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

[Auditor's Toad]

Not that it matters to anyone but me......

The RED type comes up so pale on my little lap top that I have to scroll over it to even begin to read it.


Now, back to the regularly scheduled thread.....

 

[smartone]

Came in late on this thread... what is C&A?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

dot,dot,dot [dash,dash,dash dot,dot,dot]

"she already has that right"

brilliant.

tir a l'arc.

very very well done Mark. it is a beautiful thing to see a keen agile incisive mind go straight to the heart and pith of it.

yes.

a man, a woman, a child, a babe in arms, a senile old geezer, a tart, dyke, a certified public accountnt with semialcoholic wife, two point three kids and a mortgage on a bungalow in passaic new jersey, a stargazer, a stiltwalker, a stutterer, a former secondbaseman fo the Tulsa Drillers, a weasel, wetback, a wanker, an anabaptist and the syphilytic second cousin of a kansas city mafia underboss have the rght to breathe air.

furthermore...

it is de jure unlawful to deny a person their right to breathe air. to attempt it is assault, to do it attempted murder and to sustain it briefly homicide.

is it frivolous, absurd and comic to propose an Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America to affirm and protect a peron's right to breathe air?

yes.

it is.

a woman has the right to bring to bring a pregnancy to term.

you can say it is a right bequeathed by nature but to ascribe the term "right"to a biological process is akin to saying you have the right to fall downward if you jump off a cliff. if the existence of a personal god is axiomatic you can say it is a godgiven right.

like the right to breathe air it is not specified in law.

is it frivolous, absurd and comic to propose an Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America to affirm and protect a woman's right to bring a pregnancy to term?

no.

it is not.

suppose i were a member of a debating society and we were to debate this proposal. if i were to be assigned to take the position in it's favor i would submit the essay "to draw a line" as my opening statement. if assigned to oppose i would open with "it is already a woman's right to bring a pregnancy to term and the proposal is frivolous, absurd and comic." and then sit down hoping to fluster my opponent with brevity and contempt.

at this juncture any skilled debater could rebut the opposition merely citing the essay. it contains several strong hard statements from which three bullet points could be chosen. i can spell out a rebuttal if called upon to do so but i hold it is selfevident in the posted writing.

if it were my assignment to rebut the rebuttal i would stand and say "very well sir, you have torched my camouflage. now you shall see my guns." and i would then speak three words...

...and on hearing those three words some of the intelligent educated and wellinfomed men and women of conscience and good will whose hearts had been warmed by the opening statement would feel their blood run cold.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Came in late on this thread... what is C&A?

IT USED TO BE CERTS AND AWARDS.

IT HAS BEEN ALTERED BY SPS TO MEAN COMPASSION AND APPRECIATION.

HUBBARD WOULD PUKE.

here is a reference poin:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=552438&postcount=11333

 

[Ted]

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

I thought that. I just didn't want to say anything that could be taken the wrong way.

So... I communicated. Or was that merely coincidence?

 

[Auditor's Toad]

deleted

 

[Ted]

IT USED TO BE CERTS AND AWARDS.

IT HAS BEEN ALTERED BY SPS TO MEAN COMPASSION AND ADMIRATION.

HUBBARD WOULD PUKE.

If Hubbard had a grave he would be rolling over in it. But, last I heard, he was nothing but dust in the wind.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

deleted

and your point is??????????

 

[lkwdblds]

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

You are right on the "never said I was too mechanical" statement. What you actually said is that I am over-analyzing. I should have gone back and reread it before I posted. On where I quoted you about thinking cuts you off from C & A, I got that from your earlier post, shown below in red.

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”.

You stated that "if you have to "think about" then by that act alone you are "cut off" from the well of C & A." I think that is close enough to what I said that I cannot retract what I said but have to stay with it. So to me my substituting "too mechanical" for your words "over analyzing
" is the only gaff which I made in my post.

On my above quote of yours, we will have to agree to disagree to agree. I just do not feel the statement has merit. I am focusing on practical applications in life. Getting into communication with a teenage sibling is the type of thing which I am interested in addressing. Maybe you are looking at the question on a higher or more esoteric plane Even there, however, I still don't agree with your quoted statement.

