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

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

as I highlight in red your statement, "If people could go clear on DIanetics"

where are the 270 clears or whatever figure hubbard said in dianetics?

who are they? What are their names? Why didn't hubbard promote them? Why all the changes in the definition of clear? Why an extensive research into making clears when hubbard said he did so in dianetics?

I don't understand why you continue to press on with some sort of argument which seems to be aimed against me. You are preaching to the choir. My take on going clear on Dianetics has consistently been that Hubbard overstated the definition of what constitutes a Dianetic clear. I further stated that over the years, Hubbard kept lowering the attributes of what going clear requires but even with watered down attributess, no one ever achieved the full attributes of that level as stated by Hubbard.

You write some very astute observations but don't seem to duplicate things which I repeat over and over to you. You challenge me and attempt to take me on on issues on which I thoroughly agree with you.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I always wondered why LRH wasn't the first clear instead of John McMaster. Was it unimaginable to consider whether he was if fact, clear?

IMO Hubbard was a very bright man and had some clear and OT attributes but as Purple Haze likes to tell me, "The back of an object is as big as the front." What this means is that Hubbard had a lot of elan vital, theta, life force and/or smarts but on the back end, he had a very large case. He did a lot of experimental auditing on himself and, as was typical of Hubbard, he didn't follow his own rules and policies. In particular, he did not follow the precept that "Auditor and preclear together are bigger than the pic's "bank" but auditor alone is less than his "bank".

That precept has some truth in it, I believe it was a principle first asserted in a big way by Freud. In the early days of the S.O., Otto Roos, one of the first Class VIII's made a concerted effort with other early Class VIII's to round up all Hubbard's auditing folders, order them as to date and check them for auditing flubs. Roos and the other Class VIII's had the goal to clean up Hubbard's case. At first Hubbard seemed receptive and thankful but when it actually came time for him to go into session and allow others to help him, he could not deal with such a concept and off loaded Roos from scientology. Google the Otto Roos story to read all the details.

Anyway, it appears that McMaster's case was in much better shape than was that of LRH. Based on the Roos story plus the overt acts and withholds which Hubbard was piling up, which manifested as very serious body reactions, Hubbard himself never attained the original state of clear as set forth in book 1 nor any of the watered down states of clear which came out later. Hubbard had lots of abilities and was capable of getting things done on a large scale, but he did so, without getting his own case fully handled and that fact turned out to cause the scientology movement great problems as time went on.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If, in fact, dear old Ron did not hisself ever attain the highly vaulted " State of Clear" then doesn't that speak volumes of the that whole thing called " dianetics " ?

And, sheesh, if he wasn't "clear" how could he hisself been " OT " ?

Can one be "OT" and completely bypass " Clear" ?

It does get pretty silly IF one pauses to take even the quickest of glances at it.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If, in fact, dear old Ron did not hisself ever attain the highly vaulted " State of Clear" then doesn't that speak volumes of the that whole thing called " dianetics " ?

And, sheesh, if he wasn't "clear" how could he hisself been " OT " ?

Can one be "OT" and completely bypass " Clear" ?

It does get pretty silly IF one pauses to take even the quickest of glances at it.

It really isn't rocket science. There are "clear" and "OT" abilities in all of us, some more so or much more so than in others. Similarly, there are aberrations in all of us, some more so or much more so than others. Hubbard's initial definitions of the terms "clear" and "OT" painted a picture that such an individual would essentially be devoid of all aberrations. Neither Hubbard nor any one else has ever been able to produce such a person and probably no such person will never exist in this universe. Second, no individual has attained all the positive attributes of a Book One clear or a full OT. Thus Hubbard overshot the mark, making claims he could not deliver on.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It really isn't rocket science. There are "clear" and "OT" abilities in all of us, some more so or much more so than in others. Similarly, there are aberrations in all of us, some more so or much more so than others. Hubbard's initial definitions of the terms "clear" and "OT" painted a picture that such an individual would essentially be devoid of all aberrations. Neither Hubbard nor any one else has ever been able to produce such a person and probably no such person will never exist in this universe. Second, no individual has attained all the positive attributes of a Book One clear or a full OT. Thus Hubbard overshot the mark, making claims he could not deliver on.
Lakey

In Idenics, chapter 12 Abilities & Aberrations:

"Instead of only observing aberrations from a negative perspective, we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability - but it is an ability that has gone out of control"

-----------

Sorry Lakety, I just had to thrown that in here.

