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

[lkwdblds]

Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

Pilot'sPosts Z3


Clear OT -- ceasing to compulsively create a time track


(From post 18 - Dec 97)

The major target of the entire L series (L12, L11, and then L10 which
are generally run in that order) was the state of Clear OT.

The Clear OT state is best described as ceasing to compulsively
create a time track. This is not the official definition, which
is simply "no track" but it is a better working definition because
one can still mockup a track or find incidents and one does not
loose one's time sequence. But a certain compulsion to hold onto
one's history and mock it up compulsively seems to disappear when
this state is achieved.

L10 worked towards this state by addressing early track overts,
looking for the critical one which apparently caused the
individual to keep this track mocked up. Note that an individual
will try to reverse the time sequence of events so as to move an
unjustified overt which was followed by a motivator to a later
time so that the motivator will be first so as to justify the overt.

For example, he burns down the school. Then he has trouble with
schools. Then he misremembers and says that the trouble happened
first and then he burnt the school down to get even. If the
overt is serious enough, he doesn't just pretend to do this but
may actually misremember. This alteration causes his time track
to become very solid and he holds it there compulsively so as
to assure himself that his big overt came later rather than
before the motivator.

When this is relieved, he no longer has to hold this time track
in place compulsively because he no longer needs to force the
events to remain out of sequence.

But L10 was too difficult, so they introduced L11 and then L12
as a gradient up to this. There are freezone reconstructions
of these available on the net.

I do not like the Ls style approach. The entire rundown seems
to be too forcing and evaluative and there have been rumors of
instability.

I achieved the Clear OT state with good awareness, certainty,
stability, and, I feel, much more understanding of how it
happened, by getting run on expanded grade 2 after clear.
It occurred on running a very far backtrack unjustified overt
of great magnitude which had been forced out of sequence
as I described above. When the overt went, it seemed like
the entire timetrack went with it.

I believe that this is the best way to approach this area.
Namely, by making deeper and deeper reruns of grade 2, working
to earlier and heavier overts. One would have to run other
things in between so as not to invalidate the first release
point and so as to have more ability to go earlier.

Grade 2 was the best thing that we ever had on the subject
of overts. All the other handlings (HRD, Ls, and Sec Checks)
are evaluative and tend to force the PC. Grade 2 (and similar
processes on grade 4) raise the PCs responsibility on a gradient
without evaluation and therefore result in the maximum ability
to think clearly and operate in an ethical manner.

Grade 2 is easy to run and can be done solo (not according
to the CofS of course). The Ls on the other hand require the
maximum skill level (Class 12) that the CofS has and might
well just make a mess if done solo.

I would tend to expect that many people would get the Clear OT
state on a thorough second pass through the self clearing
book (doing the sections that deal with overts). But I
probably should have included a bit more of the above
theory concerning the effect of overts on the time track.

Happy New Year,

The Pilot

Anthony, its interesting to get some background on what the L's are supposed to be all about.

I ran L11 twice, the first time in 1977 with Alex Siberski as my auditor. No background or overview was given of what we were doing. We went right into session. I believe that prepared lists existed which were checked for reads. The reading items were taken up and run out. NOTS did not yet exist so things were not run out NOTS valence style but instead using date/locate. That's all that I remember of it. Not being given the goal of what L10 was all about, I only noticed that my mind had less background noise in it than before so I thought the level was a success.

In 1978, I was called and told that Alex Siberski had been declared and that they were calling all of his PC's back to redo his auditing. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY WERE HAVING THE SERVICE REDONE AT ABSOLUTELY NO COST TO YOU!!! That shows how the C of S proceed cautiously when first ordering people to redo things.

That is the only instance which I know of where they admitted a mistake and did something over for free!!

I returned in 1979 to receive L11. I was assigned a new female auditor. Again there were no explanations or overview given but we just went right into the rundown. Siberski had actually done a very good job so the old stuff was already handled. My auditor got new reads and these were run out, again using Date/Locate. I though the service was good and that I made gains but as to what the specific gains were, I had no clue and until I read your post today, Anthony, I had no idea what I was going for those 30-32 years ago!

SPEAKING OF NOT HAVING A LOT OF BACKGROUND PICTURES IN YOUR MIND.
Retiring from my construction business, which was extremely high pressure and stressful for 36 years and leaving a marriage which had become stressful, plus getting some good sessions from Purple Haze, I achieved a state where from day to day, my mind was very quiet with virtually no background noise going on.

