My talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention

[freet43]

I can't speak for others

however, I rarely use the term Scientology - it is too charged in many people's minds...

Nor do I ever tell anyone "I am a Scientologist" - I have had no connection to the cult in over 30 years!

I use the words Freezoner or independent...

On the other hand, I've had great success in work and in life applying the most basic of principles that I learned on course and on staff decades ago.

Those ideas and techniques work and I am happy to acknowledge that they are Scientology.

Marina



Thanks Marina ... I do get that, but I don't understand why they are still calling it (and themselves) scientology/scientologists when they are clearly not.

What is that all about?



:confused2:[/QUOTE]

[I told you I was trouble]

Well, Trouble, I learned what I am practicing from Scientology materials and sources involved in piloting and development of techniques, working with Ron Hubbard. Perhaps you think I'm being humble, but I really can't see labeling it "Dex-ology":D

Love, Dex



Nonsense Dex! I think you might need to get your self esteem looked at.

:happydance:


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwnueU0Lyrc&feature=related

[I told you I was trouble]

Professionalism is a good term--and yes I have seen "TRs robots".

Interesting to bullbait some Scientologists trained with "robotic TRs"--

"Get your TRs in!"


You watch the head move a bit side to side, then the eyes move to lock onto your gaze--then "the stare".



When I say "TRs" I just mean "good communication skills", which is very much a part of professionalism.


Oh.

:p

[I told you I was trouble]

I can't speak for others

however, I rarely use the term Scientology - it is too charged in many people's minds...

Nor do I ever tell anyone "I am a Scientologist" - I have had no connection to the cult in over 30 years!

I use the words Freezoner or independent...

On the other hand, I've had great success in work and in life applying the most basic of principles that I learned on course and on staff decades ago.

Those ideas and techniques work and I am happy to acknowledge that they are Scientology.

Marina



Aha!

Now I see ... I think.


:whistling:

[I told you I was trouble]

Some do. What distinguishes the freezone is that individuals are free to do as they wish. Individuals choose differently.


Mark A. Baker

Indeed they do.

:yes:

[Infinite]

But, why not cease to call it scientology if they only use the bits they like?


Good question. By the definitions of Hubbard, the FreeZone is definitely not Scientology, yet the FreeZoners accept other definitions like Engrams (or Incidents or Body Thetans or whatever the current term is). Also, some in the FreeZone admit, albeit reluctantly in many cases, Hubbard's myriad and profound faults, yet still adhere to his word when it comes to melding their perception of reality. This behaviour seems to me to have reduced the subject of Scientology down to a pick'n'mix supermarket aisle - I'll have a bunch of Affinity to lure the PCs, a little bit of Ethics, a kilo of theta, and a smidgeon of the exchange policy, thanks.

What surprises me is that even in full knowledge of Hubbard's evil, the FreeZone prefer his word to further investigating the source of his material. No need to delve in the devil-worshipping Crowley (unless you want to), but why not take a fresh look at abreaction therapy, for example, and read some material that was written this century? Scientology is the only "science of the human mind" that has not needed updating in the last 60 years -doesn't that seem just a bit odd?

And then there's the whole marketing/PR aspect to associating oneself to the filthy and discredited brand of Scientology. Simply mentioning the word among people who have had nothing to do with the subject prompts automatic chuckles and head-shaking at the mind-numbing gullibility of people drawn into UFO cults. It really doesn't make sense that the FreeZone would want to associate themselves the word "Scientology".

So, what is it? Why do they cling to the word?

I suspect they are sheltering behind the religious connotations of the word so as to avoid any scrutiny of the efficacy of their tech. It allows them to say before a judge "we are practising a religion and, therefore, there's no need for us to prove our claims, or be licensed, or in anyway be held accountable to consumer protection laws." You should hear them squeal about why the FreeZone e-meters don't *have* to carry the FDA advisory.

[AlphOhm]

Good question. By the definitions of Hubbard, the FreeZone is definitely not Scientology, yet the FreeZoners accept other definitions like Engrams (or Incidents or Body Thetans or whatever the current term is). Also, some in the FreeZone admit, albeit reluctantly in many cases, Hubbard's myriad and profound faults, yet still adhere to his word when it comes to melding their perception of reality. This behaviour seems to me to have reduced the subject of Scientology down to a pick'n'mix supermarket aisle - I'll have a bunch of Affinity to lure the PCs, a little bit of Ethics, a kilo of theta, and a smidgeon of the exchange policy, thanks.

What surprises me is that even in full knowledge of Hubbard's evil, the FreeZone prefer his word to further investigating the source of his material. No need to delve in the devil-worshipping Crowley (unless you want to), but why not take a fresh look at abreaction therapy, for example, and read some material that was written this century? Scientology is the only "science of the human mind" that has not needed updating in the last 60 years -doesn't that seem just a bit odd?

And then there's the whole marketing/PR aspect to associating oneself to the filthy and discredited brand of Scientology. Simply mentioning the word among people who have had nothing to do with the subject prompts automatic chuckles and head-shaking at the mind-numbing gullibility of people drawn into UFO cults. It really doesn't make sense that the FreeZone would want to associate themselves the word "Scientology".

So, what is it? Why do they cling to the word?

I suspect they are sheltering behind the religious connotations of the word so as to avoid any scrutiny of the efficacy of their tech. It allows them to say before a judge "we are practising a religion and, therefore, there's no need for us to prove our claims, or be licensed, or in anyway be held accountable to consumer protection laws." You should hear them squeal about why the FreeZone e-meters don't *have* to carry the FDA advisory.

hiya BLiP

try extrapolating a bit on this datum:

Thomas Jefferson bought, sold and kept black people as slaves.

[Mark A. Baker]

What surprises me is that even in full knowledge of Hubbard's evil, the FreeZone prefer his word to further investigating the source of his material.

It's not that simplistic, but the simple answer to your attempted question is that much of the actual tech of auditing as it was written up in bulletins & given in lectures is quite practical for use as a genuine spiritual technology. Lots of freezone auditors investigate earlier sources of tech but still dig out the standard processes, rundowns, & correction lists, as they may feel they are warranted for a given situation.

Hubbard's flaws do not equate to the tech itself being either ineffective or without value.


Mark A. Baker

[I told you I was trouble]

Good question. By the definitions of Hubbard, the FreeZone is definitely not Scientology, yet the FreeZoners accept other definitions like Engrams (or Incidents or Body Thetans or whatever the current term is). Also, some in the FreeZone admit, albeit reluctantly in many cases, Hubbard's myriad and profound faults, yet still adhere to his word when it comes to melding their perception of reality. This behaviour seems to me to have reduced the subject of Scientology down to a pick'n'mix supermarket aisle - I'll have a bunch of Affinity to lure the PCs, a little bit of Ethics, a kilo of theta, and a smidgeon of the exchange policy, thanks.

What surprises me is that even in full knowledge of Hubbard's evil, the FreeZone prefer his word to further investigating the source of his material. No need to delve in the devil-worshipping Crowley (unless you want to), but why not take a fresh look at abreaction therapy, for example, and read some material that was written this century? Scientology is the only "science of the human mind" that has not needed updating in the last 60 years -doesn't that seem just a bit odd?

And then there's the whole marketing/PR aspect to associating oneself to the filthy and discredited brand of Scientology. Simply mentioning the word among people who have had nothing to do with the subject prompts automatic chuckles and head-shaking at the mind-numbing gullibility of people drawn into UFO cults. It really doesn't make sense that the FreeZone would want to associate themselves the word "Scientology".

So, what is it? Why do they cling to the word?

I suspect they are sheltering behind the religious connotations of the word so as to avoid any scrutiny of the efficacy of their tech. It allows them to say before a judge "we are practising a religion and, therefore, there's no need for us to prove our claims, or be licensed, or in anyway be held accountable to consumer protection laws." You should hear them squeal about why the FreeZone e-meters don't *have* to carry the FDA advisory.

I find it very odd myself Blip but have decided that allegiances with each other in the FZ are built and are hard to break and I do understand that to a degree (especially after all the likely losses they endured being associated with scientology beforehand) and perhaps the word and concept of scientology is what still binds them.


:unsure:

[Infinite]

hiya BLiP

try extrapolating a bit on this datum:

Thomas Jefferson bought, sold and kept black people as slaves.

As per the law of the land at that time, Tomas Jefferson bought and sold slaves. By all accounts he treated them well. A subsequent raising of social consciousness saw slavery outlawed and his slaves were freed. The US still continues to suffer from the consequences of those earlier, less enlightened days and the general tendency among its people for denial of its brutal realities.

Today, in late 2010, Scientology still creates and keeps slaves, black and white. Despite the law. This is a direct result of the unquestioning and hypnotic-like state induced in its adherents by "tech" penned by L Ron Hubbard. By all accounts, Hubbard's slaves are treated abominably.

[Mark A. Baker]

I find it very odd myself Blip but have decided that allegiances with each other in the FZ are built and are hard to break and I do understand that to a degree (especially after all the likely losses they endured being associated with scientology beforehand) and perhaps the word and concept of scientology is what still binds them.


:unsure:

For some it is still very important. And yes, we do try to support each other as best we can. So much of what is wrong about the church is how quick they can be in abandoning friends & associates who fail to conform.


Mark A. Baker

[I told you I was trouble]

For some it is still very important. And yes, we do try to support each other as best we can. So much of what is wrong about the church is how quick they can be in abandoning friends & associates who fail to conform.


Mark A. Baker

Whoops ... I generalised again ... (it's my suppressive nature, it's not really my fault).

:whistling:

Point taken and understood though Mark.

