Hatshepsut
Crusader
And if 'reptilians' are right?
Mark A. Baker
Then we'd be up shit creek.
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Then we'd be up shit creek.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Last edited:
Hatshepsut
Crusader
RogerB
Crusader
Nice, nice posts on this subject of "Serfacs" you lot. Nice to see the wins and realizations being shared.
Ted's advice on the use of the procedure is "ace" advice.
"In this lifetime" is the original command structure of it, though, I personally, for myself and with appropriate clients, run it "open" . . . that is, with no time limiter. That way I get my whole scenario cleaned up. Personally, I find much of this "serfac" type stuff has been floating in time with me "since ever."
Hats raises a very important point relative to the "victim" side of the show
The actual original Serfac tech was that. It's written up in Advanced Procedures and Axioms (1951).
This is how the serfac is defined in AP&A:
Though the later HCOB's do a better job of defining the whole phenomena. Though having said that, I wonder what the psychologists of the world would say about all this
I've not got a DSM handy to chew through for their latest think and labeling on the issue . . . but I'm sure they've got some think on the victim thing
In actuality I first ran into this, in a very big way, in '65 on my first visit to the Middle East. In the port of Aden, I collided with the professional beggars. This is a whole culture premised on the idea of victim-hood in order to garner sympathy in order to draw charity.
I later learned, in Egypt, that these folks are indeed an organized "profession," many of whom are deliberately maimed as children in order to ply their "trade." Though, of course, this plays to the Muslim practice of "charity." None-the-less, what we have here is "professional victim-hood."
And make no mistake, these folks make big money at this game. I've read exposés in recent years revealing the actuality of the system and the rather enormous wealth this organized society of professional beggars has accumulated.
In Aden, I didn't particularly recognize that. All I saw was some folks in very rotten shape apparently actually maintaining that rotten shape in order to garner sympathy . . . and boy, did they play it! Their pleading facial expressions were masterful! (The first one I saw, in retrospect, was possibly a leper, though I did not recognize it as such at the time. I just saw deformity and stumps for feet and hands.)
Of course this victim-hood game of a serfac is visible in all societies of the human race. You see it big time in India. We even see it on ESMB on occasion. You know, the folks who'll just not get rid of their upsets and who want to run on you the make-wrongs by way of making you guilty for the upsets they often inflict on themselves, or are maintaining on continuum but who seek every opportunity to blame you or others for.
One example is knowingly going on a tech thread and then blaming the folks discussing the tech for "causing them upset!" That's rather like swimming in shark infested waters and then blaming the sharks for paying attention to you and taking a piece of you!
This is an Ex-$cn forum, so of course $cn and its tech is going to be discussed . . . why be upset that folks discuss it here?
Maybe the DSM readers can give us some insights on this
I suppose I should stand by for the serfac reactions to this now . . .
So this is a fascinating subject. It's a shame Hubbard coined such a corny name for the phenomena. It's also a shame he didn't take the research further so that a better, more thorough handling of it could have occurred.
Alan did do this. He developed several levels of handling this phenomena . . . each applying to the respective level on the "Zone of Life" scale he developed.
Some years back, I contributed my own findings and research on the issue. I had observed that one creates these things (serfacs) based on an evaluation of or in a scenario. In other words, one is confronted by a circumstance or unpleasant thing, and one thinks a thought about it from which one creates conclusions and/or solutions.
When working to unlock something, I actually used the question: "How has (area/item) been evaluated?" This pulled off the computations that masked it and/or otherwise held it in place.
Alan didn't take to the use of the "evaluation" thing . . . and after some prodding (by me) on the need to handle these "computations" came up with his "Thoughts are Things Drill." (If memory serves, I seem to recall having posted it on ESMB earlier)
It's a brilliant handling that handles areas that the "Right/wrong, etc" procedure doesn't undo.
Rog
Ted's advice on the use of the procedure is "ace" advice.
