treating” them with ‘C&A” but they’re not paying attention?”

IMHO no “Society” originated music…all of Us are born “with a song in my heart”.

Now, you're a sure enough smart feller, Lakey and you may very well be completely right in everything you have said re: “C&A", and attention and communication and music and all. But, I “feel” and “see” it differently than you do and I’m surely doing a damn poor job of trying to explain “it”.

Peace Bro'.

Face

Thanks, Facey.

I just couldn't bring myself to flesh this out when I felt the whole thing needed no further explanation. I knew that if I waited, someone would come along to do the work for me. I feel better now. Thank you.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Face, Alan Walter said something quite bright in the vein you posted above. He pointed out that: ]All of life is a process. It's just that you are either doing it negatively or positively.

R

Truer words do not exist !

 

[Ted]

Actually, Lakey,

What Face has stated here is quite precise and accurate.

The things Ted and I are imparting here are not "think about" type of things . . . and not "outside of the box" you refer to.

They are natural attributes and virtues of spirit at its highest state of being and operation. It's actually natural for a very high toned, at the top of the Zones Being to operate that way and practice these virtues and abilities

It's the guys who've dropped out from our more true state of operating in high harmony, with love and true duplication, as-is of our fellows that the "think about" and "how do you do its" and "waddyya-means" creep in. Down there, where one wonders what appreciation actually is and means, the true communication that occurs at the top of the scales and Zones of operation has has long been lost.

Though Ted uses the term "compassion" . . . and it is the term used in the translations that pass on the teachings of the eastern sages to us, I find it an unfortunate word to be being used. I personally think I'd prefer the concept of Empathy because it connotes true understanding, help, oneness and feeling rather than the "being kind to victims and feeling they way they feel" note that dictionaries have for it. Empathy has a note of effectiveness to it

When one relates to another at the highest levels on the mood scales one is wonderfully empowering of (to) those others. They cognite around you, simply due to your presence and your so "duplicating" them as-is. There is none of that "waddyya mean" type stuff . . . it's a level of mutual knowing.

It's the true "communication" Ted speaks of . . . not the mechanical transferring of "things," thought or ideas "across the great divide between you." You each know what you are each expressing

Note that word . . . expressing. You don't even have to "impel particles across space and/or distance" in the vein that Hubbard wrote. You are each at-one with the other and know what is . . . hell you don't even have to "make sure you have their attention before you 'communicate'!"

It's a level of mutual know . . . .

Oh, yes, and one can attain the state . . . . just takes a fair bit of good processing with the right tech

R

Good points, Roger.

Merriam-Webster says: Definition of COMPASSION

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

I used the word compassion because it is a key point in one of the chapters of a book I am reading by a Jewish Rabbi.

At the highest levels of compassion/empathy/kindness we are referring to, there is perhaps not much differentiation in these concepts. Appreciation is good. This fits very well with someone who is up and running, so to speak. But what to do with someone who is not up and running but one who is run down? A person can get so far beaten down that they don't wish to listen or speak. The universal solvent of communication doesn't cut it. In auditing terms, we just don't audit over ARCXs. So I feel that compassion has its place. For someone who has just suffered a tremendous loss, just sitting with the person, saying nothing but silently permeating the space and experience, says, "You are not alone. There's not a damn thing anyone can do to change your situation, but rest assured that you are still a member of the community, and you are not alone in your loss."

Maybe I will have more to say after I sleep on it.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Good points, Roger.

Merriam-Webster says: Definition of COMPASSION

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

I used the word compassion because it is a key point in one of the chapters of a book I am reading by a Jewish Rabbi.

At the highest levels of compassion/empathy/kindness we are referring to, there is perhaps not much differentiation in these concepts. Appreciation is good. This fits very well with someone who is up and running, so to speak. But what to do with someone who is not up and running but one who is run down? A person can get so far beaten down that they don't wish to listen or speak. The universal solvent of communication doesn't cut it. In auditing terms, we just don't audit over ARCXs. So I feel that compassion has its place. For someone who has just suffered a tremendous loss, just sitting with the person, saying nothing but silently permeating the space and experience, says, "You are not alone. There's not a damn thing anyone can do to change your situation, but rest assured that you are still a member of the community, and you are not alone in your loss."

