Theetie-wheetie

[Vinaire]

In my opinion, a "theetie-weetie" would be one who gushes out with all kind of lofty sentiments about helping others, about being sweetness and light, and so on, but is incapable of backing them up with any kind of real and effective action; instead one just bumbles along.

One could be pushing such ideas in order to get attention and to feel better about oneself.

.

 

[me myself & i]

In my opinion, a "theetie-weetie" would be one who gushes out with all kind of lofty sentiments about helping others, about being sweetness and light, and so on, but is incapable of backing them up with any kind of real and effective action; instead one just bumbles along.

.

I hope you re-visit your quote when you are too old and too frail to back up your love of spiritual being in the world (i.e. others) with 'real and effective action'. From your lofty position of being in a wheelchair perhaps you will understand the foolishness and folly of such arrogance of speech. As you yourself bumble along.

mm&i

 

[uniquemand]

There's nothing wrong with being infirm. It's when you are spouting about how everything is wonderful, or will be wonderful, while things are falling down around you, or are about to, that you are being Theetie-Weetie. There's nothing arrogant about DOING something about your intentions, or asserting that this is effective action. While people might LIKE to have their thoughts rule the universe, and when we're old, that would be handy, it's not actually true, and this sort of magical thinking is typical of the Theetie-Weetie type.

 

[me myself & i]

There's nothing wrong with being infirm. It's when you are spouting about how everything is wonderful, or will be wonderful, while things are falling down around you, or are about to, that you are being Theetie-Weetie. There's nothing arrogant about DOING something about your intentions, or asserting that this is effective action. While people might LIKE to have their thoughts rule the universe, and when we're old, that would be handy, it's not actually true, and this sort of magical thinking is typical of the Theetie-Weetie type.

Fair enough. I get it. Well spoken.

Although I disagree.

When you say ones thoughts do not rule the universe, I say they do. At least ones thoughts rule the universe they live in. Whether right or wrong.
Not the objective universe of course, but the subjective one they live in. And the subjective trumps the objective everytime. Unless and until of course, the objective interferes. Lol.

The arrogance I spoke of was not about doing, but about speaking.

mm&i

 

[Vinaire]

I hope you re-visit your quote when you are too old and too frail to back up your love of spiritual being in the world (i.e. others) with 'real and effective action'. From your lofty position of being in a wheelchair perhaps you will understand the foolishness and folly of such arrogance of speech. As you yourself bumble along.

mm&i

It has got nothing to do with age.

A "theetie-weetie" is simply a big-time hypocrite.

.

 

[Carmel]

At the very least we have (yet another) demonstration for why the importance of the 'No Verbal Tech' rule; people have a vague concept which they infuse with their own 'meaning' and can't compare notes *till they're here*

Zinj

Ninety five percent of the scios I knew, learned ALL the "tech" they "knew", through verbal means or having it imposed on them. Clearly, they were the ones with all the certainty who "knew" it all. The stuff they preached and exercised, seemed like a foreign subject to those who actually studied the stuff, and ironically they were the one's who also harped on about "verbal tech".

 

[lionheart]

At the very least we have (yet another) demonstration for why the importance of the 'No Verbal Tech' rule; people have a vague concept which they infuse with their own 'meaning' and can't compare notes *till they're here*

Zinj

Thanks Zinj, I've personally found this idea of yours very useful. I noticed you mentioned this before on another thread.

In my opinion it is really useful to have input from someone who was never a scientologist.

I'd noticed how different the expressions on this thread were of our understandings of the term theetie-wheetie when we were in and I couldn't quite understand that, given the word clearing we were subjected to.

Your idea of how "no verbal tech" prevents discussion and sharing/comparing of ideas is really interesting.

Word clearing and starrate checkouts are limited in checking for understanding. So long as one could mouth the words of the definition and express some degree of understanding in a sentence, then one "passed".

It's not nearly as thorough as normal education where ideas are shared and discussed and papers are written.

Then of course, in Scn, once one has passed the checkout, one's understanding can be molded by the use of the word by one's peers, so that in the end one's concept can be radically different, yet we can still pass checkouts on the word.

Thanks for this new idea that you have given me.

 

[Zinjifar]

Thanks for the 'ack' What interests me on the idea is that, psychologically, once a person has put *himself* into a concept, and 'owns' it, he's much less likely to re-examine it.

After all; 'it's true for me'

Zinj

 

[nexus100]

Thanks for the 'ack' What interests me on the idea is that, psychologically, once a person has put *himself* into a concept, and 'owns' it, he's much less likely to re-examine it.

After all; 'it's true for me'

Zinj

Thus the importance of continued spiritual growth from as many viewpoints as one can assume. A concept that precludes further understanding may be a viewpoint, but is not a solution.

 

[Carmel]

Thanks Zinj, I've personally found this idea of yours very useful. I noticed you mentioned this before on another thread.

In my opinion it is really useful to have input from someone who was never a scientologist.

I'd noticed how different the expressions on this thread were of our understandings of the term theetie-wheetie when we were in and I couldn't quite understand that, given the word clearing we were subjected to.