"In this lifetime" is the original command structure of it, though, I personally, for myself and with appropriate clients, run it "open" . . . that is, with no time limiter. That way I get my whole scenario cleaned up. Personally, I find much of this "serfac" type stuff has been floating in time with me "since ever."
Hats raises a very important point relative to the "victim" side of the show
The actual original Serfac tech was that. It's written up in Advanced Procedures and Axioms (1951).
This is how the serfac is defined in AP&A:
Though the later HCOB's do a better job of defining the whole phenomena. Though having said that, I wonder what the psychologists of the world would say about all this
I've not got a DSM handy to chew through for their latest think and labeling on the issue . . . but I'm sure they've got some think on the victim thing In actuality I first ran into this, in a very big way, in '65 on my first visit to the Middle East. In the port of Aden, I collided with the professional beggars. This is a whole culture premised on the idea of victim-hood in order to garner sympathy in order to draw charity.
I later learned, in Egypt, that these folks are indeed an organized "profession," many of whom are deliberately maimed as children in order to ply their "trade." Though, of course, this plays to the Muslim practice of "charity." None-the-less, what we have here is "professional victim-hood."
And make no mistake, these folks make big money at this game. I've read exposés in recent years revealing the actuality of the system and the rather enormous wealth this organized society of professional beggars has accumulated.
In Aden, I didn't particularly recognize that. All I saw was some folks in very rotten shape apparently actually maintaining that rotten shape in order to garner sympathy . . . and boy, did they play it! Their pleading facial expressions were masterful! (The first one I saw, in retrospect, was possibly a leper, though I did not recognize it as such at the time. I just saw deformity and stumps for feet and hands.)
Of course this victim-hood game of a serfac is visible in all societies of the human race. You see it big time in India. We even see it on ESMB on occasion. You know, the folks who'll just not get rid of their upsets and who want to run on you the make-wrongs by way of making you guilty for the upsets they often inflict on themselves, or are maintaining on continuum but who seek every opportunity to blame you or others for.
One example is knowingly going on a tech thread and then blaming the folks discussing the tech for "causing them upset!" That's rather like swimming in shark infested waters and then blaming the sharks for paying attention to you and taking a piece of you!
This is an Ex-$cn forum, so of course $cn and its tech is going to be discussed . . . why be upset that folks discuss it here?
Maybe the DSM readers can give us some insights on this
I suppose I should stand by for the serfac reactions to this now . . .
So this is a fascinating subject. It's a shame Hubbard coined such a corny name for the phenomena. It's also a shame he didn't take the research further so that a better, more thorough handling of it could have occurred.
Alan did do this. He developed several levels of handling this phenomena . . . each applying to the respective level on the "Zone of Life" scale he developed.
Some years back, I contributed my own findings and research on the issue. I had observed that one creates these things (serfacs) based on an evaluation of or in a scenario. In other words, one is confronted by a circumstance or unpleasant thing, and one thinks a thought about it from which one creates conclusions and/or solutions.
When working to unlock something, I actually used the question: "How has (area/item) been evaluated?" This pulled off the computations that masked it and/or otherwise held it in place.
Alan didn't take to the use of the "evaluation" thing . . . and after some prodding (by me) on the need to handle these "computations" came up with his "Thoughts are Things Drill." (If memory serves, I seem to recall having posted it on ESMB earlier)
It's a brilliant handling that handles areas that the "Right/wrong, etc" procedure doesn't undo.
Rog
RogerB
Crusader
Lakey, my dear,
You've just given us a wonderful example of the kind of thought cum computation that Alan's "Thoughts are Things Drill" undoes.
It's that last sentence I've highlighted in red above.
Maybe, a first step might be to see if that thought limits you in any way, and to spot and lift off those limitations
Though the R/D questions are:
"Connected to (thought/precept/belief) . . .
Where is it?
What is its size?
What is its form or shape?
What is its color?
What is its weight?