Maybe I will have more to say after I sleep on it.

Thanks for a beautiful example of how communication can not be so mechanical as to have to rely on some checksheet of what to do when and how.

Communiaction isn't the product of some set formula.

Thanks guys for cleaning so much up about communication !

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Good points, Roger.

Merriam-Webster says: Definition of COMPASSION

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

I used the word compassion because it is a key point in one of the chapters of a book I am reading by a Jewish Rabbi.

At the highest levels of compassion/empathy/kindness we are referring to, there is perhaps not much differentiation in these concepts. Appreciation is good. This fits very well with someone who is up and running, so to speak. But what to do with someone who is not up and running but one who is run down? A person can get so far beaten down that they don't wish to listen or speak. The universal solvent of communication doesn't cut it. In auditing terms, we just don't audit over ARCXs. So I feel that compassion has its place. For someone who has just suffered a tremendous loss, just sitting with the person, saying nothing but silently permeating the space and experience, says, "You are not alone. There's not a damn thing anyone can do to change your situation, but rest assured that you are still a member of the community, and you are not alone in your loss."

Maybe I will have more to say after I sleep on it.

Yep!!!

Yesssss, Yesssss, Yesssss!!!

Have a good nap,Pardner.

Face

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Face, Alan Walter said something quite bright in the vein you posted above. He pointed out that: All of life is a process. It's just that you are either doing it negatively or positively.

R

Sometimes the tone arm is going up, and sometimes the tone arm is blowing down.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

I don't mind going up against the big guns.

Good points, Roger.

Merriam-Webster says: Definition of COMPASSION

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

I used the word compassion because it is a key point in one of the chapters of a book I am reading by a Jewish Rabbi.

At the highest levels of compassion/empathy/kindness we are referring to, there is perhaps not much differentiation in these concepts. Appreciation is good. This fits very well with someone who is up and running, so to speak. But what to do with someone who is not up and running but one who is run down? A person can get so far beaten down that they don't wish to listen or speak. The universal solvent of communication doesn't cut it. In auditing terms, we just don't audit over ARCXs. So I feel that compassion has its place. For someone who has just suffered a tremendous loss, just sitting with the person, saying nothing but silently permeating the space and experience, says, "You are not alone. There's not a damn thing anyone can do to change your situation, but rest assured that you are still a member of the community, and you are not alone in your loss."

Maybe I will have more to say after I sleep on it.

Its okay guys, Ted, Roger, Face and even Toady. I don't mind standing alone with my way of looking at things. Actually, its a lot of fun. It's never happened before so its something new to experience and my feeling is excitement and exhillaration that I disagree with you all.

I respect all you guys immensely and I will study your posts closely, mull over how it could be that way or could not and I will change over if I see the light but if not, I will retain my same belief.

Particularly with Face's major point. If I am duplicating him, he is saying that compassion and appreciation are in all of us natively and must come out naturally. If one has to think before becoming compassionate or appreciative, then he ruins the entire essence of what those traits are all about since they are spontaneous and natural traits.

I don't follow that argument at all. Many noble and great traits are in each of us but we can be and often are blocked from expressing them. I never ever suggested thinking about those traits before using them - Face sort of dubbed that in to what I was saying.

My point was that maybe people's communication might improve if those traits were pointed out to them. Some people, just having that info pointed out to them will just have a sudden realization occur that connects them instantly to those inate traits already inside of them. They will begin incorporating those traits automatically. No thinking needs to take place and I never suggested that it did.