(disclosure: I'm not trying to sell you, just pointing out differences between Dianetics & Idenics)

Also, just for observers I'll throw in this tread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11152-HUBBARD-ADMITS-DIANETICS-BOOK-IS-A-FRAUD

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

In Idenics, chapter 12 Abilities & Aberrations:

"Instead of only observing aberrations from a negative perspective, we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability - but it is an ability that has gone out of control"

-----------

Sorry Lakety, I just had to thrown that in here.

(disclosure: I'm not trying to sell you, just pointing out differences between Dianetics & Idenics)

Also, just for observers I'll throw in this tread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11152-HUBBARD-ADMITS-DIANETICS-BOOK-IS-A-FRAUD

I like your post Gib and I'm going to check out very thoroughly the link which you provided. One thing though, your quote which I highlighted in blue above does not make much sense with me, i.e., "we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability....that has gone out of control."

Take the case of stagefright, someone is extremely nervous when speaking in front of an audience. Such a person avoids public speaking and if forced to speak in public, he stammers and stutters while his arms and legs shake, totally out of the person's control. To me it is a stretch to consider this particular aberration an ability. If a guy can't do math and can't understand or perform basic math operations in multiplication, division, and fractions, I don't see in any way how that could be called an ability. A person could go around saying, "I have the ability to not be able to do math." Those words can be used but using them seems to me to be a bunch of giberish.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I like your post Gib and I'm going to check out very thoroughly the link which you provided. One thing though, your quote which I highlighted in blue above does not make much sense with me, i.e., "we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability....that has gone out of control."

Take the case of stagefright, someone is extremely nervous when speaking in front of an audience. Such a person avoids public speaking and if forced to speak in public, he stammers and stutters while his arms and legs shake out of control, totally out of the person's control. To me it is a stretch to consider this particular aberration an ability. If a guy can't do math and doesn't understand nor perform basic math operations in multiplication, division, and fractions, I don't see in any way how that could be called an ability. A person could go around saying, "I have the ability to not be able to do math." Those words can be used but using them seems to me to be a bunch of giberish.
Lakey

Not when one considers the stagefright was an ability used by a person to do something earlier which resulted in a good result for the person, but it, stagefright, got stuck with the person. For example, maybe the stagefright was used by a person to get out of having a fight when the person was a kid.

As far as math or any other thing one can learn, well, you either learn it or not learn it. If one learns math, then one has the ability. If one does not learn math, then one does not have the ability to do math. For example, I do not know how to tie knots, never learned it. Is that an aberration? I don't think so, it just means I do not know how to tie knots.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Not when one considers the stagefright was an ability used by a person to do something earlier which resulted in a good result for the person, but it, stagefright, got stuck with the person. For example, maybe the stagefright was used by a person to get out of having a fight when the person was a kid.

As far as math or any other thing one can learn, well, you either learn it or not learn it. If one learns math, then one has the ability. If one does not learn math, then one does not have the ability to do math. For example, I do not know how to tie knots, never learned it. Is that an aberration? I don't think so, it just means I do not know how to tie knots.

Come on now, we are talking about aberrations here, not just the inability to do a task, Also in the math example, it is not that one just doesn't learn math, that would not be an aberration. An aberration would be that he has a mental block against understanding math. He takes classes and simply cannot grasp the subject. Such people exist and one such person is my brother, a person of very high intelligence in many other fields but with an inability to learn math. He has a lack of any ability in the subject and that in no way is an ability. It is true that he can use that inability to get out of doing certain types of jobs and he has done that all his life.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Come on now, we are talking about aberrations here, not just the inability to do a task, Also in the math example, it is not that one just doesn't learn math, that would not be an aberration. An aberration would be that he has a mental block against understanding math. He takes classes and simply cannot grasp the subject. Such people exist and one such person is my brother, a person of very high intelligence in many other fields but with an inability to learn math. He has a lack of any ability in the subject and that in no way is an ability. It is true that he can use that inability to get out of doing certain types of jobs and he has done that all his life.
Lakey

depends on what your definition of "aberrations" is?

what is your understanding of the word?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

depends on what your definition of "aberrations" is?

what is your understanding of the word?