What is its duration? (Note these things not only have a time span though which they have existed, but often they have been created to have an intended duration of existence. Sometimes they are simply created, now, and continue on in continuum by default!!
)What are its mood levels?
(You handle these with the use of the Experience/Create sensation handling)
A smart move here is often to also note and handle positive moods, not just negative moods.
The above usually blows it all . . . if not:
What are its limitations?
Does (Precept/thought/belief) create an image or vision?
Pull off the consequences of such.
That will clean the scenario up.
Rog
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Nice, nice posts on this subject of "Serfacs" you lot. Nice to see the wins and realizations being shared.
Ted's advice on the use of the procedure is "ace" advice.
"In this lifetime" is the original command structure of it, though, I personally, for myself and with appropriate clients, run it "open" . . . that is, with no time limiter. That way I get my whole scenario cleaned up. Personally, I find much of this "serfac" type stuff has been floating in time with me "since ever."
Hats raises a very important point relative to the "victim" side of the show
The actual original Serfac tech was that. It's written up in Advanced Procedures and Axioms (1951).
This is how the serfac is defined in AP&A:
Though the later HCOB's do a better job of defining the whole phenomena. Though having said that, I wonder what the psychologists of the world would say about all this
In actuality I first ran into this, in a very big way, in '65 on my first visit to the Middle East. In the port of Aden, I collided with the professional beggars. This is a whole culture premised on the idea of victim-hood in order to garner sympathy in order to draw charity.
I later learned, in Egypt, that these folks are indeed an organized "profession," many of whom are deliberately maimed as children in order to ply their "trade." Though, of course, this plays to the Muslim practice of "charity." None-the-less, what we have here is "professional victim-hood."
And make no mistake, these folks make big money at this game. I've read exposés in recent years revealing the actuality of the system and the rather enormous wealth this organized society of professional beggars has accumulated.
In Aden, I didn't particularly recognize that. All I saw was some folks in very rotten shape apparently actually maintaining that rotten shape in order to garner sympathy . . . and boy, did they play it! Their pleading facial expressions were masterful! (The first one I saw, in retrospect, was possibly a leper, though I did not recognize it as such at the time. I just saw deformity and stumps for feet and hands.)
Of course this victim-hood game of a serfac is visible in all societies of the human race. You see it big time in India. We even see it on ESMB on occasion. You know, the folks who'll just not get rid of their upsets and who want to run on you the make-wrongs by way of making you guilty for the upsets they often inflict on themselves, or are maintaining on continuum but who seek every opportunity to blame you or others for.
One example is knowingly going on a tech thread and then blaming the folks discussing the tech for "causing them upset!" That's rather like swimming in shark infested waters and then blaming the sharks for paying attention to you and taking a piece of you!
This is an Ex-$cn forum, so of course $cn and its tech is going to be discussed . . . why be upset that folks discuss it here?
Maybe the DSM readers can give us some insights on this
I suppose I should stand by for the serfac reactions to this now . . .
So this is a fascinating subject. It's a shame Hubbard coined such a corny name for the phenomena. It's also a shame he didn't take the research further so that a better, more thorough handling of it could have occurred.
Alan did do this. He developed several levels of handling this phenomena . . . each applying to the respective level on the "Zone of Life" scale he developed.
Some years back, I contributed my own findings and research on the issue. I had observed that one creates these things (serfacs) based on an evaluation of or in a scenario. In other words, one is confronted by a circumstance or unpleasant thing, and one thinks a thought about it from which one creates conclusions and/or solutions.
When working to unlock something, I actually used the question: "How has (area/item) been evaluated?" This pulled off the computations that masked it and/or otherwise held it in place.
Alan didn't take to the use of the "evaluation" thing . . . and after some prodding (by me) on the need to handle these "computations" came up with his "Thoughts are Things Drill." (If memory serves, I seem to recall having posted it on ESMB earlier)
It's a brilliant handling that handles areas that the "Right/wrong, etc" procedure doesn't undo.