:)

[Infinite]

Hubbard's flaws do not equate to the tech itself being either ineffective or without value.

Absolutely. Hubbard's tech, without doubt, is effective and of value. The question is: is the effect positive and who is it that reaps the value? The first part of the question is answered by the fact that the evidence to date shows the tech has no positive value and any further scientific testing is being hugely resisted by those that practise it. The second part of the question is answered in by asking: who gets the cash?

[AlphOhm]

As per the law of the land at that time, Tomas Jefferson bought and sold slaves. By all accounts he treated them well. A subsequent raising of social consciousness saw slavery outlawed and his slaves were freed. The US still continues to suffer from the consequences of those earlier, less enlightened days and the general tendency among its people for denial of its brutal realities.

Today, in late 2010, Scientology still creates and keeps slaves, black and white. Despite the law. This is a direct result of the unquestioning and hypnotic-like state induced in its adherents by "tech" penned by L Ron Hubbard. By all accounts, Hubbard's slaves are treated abominably.

Fair enough.

I would bet that the proportion of black slaves kept by the Church of Scientology is fairly low compared to the black/white distribution in the overall population, however. The Church of Scientology seems to historically be "white favoritist". They may be trying to remedy this though--recently you have probably noticed the [footbullet] move towards recruiting Black Muslims.

Nonetheless--would you reject *all* of Thomas Jefferson's work/data/etc based upon the fact that you might not agree with his position on slavery?

[Mark A. Baker]

Absolutely. Hubbard's tech, without doubt, is effective and of value. The question is: is the effect positive and who is it that reaps the value? The first part of the question is answered by the fact that the evidence to date shows the tech has no positive value and any further scientific testing is being hugely resisted by those that practise it. The second part of the question is answered in by asking: who gets the cash?

And if you had ever received good auditing you wouldn't be asking questions of this nature.

Questions like this are only to be expected however from those who have only experienced the abusive aspects of the Co$ and those with no personal experience at all to inform them.


Mark A. Baker

[dexter gelfand]

There actually are many people who like what they've read in books on Scientology, and on Dianetics. There are many people Who had auditing sessions and did very well, and wanted to continue. There are many people who became good auditors and got good results and wanted to continue.
Increasing numbers of these people whose experiences happened within the organizations of the CoS found what they experienced in those environments outside of session (and, as the tech was further and further corrupted, in sessions) increasingly off-putting, until breaking points were reached, and they distanced themselves.
Many have found, and are finding, that outside of the CoS, they can resume their auditing and/or training without the negatives of the CoS environment.

You can insist that this isn't true, that the processing techniques released by Hubbard are all "nonsense", "worthless", "harmful", "all a scam", etc, but that simply isn't so for all those who continue to enjoy the practice. That's about all there is to it, its no more complicated than that.

There are differing viewpoints about the individual values of the great number of processes under the umbrella of Scientology, and there's nothing wrong with that. People who can think and look for themselves don't need to unquestioningly accept an entire body of data; they can examine, experience and differentiate.

Calling it something other than Scientology would make it hard for those seeking auditing or training to find it, and would in fact be plagiarism. I don't argue that Hubbard has taken the credit for many things developed by others, but I don't see how denying that WE came to be familiar with these process as part of Scientology is anything but repeating and/or compounding the crime.

After all, had Hubbard not configured his systems and organizations, many of those who did contribute would likely never have been heard from, and these techniques never would have seen the light of day, so, without minimizing his less than honorable acts, there is great value in what he did accomplish, for many of us.

If there was no Dianetics book, and growth of organizations, John McMasters works in the medical field, John Galusha and Alan Walters work in other professions, this guy grows turnips, that one bags groceries, and no central organization is put there for all those worthy contributors to connect to, and develop what for many of us does have great value. This mix all came together through what is termed "Scientology". Connotations and semantics aside, that's how it is.

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

I find it very odd myself Blip but have decided that allegiances with each other in the FZ are built and are hard to break and I do understand that to a degree (especially after all the likely losses they endured being associated with scientology beforehand) and perhaps the word and concept of scientology is what still binds them.

I can accept that. Those who have endured a shared a tortuous journey often bond. Also, there are so few Scientologists willing to continue with the science fiction that, in order to survive, they need to gather together under a common banner, no matter how tattered. I still prefer my theory about the religious connotations of the word and the consequent shielding of proponents from scrutiny -but - yeah, it may only be a part of the answer.

[I told you I was trouble]

Some people really do need some attention and when they get one on one attention (with some added "affinity" thrown in) they feel better.

I wonder why there are so many EX PC's that don't want to know about it any longer? (I'm an EX PC and was audited by a class 8 so I assume she was considered a good auditor, and was so impressed that I just FN'd and soaked up the attention after a while ... I was young and believe it or not, a little bit gullible).

I have regular hysterically funny chats with people that I love and love me back and if you slapped me on an e-meter afterwards I would be FN VVVVGI's (I hate writing that lol).

Sometimes, we all just need to be with someone who cares.

[Infinite]

Questions like this are only to be expected however from those who have only experienced the abusive aspects of the Co$ and those with no personal experience at all to inform them.

The victims, and the wogs. Yeah, true, what would we know about anything? We might be able to understand but, because we don't agree, might as well write us off. Next lifetime, eh?

[Mark A. Baker]

I wonder why there are so many EX PC's that don't want to know about it any longer? (I'm an EX PC and was audited by a class 8 so I assume she was considered a good auditor, and was so impressed that I just FN'd and soaked up the attention after a while ... I was young and believe it or not, a little bit gullible).

Doesn't necessarily follow. Per some of the best, experience tends to count more than training, which makes sense. A lot of those with certs didn't actually spend that many hours "in the chair" all told.


Mark A. Baker

[I told you I was trouble]

Doesn't necessarily follow. Per some of the best, experience tends to count more than training, which makes sense. A lot of those with certs didn't actually spend that many hours "in the chair" all told.


Mark A. Baker

LOL!

This one certainly did.

[Infinite]

Nonetheless--would you reject *all* of Thomas Jefferson's work/data/etc based upon the fact that you might not agree with his position on slavery?

No, of course not. One must consider the times in which the person was living. Surely, you're not asking me to compare L Ron Hubbard with Thomas Jefferson, are you? Well, okay then, lets compare apples and oranges, just for fun:

Tomas Jefferson - philosopher, co-author of the US constitution, President of the USA, horticulturist, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, founder of the University of Virginia, and 19th Century keeper of slaves.


L Ron Hubbard - science fiction writer, hypnotist, devil worshipper, plagiarist, racist, homophobe, serial liar, criminal, fraud, drug abuser, coward, and 21st Century keeper of slaves.

Who would you trust with your mind?

[Mark A. Baker]

LOL!

This one certainly did.

I don't doubt you. I was going to edit my post to indicate I wasn't intending to denigrate your auditor. Unfortunately, my battery died just as I was going to save the edit. :eyeroll:

Time to let it charge up.


Mark A. Baker

[AlphOhm]

No, of course not. One must consider the times in which the person was living. Surely, you're not asking me to compare L Ron Hubbard with Thomas Jefferson, are you? Well, okay then, lets compare apples and oranges, just for fun:


L Ron Hubbard[/B] plagiarist



There

that

yes. that


uh huh, THAT


please tell me more about THAT...

[Veda]

One need only look at the CoS, FZ, and Indie Scientologists to see that these are mostly ordinary people with the added complication of feeling they're special by reason of being Scientologists. Scientology "tech" - overall - is not that effective. It just isn't. Its results compared to what was promised are disappointing - one only need look at the people themselves, the Scientologists, Clears, and OTs.

That doesn't mean that it isn't interesting and doesn't have some value - if one separates the useful bits and pieces - but those bits and pieces, after being separated from the subject, aren't Scientology anymore. That's why the best auditors no longer call themselves Scientologists.

Granted, this is lost on the Scientologists, who are still tranced up. (For want of a better way of describing it.)

When I left Scientology, it took me - maybe - a year, to realize things that the average FZ/Indie Scientologist realizes in maybe five years, and it took me about three years to realize what the average FZ/Indie Scientologist usually doesn't even begin to realize after twenty years outside the CofS. By my forth or fifth year out, I had arrived at an awareness that most FZ/Indies never achieve. :hattip: (Please withhold applause.:p) Why? Frankly, because many are in a state similar to an hypnotic trance. Others are just shallow go-with-the-flow types. Some are just s_l_o_w. And, so this list won't be incomplete, some know better and see the vulnerable still-entranced Scientologists as an exploitable customer base, eager to be led onto the Bridge, past the initial cathartic moments of abreaction (which convince the customer that this must be IT!), onward to Hubbardian Implants, Xenu, and a universe "crawling" with "BTs" which must be "blown."

And, if someone is not advocating following Scientology's Grade Chart, then that person is not a Scientologist anymore. And, if you're still auditing, and have rejected the Grade Chart, of course you're still an auditor, but you're no longer a Scientologist, not by any realistic (non-PR) meaning of the term. (Note to Scientology PR types: kindly bugger off.)

"Auditor" - as counselor - is an English language word which, in its benign manifestation, does contain something of value, IMO, regardless of having been tainted by Scientology's use of it on its bait and switch "Bridge," and regardless of having been tainted by (often well meaning but still entranced) Scientologists, who haven't realized that their spiritual leader L. Ron used "mental healing" to do something else. And that "something else" is still stuck to them, like a "kick me" sign stuck to the back of an unsuspecting patsy by a cruel prankster.

And the poor Scientologists can't figure out why people are snickering at them.

Oh well.