I use the standard dictionary definition of the word. Of those listed below, number 3. represents the definition which I am using. Number 2 also applies.
aberration (ˌæbəˈreɪʃən)
n
1. deviation from what is normal, expected, or usual
2. departure from truth, morality, etc
3. a lapse in control of one's mental faculties
4. (General Physics) optics a defect in a lens or mirror that causes the formation of either a distorted image or one with coloured fringes. See also spherical aberration, chromatic aberration

Here are some more dictionary definitions: The noun aberration often refers to something that doesn't fit with current moral standards, or is something that shows a mental lack of control. Aberration comes from the Latin word that means "to wander, go astray."
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I use the standard dictionary definition of the word. Of those listed below, number 3. represents the definition which I am using. Number 2 also applies.
aberration (ˌæbəˈreɪʃən)
n
1. deviation from what is normal, expected, or usual
2. departure from truth, morality, etc
3. a lapse in control of one's mental faculties
4. (General Physics) optics a defect in a lens or mirror that causes the formation of either a distorted image or one with coloured fringes. See also spherical aberration, chromatic aberration

Here are some more dictionary definitions: The noun aberration often refers to something that doesn't fit with current moral standards, or is something that shows a mental lack of control. Aberration comes from the Latin word that means "to wander, go astray."
Lakey

thanks for answering my question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

"the map is not the territory"

or the word, "aberration", is not the territory.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

thanks for answering my question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

"the map is not the territory"

or the word, "aberration", is not the territory.

You lost me. You started out with this statement from Idenics, "Instead of only observing aberrations from a negative perspective, we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability - but it is an ability that has gone out of control"

I disagreed with your above statement and did not feel that it makes any sense and the explanation you just sent me makes matters even worse. I have no idea what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make.

I expressed my disagreement in standard English and you answered with some cryptic "mumbo jumbo" which doesn't help but just makes me disagree with you more.

I was never interested in getting involved with a discussion about Idenics. I cited one concept in Idenics which I felt was an improvement over Dianetics as an illustration of the fact that Dianetics could be improved and that Hubbard's decree that no one but him could develop the subject further prevented Dianetics from being a living subject. I then pointed out that Dianetics was 1950's tech which was updated in the 70's and that being limited to 1970's tech in 2014 and beyond is rather passe and out of date. I stated that there is workability in Dianetics, in its 1970's version, but new techniques are now available by other contributors which when combined with 1970's Dianetics are more workable than using pure 1970's Dianetics alone.

That was the essence of my post. You seem to have a "hobby horse" in the subject of Idenics and are trying to steer me into a discussion comparing Dianetics and Idenics but I don't know enough about Idenics to participate in such a discussion. I suggested that you take the ball and lead the discussion.

You introduced some crytic type of mumbo jumbo in place of standard English which has made your posts more difficult for me to understand instead of making them easier to understand, as I had hoped. Therefore, our communication is going nowhere and is developing into a ball of confusion. As a result, I am going to exit from this discussion until such time as you can clarify your positions using standard English. If you can't do that, our discussion is over for now.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I like your post Gib and I'm going to check out very thoroughly the link which you provided. One thing though, your quote which I highlighted in blue above does not make much sense with me, i.e., "we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability....that has gone out of control."

Take the case of stagefright, someone is extremely nervous when speaking in front of an audience. Such a person avoids public speaking and if forced to speak in public, he stammers and stutters while his arms and legs shake, totally out of the person's control. To me it is a stretch to consider this particular aberration an ability. If a guy can't do math and can't understand or perform basic math operations in multiplication, division, and fractions, I don't see in any way how that could be called an ability. A person could go around saying, "I have the ability to not be able to do math." Those words can be used but using them seems to me to be a bunch of giberish.
Lakey

Would it not be that what " I don't see " or 'do see' is that persons reality but not necessarily the reality of any one else?

Unless, of course, what a person doesn't see they feel means no other person could see. That would be revealing, wouldn't it ?