Here's how I see how this topic came down:
1 - Ted commented on Hubbard's statement, "communication is the universal solvent". He mentioin that he did not feel it was true and brought up the word compassion as a missing ingredient. Everybody loved what Ted said including me. It was real food for thought in an extremely important area of life.
2 - Roger brought up another word, appreciative and thought that that was an ingredient not considered by Hubbard. Everybody thought that was great.
3. - I chimed in and said that for comm to be a universal solvent, it was necessary to get someone's attention before delivering a communication. That is basically all that I added. Make sure that you have someone's attention. I kept what Ted and Roger said and added that one extra proviso.

Face then mentions that I am too mechanical; no thinking can occur or it ruins the whole concept. I disagreed with that and then turned off my computer for a few hours and lo and behold, now everyone is doing constructive criticism on my point of view. It is done in a kind and constructive manner so I am happy about it. I haven't studied all your posts carefully but have only got the gist of them so perhaps once I dig deeper, I will see what y'all are telling me but right now I don't see it.

As to what FoTi wrote about "communication is the universal solvent" applying only to audtiting sessions, I never heard any such thing said by Hubbard or anyone else. Hubbard has a book of nothing but quotes of his and its title is "When in Doubt, Communicate!" That implies more than just "In Session" communication. Several people pointed out that life can be looked at as just one big session, so that undercuts what I said but I wanted to make the point that even without life being a session, the universal solvent comment of Hubbard still applied for all of life and not just sessions.

As for Ted's concept of compassion and appreciation being so pervasive that we would no longer need communication. I called that thinking outside the box and Roger negated my statement. I think such a world with no communication would indeed be outside the box as far as this planet and all its societies is concerned. You must be implying it is not outside of the box spiritually because if that isn't outside the box, as the expression is commonly used in society, than I don't know what would be.

Without communication there would be no music, no art to view, no poems to read, no great classic novels to read, no movies or plays to see, and I talked to Candy by phone this morning and she pointed out that there would be NO SEX as well. Sure such a society could be constructed so full of compassion and appreciation that we didn't need communication. Though it could exist, I would not want to live in such a society.

Well, I've had my say and no its back to work for a few hours, getting prepared to see my tax man on Thursday.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

And, for the most part - though not exclusively - the communication being discussed here ( I thought ) was verbal...not music or sex ( both of which are great examples of communiaction ).

Is someone nibbling around the 'auditing comm cycle' as one thing and just good communication as something different ?

I like the example of one person just being near another person and one - or the other - starts having realizations yet there has been no verbal communication. That too is communication on a rather high level.

And I'd not negate the communication I've had from a Hummingbird or even a supposed to be tame little house cat. Communication has so many forms and levels even long before delving into the nuances of how best it be done.

I'm often reminded how many times a mother is awaken in the middle of the night and has news about her child half wat around the world that in the light day proves right to the moment. Is that not communication that is hard to put in a formula ?

Communication is pretty dang interesting to me and I sure wish I had the ability to lay out what must and must not go in before it is acceptable under the definition some hold as inviolate - but I don't.

Apparently I just continue to muddle along far below some standard or other.

But, most people seem to get most of what I'm trying to express.

From others what I like is they try to communicate and should they 'fall short' I'll try to put in the bits and pieces and with their guidance try to get where they were trying to go. ( Sidebar : do not pursue " dub in " here ).

So, all I ask is someone try. I need not try to give them lessons or ponder how they fell short or anything else but know they tried.

 

[lkwdblds]

“C&A” are but manifestations of the “Universal Solvent” and therefore, as long as they are present, any “thing” can act as a conduit.

“C&A” are instinctual in all of Us and we all have these “natural gifts”…they are not a “technique” to be "mastered". “Self Awareness” cannot be taught, it can only be sought; it cannot be learned, it can only be earned; it cannot be attained for the is “Nothing” to gain.

“C&A” need not “attention” on the part of the recipient. “C&A” are subtle, "powerful" and limitless and are inhibited to the degree one wishes for, desires or requires the “attention” of another. “Self Awareness” itself’ is a spiritual ruse but is a pinhole porthole to the “Sea of Awareness”.

