The Major Flaw in Knowledgism
- Thread starter alex
- Start date
Vinaire
Sponsor
One thing I can say about Alex, is that he is close-minded. Close-mindedness is what is required in Scientology.
A close-minded person thinks that he knows it all, so there is no need to look further.
A person who is resistant to looking would obviously find Idenics unworkable, because Idenics works only when one looks. Only then discoveries are made.
If one cannot look then one simply chews again and again on the same things one has been aware of in the past. No discoveries are made.
.
A close-minded person thinks that he knows it all, so there is no need to look further.
A person who is resistant to looking would obviously find Idenics unworkable, because Idenics works only when one looks. Only then discoveries are made.
If one cannot look then one simply chews again and again on the same things one has been aware of in the past. No discoveries are made.
.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Too funny. I regularly attend "satsang" with gangaji, I tried idenics over the major prohibitations of my chosen church, I meditate daily, I read a WIDE variety of material....Including knoweldgisms....and Idenics.
I think your objections are in what I "see" more than in any understanding of how much or well I "look".
I look from where I am. That changes frequently.
It is entirely true that there is resistance in looking in regards to my own personal situation. In scientology that resistance would be referred to as case. Obviously it it the very things one is NOT looking at that are the most in need of being "seen", duplicated, looked at etc. Is calling me closed minded helpful to me in this? Is this idenics? Asserting someone is closed minded?
You most generously offered to process me. Don't take it personal that I haven't confronted my own considerations on it and taken advantage of your offer.
Last edited:
Vinaire
Sponsor
A close-minded person may read widely and examine things, but he would absorb, though in a different form, only what he already agrees with.
There wouldn't be anything fundamentally different, that he would find, from his closed-minded viewpoint.
.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
I though you had finally had it with me a year and a half ago when I called you a stupid C**t on another forum!
It took me a few hours of research to find the information that I posted on this thread. (I am friends with google) The opinions about knowledgism are the result of much longer thought, and in fact I expressed the same basic thoughts on alt.clearing.technology 5 or 6 years ago, regarding "teamates" and the aims. (And I suspect THAT is the reason Alan took an interest in me and seemed to have decided that I was OSA)
I always read your posts Nick, you have a viewpoint about things that resonate with me as true. I find what you have to say, valuable.
But dont be discouraged that I say things you can not agree with. That is one of the downfalls of the church, the range of acceptable thought became narrower and more rigid.
Any idea, no matter how far out of the norm, has value, even if as an example of "wrong" thinking. The breadth and diversity of ideas out there is the defining element of the field of play for our intellectual exploration.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
So what solution to "closemindedness"? Looking?
How do you achieve this resolution to paradox? Severe reality adjustment? ECT? Reference to Source? Invalidation and evaluation?
My apologies for disappointing you. I look from where I am.
Vinaire
Sponsor
Maybe you are not closed-minded in general, I don't know, but from what you are saying you seem to be closed-minded as far as Idenics is concerned.
That is just my observation, and I don't need to take any further action consequent to that observation.
As far as I am concerned you may continue on your present course. That is fine with me.
.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
I am "closeminded" about idenics because of my experience of having it applied on me by its prime practitioner. Part of my disappointment was due to the great hope I had for it, in a time of considerable upheavel in my emotional life. I had built it up as a last hope sort of thing in my mind. I guess this is something that I probably should not have brought to the experience, but I was sort of desperate. For me to even try Idenics was a difficult decision, as I am a scientologist and "other practices" are frowned on. I crossed a line I can not go back over.
I had hoped that it would help me resolve something fundamental, but it only ran as a light process and was no more helpful than a conversation. And of course I blame myself for "not looking" not having the confront etc.
(I was also bothered by what I felt was evaluative "coaching" by the practioner, his coffee drinking during the session and the quality of the apparently VOIP phone connection)
I feel stupid for being so dismissive of the various things I comment on, on this board, but sometimes I have to say what I say to get it out of me.
I am sure Idenics is miraculous for some people. I have read the "wins". Perhaps I would have similar success if I were looking from somewhere other than where I am. I feel like a suppressive person sometimes for the bad things I have to say about other peoples sacred cows...but then I cant be SP if I think I am....maybe just a jerk with no sense of propriety.
As always committing the biggest crime in the universe, being here and communicating.
Vinaire
Sponsor
Thank you for your explanation.
I try not to evaluate a subject simply by a brief encounter with its practitioner.