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It really isn't rocket science. There are "clear" and "OT" abilities in all of us, some more so or much more so than in others. Similarly, there are aberrations in all of us, some more so or much more so than others. Hubbard's initial definitions of the terms "clear" and "OT" painted a picture that such an individual would essentially be devoid of all aberrations. Neither Hubbard nor any one else has ever been able to produce such a person and probably no such person will never exist in this universe. Second, no individual has attained all the positive attributes of a Book One clear or a full OT. Thus Hubbard overshot the mark, making claims he could not deliver on.
Lakey

Ah, all, have these abilities - which sort of begs the question that being all people have these abilities - to one degree or another - then doesn't that make the whole of the dianetics / scn thing unnecessary for anybody ?

Anybody care to define "scam" ?

Added : Let me see, I could buy a restored 1950 Ford or a 2015 Ford - gee, which makes sense ?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Would it not be that what " I don't see " or 'do see' is that persons reality but not necessarily the reality of any one else?

Unless, of course, what a person doesn't see they feel means no other person could see. That would be revealing, wouldn't it ?

Yes, of course! When I use the term, "I don't see", it is a tacit admission that hopefully someone else can see! It is an invitation for the person I am communicating with, or someone else reading our exchange to come forward and clear things up for me (and other readers) so we can see more clearly in the particular area under discussion. I desperately want to be enlightened!!

In some ways it is like a woman who says "no" to a man but really wants him to make her see that she should be saying "yes"! Yep, no doubt about it, the way most people grow and expand their vision is for another person or persons to come forward and present new points of view in a manner compelling enough that he or she is able to expand his or her own vision.

ESMB is largely composed of egotists who are rigid in their thinking, set in their ways and who are unwilling and/or unable to change.

When this thread was going at its full force, 3000 to 4500 views per day, I was routinely accused of being an insecure egotist with fixed ideas of very limited depth, who was trying to drive up the stats on the thread so as to fan the flame of my own ego. That view of me was 180 degrees opposed to the truth. The truth is that I am one of the few posters on ESMB who is willing to change and willing to learn from others.

In actuality, I knew that I did not know and I was crying out for others to show me the way. I see myself as a blue collar guy, fairly smart and fairly well educated, among o group of people, many of whom are much smarter than I am. That is how I approached ESMB, always looking for someone to show me the way and always willing to change and expand my realities if someone wrote something with more truth in it that what I was writing. Many did come through and perform that function.

In this latest go around with Gib, I saw that he might be on to something and I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say in the hopes that I might be able to expand my understanding. Unfortunately, though he may see some truths which I currently don't see, he has not yet demonstrated that he has sufficient communication skills to communicate these truths to me.

That's all I am asking, show me where I am wrong so that I will be forced to adopt your point of view and expand my knowledge!
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You lost me. You started out with this statement from Idenics, "Instead of only observing aberrations from a negative perspective, we can see that an aberration is essentially an ability - but it is an ability that has gone out of control"

I disagreed with your above statement and did not feel that it makes any sense and the explanation you just sent me makes matters even worse. I have no idea what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make.

I expressed my disagreement in standard English and you answered with some cryptic "mumbo jumbo" which doesn't help but just makes me disagree with you more.

I was never interested in getting involved with a discussion about Idenics. I cited one concept in Idenics which I felt was an improvement over Dianetics as an illustration of the fact that Dianetics could be improved and that Hubbard's decree that no one but him could develop the subject further prevented Dianetics from being a living subject. I then pointed out that Dianetics was 1950's tech which was updated in the 70's and that being limited to 1970's tech in 2014 and beyond is rather passe and out of date. I stated that there is workability in Dianetics, in its 1970's version, but new techniques are now available by other contributors which when combined with 1970's Dianetics are more workable than using pure 1970's Dianetics alone.

That was the essence of my post. You seem to have a "hobby horse" in the subject of Idenics and are trying to steer me into a discussion comparing Dianetics and Idenics but I don't know enough about Idenics to participate in such a discussion. I suggested that you take the ball and lead the discussion.