I have made conscious efforts to increase my C & A in many situations and it in no way perverted and cut me off from the well of C & A. Several weeks ago I went up to Cupertino and I knew that I was going to give videos interviews which were to be recorded by Tatiana and put on youtube. I made special efforts to prepare myself for the recordings. I did such things as make sure that I got plenty of sleep the night before. I had my upper back and neck muscles massaged by a machine which I own and I rehearsed answers to all kinds of questions which could be thrown at me. On the drive up, Candy and I rehearsed our speeches for a while in the car because she was also going to be taped for 6 to 8 videos.

My results were fantastic. If you watch the videos I made on July 4th at Aida's house I thought they were not too bad infact better than I thought I had in me but these early March videos were far far superior, much better than I thought I could do.
s
Getting rest, massages on the back and neck and rehearsing my interview while driving up are the efforts I took. I also intentended that they would come out good. All of these things take some effort but none of them took much thinking. I mainly just had to think about what I should do at the very beginning, you know, get sleep, massage my neck, rehearse the speeches and postulate success. Making that to do list is the only thing I did which may have required a little thinking but the other steps required some effort.

The next time I do any public speaking, I plan on thinking up a preparation list of things to do and then exerting a little effort in getting them done. My C & A seemed to be only enhanced by my efforts, I was not cut off from its well spring at all. I knew what I was going to say and was much more relaxed as a result I felt confident going in that I would do well because I was well prepared. Being relaxed and confident seemed to increase my inate C & A and not cut me off from it. That is way I can't agree with you on what you said and why we will have to agree to disagree.

Maybe what's real for you in your universe and whats real for me in mine just do not align on this particular topic. That is totally fine with me.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

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.

I'm somewhere near 3 or 4 pages behind.

Ronnie Reagan took Gorby to his stomping ground, the great outdoors, where they were just guys. There, without expectations and agendas, they saw one another, as beings. From that, they built a friendship, and a working relationship.

Before nations can "communicate," they need to understand "who" each is. The leaders call the shots. What are the operating imperatives? hot buttons? etc?

What Thatcher, Reagan, and Gorbachev accomplished on the WORLD STAGE was done with communication between beings of INTEGRITY, PERSEVERANCE, and NOT FIXED SOLUTIONS, who each had a VISION that they worked with their partners , to bring about.

 

[RogerB]

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

Yep,

This is correct Face. In fact, if you've got to think about it to do it then you have obviously dropped out from operating at the level at which it is "part of you."

Empathy, "compassion," appreciation, honor, etc., are attributes and "virtues" (or qualities, if you will) of spirit (you). They are native to you . . . the tragedy is that due to our descent they have been dropped out of true full practice (as in being used/practiced/employed) . . . and so conversations like this occur with folks discussing what they are . . . with some having to "think about them" and others having different views on the subject and how they apply etc.

So what's new??

Of course, the further south a Being gets, these fine qualities have not only simply dropped out, but they become practiced in the negative, inverse expression as anti (virtue) or dichotomy. Like the inversion of Love is Hatred. The inversion of Appreciation would be things like being constantly invalidative and incapable of understanding what another expresses (as in constant alteration and not getting what is communicated or expressed).

One shouldn't sweat it nor be too pedantic about it

It's there to grok when you grok it, otherwise it's a complexity of misaligned possibles rather than a simplicity of truth

Rog

 

[FoTi]

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

I said auditing type situation...I didn't say only auditing sessions. I said. ..."where two people are working together to resolve something and know what they are doing"

Not all communication is a universal solvent....some is and some isn't.

A solvent is something that dissolves something else. How does music, art, poems, novels, movies, plays and sex dissolve anything? :confused2:

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

At the moment I'm isolated at the beach, doing taxes, bills, and organizing our beach house for Easter and sunshine.

Outside the skies are filled with dihydrogen monoxide. (http://www.dhmo.org/). i'm sure the conspiracy theorists have their own ides about this.

I've been working with piles of paper all over the floor.

i put one lap top on the kitchen counter, and turned on Pandora.com and let the music play. Pandora streams music to you based on your tastes. Today I've been streaming Simon and Garfunkel and John Denver. i just switched over to Mose Allison. This even beats my i tunes, because I don't have to think, to choose the music. it arrives fresh and not pre planned.