Yes, at first, I did evaluate Christianity by the horrible actions of Christian missionaries in India, but since then I have studied Chritianity from different angles and have found wonderful things in it, which, unfortunately, were missed by those Christian missionaries.
Anyway, my offer for a free Idenics session still stands. However, before I give Idenics session to anyone, I first address all their honest questions about Idenics to their satisfaction. This can be done in a phone conversation, of course.
.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Without taking sides here, if you Google as I just did >>>virginia boswarva knowledgism<<< it takes you straight to a page giving Virginia's surname, and if you then Google her name and nothing more the first hit is her Linked-In profile. No deep sleuthing required to find the connections.
Paul
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Or as I did originally, google "roger" and "knowledgism" (just two words after it became apparent to me that he was a knowledgist) and on the first page of hits;
http://www.abilityconsultants.com/aci_who.htm
I may not have even known Rogers last name before that! And hadn't even heard of Virginia. I didnt do anything major to find any of the information I did. But I am good at intuitively knowing what links to follow.
Last edited:
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
People sometimes treat Alex unfairly on this board and it's starting to get to him.
I understand.
If I was a Fairy Princess in a Rugby Match, or a NanoTechnologist at a Monster Truck Show, I would be a little miffed, too.
You should move out to the cornfields, Alex, and we could discuss Nagarjuna and Tetralemmic Logic in one of the bars around here.
At least you'd have one friend.
And so would I!
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Just like the CofS, Alex creates his own enemies. He seems to enjoy that.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
I understand Alex.
And have a lot of respect for him.
I don't know - I can't help it.
Vinaire
Sponsor
It's so unfair how a scientologist is treated on an ex-scientologist message board when he or she uses Hubbard's secret scientology PR tech on the ex-scientologists!
Alex is OK 'though because he has Ron's implanted certainty to protect him from all the evil SP's on ESMB.
Alex came on this thread with some, I thought, valid criticism of Knowledgism. At least a cirtique that warranted discussion. When confronted with accusations that he was running an OSA-style op on knowledgism, he responded by accusing his accusers of "always attacking, never defending". This is a perfect Scn PR action. Accuse the acusers of what they are accusing you of. It is also exactly what DM and TD are doing to Rathbum and Rinder.
It seems scientology black tech is alive and well on ESMB. It is designed to take the victim "down-tone" into anger and apathy.
Alex took a valid critique of a squirrel group's tech, showed how similar to Scn it is and how they use similar dissemination techniques and then having identified them in the readers' minds as an altered form of Scn, accused the squirrel group of using black Scn PR techniques for handling critics! QED - that "proves" they are scientology squirrels still using scientology!
Then Alex and his friends go all hurt and offended when the squirrels who were the victims of their op, get angry or hurt or critical! It is a perfect Hubbard reverse black ARC tech application.
It's a perfect misrepresentation trap, grounded in a part-truth, which Hubbard taught his disciples.
My guess is that "Alex" knew that the knowledgists would never seriously debate his criticism, especially due to the already existing antagonism between him and them.
It was a deliberate scn black PR op. This thread was always addressed to knowledgism's potential audience, it was never really addressed to the knowledgists, they were just used to influence the thinking of ESMBers - to get ESMBers to identify knowledgism as an inferior squirrel version of the purer Scn thech.
This black PR tech is periodically used on ESMB. Hubbard's tech is alive and well.
All you do is take something that has a grain of truth in it or a part-truth, misrepresent it, ridicule it, misrepresent it again, ridicule, misrepresent, etc and when the person is goaded into defending themselves you can turn around and say that that "proves" what you originally said was true.
Alex is not the only person who does this. Misrepresentation and goading have been used on ESMB to silence critics. Hubbard's tech is alive and well and even may be used by those who don't realise they are using it.
Rathbun, in his reply to Alanzo, warned against scn trolls being used to drive critics into apathy. The above black scientology tech has been used by trolls (scn ones or exes) to silence critics.
It is in the CofS's interests to allow ESMB to keep going so that it can be used for these black PR ops as well as, of course, for intelligence gathering purposes.
Sorry, Alanzo, your appeal for sympathy for Alex doesn't work on me. He is a self-confessed scientologist and therefore liable to any criticism of Scientology and Hubbard's dirty little tech tricks, especially when he is observed using them.
If you are a true friend, you could perhaps suggest to him that he knocks off using Hubbard's dirty tech or alternatively you could choose to support him and his dirty games. Which sort of friend are you Alanzo? :confused2: