Would it be better if Scientology never happened? (poll)

[Escalus]

Are you processing people on this thread?

.

Wait let me guess, Veneer's going to say (mock up the voice of the HAL on 2001)... "well, Dave, did it feel like I was processing you?"

"Why is that, Dave?"

"What is it I almost found out about?"

"Is there a reason you felt that way, Dave?"

And then don't forget that period for emphasis, as in...

.

 

[Vinaire]

Are you processing people on this thread?

.

Not really. But whenever somebody asks any questions it is kind of a processing because it makes the other person LOOK. Some people may get into figure-figure instead of looking, but that is how these few may have always acted.

In my view, life itself is a process. I wonder how many people would have thought that the questions, that I sometimes ask, are "processing questions" if they had never come across Scientology. At worst, It may have just reminded them of an interrogative parent or some such person.

But I find that a questioning approach is better than an evaluative approach because it gives another person a chance to look, and respond back, and not be stuck with some evaluation. There will always be some who get into figure-figure and may not be able to respond back properly, and may get adversely affected. But that may happen to them anyway in the process of living life. That cannot be prevented. But when they become aware of this condition of figure-figure, they can, at least, do something about it.

.

 

[Alanzo]

...

But I find that a questioning approach is better than an evaluative approach because it gives another person a chance to look, and respond back, and not be stuck with some evaluation. There will always be some who get into figure-figure and may not be able to respond back properly, and may get adversely affected. But that may happen to them anyway in the process of living life. That cannot be prevented. But when they become aware of this condition of figure-figure, they can, at least, do something about it.

.

Sorry, Vinaire.

I had to ask this:

What would the "proper" response be?

One that conformed with your idea of a proper response?

 

[Vinaire]

Could the following be considered a covert attempt to "process" another?

My opinion is not that Hubbard "planned" it. Rather he unknowingly played his aberrated, psychotic, paranoid games, starting with his self-agrandising affirmations. I feel so sorry for the man and for all his hapless victims!

I don't see your poll as a PR attempt. I see it more as an unknowing playing of Hubbard's identity and his self-created term-opterm game.

Hubbard's created terminals are not yours Alex! They never were. But your reply is still couched in Hubbardisms about games and terminals.

His so-called "terminals" are wrong. They were wrong for him and they are certainly wrong for you. It is an artificial construct. "GPMs" are wrong. Hubbards axioms about games are wrong.

How can I say they are wrong? - Because they don't work! Hubbard never rose above his self-implanted oppositions. Scn never cleared the planet. Therefore the theory must be wrong! :wink2:

I used Hubbard's terminology to show you how Scns are being Ron and playing his enforced identities. You would be mistaken to take it to mean that I see any workability in his bonkers theory.

If you are "exterior to duality", why did you create a dualistic poll? That's all I'm saying. Why a poll that is "me vs Hubbard haters"?

I wish you luck in dropping his terminology and error-filled axioms.

 

[Vinaire]

Sorry, Vinaire.

I had to ask this:

What would the "proper" response be?

One that conformed with your idea of a proper response?

A proper response, in my opinion, would be the result of LOOKING without any figure-figure.

I think LRH had some good data in OBNOSIS.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Your questions are what's called in the 'wog world' Leading Questions, and, yes, they are also 'processing questions'. Rather than being actual questions, they are an attempt to manipulate the questionee into accepting your 'authority' to lead him down the primrose path of Vinnairianism.

Your 'stable datum' is that you have the 'truth' (whichever truth you subscribe to this week) and that you are 'helping' the person by 'processing' him using manipulative tactics.

It's OK Vinnie; it's just your style.
And my evaluation.

Zinj

 

[SomeGuy]

There will always be some who get into figure-figure and may not be able to respond back properly, and may get adversely affected.
.

What is a proper response and who evaluates that?

.

Edit: Doh seems Alanzo asked the same question. I'd say great minds think alike but I don't want to insult alanzo.

 

[Vinaire]

Your questions are what's called in the 'wog world' Leading Questions, and, yes, they are also 'processing questions'. Rather than being actual questions, they are an attempt to manipulate the questionee into accepting your 'authority' to lead him down the primrose path of Vinnairianism.

Your 'stable datum' is that you have the 'truth' (whichever truth you subscribe to this week) and that you are 'helping' the person by 'processing' him using manipulative tactics.

It's OK Vinnie; it's just your style.
And my evaluation.

Zinj

Tell me anybody here who is not attempting to do any "processing" on another, whether through questions or through evaluation?

.

 

[Vinaire]

What is a proper response and who evaluates that?

.

See my answer to Alanzo above.

.

 

[SomeGuy]

A proper response, in my opinion, would be the result of LOOKING without any figure-figure.

I think LRH had some good data in OBNOSIS.

.

You're going to have to help me out here because the terms are not something I'm familiar with. Can you break that thought down into WOG terms.

Thanks.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Tell me anybody here who is not attempting to do any "processing" on another, whether through questions or through evaluation?

.

Instead of talking about *your* manipulative 'processing'?

Why would I do that?

Zinj

 

[nozeno]

It just helps me being in present time.

.

I believe YOU have no choice but to be in present time. To imagine otherwise is simply that, imagination.

 

[Vinaire]

You're going to have to help me out here because the terms are not something I'm familiar with. Can you break that thought down into WOG terms.

Thanks.

.

OBNOSIS means "observing the obvious." I interpret the function of LOOKING to be just that.

LOOKING is done in the present. Figure-figure takes one into the past.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Instead of talking about *your* manipulative 'processing'?

Why would I do that?

Zinj

I consider the type of example I gave from LH's post to be manipulative, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

There is nothing wrong with manipulative processing. It is the intention behind it that matters.

Would you consider your attempts to "process" others non-manipulative? You never do that or have done that, right?

.

 

[Vinaire]

I believe YOU have no choice but to be in present time. To imagine otherwise is simply that, imagination.

Imagination does affect one. What is past and future? What are past solutions? What is packaged thought?

.

 

[Zinjifar]

OBNOSIS means "observing the obvious." I interpret the function of LOOKING to be just that.

LOOKING is done in the present. Figure-figure takes one into the past.

.

What's 'obvious' to one, is possibly not to another.

Looking isn't seeing

'Figure-figure' is, even accepting Scientology usage, an *obsession* with the past; not mere recognition of it.

Is it your new-found Idenic-honed awareness that leads you to such antics?

Or, are you using 'other (previious) practices'?

Zinj

 

[SomeGuy]

OBNOSIS means "observing the obvious." I interpret the function of LOOKING to be just that.

LOOKING is done in the present. Figure-figure takes one into the past.

.

I find this an interesting thought, might I ask you to define the present for me. Because I don't actually think it exists.

And I might be being a bit literal here but it's pertinent to the concept of looking being done in the present and figure-figure being in the past.

I have a feeling your definitions is not actually what I'm interpreting them to be.

 

[Vinaire]

What's 'obvious' to one, is possibly not to another.

Looking isn't seeing

'Figure-figure' is, even accepting Scientology usage, an *obsession* with the past; not mere recognition of it.

Is it your new-found Idenic-honed awareness that leads you to such antics?

Or, are you using 'other (previious) practices'?

Zinj

Obviously, my perception is different from yours. Please go by your perception.

My intention is to help others. And I know myself quite well..

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Obviously, my perception is different from yours. Please go by your perception.

My intention is to help others. And I know myself quite well..

.

Your intention has *always* been 'to help others' Vinnie.

Even back when you were doing 'other practices'
That's my perception.

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

I find this an interesting thought, might I ask you to define the present for me. Because I don't actually think it exists.

And I might be being a bit literal here but it's pertinent to the concept of looking being done in the present and figure-figure being in the past.

I have a feeling your definitions is not actually what I'm interpreting them to be.

To me present is what is present. If a memory of past presents itself then that memory or picture exists in the present.

Figure-figure involves speculation about things that are not already there. One is putting speculations there after the fact of the question in order to come up with an answer.

.