The other thing that I like is that I'm standing, not sitting. I'm not a big fan of sitting. Working with the computer on the counter requires a little more energy, and is probably better for me. I recommend Pandora.com and standing while working on the computer.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

A solvent is something that dissolves something else. How does music, art, poems, novels, movies, plays and sex dissolve anything?

dissolves separation between us beings

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

You are right on the "never said I was too mechanical" statement. What you actually said is that I am over-analyzing. I should have gone back and reread it before I posted. On where I quoted you about thinking cuts you off from C & A, I got that from your earlier post, shown below in red.

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”.

You stated that "if you have to "think about" then by that act alone you are "cut off" from the well of C & A." I think that is close enough to what I said that I cannot retract what I said but have to stay with it. So to me my substituting "too mechanical" for your words "over analyzing
" is the only gaff which I made in my post.

On my above quote of yours, we will have to agree to disagree to agree. I just do not feel the statement has merit. I am focusing on practical applications in life. Getting into communication with a teenage sibling is the type of thing which I am interested in addressing. Maybe you are looking at the question on a higher or more esoteric plane Even there, however, I still don't agree with your quoted statement.

I have made conscious efforts to increase my C & A in many situations and it in no way perverted and cut me off from the well of C & A. Several weeks ago I went up to Cupertino and I knew that I was going to give videos interviews which were to be recorded by Tatiana and put on youtube. I made special efforts to prepare myself for the recordings. I did such things as make sure that I got plenty of sleep the night before. I had my upper back and neck muscles massaged by a machine which I own and I rehearsed answers to all kinds of questions which could be thrown at me. On the drive up, Candy and I rehearsed our speeches for a while in the car because she was also going to be taped for 6 to 8 videos.

My results were fantastic. If you watch the videos I made on July 4th at Aida's house I thought they were not too bad infact better than I thought I had in me but these early March videos were far far superior, much better than I thought I could do.
s
Getting rest, massages on the back and neck and rehearsing my interview while driving up are the efforts I took. I also intentended that they would come out good. All of these things take some effort but none of them took much thinking. I mainly just had to think about what I should do at the very beginning, you know, get sleep, massage my neck, rehearse the speeches and postulate success. Making that to do list is the only thing I did which may have required a little thinking but the other steps required some effort.

The next time I do any public speaking, I plan on thinking up a preparation list of things to do and then exerting a little effort in getting them done. My C & A seemed to be only enhanced by my efforts, I was not cut off from its well spring at all. I knew what I was going to say and was much more relaxed as a result I felt confident going in that I would do well because I was well prepared. Being relaxed and confident seemed to increase my inate C & A and not cut me off from it. That is way I can't agree with you on what you said and why we will have to agree to disagree.

Maybe what's real for you in your universe and whats real for me in mine just do not align on this particular topic. That is totally fine with me.
Lakey

Lakey, I'm not gonna mess with this any more. You did not get my emphasis when I quoted myself. I said I, not you. I’m talking about me not you or any one else.

Like I said, I said what I said.

Peace.

Face

 

[FoTi]

dissolves separation between us beings

True. I understood that LRH was talking about resolving issues. Beings coming together doesn't always resolve issues....sometimes it creates issues.
wasn't Scientology mainly about auditing and as-ising difficulties of one sort or another? Wasn't LRH tech....the Red Vols .....mainly about training auditors but also using that tech in one's life to resolve difficulties? In other words, being auditors in life as well as in session? Or have I got it all wrong?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... You could advance the argument that none of that is real communication, as I have done. But in that argument I call "Bullshit!" I am through being reasonable with "the tech" in an effort to make it congruent.

Communication is the universal solvent might be true for a bullshit artist who has the perceived need to be in control and dominant, on a one-way flow.

My conclusion is that, if there is a universal solvent, it is compassion. Compassion is something a bullshit artist won't be able to muster. Compassion says to the other person, "You are not alone in your time of difficulty."

Dalai Lama: "When we wish and seek to help others, our attitude is more positive and relationships become easier. We are less afraid and have less anxiety. Otherwise we remain shy and hesitant, and feel the need to take a thousand precautions before we approach people. When our intentions are good, we have greater self-confidence and are stronger. This is how we learn to understand how precious and valuable kindness is."

As always, I invite disagreement.

Except, Ted, what a b@llshit artist is doing is not 'communication' but intentional miscommunication. BS is a deliberate attempt to reduce understanding which, for better or worse, is exactly the opposite of the old 'arc=u' formula. Not all attempts at so-called 'communication' are actually attempts to increase communication. You may call that 'reasonable', frankly I just view it as reason.