Rog
True. Adopting a serfac is like the being pulling itself up by the bootstraps. The being gets knocked down hard then, by god, "I'm not going to take that sh*t." Then, "Yuhoo! I'm back!" But being back with that nasty little serfac being thrust at one and all. Just think of a being coming out of the RPF, now "keeping scientology working," or simply coming out of an ethics cycle of lower conditions. That's your now dedicated scientologist. That's the solid serfac dramatization. You look and say to yourself, "Whoa! They certainly fixed that person up with the dedicated glare. I don't even know them any more."
As to "In this lifetime..." or open, I can go either way. By not limiting to this lifetime, the being can skate on by the BPC that is going to hold the thing in place here and now. Going whole track then becomes an avoidance, an acceptable one in the world of scio, but an avoidance nevertheless. It's probably best for most pc/clients to have attention directed to both this lifetime, and earlier. I do believe Hubbard was correct in that the serfac isn't going to erase. If it did, the pc would just substitute another in its place. The key is to bring it to view and thus take the compulsion to use it off the table.
Having no serfacs, or having an ability to spot and erase them as they came up would be VERY OT. Hubbard did not want to make OTs. I know, it's hard to believe, but that is the situation. Just look at the stats. Anyone who demonstrated actual Clear or OT ability eventually got creamed. Or, if they were smart they just disappeared before the creaming.
Many pc's have remarked how naked they felt once the serfac was found and discharged. No longer are they up against the environment via something but they are up against the environment as their naked self. I found this to be the case for me when I completed the Clearing Course. In a way, going clear was one of my serfacs. I needed that unique status to lift myself up, to dominate, to come out of a condition before scientology that I came to hate.
Besides the serfac which is defined as a fixed idea with the specific purpose of making others wrong, there is also the general category of fixed, uninspected ideas. These are not necessarily used to make self right, etc., but they do lock in and inhibit accurate observation of isness.
The book AP&A contains a lot of food for thought about postulates, serfacs, computations, and the affect of a changing environment. Even though Hubbard was an ass, he did spew a lot of good info. It can be a bit like eating blowfish sushi, so study scn with eyes wide open and do not relinquish your ability to look and evaluate on your own.
Here's an excellent lecture. Addicted to experts? Like L. Ron Hubbard the self-proclaimed expert. Did any of us trade off our discomfort with uncertainty for the illusion of certainty that Hubbard provided?
"We make important decisions every day -- and we often rely on experts to help us decide. But, says economist Noreena Hertz, relying too much on experts can be limiting and even dangerous. She calls for us to start democratizing expertise -- to listen not only to "surgeons and CEOs, but also to shop staff."
About 21 minutes in length. I believe this talk is well worth the time invested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8FCaxBJVg
lkwdblds
Crusader
Very nice post
This is a powerful post and fun to read. Besides having a tech discussion in it, it paints a picture of the beggar class amongst the Muslims in North Africa.
It brought to mind for me, the "panhandlers" who stand at our freeway off ramps holding placards requesting money while their eyes seem to be saying, "If you are a decent person, you must give me some money."
One thing which I have noticed is a common make wrong when someone at a super market exit asks you for money using a lot of sweetness and syrup in their tone of voice. If you refuse to give them the money, they then say kind words to you but in a very bitter and hateful tone of voice, something such as, "You have a very nice day (you dirty rat)"
or "God Bless You! (you selfish prick)"
Its the hateful innuendo that comes through, which I showed in brackets after the kind words. That is really a tremendous effort to demean a person for not donating to the panhandler.
Lakey
Nice, nice posts on this subject of "Serfacs" you lot. Nice to see the wins and realizations being shared.
Ted's advice on the use of the procedure is "ace" advice.
"In this lifetime" is the original command structure of it, though, I personally, for myself and with appropriate clients, run it "open" . . . that is, with no time limiter. That way I get my whole scenario cleaned up. Personally, I find much of this "serfac" type stuff has been floating in time with me "since ever."