[AlphOhm]

One need only look at the CoS, FZ, and Indie Scientologists to see that these are mostly ordinary people with the added complication of feeling they're special by reason of being Scientologists. Scientology "tech" - overall - is not that effective. It just isn't. Its results compared to what was promised are disappointing - one only need look at the people themselves, the Scientologists, Clears, and OTs.

That doesn't mean that it isn't interesting and doesn't have some value - if one separates the useful bits and pieces - but those bits and pieces, after being separated from the subject, aren't Scientology anymore. That's why the best auditors no longer call themselves Scientologists.

Granted, this is lost on the Scientologists, who are still tranced up. (For want of a better way of describing it.)

When I left Scientology, it took me - maybe - a year, to realize things that the average FZ/Indie Scientologist realizes in maybe five years, and it took me about three years to realize what the average FZ/Indie Scientologist usually doesn't even begin to realize after twenty years outside the CofS. By my forth or fifth year out, I had arrived at an awareness that most FZ/Indies never achieve. :hattip: (Please withhold applause.:p) Why? Frankly, because many are in a state similar to an hypnotic trance. Others are just shallow go-with-the-flow types. Some are just s_l_o_w. And, so this list won't be incomplete, some know better and see the vulnerable still-entranced Scientologists as an exploitable customer base, eager to be led onto the Bridge, past the initial cathartic moments of abreaction (which convince the customer that this must be IT!), onward to Hubbardian Implants, Xenu, and a universe "crawling" with "BTs" which must be "blown."

And, if someone is not advocating following Scientology's Grade Chart, then that person is not a Scientologist anymore. And, if you're still auditing, and have rejected the Grade Chart, of course you're still an auditor, but you're no longer a Scientologist, not by any realistic (non-PR) meaning of the term. (Note to Scientology PR types: kindly bugger off.)

"Auditor" - as counselor - is an English language word which, in its benign manifestation, does contain something of value, IMO, regardless of having been tainted by Scientology's use of it on its bait and switch "Bridge," and regardless of having been tainted by (often well meaning but still entranced) Scientologists, who haven't realized that their spiritual leader L. Ron used "mental healing" to do something else. And that "something else" is still stuck to them, like a "kick me" sign stuck to the back of an unsuspecting patsy by a cruel prankster.

And the poor Scientologists can't figure out why people are snickering at them.

Oh well.

/golfclap





(::::cough::::grade IV::::/sneeze::::cough::::)




thank you for sharing that

[Infinite]

please tell me more about THAT...

Heh! Is that as far as you got? What a pity. Never mind. Gotta start somewhere. So, here you go, read all about Hubbard's plagiarism, fill yer boots me hearty.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/index.html

[AlphOhm]

Heh! Is that as far as you got? What a pity. Never mind. Gotta start somewhere. So, here you go, read all about Hubbard's plagiarism, fill yer boots me hearty.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/index.html

Nice BLiP

I see that you like to play "dessert topping"/"floor polish".

you whine "plagiarism", yet blame "Hubbard"


You flip flop so much--


I am sorry about your inability to hold a position in space.


I do not wish to make any effort to help you with that.






Thank you for playing.

[Infinite]

Nice BLiP

I see that you like to play "dessert topping"/"floor polish".

you whine "plagiarism", yet blame "Hubbard"


You flip flop so much--


I am sorry about your inability to hold a position in space.


I do not wish to make any effort to help you with that.






Thank you for playing.

You're the one asking for details about Hubbard's plagiarism - I'm the one presenting the dox. Then, once they are before you, out pops:


Scientology 101: When confronted with inconvenient facts and/or irrefutable logic, bring out the ad homs

You lasted quite well this time. I think we're making progress. Just so you know, I'm quite happy with whatever it is that you describe as my whining, blaming, flip-flopping, game-playing inability, so, please, save the pity for yourself.

[degraded being]

I think its a jargon thing. " occupying the same space as" is the definition
of affinity in scientologese.




It's a cult thing. And Dex gave a good explanation of what you do, which your good friend Veda, whose space you find difficult to *occupy* calls "schmoozing".

And very interesting that *occupation* of another's space can be used to "maintain affinity". Trust hubbard to think in war-strategy terms. But that is your ongoing strategy. You can scoff at it if you like. But you do suck up a lot, in order to keep in good with everybody from everywhere so that scientology can be promoted.

[Panda Termint]

Wow, I managed to read about 14 pages of this thread... that was enough.

I like the following quote from The Dalai Lama:

Sometimes, when we are discouraged by a difficult situation, anger does seem helpful, appearing to bring more energy, confidence and determination. And while it is true that anger brings extra energy, it eclipses the best part of our brain: its rationality. So the energy of anger is almost always unreliable. It can cause an immense amount of destructive, unfortunate behavior.

[Terril park]

LR met a demise? :( I did not know this. I enjoyed her character "The File Clerk" on early freezone sites.

"Fileclerk" was a name used by Ralph Hilton on occasion.

[dexter gelfand]

I have regular hysterically funny chats with people that I love and love me back and if you slapped me on an e-meter afterwards I would be FN VVVVGI's (I hate writing that lol).

Sometimes, we all just need to be with someone who cares.
Absolutely! Great point, and I couldn't agree more:) This kind of thing makes for a good life. I wish what Trouble has in her life for all of us.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

the poor Scientologists can't figure out why people are snickering at them. Oh well.
One thing I realized for myself a long time ago that the worse, or least appropriately, one is behaving, or living their life, the less safe they feel they are.

This bears a relation to the points I make in my FZ talk, regarding viewpoints, the acceptance of (or willingness to experience) others' viewpoints.

In my experience and observation, a person who does not feel very threatened by differing viewpoints is either secure enough in his own viewpoint, or not troubled by the idea of changing his mind. He doesn't feel much of a need to assert that those who see things differently have to be wrong so he can be safe and be right. Such a person would tend to express their own views by prefacing their statements with "I feel..." "In my opinion...", "In my experience...", etc. He doesn't feel a need to enforce his views on others with assertive statements that make others wrong for seeing things differently. He can receive and experience differing views without mounting resistance to them, because he does not feel threatened. Ridiculing people for thinking differently than you is a symptom of feeling threatened by them. Stating your professed views in a way intended to enforce them on others(which is foolish), and doing so publicly will create a conflict. When it descends into "You're obviously wrong because everybody else agrees with me, and they are snickering at you", well, clearly, that's just not a good way to be, and doesn't speak well for whatever views are being asserted.:unsure:


I enjoy having a friendly and spirited exchange of viewpoints, and we've got a good one going, for the most part, on this thread.:thumbsup:

I'd like to respectfully point out that a friendly, spirited exchange of viewpoints can be furthered by making your point by acknowledging in your statements that it is your viewpoint, and not some rigid universal fact that makes everyone who has a different view wrong, and by demonstrating that its perfectly ok for others to have their own viewpoints.

This actually makes it much easier for people to accept or consider your views, rather than reacting to them. Really facilitates our understanding and appreciating each other, and makes it more fun:)

Love, Dex

[Auditor's Toad]

One need only look at the CoS, FZ, and Indie Scientologists to see that these are mostly ordinary people with the added complication of feeling they're special by reason of being Scientologists. Scientology "tech" - overall - is not that effective. It just isn't. Its results compared to what was promised are disappointing - one only need look at the people themselves, the Scientologists, Clears, and OTs.

That doesn't mean that it isn't interesting and doesn't have some value - if one separates the useful bits and pieces - but those bits and pieces, after being separated from the subject, aren't Scientology anymore. That's why the best auditors no longer call themselves Scientologists.

Granted, this is lost on the Scientologists, who are still tranced up. (For want of a better way of describing it.)

When I left Scientology, it took me - maybe - a year, to realize things that the average FZ/Indie Scientologist realizes in maybe five years, and it took me about three years to realize what the average FZ/Indie Scientologist usually doesn't even begin to realize after twenty years outside the CofS. By my forth or fifth year out, I had arrived at an awareness that most FZ/Indies never achieve. :hattip: (Please withhold applause.:p) Why? Frankly, because many are in a state similar to an hypnotic trance. Others are just shallow go-with-the-flow types. Some are just s_l_o_w. And, so this list won't be incomplete, some know better and see the vulnerable still-entranced Scientologists as an exploitable customer base, eager to be led onto the Bridge, past the initial cathartic moments of abreaction (which convince the customer that this must be IT!), onward to Hubbardian Implants, Xenu, and a universe "crawling" with "BTs" which must be "blown."

And, if someone is not advocating following Scientology's Grade Chart, then that person is not a Scientologist anymore. And, if you're still auditing, and have rejected the Grade Chart, of course you're still an auditor, but you're no longer a Scientologist, not by any realistic (non-PR) meaning of the term. (Note to Scientology PR types: kindly bugger off.)

"Auditor" - as counselor - is an English language word which, in its benign manifestation, does contain something of value, IMO, regardless of having been tainted by Scientology's use of it on its bait and switch "Bridge," and regardless of having been tainted by (often well meaning but still entranced) Scientologists, who haven't realized that their spiritual leader L. Ron used "mental healing" to do something else. And that "something else" is still stuck to them, like a "kick me" sign stuck to the back of an unsuspecting patsy by a cruel prankster.

And the poor Scientologists can't figure out why people are snickering at them.

Oh well.

Agreed ! As my dear wife says so kindly " Those FZ and Indie people don't seem to realize they are a only spin off of that Truman Show called scn".

And it seems the longer one was "in" and the higher they were on the "bridge" and the hiher their level of "training" the more respected they are on the various boards, blogs, and etc places. How come the ones who walked in and saw it for what it was and left aren't the most repected for their wisdom?