Your idea of how "no verbal tech" prevents discussion and sharing/comparing of ideas is really interesting.

Word clearing and starrate checkouts are limited in checking for understanding. So long as one could mouth the words of the definition and express some degree of understanding in a sentence, then one "passed".

It's not nearly as thorough as normal education where ideas are shared and discussed and papers are written. Then of course once one has passed the checkout, one's understanding can be molded by the use of the word by one's peers, so that in the end one's concept can be radically different, yet we can still pass checkouts on the word.

Thanks for this new idea that you have given me.

Your experience was obviously in a different time and place to mine, Lionheart - us tech guys in Sydney discussed the tech constantly! Admittedly though, we didn't do so in earshot of those who weren't trained.

 

[lionheart]

Ninety five percent of the scios I knew, learned ALL the "tech" they "knew", through verbal means or having it imposed on them. Clearly, they were the ones with all the certainty who "knew" it all. The stuff they preached and exercised, seemed like a foreign subject to those who actually studied the stuff, and ironically they were the one's who also harped on about "verbal tech".

The scns you knew were radically different to the one's I knew!

In my day and in my scio environment, verbal tech was strongly forbidden. Even in casual conversation, if someone used a term that someone else didn't understand, the scn reference would be produced asap. Initially we only had the tiny "abridged dictionary" so we had to know the HCOB or PL to refer people to. Then years later the full Scn dictionary came out which was a great help. This sort of attitude severely limited our discussion of scn concepts except the most generally understood ones in the basic books like the dynamics.

How did your 95% get their tech verbally? How did this happen?

 

[Zinjifar]

But, is the 'mystery sandwich' pork or chicken or vegemite? Only the PC knows for sure...

Zinj

 

[lionheart]

Hi Lionheart, Hi ya'll,

This question you have raised is the current bain of my life.
First I better answer your query. Yes He was being insulted within the culture of Scn. It was implied that he was not seeing reality (the one they stick someone's nose in with an SRA) as the antagonist desired him to see. The antagonist was invalidating your friend's viewpoint and sying it was not as worthy as his own. [What a crock!].

Now, as to why this post is so significant for me.

In my real life I am a seminar presenter and a consultant. My mix of skills and methods is very wide and although the momoent I am consulting or speaking I am congruent, in my marketing of my identity I have enormous difficulty marrying up the two sides.

I have studied channelled books, religious books, the "law of attraction" theories in all their variations, quantum physics (not like graduate physics at Harvard, just the books and such that are made public) electrical theory, astrology, numerology, NLP, cognitive psychology, psych K, behavioural therapy, kinesiology, spiral dynamics, project management, small business management, retail analysis, the classics of Think and Grow Rich, Dale carnegie, Robert Kiosaki, etc.

My method includes using corporate type strategy and project planning with the support of the "soft" or what in my mind is "airy-fairy" [my version of theetie-wheetie] understandings I have gained.

I have sat CEO's down to teach them how to meditate. I have given them breathing excersizes to expell unwanted emotions, I have had mothers write full on projects to get their children through tough times.

But I am always the littlest bit embarrassed to admit my airy-fairy side. Deep inside I fear that it is invalid and "overly optimistic" and has no business being in my toolbox.

I've gushed, I know, but this is something that has been tripping me up for a couple of years now and... well, it seems every time I bring up a big black greebly icky yuk on this board, somehow it get's aired and the
cobwebs fly off and the indescision fades away.

So, WO, Lionheart, others, especially you who are management consultants and accountants and scientists and have hard nosed professional lives, what are your thoughts?

:confused2:

Can anyone offer Human Again any help/advice/experience with this?

 

[lionheart]

Thanks for the 'ack' What interests me on the idea is that, psychologically, once a person has put *himself* into a concept, and 'owns' it, he's much less likely to re-examine it.

After all; 'it's true for me'

Zinj

Oh! Yes! I really get that. I hadn't quite seen it like that before!

Your experience was obviously in a different time and place to mine, Lionheart - us tech guys in Sydney discussed the tech constantly! Admittedly though, we didn't do so in earshot of those who weren't trained.

Oh I'm not saying we didn't discuss tech between peers. We certainly did that. But that's not verbal tech, that's just communicating with the terminology learned. But I don't recall us ever altering meanings or giving verbal tech. But once there were two or more people with the same training exposure, then we certainly talked about it, especially when understanding the world and one's fellow Scns. The case evaluation of one's fellows was gross!

 

[Vinaire]

A few times I've been accused by ESMBers of being "theetie-wheetie" - as if this is a bad thing. Of course it was a "bad" thing as far as Hubbo was concerned.

What do ESMBer's think now about the concept of theetie-wheetie?

And what does the phrase actually mean apart from being one of several generalised Scn insults?

I remember in 1982 a new Scientologist (who years later became one of Scn's most vocal critics) being upset because his senior exec (who is still one of the major CofS Int execs) said he was "theetie wheetie". This was a direct insult over his pre-scn Quaker roots.