Hats raises a very important point relative to the "victim" side of the show
The actual original Serfac tech was that. It's written up in Advanced Procedures and Axioms (1951).
This is how the serfac is defined in AP&A:
Though the later HCOB's do a better job of defining the whole phenomena. Though having said that, I wonder what the psychologists of the world would say about all this
In actuality I first ran into this, in a very big way, in '65 on my first visit to the Middle East. In the port of Aden, I collided with the professional beggars. This is a whole culture premised on the idea of victim-hood in order to garner sympathy in order to draw charity.
I later learned, in Egypt, that these folks are indeed an organized "profession," many of whom are deliberately maimed as children in order to ply their "trade." Though, of course, this plays to the Muslim practice of "charity." None-the-less, what we have here is "professional victim-hood."
And make no mistake, these folks make big money at this game. I've read exposés in recent years revealing the actuality of the system and the rather enormous wealth this organized society of professional beggars has accumulated.
In Aden, I didn't particularly recognize that. All I saw was some folks in very rotten shape apparently actually maintaining that rotten shape in order to garner sympathy . . . and boy, did they play it! Their pleading facial expressions were masterful! (The first one I saw, in retrospect, was possibly a leper, though I did not recognize it as such at the time. I just saw deformity and stumps for feet and hands.)
Of course this victim-hood game of a serfac is visible in all societies of the human race. You see it big time in India. We even see it on ESMB on occasion. You know, the folks who'll just not get rid of their upsets and who want to run on you the make-wrongs by way of making you guilty for the upsets they often inflict on themselves, or are maintaining on continuum but who seek every opportunity to blame you or others for.
One example is knowingly going on a tech thread and then blaming the folks discussing the tech for "causing them upset!" That's rather like swimming in shark infested waters and then blaming the sharks for paying attention to you and taking a piece of you!
This is an Ex-$cn forum, so of course $cn and its tech is going to be discussed . . . why be upset that folks discuss it here?
Maybe the DSM readers can give us some insights on this
I suppose I should stand by for the serfac reactions to this now . . .
So this is a fascinating subject. It's a shame Hubbard coined such a corny name for the phenomena. It's also a shame he didn't take the research further so that a better, more thorough handling of it could have occurred.
Alan did do this. He developed several levels of handling this phenomena . . . each applying to the respective level on the "Zone of Life" scale he developed.
Some years back, I contributed my own findings and research on the issue. I had observed that one creates these things (serfacs) based on an evaluation of or in a scenario. In other words, one is confronted by a circumstance or unpleasant thing, and one thinks a thought about it from which one creates conclusions and/or solutions.
When working to unlock something, I actually used the question: "How has (area/item) been evaluated?" This pulled off the computations that masked it and/or otherwise held it in place.
Alan didn't take to the use of the "evaluation" thing . . . and after some prodding (by me) on the need to handle these "computations" came up with his "Thoughts are Things Drill." (If memory serves, I seem to recall having posted it on ESMB earlier)
It's a brilliant handling that handles areas that the "Right/wrong, etc" procedure doesn't undo.
Rog
This is a powerful post and fun to read. Besides having a tech discussion in it, it paints a picture of the beggar class amongst the Muslims in North Africa.
It brought to mind for me, the "panhandlers" who stand at our freeway off ramps holding placards requesting money while their eyes seem to be saying, "If you are a decent person, you must give me some money."
One thing which I have noticed is a common make wrong when someone at a super market exit asks you for money using a lot of sweetness and syrup in their tone of voice. If you refuse to give them the money, they then say kind words to you but in a very bitter and hateful tone of voice, something such as, "You have a very nice day (you dirty rat)"
or "God Bless You! (you selfish prick)"Its the hateful innuendo that comes through, which I showed in brackets after the kind words. That is really a tremendous effort to demean a person for not donating to the panhandler.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Okay, thanks for the tip!