"Trance" is an extremely kind characterization.

[uniquemand]

While I respect people's good judgment who saw the con, I also respect people's good judgment who saw the value and decided to risk the con.

The people who committed acts to harm either their fellow staffers, public, or non-scientologists in the name of that value, IMO, destroyed the very value they were looking for. I came to an impasse, where I could no longer pursue the value without corroding my own integrity, and despite obvious danger to myself and my marriage, I walked away. Good on me, for that. I still didn't see it as a con, and didn't for many years, because what I had seen of it was not a con. Once a person gets to a point where they recognize that it is a con, if they stay, they "take on the colors of an enemy". To themself. To the group of people that they thought they were joining. To "The Aims of Scientology".

If they never see the con, then I consider them brainwashed, or naive, and the naivete would have to result from stupidity or extreme youth.

I respect the work it takes to master the skill sets of a highly classed auditor. I don't respect auditors who then fail to apply what they know to the organization that they are working for. FreeZone auditors I regard as very interesting cases. Many of them left for idealistic reasons consistent with why they joined the religion in the first place. It is surprising to me when they continue to offer the supposed "OT Levels", which are quite obviously brainwashing efforts, or at very best, serious breaches of c/sing basics.

I respect the people who walked away, but not more than those who walked away after getting the value that was offered. If someone were to show me a system that offered the value that Scientology dangles as bait, without the hooks and dangers of the "OT Levels" and organizations, I would jump on it. It's a shame that those sorts of systems are not more well-known, in the world, because they do exist.

[Voltaire's Child]

Agreed ! As my dear wife says so kindly " Those FZ and Indie people don't seem to realize they are a only spin off of that Truman Show called scn".

And it seems the longer one was "in" and the higher they were on the "bridge" and the hiher their level of "training" the more respected they are on the various boards, blogs, and etc places. How come the ones who walked in and saw it for what it was and left aren't the most repected for their wisdom?

"Trance" is an extremely kind characterization.

I am SO proud of myself for coining the term "indie Scientologist". Please feel free to thank me.

Point of fact, people who set up or participate in spin offs are people who act independently, figure out their own deal and have the courage to go against the grain. They end up bucking against the cultic tide of CofS and of the cultic tide of anyone else, here and there, who wants to tell them that they are wrong.

[Auditor's Toad]

"I am SO proud of myself for coining the term "indie Scientologist". Please feel free to thank me.

Point of fact, people who set up or participate in spin offs are people who act independently, figure out their own deal and have the courage to go against the grain. They end up bucking against the cultic tide of CofS and of the cultic tide of anyone else, here and there, who wants to tell them that they are wrong. "Please feel free to thank me.

"Please feel free to thank me."
Thank you !

It just seems to me that it is sort of funny to be in a spin off and claim how different it is from the original....and how much 'better', etc.


I do hope for all that they peel whatever onion they got from scn - and that they do peel it down to the truth instead of just that very outer layer.


"

[uniquemand]

A lot of us started by peeling the onion of scientology, and realizing that what was under the skin was actually other people's work from earlier in the century than Hubbard's writings. Then, if you look forward from those people's work, ignoring scientology, you see a very interesting advance of scientific thought, though much less hyperbolic than Hubbard, and not very influential in modern thought, which is mired in pharmaceuticals and marketing, insurance problems and reductionist errors. Nonetheless, once you spot the real sources, you can skip scientology. Some of the things people are calling offshoots of Scientology are actually offshoots of earlier forms of work, coupled with some of the things that made sense in scientology. Some still choose to call themselves scientology, some don't, which can get mightily confusing.

[Mark A. Baker]

LR met a demise? :( I did not know this. I enjoyed her character "The File Clerk" on early freezone sites.

Dhyan Marple, aka Lone Ranger ("LR"), died after suffering the effects of cancer in 2009. I'm not sure about this but I believe she suffered from lung cancer and had been a long term smoker.


Mark A. Baker

[Auditor's Toad]

To me " help ", " goodness " , " truth " and a whole host of desirable things ( states ) etc do not have to come wrapped in the trappings of a cult ( be it a main one or a souped up or watered down version of it ).

[dexter gelfand]

To me " help ", " goodness " , " truth " and a whole host of desirable things ( states ) etc do not have to come wrapped in the trappings of a cult ( be it a main one or a souped up or watered down version of it ).
No, they certainly don't have to come from any particular type of source, or experience, no question about it.
By the same token, any one of us can learn things from any other one of us, and enlightenment can be gotten from specific groups, disciplines, and/or practices. We are free to choose for ourselves, and that is something we can grant to each other, that right to seek, and to whatever degree derive, what we are seeking, from whatever source we choose to pursue.

Love, Dex

[Terril park]

You know, the mean and rude "unreasonable" Sea Org valence that some in power in the SO assumed...

Just wondering. I've never met the guy.

Marina

He may have his rough edges when away from the auditing chair, however
I must commend him for allowing my recent post through complete with links
to operation freakout.

[uniquemand]

Dhyan Marple, aka Lone Ranger ("LR"), died after suffering the effects of cancer in 2009. I'm not sure about this but I believe she suffered from lung cancer and had been a long term smoker.


Mark A. Baker

Man, that's too bad. What's worse is I didn't know. I had an affinity for LR, though she came to consider me a traitor when I booted from the FZ.

[dexter gelfand]

I was thinking about what more than one person has mentioned on this thread, that is, finding it confusing how some of us accept and use Scientology, but not necessarily all elements of the subject, and why we would still use that term.

Life is not generally so black and white, so absolute, although the mental work of inspecting and considering many minute details can be so daunting as to make us resort to looking for ways to paint a broad body of data all one simple and convenient way, all black or all white.

Nobody is right about everything or wrong about everything, and the same is true for organizations. The intelligent, and not mentally lazy, thing to do is to take a closer look, find what is good for you, and make use of it. Many of us can accept and understand that these processes actually come from a variety of sources, so, once one has had some worthwhile success with any part of it, its wise to be discerning and particular about what one accepts and uses, according to one's own experience, interest and judgement.

There are those of us who find great value in going "outside the box" of the "cookie-cutter Bridge" to better parallel the interest of the individual, with those techniques we have come to particularly trust and value, which relate to those particular concerns of the particular individual we are dealing with.

Not everybody recoils in horror at the use of the term "Scientology", in fact, like it or not, a good number of people are looking for it. Bear in mind that the mindset of people attracted to the term "ex-Scientologist" is not necessarily the mindset of everyone else.

The is a large world completely outside of this forum, and the people involved in it.

Love, Dex

[Auditor's Toad]

What comes to mind here is something Voltaire said

" God spare me from the righteouness of a zealot ".

[uniquemand]

Yes, whatever side or whatever cause they have.

[Voltaire's Child]

"I am SO proud of myself for coining the term "indie Scientologist". Please feel free to thank me.

Point of fact, people who set up or participate in spin offs are people who act independently, figure out their own deal and have the courage to go against the grain. They end up bucking against the cultic tide of CofS and of the cultic tide of anyone else, here and there, who wants to tell them that they are wrong. "Please feel free to thank me.

"Please feel free to thank me."
Thank you !

It just seems to me that it is sort of funny to be in a spin off and claim how different it is from the original....and how much 'better', etc.


I do hope for all that they peel whatever onion they got from scn - and that they do peel it down to the truth instead of just that very outer layer.


"

If spin offs weren't different from the original, they wouldn't be spinoffs.

I've been on critical fora since 1998. I've seen quite a few posts here and there wherein the contributor opined that the real problem was the abuses in CofS and, in some cases, recommended that people do their own thing.

But then when they do, they get criticized by some. Rather amusing.

[Voltaire's Child]

What comes to mind here is something Voltaire said

" God spare me from the righteouness of a zealot ".

Indeed. Some of the most zealous posts I've ever seen in the ongoing debate re anti FZ/pro FZ have been written by those who are anti. In fact, I'd say "most".

[Auditor's Toad]

"Indeed. Some of the most zealous posts I've ever seen in the ongoing debate re anti FZ/pro FZ have been written by those who are anti. In fact, I'd say "most". "

Anti-zealot sounds like a perfectly good word which you have coined :)

I'm not anti-FZ. In fact all I know about about the FZ is what a read here... seems like some people use some of what they learned in the cult, some of what they discovered on their on, and throw in bits and pieces of this that and the other.

Hey, I invented an "assist" the works most of the time on headaches. I still use it anytime somebody says they have a headache. Have used it for years.
3 or 4 commands and no more headache ( most of thime ) and when people ask what it was I did I laugh and say " I didn't do anything, you made your headache go away ".

Does that qualify me a FZ er? LOL !

[uniquemand]

yes.

[AlphOhm]

"Indeed. Some of the most zealous posts I've ever seen in the ongoing debate re anti FZ/pro FZ have been written by those who are anti. In fact, I'd say "most". "

Anti-zealot sounds like a perfectly good word which you have coined :)

I'm not anti-FZ. In fact all I know about about the FZ is what a read here... seems like some people use some of what they learned in the cult, some of what they discovered on their on, and throw in bits and pieces of this that and the other.

Hey, I invented an "assist" the works most of the time on headaches. I still use it anytime somebody says they have a headache. Have used it for years.
3 or 4 commands and no more headache ( most of thime ) and when people ask what it was I did I laugh and say " I didn't do anything, you made your headache go away ".

Does that qualify me a FZ er? LOL !


ZOMG--you were supposed to sell them several intensives for IntRD.

Squirrel.







:roflmao:

[Voltaire's Child]

A zealot's a zealot. An anti zealot, would, by grammatical inference, be a moderate.