To me, if I have to “think about” “C&A” then, by that act alone, I pervert and am "cut off" from the well of “C&A”. There is no “effort” or “use” or “include to “C&A”.

I’ve read every post on Sharone’s thread. What’s your point; “Others are not communicating properly but I am?” Or, “they’re not duplicating me and therefore not learning the proper way to communicate or the fact that my viewpoint is right?” Or, “I’m “treating” them with ‘C&A” but they’re not paying attention?”

Now, you're a sure enough smart feller, Lakey and you may very well be completely right in everything you have said re: “C&A", and attention and communication and music and all. But, I “feel” and “see” it differently than you do and I’m surely doing a damn poor job of trying to explain “it”.

Peace Bro'.

Face

Face, a couple of replies on your three paragraphs I copied and placed below:

I’ve read every post on Sharone’s thread. What’s your point; “Others are not communicating properly but I am?” Or, “they’re not duplicating me and therefore not learning the proper way to communicate or the fact that my viewpoint is right?” Or, “I’m “treating” them with ‘C&A” but they’re not paying attention?”

My complaint about Sharone's thread is none of the things which you list above. The complaint which I do have is that there is a certain group of posters there who call themselves, "ex Scientologists" and all other people Scientologists.

They have a certain point of view and if anyone suggests something a little different they are not willing to tolerate it or as Hubbard would say, "grant it beingness."

All readers in the other group are willing to grant credence to the ex Scientologist's point of view They are fine with the ex Scientologists living with their particular views and even offer them support and encouragement.

HOWEVER, the ex Scientologists do not extend the same courtesy to the "Scientologists", virtually all of whom are no longer in the official C of S. When a "Scientologist" speaks out that Hubbard did something which was good or that somebody had a gain doing a TR or ANYTHING which shows Scn or Hubbard as anything but 100% worthless or evil, the "ex" will correct him and if that does not work they launch on a personal attack against someone who does not share their views, calling them liars, sick bastards and the like. THAT IS MY ONE AND ONLY BEEF ON THE POSTING THAT IS GOING ON OVER THERE.

IMHO no “Society” originated music…all of Us are born “with a song in my heart”.

I don't disagree that some society long ago originate music. I also like the fact that music is one of the things that has flourished on this planet and in most of our societies. When you say, "All of Us ar born "with a song in my heart." there is certainly some truth that all of us have some sense of music in their hearts or are imbued with some sort of musical potential.

Usually, though something is born in one's heart, that does not guarantee that the person will be able to realize his inate potential and make music as he goes through life. Just take a walk around certain areas of your large cities and you find thousand upon thousands of people who have the potential of song but they are not singing!

It takes a lot of work to create things so that song can come out and express itself. It takes creating and maintaining a free and safe society. It takes nurturing and good parenting. It does not usually just happen, but it has to be created, often requiring fighting off those who would take it from us.

EVEN ABOVE THIS, EVEN IF SOCIETY CREATED MUSIC AND MUSIC IS BORN IN ONE'S HEART, MUSIC IS A FORM OF COMMUNICTIION. WHEN YOU HAVE A SOCIETY WITHOUT THE NEED TO COMMUNICATE MUSIC WILL NOT BE A PART OF THAT SOCIETY.

Certain orthodox sects of Islam forbid music in their societies if I understand correctly. But when you talk about societies not requiring communication, not only music will disappear but also so will prose, poetry, art, movies, plays, taste, sex, touch, pleasant smells and all other forms of communication.

Bottom line is that I don't know what your point is when you bring up that music is created by societies and is in our hearts. What is it specifically that you are trying to point out by saying this?

“C&A” need no “attention” on the part of the recipient. “C&A” are subtle, "powerful" and limitless and are inhibited to the degree one wishes for, desires or requires the “attention” of another.