Yes, thank you Roger for the tech tips. Its true that when I think of making others wrong, a huge mass is created in my mind. What I do is just take my mind off of making others wrong and it recedes. I figure that the mass seems just way too big for me to confront on my own and run by inspection.
I have been getting some auditing from Candy and she has been using mainly Alan's processes on me and we have previously, and quite recently, used the one you posted above. I am tempted to run it on myself, only to see if I can get rid of it without someone else auditing me. It would be a nice win if I could do that. If I bog or get into trouble, I could bring her in to clean me up.
Lakey
Lakey, my dear,
You've just given us a wonderful example of the kind of thought cum computation that Alan's "Thoughts are Things Drill" undoes.
It's that last sentence I've highlighted in red above.
Maybe, a first step might be to see if that thought limits you in any way, and to spot and lift off those limitations
Though the R/D questions are:
"Connected to (thought/precept/belief) . . .
Where is it?
What is its size?
What is its form or shape?
What is its color?
What is its weight?
What is its duration? (Note these things not only have a time span though which they have existed, but often they have been created to have an intended duration of existence. Sometimes they are simply created, now, and continue on in continuum by default!!
What are its mood levels?
(You handle these with the use of the Experience/Create sensation handling)
A smart move here is often to also note and handle positive moods, not just negative moods.
The above usually blows it all . . . if not:
What are its limitations?
Does (Precept/thought/belief) create an image or vision?
Pull off the consequences of such.
That will clean the scenario up.
Rog
Yes, thank you Roger for the tech tips. Its true that when I think of making others wrong, a huge mass is created in my mind. What I do is just take my mind off of making others wrong and it recedes. I figure that the mass seems just way too big for me to confront on my own and run by inspection.
I have been getting some auditing from Candy and she has been using mainly Alan's processes on me and we have previously, and quite recently, used the one you posted above. I am tempted to run it on myself, only to see if I can get rid of it without someone else auditing me. It would be a nice win if I could do that. If I bog or get into trouble, I could bring her in to clean me up.
Lakey
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Ser faccy reaction incoming! You were right again Roger.
My bold
Perhaps you should do something about all that suppressed seething anger Roger, it's very unbecoming in a Messiah.
BTW I just looked up the tek definition of a walking talking ser fac ... and there was a picture of a pompous prick in a silly hat (with a beard).
Any idea what that meant?
As for those lepers ... how dare they try to survive by annoyingly begging for money and with their stumps on show for all to see ... lazy ser faccy victims! They should have just pulled their socks up and got a real job and having no socks and no hands to pull em with is hardly an excuse!
We really are all learning so much from you Roger ... thank-you for sharing your thoughts.
Incredible really.
My bold
Nice, nice posts on this subject of "Serfacs" you lot. Nice to see the wins and realizations being shared.
Ted's advice on the use of the procedure is "ace" advice.
"In this lifetime" is the original command structure of it, though, I personally, for myself and with appropriate clients, run it "open" . . . that is, with no time limiter. That way I get my whole scenario cleaned up. Personally, I find much of this "serfac" type stuff has been floating in time with me "since ever."
Hats raises a very important point relative to the "victim" side of the show
The actual original Serfac tech was that. It's written up in Advanced Procedures and Axioms (1951).
This is how the serfac is defined in AP&A:
Though the later HCOB's do a better job of defining the whole phenomena. Though having said that, I wonder what the psychologists of the world would say about all this
In actuality I first ran into this, in a very big way, in '65 on my first visit to the Middle East. In the port of Aden, I collided with the professional beggars. This is a whole culture premised on the idea of victim-hood in order to garner sympathy in order to draw charity.
I later learned, in Egypt, that these folks are indeed an organized "profession," many of whom are deliberately maimed as children in order to ply their "trade." Though, of course, this plays to the Muslim practice of "charity." None-the-less, what we have here is "professional victim-hood."
And make no mistake, these folks make big money at this game. I've read exposés in recent years revealing the actuality of the system and the rather enormous wealth this organized society of professional beggars has accumulated.