I'm saying that there are some fanatics on this board when it comes to the FZ. And I'm saying that those fanatics aren't IN the FZ.

[Auditor's Toad]

"A zealot's a zealot. An anti zealot, would, by grammatical inference, be a moderate.

I'm saying that there are some fanatics on this board when it comes to the FZ. And I'm saying that those fanatics aren't IN the FZ. "

__________________
Anyway, I like anti-zealot as a word that desctibes one who is against a zealot with the same intensity of the zealot. Where DID I learn to make up my own definitions as I went along? Hmmmm?

And, I am not a squirrel. I am a nut.

[Infinite]

A zealot's a zealot. An anti zealot, would, by grammatical inference, be a moderate.

I'm saying that there are some fanatics on this board when it comes to the FZ. And I'm saying that those fanatics aren't IN the FZ.

Nope. An "anti zealot" would, grammatically speaking, be someone opposed to zealots. A moderate would be "anti-zealous".

In the meantime, I'll add "fanatic" to my list. Thanks VC.

[Voltaire's Child]

Nope. An "anti zealot" would, grammatically speaking, be someone opposed to zealots. A moderate would be "anti-zealous". .

Which is exactly what I'm saying.


In the meantime, I'll add "fanatic" to my list. Thanks VC.

No reason to thank me. It's not like you're quoting me. Same as with the last few times. I mean, you can continue to misrepresent me and then "thank" me, I guess. Won't get you anywhere except maybe in a few people's ignore lists.

[Infinite]

I'm saying that there are some fanatics on this board when it comes to the FZ. And I'm saying that those fanatics aren't IN the FZ.

FANATIC: (1) a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); (2) marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist"

. . . is that what you meant?

[Voltaire's Child]

I have seen quite a few posts where such an attitude was displayed. I would like to say more but I'm thinking I'll end up with some other entry on your list, not conducive for us ever having a frank heart to heart. I'd actually like to ( have some frank conversations with you, I mean. )

Tell ya what-- please add this to your list if your list is a compendium of what someone like me might think about critics, skeptics, etc.

Here it is:

"Excellent communicators."

That's a generality because not everyone is, but I found much better communication in the critic's scene over all than I did in CofS, which is, given the Scn stance, rather ironic, don't you think?

People actually told me stuff. Stuff that the cult was hiding from me.

[Infinite]

<drop façade >

VC

I too have found many critics to be excellent communicators and I am learning from them all the time. Having said that, for the communication to be received, someone has to be actually listening and that you were listening speaks volumes in regard to your openness. Still, even you, perhaps, will have to admit that it took different people saying the same thing over and over again using different techniques for some of the messages to actually sink in?

When it comes to politics and/or social justice issues, like Scientology, I adopt a default extremist position. Not because I necessarily believe what I am saying but, rather, it is the extremists which budge the middle ground more towards my direction. Remember, its not that long ago women/blacks/Ghandi seeking enfranchisement were labelled extremists or, to use your word, fanatics. Some still are.

Putting aside my technique, for the moment, I have no real objection to the practise of FreeZone Scientology generally speaking. In fact, what from I've seen in this thread, it appears positively benign. In most negotiations I've been involved with in meat-world, both parties bring a range of demands to the table in the knowledge that not all will be agreed. My demands from the FreeZone would include that it label its e-meters as per the FDA advisory, that it cease and desist from any and all claims in relation to positive physical and mental health outcomes, that its practitioners be licenced, that a standard disclaimer detailing the potential negative side-effects be handed to all PCs, etc etc. The one demand that I would make and insist upon before moderating the vehemence of my public objection would be that the FreeZone make a public declaration that it will never audit anyone under 18 years.

So, that's where I'm coming from and that's what I hope to achieve over the long term. Perhaps I'm going about it with a sledge hammer when a scalpel might be the better implement. Like I said, I'm learning all the time.

I'm pleased to see I haven't made your Ignore List. I know I'm on many but, in most cases, I suspect those people weren't "listening" anyway.

</drop façade >

So can just stick your labels right up ya bum!

[Auditor's Toad]

This thread has become hilarous.

I love all the contributions.

And I've long been of the opinion if we all drove 4 door green Fords the world would be a very boring place.

I've never learned much from people that agree with me but that doesn't mean I'm a Volvo fan either :)

[AlphOhm]

<drop façade >

<snip>

Putting aside my technique, for the moment, I have no real objection to the practise of FreeZone Scientology generally speaking. In fact, what from I've seen in this thread, it appears positively benign. In most negotiations I've been involved with in meat-world, both parties bring a range of demands to the table in the knowledge that not all will be agreed. My demands from the FreeZone would include that it label its e-meters as per the FDA advisory, that it cease and desist from any and all claims in relation to positive physical and mental health outcomes, that its practitioners be licenced, that a standard disclaimer detailing the potential negative side-effects be handed to all PCs, etc etc. The one demand that I would make and insist upon before moderating the vehemence of my public objection would be that the FreeZone make a public declaration that it will never audit anyone under 18 years.
<snip>
</drop façade >

So can just stick your labels right up ya bum!

:roflmao:



I am pleased to see that.


As I mentioned before, I am an ex, not "FreeZone"--however tough that may be to define. I was a "ProtestantScientologist" in the 90's. At that time I looked at a good portion of the "FreeZone" as being, well--less than sane. However, I thought that each had a right to his/her own choice and way of belief.

Mostly my interest is that of "freedom"--particularly that which involves freedom to believe and practice such belief as one chooses. Freedom in that area also includes the right to "not believe".

You do notice that the "FreeZone" is like a herd of cats?

While there may be some "leaderfagging"--there are a lot of individuals simply "doing their thing". Who is going to sign any "legal agreement" for an entity which technically does not exist?

Your regulation ideas are probably well intended, but if you look at it in the US--you would be trying to make legal regulation cover religious or spiritual practices. Constitutional no-no. (Doesn't mean that they are not bound by the law though.)

In addition--how do you propose to regulate people obtaining a Dianetics book and using the data in it to audit? While not necessarily "religious"--why should there be interference about what is done between those who may legally consent?

I missed where you fit into the scale--ex? non-ex critic? hobbyist that just likes to stir things up? closet freezone? :roflmao:

[Auditor's Toad]

Sheesh, I was "out" in 1990 and never heard of the FZ until I came to this boar.

I mean, not to say it the wrong way, but once I left the cult thr cult I saw no reason to continue on in a different "version" of it.

I don't want any more "auditing" or " training". But, hey, I just found a bankers box full of 70's era course packs. If you have interest and want to pay exact cost of media mail postage on 'em..... PM me. LA area :)

[uniquemand]

When I left the Church, it was not because I found that auditing did not "work", or because other applications I had used it for hadn't "worked". I left because of disagreements with the way I saw the organization running, because I needed to support my family, and because they were trying to get me to sever connections with my friends and family.

I wasn't looking for another group to get involved with. I did read a lot of books to find out if anyone else out there had anything of value to say on the subjects covered in Dianetics and Scientology. Many did. I didn't see the kind of whole system as was in Scientology, though, and because of that, I began to think I would need to reinvent the wheel, and then I started that project. It was overwhelming, and I was in no state to try it, because I was horribly depressed about loss of my family, business connections, and Identity as a Scientologist.

One day I went to the library to try out this newfangled Internet thingie that Al Gore had invented. I sat down, and read some sports web-pages, read a little bit about NASA programs, and then tried a search on Scientology. This was summer of 1996, I think. The first thing I found were the Randy MacDonald Papers, I think it was the results of his ethics investigation of David Miscavige. I was blown away. Next thing I found was Homer Wilson Smith's archives from lightlink. Then I hit a book written by Ken Ogger, aka "the Pilot", called Super Scio: The Book of the Pilot. I was riveted. I read the whole thing in the library over the course of about a week or so, with the librarian breathing down my neck.

Everyone has there own reasons for leaving the Church. Mine were not "technical". That's a difference between me and many people you'll find here. I developed technical grievances with the Church's rendition of "tech", and with Hubbard in general, but that's not why I left.

I find it interesting that people could have been involved with the Church for any length of time and then suddenly one day decide that it was bull. My experiences were that it was not bull, but that the cost of dealing with the organization wasn't worth the benefit of daily study and auditing.

[Infinite]

Your regulation ideas are probably well intended, but if you look at it in the US--you would be trying to make legal regulation cover religious or spiritual practices. Constitutional no-no. (Doesn't mean that they are not bound by the law though.) In addition--how do you propose to regulate people obtaining a Dianetics book and using the data in it to audit? While not necessarily "religious"--why should there be interference about what is done between those who may legally consent?

While I have no general objection, I do have a number of specifics, among which is the predominant tendency amongst FreeZoners to masquerade as "therapists". Check out some of their promotional material for the general public. On the whole, you will find most, if not all, do not mention Scientology or, if they do, it is obscured, hidden in some small-print, passing reference to Dianetics. I agree absolutely that everyone should be free to practise their religion, and, equally, people should be free not to practise religion if that is their choice. To lure people into Scientology by obfuscation, as many auditors do, is to practise deceit. Legal consent requires informed decision making which, in this case, would be an overt admission that Scientology techniques are being used. If they are not to be licensed, then they should be more than honest. But, I suspect, they know themselves, the word "Scientology" would scare off the vast majority of punters they might otherwise attract.

Amateurs playing about with Dianetics, like children and their seances, don't really worry me as much as those seeking to profit from the practise. In New Zealand, people advertising "psychic" services - crystal ball-gazing and the like - are required to do so under the "Entertainment" category. I see no reason why the US couldn't adopt such a policy for Scientology Auditors. Its a pity they choose not to self-regulate, preferring instead to cower behind religious cloaking.