I don't see this one at all. It may be true on a high esoteric plane but here in Earth societies, for 99.9% of the people, it does not apply. I can see this perhaps as a goal to strive for but my comments are addressed to making Earth a better place so as to one day arrive in a society where what you say is true. For 99.9% of the people, I would recommend that they make sure they have their listener's attention before they start communicating with them. As a practical example, consider a parent talking to their teenage child. If the parent talks without getting the kid's attention, no communication will occur or perhaps only negative communication. Very few partents would have the C & A required to obtain their child's full attention by just glowing with C & A instead of asking the kid for his/her attention.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Lakey posted
<snip>
My complaint about Sharone's thread is none of the things which you list above. The complaint which I do have is that there is a certain group of posters there who call themselves, "ex Scientologists" and all other people Scientologists.

They have a certain point of view and if anyone suggests something a little different they are not willing to tolerate it or as Hubbard would say, "grant it beingness."

All of the other group are willing to grant credence to the ex Scientologist's point of view They are fine with the ex Scientologists living with their particular views and even offer them support and encouragement.

HOWEVER, the ex Scientologists do not extend the same courtesy to the "Scientologists", virtually all of whom are no longer in the official C of S. When a "Scientologist" speaks out that Hubbard did something which was good or that somebody had a gain doing a TR or ANYTHING which shows Scn or Hubbard as anything but 100% worthless or evil, the "ex" will correct him and if that does not work they launch on a personal attack against someone who does not share their views, calling them liars, sick bastards and the like.
THAT IS MY ONE AND ONLY BEEF ON THE POSTING THAT IS GOING ON OVER THERE.<snip>

I'd really like to post a reply to that. There are some things in it worthy of a response, but a diasagreeing response.

One of the things I've learned in my breif stay here is this thread has long been considered a polite non argumentative thread - a safe haven of sorts.

I'll not break the protocol of that.

Do you mind if I take the above quote and post on the thread you refer to and reply to it there?

Toady

 

[lkwdblds]

Well you're not Will Rogers but Pat Butram, yeah maybe!

And, for the most part - though not exclusively - the communication being discussed here ( I thought ) was verbal...not music or sex ( both of which are great examples of communiaction ).

Is someone nibbling around the 'auditing comm cycle' as one thing and just good communication as something different ?

I like the example of one person just being near another person and one - or the other - starts having realizations yet there has been no verbal communication. That too is communication on a rather high level.

And I'd not negate the communication I've had from a Hummingbird or even a supposed to be tame little house cat. Communication has so many forms and levels even long before delving into the nuances of how best it be done.

I'm often reminded how many times a mother is awaken in the middle of the night and has news about her child half wat around the world that in the light day proves right to the moment. Is that not communication that is hard to put in a formula ?

Communication is pretty dang interesting to me and I sure wish I had the ability to lay out what must and must not go in before it is acceptable under the definition some hold as inviolate - but I don't.

Apparently I just continue to muddle along far below some standard or other.

But, most people seem to get most of what I'm trying to express.

From others what I like is they try to communicate and should they 'fall short' I'll try to put in the bits and pieces and with their guidance try to get where they were trying to go. ( Sidebar : do not pursue " dub in " here ).

So, all I ask is someone try. I need not try to give them lessons or ponder how they fell short or anything else but know they tried.

Toady, we (or so I assumed) are talking communication, all forms, not just verbal. Verbal is probably fairly rare around the universe, being as how it requires a gaseous medium to vibrate within. If you don't admit all communication, where do you draw the line. Does a movie communicate? "Yes!" How about a silent movie, "Yea, sure"

I like the example of one person just being near another person and one - or the other - starts having realizations yet there has been no verbal communication. That too is communication on a rather high level.

I use this all the time now. I can't give Candy formal sessions because I am not trained well enough in any discipline to do this. We have a technique called "listen and acknowledge". I figuratively turn on all my available C & A, but whenever it comes to helping people, it is always on and I just listen and acknowledge and she is able to unload and benefit a lot from this technique. She also does it on me.