BEWARE THE ONE WAY FLOW CARRIED ON FOR TWO LONG!
This occurred in 2011 and lasted for months. The state ended in early 2012. What killed that state? I became the sounding board for several of my friends. They had no auditing outlet and sought me out as a sounding board, usually over the phone. There would be long phone calls of mostly one way flow where I just listened and acknowledged for 60 minutes or more at a time. After a few weeks of this, it got to me and I started pulling all my background noise in on myself again.

The concept that "man is not an island" became real to me. We are all interlinked and are all in this game together. If one person has little or no background noise and is not creating pictures in his mind on automatic, his friends, family and people whom he cares for will tend to seek him/her out and spill their cases on to him, in an effort to seek relief for themselves. Ergo, we have that a person clearing out his pictures on his first dynamic is not in a totally stable situation. People on his 2nd, 3rd and 4th dynamics are out their with their pictures and the pictures from their dynamics will tend to rush in and fill the vacuum of pictures in the other person's case. That has happened to me and I believe that it will happen in general in most circumstances though there are ways to handle it.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

Anthony, its interesting to get some background on what the L's are supposed to be all about.

I ran L11 twice, the first time in 1977 with Alex Siberski as my auditor. No background or overview was given of what we were doing. We went right into session. I believe that prepared lists existed which were checked for reads. The reading items were taken up and run out. NOTS did not yet exist so things were not run out NOTS valence style but instead using date/locate. That's all that I remember of it. Not being given the goal of what L10 was all about, I only noticed that my mind had less background noise in it than before so I thought the level was a success.

In 1978, I was called and told that Alex Siberski had been declared and that they were calling all of his PC's back to redo his auditing. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY WERE HAVING THE SERVICE REDONE AT ABSOLUTELY NO COST TO YOU!!! That shows how the C of S proceed cautiously when first ordering people to redo things.

That is the only instance which I know of where they admitted a mistake and did something over for free!!

I returned in 1979 to receive L11. I was assigned a new female auditor. Again there were no explanations or overview given but we just went right into the rundown. Siberski had actually done a very good job so the old stuff was already handled. My auditor got new reads and these were run out, again using Date/Locate. I though the service was good and that I made gains but as to what the specific gains were, I had no clue and until I read your post today, Anthony, I had no idea what I was going for those 30-32 years ago!

SPEAKING OF NOT HAVING A LOT OF BACKGROUND PICTURES IN YOUR MIND.
Retiring from my construction business, which was extremely high pressure and stressful for 36 years and leaving a marriage which had become stressful, plus getting some good sessions from Purple Haze, I achieved a state where from day to day, my mind was very quiet with virtually no background noise going on.

BEWARE THE ONE WAY FLOW CARRIED ON FOR TWO LONG!
This occurred in 2011 and lasted for months. The state ended in early 2012. What killed that state? I became the sounding board for several of my friends. They had no auditing outlet and sought me out as a sounding board, usually over the phone. There would be long phone calls of mostly one way flow where I just listened and acknowledged for 60 minutes or more at a time. After a few weeks of this, it got to me and I started pulling all my background noise in on myself again.

The concept that "man is not an island" became real to me. We are all interlinked and are all in this game together. If one person has little or no background noise and is not creating pictures in his mind on automatic, his friends, family and people whom he cares for will tend to seek him/her out and spill their cases on to him, in an effort to seek relief for themselves. Ergo, we have that a person clearing out his pictures on his first dynamic is not in a totally stable situation. People on his 2nd, 3rd and 4th dynamics are out their with their pictures and the pictures from their dynamics will tend to rush in and fill the vacuum of pictures in the other person's case. That has happened to me and I believe that it will happen in general in most circumstances though there are ways to handle it.
Lakey

Is this testimony that auditing doesn't really work ?

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Clear OT -- ceasing to compulsively create Clear and OT.



"If you want to remember yourself, the best thing is not to think about yourself. As long as you think about yourself, you will not remember yourself."

- P D Ouspensky

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Vidal Sassoon

Vidal Sassoon merged style, business savvy
By Olivia Barker, USA TODAY Updated 2h 14m ago

Vidal Sassoon— arguably the world's first celebrity snipper, whose name became synonymous with cutting-edge cuts and, later, slapped on shampoo bottles, a staple of a suburban woman's grooming regimen — died Wednesday of natural causes at his home in Los Angeles. He was 84.

Vidal Sassoon's "if you don't look good, we don't look good" ad slogan became almost as famous as his products.

Vidal Sassoon's "if you don't look good, we don't look good" ad slogan became almost as famous as his products.

In the 1960s, the London-born Sassoon was a beauty pioneer akin to fashion rebels like Mary Quant, releasing women from stiff, high-maintenance looks and putting them in sleek, wash-and-go wedges, bobs and other less-is-more crops, most famously Mia Farrow's Rosemary's Baby pixie, which earned him $5,000.
Back then, "we were creating something that was socially necessary," Sassoon told the Los Angeles Times in 1993. "Women were going back to work, they were assuming their own power. They didn't have time to sit under the dryer anymore."
"Vidal Sassoon totally changed the world of hair and beauty. He was a complete maestro," says one of the heirs to Sassoon's celebrity stylist title, Oscar Blandi. "When I was in school learning the trade, I always took from his work to improve my own methods of styling. He was truly the most revolutionary person ever to enter into the industry. He paved the way for the celebrity stylists of today. … He had no fear. Vidal is the one who made me fall in love with my business because he showed the true art of styling."

Indeed, Sassoon succeeded in sudsing together craft and commerce. In the '80s, he stepped out from behind the chair and, looking matinee-idol suave, uttered a jingle for his products that became almost as iconic as his styles themselves: "If you don't look good, we don't look good."

It was a glossy departure from his hardscrabble childhood — he spent several years in an orphanage — and his stint as an Israeli soldier at age 20. Both experiences were chronicled in the 2010 documentary Vidal Sassoon: The Movie, as was another knotty subject: his brand's dilution.

In 2003 Sassoon sued Proctor & Gamble, alleging the company had abandoned his products after 20 years of ownership in favor of other labels, such as Pantene. At the time, Sassoon lamented to USA TODAY: "We were a thriving brand with a philosophy." The lawsuit was settled the following year.

In that same interview, Sassoon reflected on the cultural upheaval that swirled as he grabbed his first pair of professional scissors (it was his mother who encouraged his vocation). Sure, The Beatles were changing the world, but "you can't wear music," he said. "But you can wear your hair different."

Contributing: Bruce Horovitz, Associated Press

 

[paradox]

Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

Is this testimony that auditing doesn't really work ?

It works. And works. And works....

[video=youtube;oudNoKfNUfs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oudNoKfNUfs[/video]

 

[lkwdblds]

What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

What Works? What Doesn't Work?

These terms are kicked around on ESMB and elsewhere as if the answers to the questions are objective universal truths which apply to everyone. Some all seeing paragon of wisdom sits on a throne in a fictitious Valhalla and DECREES that a particular subject WORKS for ALL or it does not WORK for ANYONE. If someone holds a different point of view. a concerted effort is made to "take them out".

WHAT WORKS?
If a person believes that something works for him/her, then most likely it will work for them.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK?
If a person believes that something doesn't work for them, then most likely it won't. Really, that's what it boils down to.

Muslims believe that Islam works, Christians believe that Christianity works and so forth. If you ask these believers why they are so sure that their religions work for them they will tell you of innumerable instances where Islam has produced miracles in their lives or where Christianity has produced miracles in the lives of Christians.

An Aethiest would likely scoff at both Islamists and Christians and say that science proves them both incorrect. He might well feel called upon to "correct" them.

I know a couple of friends who refuse to use GPS machines to go from one place to another in their automobiles. I would be lost without my GPS. All the decades of going on appointments at night in my business, using a Thomas Brothers Map Book and a flashlight to find my destinations are recalled with frustration and dread. I am so thankful that GPS was invented and I know that it works......or do I. Can I declare and decree that it works. I don't think so. I can only declare that it works for me! I have a right to make that assertion. For these friends of mine, I must respect that it does not work for them. They swear that it does not work for them. They tell tales of people being lead on "wild goose chases" using their GPS's and two or three people declare that they do not trust being told by a machine where to do.

A man who has turned to alcohol and has lost his job and his family and is homeless may wander into a Christian revivalist meeting and he may heed the call to come up to the altar and accept Jesus Christ as his savior. After doing that act and being accepted by hundreds or thousands in the congregation, who are suddenly his friends, he may likely experience an overwhelming resurgence of life force within him. He swears from then on that accepting Jesus "worked" for him; it worked to such an extent that it completely gave him his life back WHO CAN TELL THAT MAN THAT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT WORK? IT WORKED FOR HIM!!!

BRIDGING BELIEF SYSTEMS - WHAT A JOY!
I had a friend (Platonic) stay at my place for two weeks while she looked for a new apartment because she had a run in with her landlord and was ordered to move out quickly. This friend like to watch the Reverend Joel Osteen's TV show on Sunday Morning.

I had no particular bent towards Christianity but this preacher, Joel Osteen is by far the best whom I have ever heard. He has a way of phrasing his stories and parables in a way which is almost universal. Every story which he told, I was able to refashion so that it matched my own belief system. When he used the word "God" or the word "Angel", he may have had a different meaning in his mind than what came to my mind but that turned out to be irrelevant. There were universal truths and messages built into his stories and his stories were very entertaining. I learned something and was entertained by every single story. Now, when Christians say that Christianity works, I am able to agree - It works for them (and also for me to some degree).