I missed where you fit into the scale--ex? non-ex critic? hobbyist that just likes to stir things up? closet freezone?

If you must put me in box, please label me: "Fabian Fusion Anon Critic/Troll Never-Was-In Relative Newbie".



(NOTE TO SELF: Turn those annoying, girly emoticons back on. You've probably got the wrong end of the stick of so many comments people now think you either have no sense of humour and/or are quite mad.)

[AlphOhm]

[QUOTE=BLiP;490758]While I have no general objection, I do have a number of specifics, among which is the predominant tendency amongst FreeZoners to masquerade as "therapists". Check out some of their promotional material for the general public. On the whole, you will find most, if not all, do not mention Scientology or, if they do, it is obscured, hidden in some small-print, passing reference to Dianetics.

I actually have not seen any promo recently for freezoners. Is there an online link to some you have noticed? To me it is important to be honest in representation. If you are open about using Dianetics or Scientology techniques, fine. If you use them but do not say what they are--probably OK too. If you do not say what they are and attempt to coerce someone into some "belief system"--that seems deceptive or dishonest to me.

I agree absolutely that everyone should be free to practise their religion, and, equally, people should be free not to practise religion if that is their choice. To lure people into Scientology by obfuscation, as many auditors do, is to practise deceit.

Not sure how many do that, but agreed.

Legal consent requires informed decision making which, in this case, would be an overt admission that Scientology techniques are being used. If they are not to be licensed, then they should be more than honest. But, I suspect, they know themselves, the word "Scientology" would scare off the vast majority of punters they might otherwise attract.

Possibly--but I'm sure there is a "niche" of people specifically looking for Dianetics or Scientology--but do not want to get involved with the "church".

One thing I looked at long ago was "professional liability"--I didn't bother to field audit mostly because I have another profession, but also because the "risk management" issues could be a real nightmare.

Amateurs playing about with Dianetics, like children and their seances, don't really worry me as much as those seeking to profit from the practise. In New Zealand, people advertising "psychic" services - crystal ball-gazing and the like - are required to do so under the "Entertainment" category.

In the '40s L. Ron wore a swami turban as part of his "schtick".

I see no reason why the US couldn't adopt such a policy for Scientology Auditors. Its a pity they choose not to self-regulate, preferring instead to cower behind religious cloaking.

For many it is probably not cloaking--it is an actual belief/practice.

If you must put me in box, please label me: "Fabian Fusion Anon Critic/Troll Never-Was-In Relative Newbie".

Thank you. Mostly curiosity. Also helps me a bit to know what data you might already know.

[Veda]

-snip-

In the '40s L. Ron wore a swami turban as part of his "schtick".

-snip-



He also made Clears and, practically single-handedly, saved Australia from invasion by the Japanese.

How we know dat? Ron told us so.

[Infinite]

I actually have not seen any promo recently for freezoners. Is there an online link to some you have noticed? To me it is important to be honest in representation. If you are open about using Dianetics or Scientology techniques, fine. If you use them but do not say what they are--probably OK too. If you do not say what they are and attempt to coerce someone into some "belief system"--that seems deceptive or dishonest to me.

You know, I did have a few links but can't lay my cursor on them at the moment. I was given a bunch from someone over at WWP. I cannot positively state that the ones I can find are, in fact, FreeZoners. If the Scientology Completions database can be trusted, they are certainly exes but I hesitate to link them because it may well be that those individuals have abandoned the tech and I shan't risk maligning their professional reputation. A few others are now dead-links with zero in cache. There seems to be a lot of churn in the FreeZone.

I will state categorically that my comment DOES NOT to apply to Dexter (http://davisfood.coop/newsletter/dfcnews-6-10lo-res.pdf):




SHOULD YOU BE DOING BETTER?
Feel like you’re not being your
true self? I can help you. Dexter Gelfand,
Independent Scientology® counselor.
Email dg732nj@aol.com, websitehttp://
community.freezone-tech.info/dexter/

Excellent. I feel I might have crept a nanometer further into his space.

[dexter gelfand]

I like you guys, and I'm glad you're here. We've got a bunch here who can accept that we see things differently, and still grant respect and interest, rather than throwing rocks.

Thanks for being here, please continue!

Love, Dex

[programmer_guy]

I like you guys, and I'm glad you're here. We've got a bunch here who can accept that we see things differently, and still grant respect and interest, rather than throwing rocks.

Thanks for being here, please continue!

Love, Dex

How about if I still throw a proverbial "hand grenade" once in awhile? :D

[I told you I was trouble]

How about if I still throw a proverbial "hand grenade" once in awhile? :D


Yeah ... am I allowed to sling the odd stone now and then too?

PS I like you guys as well ... it is almost impossible not to.

:goodorbad:

[programmer_guy]

I like you guys, and I'm glad you're here. We've got a bunch here who can accept that we see things differently, and still grant respect and interest, rather than throwing rocks.

Thanks for being here, please continue!

Love, Dex

Thank you for carefully avoiding saying "grant beingness".:melodramatic:
Otherwise I will throw a stone. <snicker>

[AlphOhm]

Jeebus: let those without sin cast the first stone!


Jeebus (aside): Mom--put down that fucking rock









Throwing Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm1NfJnsYzg)

[I told you I was trouble]

:bricks:



:giggle:

[Veda]

Corrective instructions of several days ago:




The proper follow up post by someone posting an opening post which, essentially, says: "I'm for embracing others' views, rather than resisting them. I'm a Scientologist" - no matter the disagreements expressed - is to calmly acknowledge.

How about letting Dex do a "do over" - Post the same opening post again, receive the same or similar critical comments, and then actually practice what he preached in the opening post?

1) Opening post.

2) Critical response: (example) "That's stupid." :angry:

3) Response by Scientologist: (Example) "Thank you for telling me that". :)

See?

Easy.


You needn't be "godlike" to follow your own advice on a thread you started which features that advice.

Don't concern yourself with handling me.

Handle yourself.

P.S. Now respond with something like, "I appreciate your taking the time to express your views. I'll try to do better."


I like you guys, and I'm glad you're here. We've got a bunch here who can accept that we see things differently, and still grant respect and interest, rather than throwing rocks.

Thanks for being here, please continue!

Love, Dex

Well done. That's a pass. :eyeroll:

[I told you I was trouble]

LOL ... Veda you are a meanie, we were having a little break (it was quite nice while it lasted).

:happydance:

[AlphOhm]

Corrective instructions of several days ago:







Well done. That's a pass. :eyeroll:



ditto fuckhead







:hysterical:

[programmer_guy]

LOL ... Veda you are a meanie, we were having a little break (it was quite nice while it lasted).

:happydance:

He was being both serious and funny at the same time.
So much for the ridiculous one tone "tone scale".

[SchwimmelPuckel]

I like you guys, and I'm glad you're here. We've got a bunch here who can accept that we see things differently, and still grant respect and interest, rather than throwing rocks.

Thanks for being here, please continue!

Love, DexThe old romans were throwing dead cows from catapults. I saw that in a Monty Python movie!

:yes:

[Mark A. Baker]

The old romans were throwing dead cows from catapults. I saw that in a Monty Python movie!

:yes:

They were french, and the cow wasn't dead, hence the "moooo" as she is flung through the air. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amWP8FpLrtw

[Atalantan]

Professionalism is a good term--and yes I have seen "TRs robots".

Interesting to bullbait some Scientologists trained with "robotic TRs"--

"Get your TRs in!"


You watch the head move a bit side to side, then the eyes move to lock onto your gaze--then "the stare".



When I say "TRs" I just mean "good communication skills", which is very much a part of professionalism.

Yes. Back in the day, being robotic was a "flunk". It is really obvious whether a person is really "there" or not. If he wasn't totally "being there" observing, seeing, hearing and responding, if he was "robotic" at all, s/he was considered not flat on her/his TRs and s/he wasn't done with them.

It had nothing to do with a "salesperson's valence" or anything like that.

Don't they teach and follow that anymore? That was Scientology. Anything else is not. And, the TRs are basic to everything else.If a person doesn't get those, s/he won't get anything else, except can still get auditied and get something out of that - IF their auditor has his/her TRs in, ofcourse. Good luck if the auditor doesn't.

[SchwimmelPuckel]

They were french, and the cow wasn't dead, hence the "moooo" as she is flung through the air. :eyeroll:


Mark A. BakerHmm.. That's a good example of whole track recall reliability. :melodramatic:

[SchwimmelPuckel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amWP8FpLrtwHheheheh.. That 'frog' said: 'I fart in your general direction!'
:D

[Atalantan]

Absolutely. Hubbard's tech, without doubt, is effective and of value. The question is: is the effect positive and who is it that reaps the value? The first part of the question is answered by the fact that the evidence to date shows the tech has no positive value and any further scientific testing is being hugely resisted by those that practise it. The second part of the question is answered in by asking: who gets the cash?


Since scientology materials are freely available all over the world, what prevents any number of college and university research departments from testing the tech?

Nothing.

It was like that from the beginning. And in fact I tend to think it has been done to some extent under government auspices, and if so, the governement would never publish their findings. If anything, they would say "Move along folks. There's nothing here to see."

Likewise departments of psychiatry and psychology. They would incorporate anything they found useful and not mention it, simply to keep a competitive edge. They sure as hell wouldn't publicly say "Yeah, it works, you should go get auditing instead of coming to us for psychotherapy".

Duh.