In Aden, I didn't particularly recognize that. All I saw was some folks in very rotten shape apparently actually maintaining that rotten shape in order to garner sympathy . . . and boy, did they play it! Their pleading facial expressions were masterful! (The first one I saw, in retrospect, was possibly a leper, though I did not recognize it as such at the time. I just saw deformity and stumps for feet and hands.)
Of course this victim-hood game of a serfac is visible in all societies of the human race. You see it big time in India. We even see it on ESMB on occasion. You know, the folks who'll just not get rid of their upsets and who want to run on you the make-wrongs by way of making you guilty for the upsets they often inflict on themselves, or are maintaining on continuum but who seek every opportunity to blame you or others for.
One example is knowingly going on a tech thread and then blaming the folks discussing the tech for "causing them upset!" That's rather like swimming in shark infested waters and then blaming the sharks for paying attention to you and taking a piece of you!
This is an Ex-$cn forum, so of course $cn and its tech is going to be discussed . . . why be upset that folks discuss it here?
Maybe the DSM readers can give us some insights on this
I suppose I should stand by for the serfac reactions to this now . . .
So this is a fascinating subject. It's a shame Hubbard coined such a corny name for the phenomena. It's also a shame he didn't take the research further so that a better, more thorough handling of it could have occurred.
Alan did do this. He developed several levels of handling this phenomena . . . each applying to the respective level on the "Zone of Life" scale he developed.
Some years back, I contributed my own findings and research on the issue. I had observed that one creates these things (serfacs) based on an evaluation of or in a scenario. In other words, one is confronted by a circumstance or unpleasant thing, and one thinks a thought about it from which one creates conclusions and/or solutions.
When working to unlock something, I actually used the question: "How has (area/item) been evaluated?" This pulled off the computations that masked it and/or otherwise held it in place.
Alan didn't take to the use of the "evaluation" thing . . . and after some prodding (by me) on the need to handle these "computations" came up with his "Thoughts are Things Drill." (If memory serves, I seem to recall having posted it on ESMB earlier)
It's a brilliant handling that handles areas that the "Right/wrong, etc" procedure doesn't undo.
Rog
Perhaps you should do something about all that suppressed seething anger Roger, it's very unbecoming in a Messiah.
BTW I just looked up the tek definition of a walking talking ser fac ... and there was a picture of a pompous prick in a silly hat (with a beard).
Any idea what that meant?
As for those lepers ... how dare they try to survive by annoyingly begging for money and with their stumps on show for all to see ... lazy ser faccy victims! They should have just pulled their socks up and got a real job and having no socks and no hands to pull em with is hardly an excuse!
We really are all learning so much from you Roger ... thank-you for sharing your thoughts.
Incredible really.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Lakey, another way to unburden the serfac is to run off justifications. Again, the actual serfac might come spilling out during the process--it might not. Using your example of blabbing...
Blabbing, how have you justified it?
How else have you justified it?
Run to a flat point.
It's like the old town crier. That used to be an important function.
Someone has to do it.
It's not really blabbing. It's keeping people informed.
Knowledge is a good thing.
That's just who I am.
and so on...
Blabbing, how have you justified it?
How else have you justified it?
Run to a flat point.
It's like the old town crier. That used to be an important function.
Someone has to do it.
It's not really blabbing. It's keeping people informed.
Knowledge is a good thing.
That's just who I am.
and so on...
Hatshepsut
Crusader
That's very helpful, getting the evaluation made at the time. The charge perhaps existing then made it a fixed idea.
How many people will never put money in a traceable bank account again after a relative lost their home to medical bills when they would not have had ANY medical bills if they had not worked and accrued anything to begin with.
Something like that could get to be a stuck idea.
The evaluation thing brings to view how the person is going to keep from being pushed over into a losing vector again. But it presupposes an unmocking force. So it is a games condition. A paradigm held in the mind.