I have beloved family members who swear by their psychiatric type medications such as mood enhancing drugs. They consider that they have brain and personality problems and that these pills "work" for them. They even go so far as to blame me for not putting them on these medications when they were children.

I would never use these medications for myself but for them, the medications "work". If I tell these close relatives that they don't work, most likely they will not include me in their lives any longer. The way out is not necessarily to become a hypocrite and lie and say that you believe the medications work when you believe otherwise. The truth is that at this point in time these relatives believe that their medications work for them. Recognizing that fact one can be truthful and agree that they work for them. There is no hypocrisy in that.

What works for you is what you believe works for you and vice versa for not working. Universal workability for given subject is a limited concept. For someone to sit in an ivory tower and decree universal non workability or universal workability does not lead anywhere other than to conflict and the invalidating of other's points of view.
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

What Works? What Doesn't Work?

These terms are kicked around on ESMB and elsewhere as if the answers to the questions are objective universal truths which apply to everyone. Some all seeing paragon of wisdom sits on a throne in a fictitious Valhalla and DECREES that a particular subject WORKS for ALL or it does not WORK for ANYONE. If someone holds a different point of view. a concerted effort is made to "take them out".

WHAT WORKS?
If a person believes that something works for him/her, then most likely it will work for them.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK?
If a person believes that something doesn't work for them, then most likely it won't. Really, that's what it boils down to.

Muslims believe that Islam works, Christians believe that Christianity works and so forth. If you ask these believers why they are so sure that their religions work for them they will tell you of innumerable instances where Islam has produced miracles in their lives or where Christianity has produced miracles in the lives of Christians.

An Aethiest would likely scoff at both Islamists and Christians and say that science proves them both incorrect. He might well feel called upon to "correct" them.

I know a couple of friends who refuse to use GPS machines to go from one place to another in their automobiles. I would be lost without my GPS. All the decades of going on appointments at night in my business, using a Thomas Brothers Map Book and a flashlight to find my destinations are recalled with frustration and dread. I am so thankful that GPS was invented and I know that it works......or do I. Can I declare and decree that it works. I don't think so. I can only declare that it works for me! I have a right to make that assertion. For these friends of mine, I must respect that it does not work for them. They swear that it does not work for them. They tell tales of people being lead on "wild goose chases" using their GPS's and two or three people declare that they do not trust being told by a machine where to do.

A man who has turned to alcohol and has lost his job and his family and is homeless may wander into a Christian revivalist meeting and he may heed the call to come up to the altar and accept Jesus Christ as his savior. After doing that act and being accepted by hundreds or thousands in the congregation, who are suddenly his friends, he may likely experience an overwhelming resurgence of life force within him. He swears from then on that accepting Jesus "worked" for him; it worked to such an extent that it completely gave him his life back WHO CAN TELL THAT MAN THAT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT WORK? IT WORKED FOR HIM!!!

BRIDGING BELIEF SYSTEMS - WHAT A JOY!
I had a friend (Platonic) stay at my place for two weeks while she looked for a new apartment because she had a run in with her landlord and was ordered to move out quickly. This friend like to watch the Reverend Joel Osteen's TV show on Sunday Morning.

I had no particular bent towards Christianity but this preacher, Joel Osteen is by far the best whom I have ever heard. He has a way of phrasing his stories and parables in a way which is almost universal. Every story which he told, I was able to refashion so that it matched my own belief system. When he used the word "God" or the word "Angel", he may have had a different meaning in his mind than what came to my mind but that turned out to be irrelevant. There were universal truths and messages built into his stories and his stories were very entertaining. I learned something and was entertained by every single story. Now, when Christians say that Christianity works, I am able to agree - It works for them (and also for me to some degree).

I have beloved family members who swear by their psychiatric type medications such as mood enhancing drugs. They consider that they have brain and personality problems and that these pills "work" for them. They even go so far as to blame me for not putting them on these medications when they were children.

I would never use these medications for myself but for them, the medications "work". If I tell these close relatives that they don't work, most likely they will not include me in their lives any longer. The way out is not necessarily to become a hypocrite and lie and say that you believe the medications work when you believe otherwise. The truth is that at this point in time these relatives believe that their medications work for them. Recognizing that fact one can be truthful and agree that they work for them. There is no hypocrisy in that.