[Atalantan]

As per the law of the land at that time, Tomas Jefferson bought and sold slaves. By all accounts he treated them well. A subsequent raising of social consciousness saw slavery outlawed and his slaves were freed. The US still continues to suffer from the consequences of those earlier, less enlightened days and the general tendency among its people for denial of its brutal realities.

Today, in late 2010, Scientology still creates and keeps slaves, black and white. Despite the law. This is a direct result of the unquestioning and hypnotic-like state induced in its adherents by "tech" penned by L Ron Hubbard. By all accounts, Hubbard's slaves are treated abominably.

By today's laws of the land, these people are not considered "slaves", and if any of them consider themselves tobe slaves, they are apparently WILLING slaves, and by the laws of the land it is all legal because they are willingly working like slaves for their religious ministry.

Also, HUbbard is long dead and gone, so at this point they are not Hubbard's slaves, but someone else's. Someone else isprofiting from it all.

[Atalantan]

FANATIC: (1) a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); (2) marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist"

. . . is that what you meant?

But who's to judge what is "excessive"? At some point, might not "political correctness" rear it's head?

In China, it doesn't take much enthusiasm for free speech, to get sent to a re-education camp, a mental hospital, or even to get shot by the army.

[AlphOhm]

Hmm.. That's a good example of whole track recall reliability. :melodramatic:

{shameless ripoff of Mystic knowingness} cows are so grounded that they "ooooom" backwards

[uniquemand]

Since scientology materials are freely available all over the world, what prevents any number of college and university research departments from testing the tech?

Nothing.

It was like that from the beginning. And in fact I tend to think it has been done to some extent under government auspices, and if so, the governement would never publish their findings. If anything, they would say "Move along folks. There's nothing here to see."

Likewise departments of psychiatry and psychology. They would incorporate anything they found useful and not mention it, simply to keep a competitive edge. They sure as hell wouldn't publicly say "Yeah, it works, you should go get auditing instead of coming to us for psychotherapy".

Duh.


What prevents it is the way the claims are stated, in part. Scientists don't just test everything. They test whatever they have a grant to test, for the most part, and to get the grant, you have to have SOMETHING other than "be three feet back of your head" or "power is light-year kilotons per second". When the subject seems absurd, on its face, it doesn't get tested. Where there are believable claims based on logical theory, testing is likely, when funding is present.

[Mystic]

{shameless ripoff of Mystic knowingness} cows are so grounded that they "ooooom" backwards

Oh oh oh I've been ripped off. What O what am I to do?

[dexter gelfand]

Corrective instructions of several days ago:
Well done. That's a pass. :eyeroll:
Jeez Veda, get a clue.

As inconceivable (or more accurately, unacceptable) as it seems to you, we all can be people and enjoy trading thoughts and entertaining each other, even if we aren't in lockstep with each other about Scientology.

Your playing the role of the brooding whiner has gotten old. Its boring. Let it go already. If you don't want to join the party, don't come through the door.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

I don't find Veda to be a brooding whiner. I find him to be a critic of Scientology who brings a great deal of understanding of the subject to the discussion, with references and obvious care.

[dexter gelfand]

I don't find Veda to be a brooding whiner. I find him to be a critic of Scientology who brings a great deal of understanding of the subject to the discussion, with references and obvious care.

Nah,I'm sticking with "Brooding whiner" :)

Love, Dex

[degraded being]

Nah,I'm sticking with "Brooding whiner" :)

Love, Dex

Better than Mother Hen.

[Infinite]

Since scientology materials are freely available all over the world, what prevents any number of college and university research departments from testing the tech?

Nothing.

Au contraire. You will find details of Scientology practises bing studied in psychiatry, psychology and sociology departments looking at what it is about society that allows cults to exist, how they work, and what it is about individuals that they are drawn to them. But, the practises are common to many cults (http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html). There's nothing in Scientology itself that didn't exist prior to L Ron Hubbard and hasn't also either been improved upon or discarded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLm_N2z60Ko



It was like that from the beginning. And in fact I tend to think it has been done to some extent under government auspices, and if so, the governement would never publish their findings. If anything, they would say "Move along folks. There's nothing here to see."

Likewise departments of psychiatry and psychology. They would incorporate anything they found useful and not mention it, simply to keep a competitive edge. They sure as hell wouldn't publicly say "Yeah, it works, you should go get auditing instead of coming to us for psychotherapy".

Ahhh, yes, the great Scientology conspiracy theory. Got dox, or has the secret one-government cabal ensured there's no actual evidence in existence?

[Infinite]

But who's to judge what is "excessive"? At some point, might not "political correctness" rear it's head?

What's your definition of "political correctness" - what do you actually mean when you use it?

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Dex, - an "Intermezzo" :cloud9:... this is, perhaps, how Ethics Particles, Dilletantes and others of good will order their days...and survive. :biglove: :confused2: :hug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dPDO3Tfab0

Mike

[dexter gelfand]

Dex, - an "Intermezzo" :cloud9:... this is, perhaps, how Ethics Particles, Dilletantes and others of good will order their days...and survive. :biglove: :confused2: :hug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dPDO3Tfab0

Mike

That was very cool, Mike! :thumbsup:

Love, Dex

[programmer_guy]

Thanks, BLiP

Here are all 5 parts on that presentation.


Scientology's War Against Psychiatry - part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLm_N2z60Ko

Scientology's War Against Psychiatry - part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMxMMLONSbI&feature=related

Scientology's War Against Psychiatry - part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7RNJYSD0sI&feature=related

Scientology's War Against Psychiatry - part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io4KtHZKOQE&feature=related

Scientology's War Against Psychiatry - part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eyqpBFFoxw&feature=related


BTW, when I finally get MythTV running via MythDora front-end and back-end servers, Blip.tv will definitely be one of my input selections. :)

[Voltaire's Child]

Dex, you're doing great.

[programmer_guy]

Dex, you're doing great.

A Scientologist is still a Scientologist... by whatever stripe they want to call themselves.

[Voltaire's Child]

A Scientologist is still a Scientologist... by whatever stripe they want to call themselves.

lolwut?

[freethinker]

Dexter,

If all Scientologists inerpreted the materials the way you have, there would be no problem with Scientology.

This, what you have said, is a positive interpretation of a portion of Scientology materials.

However, the materials you interpreted are not interpreted consistently from Scientologist to Scientologist with the same positve viewpoint.

Additionaly, not all the materials written by Ron can be interpreted in such a posaitive manner, so are skipped or glossed over to avoid the contradictory aspects of Scientology by the pro "better world" Scientologists as yourself.

I don't object to Scientologists such as yourself, but I do object to Scientologists who interpret the materials to justify their, not so positve agenda and view of "how things should be".

And, I object strongly to the writinigs of Ron that are subversive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So long as a living man does not infringe upon the pursuits and lives of others who, themselves, are enhancing, to some degree, the lives of others, I have no objection.

In reality though, Scientology is interpreted and applied according to the individual's perception of life. That can be good or very, very bad.

And Ron's writings' are not, THE correct technology, they only contain some truths and some workability.

It is not THE ANSWER to the problems of man.

Per Ron, Scientology cannot be discussed amongst Scientologists without perverting the tech, by the same token it cannot be evaluated correctly because of that.

[dexter gelfand]

Dex, you're doing great.

Thanks, VC, that's my assessment as well!:) Same for you, and all those here who have been thoughtful enough to contribute here, and in a way that respects the views of others!

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

A Scientologist is still a Scientologist... by whatever stripe they want to call themselves.

Exactly what stereotype are you implying by that, PG?

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Dexter,

If all Scientologists inerpreted the materials the way you have, there would be no problem with Scientology. This, what you have said, is a positive interpretation of a portion of Scientology materials. However, the materials you interpreted are not interpreted consistently from Scientologist to Scientologist with the same positve viewpoint.
Additionaly, not all the materials written by Ron can be interpreted in such a posaitive manner, so are skipped or glossed over to avoid the contradictory aspects of Scientology by the pro "better world" Scientologists as yourself.
I don't object to Scientologists such as yourself, but I do object to Scientologists who interpret the materials to justify their, not so positve agenda and view of "how things should be".
In reality though, Scientology is interpreted and applied according to the individual's perception of life. That can be good or very, very bad.
And Ron's writings' are not, THE correct technology, they only contain some truths and some workability.


Hi Free, true enough, but couldn't these things be said about most, if not all modes of thought pertaining to viewing life, and therapeutic approaches?

Love, Dex

[xseaorguk]

I started to watch the Dex video, but he soon got me lost.
And when I heard the word "Knowingness" several times I have gotten one of those bloody "misunderstoody" thingies, cos everything after that went blank. (never did quite understand that word)
I got back that old feeling I remember when 'in' that obviously everybody else who was around me must be so much more intelligent, with super dooper IQ's, as they use all these long words and abreviations.

But I sort of think he was trying to say that we should always try to see things from another persons viewpoint.
Is that right?

And apart from Scientology apparently attracting a small percentage of 'brighter' people in the world, my actual experience was that I had never met such a bunch of uneducated, easily led twats.

[programmer_guy]

I started to watch the Dex video, but he soon got me lost.
And when I heard the word "Knowingness" several times I have gotten one of those bloody "misunderstoody" thingies, cos everything after that went blank. (never did quite understand that word)
I got back that old feeling I remember when 'in' that obviously everybody else who was around me must be so much more intelligent, with super dooper IQ's, as they use all these long words and abreviations.

But I sort of think he was trying to say that we should always try to see things from another persons viewpoint.
Is that right?