Apparently I just continue to muddle along far below some standard or other

Don't underestimate yourself Toady, you have an interesting country boy persona that is quite good. You are not quite up to Will Rogers standards but you are definitely a couple of notches above Wild Bill Hickhock's sidekick Jingles (played on TV by Andy Devine). I would put you at the level of Gene Autry's sidekick Put Butram. That crusty old snake had a very dry, wry and subtle down home Western cowboy type of speech and sense of humor. You have a good thing going there, at a high level like Pat Butram's so take a bow.
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

Similarly, the question with regard to the hospitals is whether a woman desirous of SAFE MEDICAL treatment can be denied that treatment because the ONLY AVAILABLE MEDICAL FACILITY capable of performing such treatment refuses on religious grounds. As a matter of economics, religious hospitals are predominant in much of the country as they are subsidized by their respective religions. Non-religious hospitals can rarely compete economically in rural areas due to the economic disadvantages they face. As a result women throughout much of the country have their medical choices effectively limited due to the restrictive policies of particular religions, whether or not the woman is a member of that religion.

The simplest solution is to require that any medical facility be prepared to perform any lawful medical treatments without regard to specific religious affiliations. Notice that this requirement does NOT extend to licensed medical practitioners, only to the medical institutions. A medical practitioner retains the right to refuse to perform any lawful medical procedure with which she herself considers ethically unsuitable.

One problem with that position: what happens when the religious organization that provides the funding that enables the hospital to stay open decides that it feels so strongly about the issue that it would rather close the hospital than participate in abortion?

For example, in 2006 Massachusetts decreed that adoption services must allow gay couples to adopt. Rather than comply with a law that violated their beliefs, Catholic Charities of Boston chose to shut down their adoption work.

You can decree that a group must operate according to your rules. You cannot decree that they must continue to operate in a manner which violates their ethical code.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Its okay guys, Ted, Roger, Face and even Toady. I don't mind standing alone with my way of looking at things. Actually, its a lot of fun. It's never happened before so its something new to experience and my feeling is excitement and exhillaration that I disagree with you all.

I respect all you guys immensely and I will study your posts closely, mull over how it could be that way or could not and I will change over if I see the light but if not, I will retain my same belief.

Particularly with Face's major point. If I am duplicating him, he is saying that compassion and appreciation are in all of us natively and must come out naturally. If one has to think before becoming compassionate or appreciative, then he ruins the entire essence of what those traits are all about since they are spontaneous and natural traits.

I don't follow that argument at all. Many noble and great traits are in each of us but we can be and often are blocked from expressing them. I never ever suggested thinking about those traits before using them - Face sort of dubbed that in to what I was saying.

My point was that maybe people's communication might improve if those traits were pointed out to them. Some people, just having that info pointed out to them will just have a sudden realization occur that connects them instantly to those inate traits already inside of them. They will begin incorporating those traits automatically. No thinking needs to take place and I never suggested that it did.

Here's how I see how this topic came down:
1 - Ted commented on Hubbard's statement, "communication is the universal solvent". He mentioin that he did not feel it was true and brought up the word compassion as a missing ingredient. Everybody loved what Ted said including me. It was real food for thought in an extremely important area of life.
2 - Roger brought up another word, appreciative and thought that that was an ingredient not considered by Hubbard. Everybody thought that was great.
3. - I chimed in and said that for comm to be a universal solvent, it was necessary to get someone's attention before delivering a communication. That is basically all that I added. Make sure that you have someone's attention. I kept what Ted and Roger said and added that one extra proviso.

Face then mentions that I am too mechanical; no thinking can occur or it ruins the whole concept. I disagreed with that and then turned off my computer for a few hours and lo and behold, now everyone is doing constructive criticism on my point of view. It is done in a kind and constructive manner so I am happy about it. I haven't studied all your posts carefully but have only got the gist of them so perhaps once I dig deeper, I will see what y'all are telling me but right now I don't see it.

As to what FoTi wrote about "communication is the universal solvent" applying only to audtiting sessions, I never heard any such thing said by Hubbard or anyone else. Hubbard has a book of nothing but quotes of his and its title is "When in Doubt, Communicate!" That implies more than just "In Session" communication. Several people pointed out that life can be looked at as just one big session, so that undercuts what I said but I wanted to make the point that even without life being a session, the universal solvent comment of Hubbard still applied for all of life and not just sessions.

As for Ted's concept of compassion and appreciation being so pervasive that we would no longer need communication. I called that thinking outside the box and Roger negated my statement. I think such a world with no communication would indeed be outside the box as far as this planet and all its societies is concerned. You must be implying it is not outside of the box spiritually because if that isn't outside the box, as the expression is commonly used in society, than I don't know what would be.

Without communication there would be no music, no art to view, no poems to read, no great classic novels to read, no movies or plays to see, and I talked to Candy by phone this morning and she pointed out that there would be NO SEX as well. Sure such a society could be constructed so full of compassion and appreciation that we didn't need communication. Though it could exist, I would not want to live in such a society.

Well, I've had my say and no its back to work for a few hours, getting prepared to see my tax man on Thursday.
Lakey

No, you're not "duplicating" me. I didn't say what you say I said. I said what I said.

I'm not arguing, I'm disagreeing. "Conscious effort" (your words) is thinking. "At first they might have to think a little or make some effort to include it, but when they see how this technique..." These are your words and not my "dub in" (my emphasis added),

Never said that you were too mechanical. Never said "no thinking can occur or it ruins the whole concept." Again, I said what I said. If you disagree I'm fine with that.

Again, I said (my emphasis added) To me, if I have to “think about” “C&A” then, by that act alone, I pervert and am "cut off" from the well of “C&A”.


Face

 

[lkwdblds]

Lakey posted
<snip>
My complaint about Sharone's thread is none of the things which you list above. The complaint which I do have is that there is a certain group of posters there who call themselves, "ex Scientologists" and all other people Scientologists.

They have a certain point of view and if anyone suggests something a little different they are not willing to tolerate it or as Hubbard would say, "grant it beingness."

All of the other group are willing to grant credence to the ex Scientologist's point of view They are fine with the ex Scientologists living with their particular views and even offer them support and encouragement.

HOWEVER, the ex Scientologists do not extend the same courtesy to the "Scientologists", virtually all of whom are no longer in the official C of S. When a "Scientologist" speaks out that Hubbard did something which was good or that somebody had a gain doing a TR or ANYTHING which shows Scn or Hubbard as anything but 100% worthless or evil, the "ex" will correct him and if that does not work they launch on a personal attack against someone who does not share their views, calling them liars, sick bastards and the like.
THAT IS MY ONE AND ONLY BEEF ON THE POSTING THAT IS GOING ON OVER THERE.<snip>

I'd really like to post a reply to that. There are some things in it worthy of a response, but a diasagreeing response.

One of the things I've learned in my breif stay here is this thread has long been considered a polite non argumentative thread - a safe haven of sorts.

I'll not break the protocol of that.

Do you mind if I take the above quote and post on the thread you refer to and reply to it there?

Toady

Toady, you were the one over there who started complaining that I was hijacking the thread away from Sharone. Then Veda jumped on that and said that I was a liar and was stooping to new lows to bait the posters there and extend the thread. He keeps asserting that the thread ended over a week ago and only my viscious actions are artificially extending it.

I announced that I would not post there for 5 days, just to see what happens. This is only day 2. The view and post counters are spinning at high speed over there, 14,000 replies and 450 or so posts in just the first 3 weeks.

That means very little but look at the quality of the posting. IMHO, it is very high. What do you think? You are one of the veterans over there in that neck of the woods? If people thought I was assuming control from Sharone, I wanted to nip that in the bud. That is not my intent and I feel strong empathy for Sharone.

Are you requesting that I return there after only a 1 1/2 day absense?

Toady, its fun having everyone disagreeing with my posts. It is something new and exciting. I am not posting low quality on purpose but being rejected by most or all in the area of posting is an interesting flow to experience; its making me feel more alive. I don't know how long this will last!
Lakey