What works for you is what you believe works for you and vice versa for not working. Universal workability for given subject is a limited concept. For someone to sit in an ivory tower and decree universal non workability or universal workability does not lead anywhere other than to conflict and the invalidating of other's points of view.
Lakey

I'm completely convinced that it works very well - as a way of endlessly shuffling and re-shuffling thoughts. Scientology, and it's spinoffs, claim to address the soul, but I've never seen that demonstrated. What I have seen demonstrated is that it addresses the personality/ego and thoughts about the personality/ego. It's rather superficial in it's reach.

But hey, if you dig it do it.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

What Works? What Doesn't Work?

These terms are kicked around on ESMB and elsewhere as if the answers to the questions are objective universal truths which apply to everyone. Some all seeing paragon of wisdom sits on a throne in a fictitious Valhalla and DECREES that a particular subject WORKS for ALL or it does not WORK for ANYONE. If someone holds a different point of view. a concerted effort is made to "take them out".

WHAT WORKS?
If a person believes that something works for him/her, then most likely it will work for them.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK?
If a person believes that something doesn't work for them, then most likely it won't. Really, that's what it boils down to.

Muslims believe that Islam works, Christians believe that Christianity works and so forth. If you ask these believers why they are so sure that their religions work for them they will tell you of innumerable instances where Islam has produced miracles in their lives or where Christianity has produced miracles in the lives of Christians.

An Aethiest would likely scoff at both Islamists and Christians and say that science proves them both incorrect. He might well feel called upon to "correct" them.

I know a couple of friends who refuse to use GPS machines to go from one place to another in their automobiles. I would be lost without my GPS. All the decades of going on appointments at night in my business, using a Thomas Brothers Map Book and a flashlight to find my destinations are recalled with frustration and dread. I am so thankful that GPS was invented and I know that it works......or do I. Can I declare and decree that it works. I don't think so. I can only declare that it works for me! I have a right to make that assertion. For these friends of mine, I must respect that it does not work for them. They swear that it does not work for them. They tell tales of people being lead on "wild goose chases" using their GPS's and two or three people declare that they do not trust being told by a machine where to do.

A man who has turned to alcohol and has lost his job and his family and is homeless may wander into a Christian revivalist meeting and he may heed the call to come up to the altar and accept Jesus Christ as his savior. After doing that act and being accepted by hundreds or thousands in the congregation, who are suddenly his friends, he may likely experience an overwhelming resurgence of life force within him. He swears from then on that accepting Jesus "worked" for him; it worked to such an extent that it completely gave him his life back WHO CAN TELL THAT MAN THAT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT WORK? IT WORKED FOR HIM!!!

BRIDGING BELIEF SYSTEMS - WHAT A JOY!
I had a friend (Platonic) stay at my place for two weeks while she looked for a new apartment because she had a run in with her landlord and was ordered to move out quickly. This friend like to watch the Reverend Joel Osteen's TV show on Sunday Morning.

I had no particular bent towards Christianity but this preacher, Joel Osteen is by far the best whom I have ever heard. He has a way of phrasing his stories and parables in a way which is almost universal. Every story which he told, I was able to refashion so that it matched my own belief system. When he used the word "God" or the word "Angel", he may have had a different meaning in his mind than what came to my mind but that turned out to be irrelevant. There were universal truths and messages built into his stories and his stories were very entertaining. I learned something and was entertained by every single story. Now, when Christians say that Christianity works, I am able to agree - It works for them (and also for me to some degree).

I have beloved family members who swear by their psychiatric type medications such as mood enhancing drugs. They consider that they have brain and personality problems and that these pills "work" for them. They even go so far as to blame me for not putting them on these medications when they were children.

I would never use these medications for myself but for them, the medications "work". If I tell these close relatives that they don't work, most likely they will not include me in their lives any longer. The way out is not necessarily to become a hypocrite and lie and say that you believe the medications work when you believe otherwise. The truth is that at this point in time these relatives believe that their medications work for them. Recognizing that fact one can be truthful and agree that they work for them. There is no hypocrisy in that.

What works for you is what you believe works for you and vice versa for not working. Universal workability for given subject is a limited concept. For someone to sit in an ivory tower and decree universal non workability or universal workability does not lead anywhere other than to conflict and the invalidating of other's points of view.
Lakey

Cliff Notes : Brainwashing works !
....
The above quote reminds me of once hearing someone say
" I'm not making you are wrong, you are wrong " !
....

Most readers here know GPS is a provable known SCIENTIFICLY established system.
It guides commercial airliners, ships, cruise missles, ICBMs, smart bombs, and , yes, us trying to find an address. To compare that to scn or any other scientifically unproven ology seems to be a dodge - is that not true ?
....

I'd concede one could feel thay got "gains from scn auditing" yet when the same person in the same post says talking to another person knocked out those "gains ".....could one not get those gains were, ummm. fleeting ?