You introduced some crytic type of mumbo jumbo in place of standard English which has made your posts more difficult for me to understand instead of making them easier to understand, as I had hoped. Therefore, our communication is going nowhere and is developing into a ball of confusion. As a result, I am going to exit from this discussion until such time as you can clarify your positions using standard English. If you can't do that, our discussion is over for now.
Lakey

I don't have a hobby horse. You are the one which mentioned Idenics, so I thought to tell my opinion.

Read the book Idenics, then we can continue to discuss, otherwise a comparison between the two are indeed fruitless.

If I only owned a Ford and you only owned a Chevy, well, how can we compare and take notes and come to a conclusion about which is better or more useful, until we owned both so as to compare notes, opinions, etc.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ah, all, have these abilities - which sort of begs the question that being all people have these abilities - to one degree or another - then doesn't that make the whole of the dianetics / scn thing unnecessary for anybody ?

No, your statement directly above is not true. The whole of the dianetics/sch thing does feature some workable tech but what one has to go through to receive it is not worth the damage done to you by the organization designed to take your money and deliver the tech to you.

Anybody care to define "scam" ?

Yes, my definition of a scam is a Gizmo post on ESMB which pretends to be intelligent and well thought out.

Added : Let me see, I could buy a restored 1950 Ford or a 2015 Ford - gee, which makes sense ?

I think your choices should be between a restored 1958 Edsel and a 1986 Yugo. Take your pick, both cars would do you proud!

This is one of the most infantile and stupidest posts which I have ever read! It features cherry picking quotes by taking lines out of context. It then bashes the quoted line without using any logic or references to back up its infantile conclusions

Some people such as JFK or Reagan were very good communicators, Einstein could see the structure of the universe better than other scientists of his time, mystics recall past life experiences and engage in out of body experiences. Mozart could compose music at an early age while Euler and Gauss knew advanced math at a similar age and Edgar Cayce could diagnose and prescribe cures for illness over the telephone in the 1920's. etc.,

The problem is that for most people, an ability might be displayed unexpectedly but the person can't repeat it on a one for one basis. Things happen without the person being in control. The person exhibiting the ability can't reproduce it at will whenever he wants to use it.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT HUBBARD PROMISED THAT IF THE STEPS OF HIS PROGRAMS WERE FOLLOWED, EVERYONE COULD ATTAIN THESE ABILITIES AND THEY WOULD BE PERMANENT ABILITIES A PERSON COULD USE ANY TIME HE WANTED.

You know, I said that I was smarter than average but many on ESMB were much smarter, well, the opposite is true as well. Many on ESMB are much stupider than me and judging by the quality of his posts, Gizmo, IMO, seems to be one such person.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't have a hobby horse. You are the one which mentioned Idenics, so I thought to tell my opinion.

Read the book Idenics, then we can continue to discuss, otherwise a comparison between the two are indeed fruitless.

If I only owned a Ford and you only owned a Chevy, well, how can we compare and take notes and come to a conclusion about which is better or more useful, until we owned both so as to compare notes, opinions, etc.

Your hobby horse is wanting to discuss a comparison between Idenics and Dianetics with me. Though I have told you over and over that I am not interested in doing that, you keep telling me to read the Idenics book and then hold a discussion with you. Why don't you start a new thread comparing those two subjects. Why try and force me to read a book and enter into a discussion with you about a topic which I am not interested in?

Yes, it's true that I mentioned Idenics but you have never really just told us your opinion. You keep trying to get me to read that book and then engage you in a comparison between Idenics and Dianetics but I am not currently interested in doing that. Just because I made a passing reference to one tenet of Idenics does not mean that I am obligated to discuss it with you. Anyway, I'm done with my discussion with you on this particular topic. I won't be responding any more so you can have the last word if you wish. The same thing is true for Gizmo, no more discussion or comments from me, he or she can have the last word.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: New Post from Mama

Here's the latest post from Mama:

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/24/36634...at-inspired-on-the-road-style-has-been-found#
Long-Lost Letter That Inspired 'On The Road' Style Has Been Found

November 24, 2014 5:46 PM ET
Lynn Neary 2010
LYNN NEARY
Listen to the Story
All Things Considered3 min 12 sec

Lakey for Mama

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well, for any who have even ever so lightly scanned over this thread will have already noticed that Lakey, bless his heart, seems to have a one note response to any posts that doesn't suit him.