Actually I traced back this using of something in lieu of myself....traced it way back to an earliest overwhelm. It had a lot to do with phoney justice and having been made wrong and not daring to use my raw power any more.
When we play games using a mind or a mental construct instead of being totally present in the environment there are sometimes darn good reasons. So many times I've hit a program incident where you were not intended to ever be the the YOU that you were before it ever again. An unwanted change has occurred. That's the deal. Accept it and you could go on surviving. Don 't accept it and you would keep on being shredded until this program 'took'.
I blew one of these 'entering the universe by proxy' incidents, and boy did I feel naked. Vulnerable.
(Like Ted said.) The feeling of not being engulfed in a mind construct made me feel I was in violation of the laws of agreement for being here on Earth. :confused2: I even suspected my wavelength might be spotted and I'd be given another does of the 'treatment'. I pulled in enough mass to dive into and submerge a bit.I think this really is the planet of those who are no longer themselves. We gave adopted some idea to use in lieu of ourselves. We all have adopted something, some idea, some fiction, or goal to pursue intsead of just BEING here. There is a basic on this for everyone I believe. The giving up of one's unique perception of HIMSELF and surviving as something else instead. I think the sensations of being made wrong or being in error, or guilt and having been sentenced to a penalty universe might apply sometimes. Look what most of us have been endeavoring after. The recovery of knowng ourselves AS ourselves before any imagined descent. So even this could be a common mental paradigm. A fixed idea being dramatized.
It's possible its a basic on the making of others to GO IN and GOING IN ourselves. A basic on making oneself to lose power and coaxing of another to withhold their power. When gods attack other gods it might be handy to put up a display of showing how disabled one already IS.
And maybe how no more attack is necessary.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Humor
HIGH URINALS
A group of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders, accompanied by two female
teachers, went on a field trip to the local racetrack, (Churchill
Downs) to learn about thoroughbred horses and the supporting industry
(Bourbon), but mostly to see the horses.
When it was time to take the children to the bathroom, it was decided
that the girls would go with one teacher and the boys would go with
the other. The teacher assigned to the boys was waiting outside the
men's room when one of the boys came out and told her that none of
them could reach the urinal.
Having no choice, she went inside, helped the boys with their pants,
and began hoisting the little boys up one by one, holding on to their
'wee-wees' to direct the flow away from their clothes.
As she lifted one, she couldn't help but notice that he was unusually
well endowed. Trying not to show that she was staring the teacher
said, 'You must be in the 5th grade.'
'No, ma'am', he replied. 'I'm riding Silver Arrow in the seventh race,
but I appreciate your help.'
HIGH URINALS
A group of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders, accompanied by two female
teachers, went on a field trip to the local racetrack, (Churchill
Downs) to learn about thoroughbred horses and the supporting industry
(Bourbon), but mostly to see the horses.
When it was time to take the children to the bathroom, it was decided
that the girls would go with one teacher and the boys would go with
the other. The teacher assigned to the boys was waiting outside the
men's room when one of the boys came out and told her that none of
them could reach the urinal.
Having no choice, she went inside, helped the boys with their pants,
and began hoisting the little boys up one by one, holding on to their
'wee-wees' to direct the flow away from their clothes.
As she lifted one, she couldn't help but notice that he was unusually
well endowed. Trying not to show that she was staring the teacher
said, 'You must be in the 5th grade.'
'No, ma'am', he replied. 'I'm riding Silver Arrow in the seventh race,
but I appreciate your help.'
Hatshepsut
Crusader
It took me a moment.
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
snipped
When gods attack other gods it might be handy to put up a display of showing how disabled one already IS.
He already displayed that first bit (though not especially godlike) but you are quite right about the second bit.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
It took about one second to get it! Catchy name you chose for your new thread! It has a nice ring to it. Good luck with it, "The Old Days - at At FLB - 1975".
Like Coke and Pepsi, huh? :wink2:
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Hatshepsut
Crusader
....
- Status