.....

But, if one puts forth that it is what one brings TO a belief system is what makes it work for them then isn't that also an admission of the limited workability ro all others of the system be it scn, Islam, Traditional Christianity, or Voodoo ?

....

Whether or not a person believes in surgery and then a skilled surgeon does a needed triple bypass on their heart the person lives even with NO belief or faith in doctors or hospitals . ( I known that to happem to one of them that scientologists ! )

how many people have most reluctantly taken medication that handled the infection or whatever was bothering them ?

Matters NOT whether or not one believes in GPS, it is a very workable system that is highly reliable ( not perfect ).

Does scn compare to GPS ? LOL !

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

I'm completely convinced that it works very well - as a way of endlessly shuffling and re-shuffling thoughts. Scientology, and it's spinoffs, claim to address the soul, but I've never seen that demonstrated. What I have seen demonstrated is that it addresses the personality/ego and thoughts about the personality/ego. It's rather superficial in it's reach.

But hey, if you dig it do it.

Hey, if it doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you! No more needs to be said. You have the right to your beliefs and I, for one, respect your beliefs and defend your right to believe as you do. Also, you give some specifics as to why you feel the way you do and these are both helpful and informative. People studying the subject need to read comments such as yours and weigh them against any positive thoughts asserted by others about the subject.

Whether I "dig" it or not is not really the issue here. If I did dig it, I would only ask that you respect my position as I respect yours. You have done that in your last sentence above so I don't think we have any quarrel on this topic.
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

Hey, if it doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you! No more needs to be said. You have the right to your beliefs and I, for one, respect your beliefs and defend your right to believe as you do. Also, you give some specifics as to why you feel the way you do and these are both helpful and informative. People studying the subject need to read comments such as yours and weigh them against any positive thoughts asserted by others about the subject.

Whether I "dig" it or not is not really the issue here. If I did dig it, I would only ask that you respect my position as I respect yours. You have done that in your last sentence above so I don't think we have any quarrel on this topic.
Lakey

Would you like to explain your dislike of the following post?

Clear OT -- ceasing to compulsively create Clear and OT.



"If you want to remember yourself, the best thing is not to think about yourself. As long as you think about yourself, you will not remember yourself."

- P D Ouspensky

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

Would you like to explain your dislike of the following post?

Okay Smila, because you asked, I will tell you why I did not like your referenced post.

Anthony, on behalf of the deceased person "The Pilot", took up a Hubbard coined term, "A Clear OT". He went on to infer that Hubbard coined this term to describe someone who no longer had the compulsion to automatically make pictures and keep a running account of one's existence via a "time track".

Anthony entitled his post, "CLEAR OT -- CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE A TIME TRACK".

You altered Anthony's title and responded to a title of your own manufacture,
CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE "CLEAR AND OT". You then just stated a quote from some philosopher's book which you agreed with.

The reason I did not like your post was that to me it seemed non-sequitor. Instead of answering Anthony's post, you changed his Title to a similar sounding Title with a totally different meaning. Then a one sentence quote from the author you cited is given as a pearl of wisdom.

I even tend to agree with that one sentence comment from your source but I do not feel that that comment had anything to do with what Anthony posted. Anthony posted The Pilots quotes about Hubbard's purpose for the L's. If you believe that every person compulsively makes pictures of every instant of his journey through the physical universe then you will be interested in what The Pilot had to say about the L's.

Nothing is said in the Pilot's work about a person spending a lot of their time thinking about themselves The pictures which are made are recordings of the environment and are not necessarily equivalent to thinking about onself.

You then give a quote about the benefits of not thinking about yourself.

If you felt that there was a connection there, it would have been helpful for you to say a few words to illustrate that connection for those of us who did not see any connection. Had you done that, I would give your post a thumbs up.
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

Okay Smila, because you asked, I will tell you why I did not like your referenced post.

Anthony, on behalf of the deceased person "The Pilot", took up a Hubbard coined term, "A Clear OT". He went on to infer that Hubbard coined this term to describe someone who no longer had the compulsion to automatically make pictures and keep a running account of one's existence via a "time track".

Like me, Anthony quoted from some philosopher's book he agreed with.

Anthony entitled his post, "CLEAR OT -- CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE A TIME TRACK".

You altered Anthony's title and responded to a title of your own manufacture,
CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE "CLEAR AND OT". You then just stated a quote from some philosopher's book which you agreed with.

The reason I did not like your post was that to me it seemed non-sequitor. Instead of answering Anthony's post, you changed his Title to a similar sounding Title with a totally different meaning. Then a one sentence quote from the author you cited is given as a pearl of wisdom.