I had just done the HRD training and was all for respecting others and their beliefs. (Praise be to David Mayo for developing the Happiness Rindown and freeing so many of us from the brainwashing cult! )

So I undid the cuel invalidation of the exec and the newbie glowed at my validation of his Quaker beliefs.

Was he "theetie-wheetie"? Is it an insult or in fact a compliment?

One uses a word to express what one observes. One may use some other word to describe the same observation better.

The observation does not change, if the word, which was used, is found to have a different meaning.

So, the meaning, which a person assigns to a word when using it, would be the most appropriate meaning for communicating a first hand observation, which is the case here. The scenario may change when one is describing a second hand observation. It may change further when describing a third or fourth hand observation.

If the object or characteristics are there, just observe them, rather than quibbling over the meaning of the word used in describing a first hand observation.

.

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
How did your 95% get their tech verbally? How did this happen?

From Execs, seniors or opinion leaders saying stuff like this:

-"well, I'm not surprised he pulled that in"

-"he's obviously got overts"

- "man, is she pts"

- "he's theetie weetie, drop the cycle, you won't get anywhere"

- "what a fucking ser fac"

- "make it go right"

- "pts to the middle class for sure"

- "what a 1.1 cunt"

- stop nattering"

-"don't backflash"

- "what an engram" etc, etc, etc.

All this sort of stuff - spoken with such certainty; and pushed down one's throats; time and time again; given particular or certain circumstances where and when it's said - does give staff and public a concept of what these terms mean. From my experience, these terms were bandied about in reference to different circumstances, on a constant basis - and were mostly mis-used.

When an individual hasn't studied the stuff themselves, they get a concept on all this, in this way, and start parrotting it off with the same certainty as the ones they heard it from. How many admin staff or public who have never trained, mouth off shit like "don't ser fac on me" or "time to write 'em up".

These guys wouldn't have a bloody clue about the tech on the subject, yet they parrot off this crap like 'masters' who know what they are talking about. It was like a cancer in our orgs.

 

[Zinjifar]

If the object or characteristics are there, just observe them, rather than quibbling over the meaning of the word used in describing a first hand observation.

.

What if the word is an empty spitoon that describes *nothing* but what you yourself spit into it?

Like; 'OT', 'Clear', 'SP', 'BT', 'Ever Dwindling Spiral', 'Win', yadda yadda...

Zinj

 

[Carmel]

But, is the 'mystery sandwich' pork or chicken or vegemite? Only the PC knows for sure...

Zinj

Hopefully, vegemite!

 

[lionheart]

From Execs, seniors or opinion leaders saying stuff like this:

-"well, I'm not surprised he pulled that in"

-"he's obviously got overts"

- "man, is she pts"

- "he's theetie weetie, drop the cycle, you won't get anywhere"

- "what a fucking ser fac"

- "make it go right"

- "pts to the middle class for sure"

- "what a 1.1 cunt"

- stop nattering"

-"don't backflash"

- "what an engram" etc, etc, etc.

All this sort of stuff - spoken with such certainty; and pushed down one's throats; time and time again; given particular or certain circumstances where and when it's said - does give staff and public a concept of what these terms mean. From my experience, these terms were bandied about in reference to different circumstances, on a constant basis - and were mostly mis-used.

When an individual hasn't studied the stuff themselves, they get a concept on all this, in this way, and start parrotting it off with the same certainty as the ones they heard it from. How many admin staff or public who have never trained, mouth off shit like "don't ser fac on me" or "time to write 'em up".

These guys wouldn't have a bloody clue about the tech on the subject, yet they parrot off this crap like 'masters' who know what they are talking about. It was like a cancer in our orgs.

Oh, I get what you are saying. Yes those things happened to in my day too. Maybe in my time a higher percentage also studied the source materials (got trained). So often such stuff as your examples above was peer to peer converstaion. But I get your point about a general environment of use of the terms creating a sort of verbal tech.

 

[lionheart]

What if the word is an empty spitoon that describes *nothing* but what you yourself spit into it?

Like; 'OT', 'Clear', 'SP', 'BT', 'Ever Dwindling Spiral', 'Win', yadda yadda...

Zinj

Theetie-wheetie seems to fit nicely into your list!

Hubbard implied it was a weakness, yet concepts like turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, the Golden Rule and the Virtues actually require great strength to apply.

That's what I regained from the Happiness Rundown.

Before I became a scientologist I had tried to be a christian and to be a hippy. So I had an inclination towards what Ron then taught me was theetie-wheetie. So I toughened up, became a tiger and got that dedicated stare.

As a scientologist I did some good, did some harm. But the spirit was cold and I was primed up for Ron's "upper level" implants.

Then David Mayo rescued me with his Happiness Rundown and I regained my pre-scn ideals. Of course Scn and I had to then part, like so many other HRD people did. But I was saved from Ron's spitoon!

Since then I have not lost my inspiration to the noble ideals, despite many failures!

I suppose I am still just not theetie-wheetie enough! But I'll keep trying!