Whether not 'arc=u' or 'communication is the universal solvent' are strictly 'true', nevertheless I find them to be 'workable truths'.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

True. I understood that LRH was talking about resolving issues. Beings coming together doesn't always resolve issues....sometimes it creates issues.
wasn't Scientology mainly about auditing and as-ising difficulties of one sort or another? Wasn't LRH tech....the Red Vols .....mainly about training auditors but also using that tech in one's life to resolve difficulties? In other words, being auditors in life as well as in session? Or have I got it all wrong?

FWIW, communication in scientology can only be understood in terms of the 'arc=u' model. Whether that model is 'true' and to what degree is for each individual to evaluate for himself. CO's response about dissolving 'separation' is very very apt. No news there.

As to 'resolving issues', the only way to resolve any issue is through communication about the issue. Sometimes increased communication reveals that what was thought to be 'one issue' may actually be a host of issues which were unexpected. The saw of 'pulling the thread' leading to 'unraveling the woof' is very appropros, as when communication does occur the resultant change in understanding can be quite radical & unexpected. Again, no news there.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

I said auditing type situation...I didn't say only auditing sessions. I said. ..."where two people are working together to resolve something and know what they are doing"

Not all communication is a universal solvent....some is and some isn't.

A solvent is something that dissolves something else. How does music, art, poems, novels, movies, plays and sex dissolve anything? :confused2:

Well, I would agree with several other persons that life is a form of a session. Two or usually more peope are working together to resolve the big questions of life or attempting to resolve the issue of how to be happy or raise their children or further their careers, etc.. As far as knowing what they are doing, that is open to question. If you go to C of S who is to say that you will get together with someone who knows what they are doing. Ditto for going to a psychiatrist, a marriage counselor, a life coach, a hypnotist, a traditional doctor, a holistic doctor, your religious leader, etc. Usually, in a given discipline a few are "maestros" and know what they are doing but most don't really know.

Not all communication is a universal solvent. Right, I believe we all believe this and that is what inspired Ted to write the first post which started this discussion.

On how communications of an aesthetic nature dissolve things, I believe that it is because they vibrate at wavelengths which are higher than those of societies in general. Spiritual beings get in harmony with these vibrations and it raises them closer to their native states.

Have you ever had a headache and lied down, dimmed the lights in your room and put on some soothing music and found that your headache abated. If you are down in the dumps, maybe some good rock music makes you get up and dance and lifts your spirits so that you feel better. Perhaps a great novel, a classic that has endured for centuries can have a strong impact on a reader and cause a positive change in the person's attitudes and tone.

Just chosing nice artwork and painting a room in a certain way with certain colorts raises a person's "tone" and makes the person happier and more willing to do things.

I could go on forever but you get the idea....
Lakey - P.S. I just read Carmelo's posting saying that it dissolves separation between beings. As he often does, Carmelo answered a question in just a few words. Brilliant C.O.!!

 

[lkwdblds]

Lakey, I'm not gonna mess with this any more. You did not get my emphasis when I quoted myself. I said I, not you. I’m talking about me not you or any one else.

Like I said, I said what I said.

Peace.

Face

Face, I went back and reread what you said and I believe I've found the clause where I lost you:
Here is your clause -To me, if I have to “think about” “C&A”

I took "to me" to mean, "The way I see it" but you really mean "for your own particular case or situation" Do you see my point? For example, someone could say, "To me, I believe that it is always best to eat 3 meals a day." I would believe the speaker meant this was best for everybody and not just himself. Now that I understand that the I refers exclusively to you, I get what you are saying.

I've been criticized on this board for being too caught up with myself, you know, too many I's and me's in my posts. I switched gears and now make my posts more inclusive. That new emphasis of mine may have made it harder for me to understand your clause.

I now understand you much more fully in that your comments apply exclusively to you personally. I read your thoughts and Rogers affirmations and see how things could be construed that way. For me personally, I am not in harmony with the way you and Roger see it at this juncture. What works for you does not work for me at this time. I wish you continued succes in applying your principles to yourself. If your principles are universal to all as Roger implies, I am not at a level yet to go into agreement with them. I am still happy applying my principles at the level I am at.

All is well, I am not trying to force my views on anyone and now I understand that you are not trying to enforce your views on me. With that said, let's consider this little issue closed.

Lakey