I even tend to agree with that one sentence comment from your source but I do not feel that that comment had anything to do with what Anthony posted. Anthony posted The Pilots quotes about Hubbard's purpose for the L's. If you believe that every person compulsively makes pictures of every instant of his journey through the physical universe then you will be interested in what The Pilot had to say about the L's.

Nothing is said in the Pilot's work about a person compulsively a lot of the time about themselves.

You then give a quote about the benefits of not thinking about yourself.

Being non sequitor to Anthony's post was the only reason why I did not like it. If you felt that there was a connection there, I believe that it would have been helpful to say a few words to illustrate that connection for those of us who did not see any connection between his post and your response. Had you done that, I would give your post a thumbs up.
Lakey

Fair enough Lakey, given the context I think my post was probably not the best way to make my point, but I do think there is a valid point to be made, so I'll give it a go.

One of my 'core disagreements' with Scientology is that while it claims to address the user of it as a spirit, it is excessively focussed on the mind - the conscious mind, in fact. I feel that the focus on 'mental image pictures' is very unhelpful. The idea that a Human Being can be controlled and made insane by 'mental image pictures' he constantly and compulsively creates, is patently ridiculous. This has never been demonstrated. A human being is much much more than the content of his conscious mind. When I say 'conscious mind' I mean the part of his/her mind that he/she is aware of, or can easily become aware of and verbalise - everyday trivia, and stuff that can be 'dug up' by auditing, if you like.

Most of what we are is happening on a deep deep level, which is much much richer than the trivia which is 'thought that can be verbalised.' I feel that Scientology actually focusses on the ego/personality, and applies more of the same as a remedy. What then occurs when a person applies Scientology, is that the ego/personality gets beefed-up, and an unhealthy, obsessive interest in the trivia of the mind lays down layer upon layer of misperception of oneself. Such excessive interest and misperception of the 'trivial self' is not a good idea, in my opinion. At best, it is a shuffling and re-shuffling of the contents of the mind. At worst, it is an incestuous self-obsession.

Hence:

"If you want to remember yourself, the best thing is not to think about yourself. As long as you think about yourself, you will not remember yourself."

- P D Ouspensky

"CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE "CLEAR AND OT" refers to the futility of spending a lifetime chasing an unattainable goal, and the advisability of finding something more realistic to aim for.

Don't forget to dislike Anthony's post for just quoting from some philosopher's book he agreed with, without making any point of his own. Lol.


All the best,

Smilla xx

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

Okay Smila, because you asked, I will tell you why I did not like your referenced post.

Anthony, on behalf of the deceased person "The Pilot", took up a Hubbard coined term, "A Clear OT". He went on to infer that Hubbard coined this term to describe someone who no longer had the compulsion to automatically make pictures and keep a running account of one's existence via a "time track".

Anthony entitled his post, "CLEAR OT -- CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE A TIME TRACK".

You altered Anthony's title and responded to a title of your own manufacture,
CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE "CLEAR AND OT". You then just stated a quote from some philosopher's book which you agreed with.

The reason I did not like your post was that to me it seemed non-sequitor. Instead of answering Anthony's post, you changed his Title to a similar sounding Title with a totally different meaning. Then a one sentence quote from the author you cited is given as a pearl of wisdom.

I even tend to agree with that one sentence comment from your source but I do not feel that that comment had anything to do with what Anthony posted. Anthony posted The Pilots quotes about Hubbard's purpose for the L's. If you believe that every person compulsively makes pictures of every instant of his journey through the physical universe then you will be interested in what The Pilot had to say about the L's.

Nothing is said in the Pilot's work about a person spending a lot of their time thinking about themselves The pictures which are made are recordings of the environment and are not necessarily equivalent to thinking about onself.

You then give a quote about the benefits of not thinking about yourself.

If you felt that there was a connection there, it would have been helpful for you to say a few words to illustrate that connection for those of us who did not see any connection. Had you done that, I would give your post a thumbs up.
Lakey

OMFG ! Dude, look in the mirror ! All through this whole thread ( and why so many have ceased to post here ) is your take what somebody posts, turn it into something they never said and then rail against that ( which is your own alteration! ).

Thank you for the great humor you provide ! It was Classic Lakey when you awarded a demerit to a fine poster for doing exactly what you do !

I'll keep reading here for the humor - Lord knows the "views" stay up on this thread so all can see the hilarity on this thread !

Enjoy, the humor here never disappoints !

moar please !

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: What Does it Mean to Say That Something Works or That Something Doesn't Work?

Fair enough Lakey, given the context I think my post was probably not the best way to make my point, but I do think there is a valid point to be made, so I'll give it a go.

One of my 'core disagreements' with Scientology is that while it claims to address the user of it as a spirit, it is excessively focussed on the mind - the conscious mind, in fact. I feel that the focus on 'mental image pictures' is very unhelpful. The idea that a Human Being can be controlled and made insane by 'mental image pictures' he constantly and compulsively creates, is patently ridiculous. This has never been demonstrated. A human being is much much more than the content of his conscious mind. When I say 'conscious mind' I mean the part of his/her mind that he/she is aware of, or can easily become aware of and verbalise - everyday trivia, and stuff that can be 'dug up' by auditing, if you like.

Most of what we are is happening on a deep deep level, which is much much richer than the trivia which is 'thought that can be verbalised.' I feel that Scientology actually focusses on the ego/personality, and applies more of the same as a remedy. What then occurs when a person applies Scientology, is that the ego/personality gets beefed-up, and an unhealthy, obsessive interest in the trivia of the mind lays down layer upon layer of misperception of oneself. Such excessive interest and misperception of the 'trivial self' is not a good idea, in my opinion. At best, it is a shuffling and re-shuffling of the contents of the mind. At worst, it is an incestuous self-obsession.

Hence:

"If you want to remember yourself, the best thing is not to think about yourself. As long as you think about yourself, you will not remember yourself."

- P D Ouspensky

"CEASING TO COMPULSIVELY CREATE "CLEAR AND OT" refers to the futility of spending a lifetime chasing an unattainable goal, and the advisability of finding something more realistic to aim for.

Don't forget to dislike Anthony's post for just quoting from some philosopher's book he agreed with, without making any point of his own. Lol.


All the best,

Smilla xx

Okay Smila, thanks for the excellent clarification! I like this post of yours a lot and want to make some comments but I have to run out right now to meet someone for lunch. When I get back, I want to study your post a little more and then make my comments in a follow up post. You bring up a very good topic and maybe we can get a bit of discussion going here.

Have you given any thought to starting a thread with the above post of yours being the OP? I think that you would stir up a lot of interest.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Smilla, you do bring up excellent points most worthy of discussion.

Why not right here on this thread ( where someone else very widely opened the door to this topic ) ?

This tired old thread could use some life somewhere near fitting the purposes of this board.

Please save this thread ! What started off as a somewhat interesting thread managed to attract a few posters with important information and history ( seems they got tired of the BS and left for better threads ) and this thing has gotten real close to a thread for recipe trading.

Smilla, please continue here with the direction you headed - it is a fresh breath from movie & opera trivia ( guess that is what attracted the academics to read here ) !

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[...] this thing has gotten real close to a thread for recipe trading.

[...]

Could this be a turn to getting back on topic?

CAJUN RED BEANS AND RICE
1 lb. red kidney beans
1 ham bone (with meat) or 4 ham hocks
1 bay leaf
1 tsp. cayenne (more to taste)
1 clove garlic, crushed
1 lg. stalk celery, chopped
1 lg. onion, chopped
2 tsp. sugar
2 tsp. salt
1 tsp. cumin
Rice, cooked
Fresh chopped parsley

Wash beans in cold water and pick out rocks and bad beans. Cook in 3 quarts of water in large pot for 1 hour or in crock pot for 2 hours. Add all other ingredients (except rice) and cook for 2 or 3 hours in crock pot or 1 1/2 to 2 hours on top of stove. To serve, put beans in bowl and cover with hot rice.

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Oy gevalt! Even the recipes are Scientology!

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lemon Chicken

Tenderize 2 chicken breasts with Mallet.
Dust lightly with flour ( both sides ).
Heat 1 TBSP oil * & 1 TBSP butter in skillet.
Add chicken & cook 5-6 minutes per side.
Remove chicken to platter. Leave heat on.
Add 2 TBSP lemon juice to pan & stir quickly.
Add salt & coarse ground pepper, Stir.
Pour over chicken & serve.


* ( my house = olive oil. Your taste may vary ).

Please contribute your recipe !

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lemon Chicken

Tenderize 2 chicken breasts with Mallet.
Dust lightly with flour ( both sides ).
Heat 1 TBSP oil * & 1 TBSP butter in skillet.
Add chicken & cook 5-6 minutes per side.
Remove chicken to platter. Leave heat on.
Add 2 TBSP lemon juice to pan & stir quickly.
Add salt & coarse ground pepper, Stir.
Pour over chicken & serve.


* ( my house = olive oil. Your taste may vary ).

It's about the old days aboard the Apollo.

Lemon chicken for the Commodore and family.

Beans and rice for the crew.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It's about the old days aboard the Apollo.

Lemon chicken for the Commodore and family.

Beans and rice for the crew.

You mind reader you !