And apart from Scientology apparently attracting a small percentage of 'brighter' people in the world, my actual experience was that I had never met such a bunch of uneducated, easily led twats.

Wait a minute. Are you stereotyping? <snicker>

[I told you I was trouble]

I started to watch the Dex video, but he soon got me lost.
And when I heard the word "Knowingness" several times I have gotten one of those bloody "misunderstoody" thingies, cos everything after that went blank. (never did quite understand that word)
I got back that old feeling I remember when 'in' that obviously everybody else who was around me must be so much more intelligent, with super dooper IQ's, as they use all these long words and abreviations.

But I sort of think he was trying to say that we should always try to see things from another persons viewpoint.
Is that right?

And apart from Scientology apparently attracting a small percentage of 'brighter' people in the world, my actual experience was that I had never met such a bunch of uneducated, easily led twats.


:roflmao:

You have a way with words ...

:p

[dexter gelfand]

I started to watch the Dex video, but he soon got me lost.
And when I heard the word "Knowingness" several times I have gotten one of those bloody "misunderstoody" thingies, cos everything after that went blank. (never did quite understand that word)
I got back that old feeling I remember when 'in' that obviously everybody else who was around me must be so much more intelligent, with super dooper IQ's, as they use all these long words and abreviations.
And apart from Scientology apparently attracting a small percentage of 'brighter' people in the world, my actual experience was that I had never met such a bunch of uneducated, easily led twats.

"Knowingness" is, very simply, the ability to just know something. Tough to grasp, huh?
One doesn't need any particular education or training to grasp what's going on here. We've got a person who couldn't understand what other people could, and is reacting by crudely denigrating the intelligence of those other people. How obvious.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

Don't obfuscate, Dex! I'm surprised. Many people use the term knowingness to mean they have a personal knowledge of something that they actually haven't studied. Usually, it is meant as "personal certainty". Arriving at personal certainty without verified information is essentially intuition, and is very far from safe when dealing with critical systems. Such as someone else's mind.

[Infinite]

"Knowingness" is, very simply, the ability to just know something. Tough to grasp, huh?

Yes, it is tough to grasp because, in doing so, one enters into agreement with a key Scientology concept - it is the thin end of the wedge which, given the slightest purchase, will cleave the innocent mind asunder.

Here's an informed description about "knowingness" (http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2009/09/scientology-and-know.html)



This word, "know", when used by a Scientologist does not mean what you think it means. When you hear a Scientologist say they know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, they are not saying what you think they are saying.

This can be very confusing. Let me clarify this. First, you need some basic Scientology concepts.

When Scientologists speak about knowing something, they are talking about what L. Ron Hubbard called "knowingness". Hubbard defined knowingness as "self-determined knowledge".

To say that more plainly, in Scientology, "knowingness" is what you "know" without any information, facts, evidence from outside yourself. It is what you, yourself, have decided is true.

You will note that this definition of "knowingness" would also be a perfect definition of belief.

This is not some trivial bit of Scientology, this is core Scientology dogma. This is tied to what Hubbard said about "OT" powers of "postulating". According to Hubbard, postulating is creating reality by just deciding that something exists or that something is in a certain state.


Once a person goes into agreement with this concept, the next twist in the labyrinthine Scientology MindFuck™ is: "what's true for you is true".

[MrNobody]

"Knowingness" is, very simply, the ability to just know something. Tough to grasp, huh?
One doesn't need any particular education or training to grasp what's going on here. We've got a person who couldn't understand what other people could, and is reacting by crudely denigrating the intelligence of those other people. How obvious.

Love, Dex


Don't obfuscate, Dex! I'm surprised. Many people use the term knowingness to mean they have a personal knowledge of something that they actually haven't studied. Usually, it is meant as "personal certainty". Arriving at personal certainty without verified information is essentially intuition, and is very far from safe when dealing with critical systems. Such as someone else's mind.


Yes, it is tough to grasp because, in doing so, one enters into agreement with a key Scientology concept - it is the thin end of the wedge which, given the slightest purchase, will cleave the innocent mind asunder.

Here's an informed description about "knowingness" (http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2009/09/scientology-and-know.html)

Once a person goes into agreement with this concept, the next twist in the labyrinthine Scientology MindFuck™ is: "what's true for you is true".

Wow, I didn't expect that I would get anything interesting from this thread, but the 3 post(er)s before this one, brought me to some simple understanding:

"Knowingness" is a synonym for "Belief" Now that's a boost for my understanding!

Thank you BLiP, uniquemand and even Dex!

[Voltaire's Child]

Wow, I didn't expect that I would get anything interesting from this thread, but the 3 post(er)s before this one, brought me to some simple understanding:

"Knowingness" is a synonym for "Belief" Now that's a boost for my understanding!

Thank you BLiP, uniquemand and even Dex!

Except it's NOT. It's what the person knows.

But to someone else who thinks the person is exercising his or her belief, it will seem like belief. It's a sort of eye of the beholder type thing. This relates to all sorts of things, not just Scn and Scn'ists.

I've met (here and there, you know) a lot of religious people or people interested in political issues who said they KNEW such and such was true. Someone else comes along and says, "whoa, wait a minute. That's just your opinion. You don't KNOW and furthermore MY observations are different from yours and so I don't think you're correct on that. Those are your beliefs about God/Heaven/Hell/xenu/Liberals/Republicans/etc."

I meditated last night and touched bases with what I call The Divine. I really think I did this. In fact, I know I reached something. But if I were to mention it to someone else (well, I'm doing so now, aren't I?) they might not see it that way. I can't KNOW that. I didn't touch or hear anyone and if I did, what if it was my imagination. So to them, it's my belief. To me, it's not.

So is there any knowingness?

Yes. Yesterday I had the knowingness that the sun was out and that it was in the upper 50s even though it's November in Seattle. Later, I had the knowingness that Jojo kitten stuck her paw in my eye and it hurt for hours. This morning I had the knowingness that John woke up an hour before he had to because of a confusion with his resetting of his clock for Daylight Savings Time. Those are verifiable to other individuals. They also relate to the physicial realm.

So there IS knowingness but ANY time you get into the intangible, you will get skepticism. It's there that the "true for you" thingie kicks in.

[uniquemand]

This is why I prefer the term "certainty" to "belief". People can be certain of all kinds of things. Doesn't mean their certainty is based in rational review, or careful inspection. Beliefs, IMO, spring from these certainties.

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Wow, I didn't expect that I would get anything interesting from this thread, but the 3 post(er)s before this one, brought me to some simple understanding:

"Knowingness" is a synonym for "Belief" Now that's a boost for my understanding!

Thank you BLiP, uniquemand and even Dex!

See, "MrN" - ya learnt sumphin! :yes: "even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :wink2:

And also remember; a wedge is the simplest of tools! :p

The world is full of dull, simple tools! :ohmy::yes:

Good thread an good discussion my friends. :thumbsup:

EP

[MrNobody]

Hmmm, something messes up the reply function for me right now...

Anyway, to me, it's "illegal" and unjustified to mix "know" and "believe".

When my instruments vendor calls me, and says "I have a guitar here that needs to be fixed", then I "know" that there's a job waiting for me, which I can accept or not.

When my fanatic Christian friend calls me and says "I know there IS a God", all I can say is :wtf:

Back to my instruments vendor: When he calls me, and says "I believe I have a guitar here that needs to be fixed", then all I can say is: "Fine, wake me up when you know."

See what I mean? There is no knowledge in $cientology, and trying to hide that fact is just <insert the most derogatory word you can think of>, IMO.

Oh, and Dex: I like my world simple. :D

Late EDIT:
Ps: The world's simplest tool is a stone.

[olska]

The world is full of dull, simple tools! :ohmy::yes:

^^^ Great observation, EP! :coolwink: :D :clap::clap::clap:

[dexter gelfand]

This conversation is getting interestinger as it develops!:) Some very thoughtful contributions, from everybody, very cool. :thumbsup:
To me anyway, knowingness is the simplest of concepts-just simply knowing something. We've all experienced that, whether we just puzzled over it or assigned it to extra sensory perception, clairvoyance, channeling, divine inspiration or whatever. Maybe its just the way I see things, but it couldn't be simpler to me. Its just knowing something.

Einstein believed the advanced concepts in his mind derived from divine inspiration- not extensions of logic, or observation of physical phenomena. He was a very spiritual being. He was outraged and severely distressed over the idea that certain powers used his theories to work toward developing a means of annihilation of masses of people.

Knowingness is neither a complicated subject, nor is it proprietary to the world of Scientology. It goes back, at least to ancient eastern civilizations. Those who would seize on this concept to throw stones at Scientology would do well to get their facts straight.

Unique, I don't mean to "obfuscate", or cloud up, anything. (I had to look up that one to be sure I knew what you meant).:) I think "Intuition" can be another word for it, no disagreement there. I think that your need for proof or evidence to trust your intuition can be a reflection of self-doubt.

Classifying knowingness as belief, in my own view, demonstrate a certain lack of confidence in their selves, not trusting their intuition. Or alternately, if one is uncomfortable with another's knowingness, they might degrade it as "belief". But even then, I think that if you aren't willing to see things from another's viewpoint, you would tend to employ, as a defense mechanism against the ideas of others, such invalidation. I don't think you would feel a need to resist other views unless you were less than secure in your own concepts.

There's plenty of room in this world for all viewpoints, and no harm will ever come to you for granting respect to how others see things, or better yet, taking a moment to consider another person's view of things.

Love, Dex

[SomeGuy]

..

[uniquemand]

Some people have the intuition that Allah Akbar, and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah. They are quite sure that they should kill the infidel, and install Sharia Law.

Should they question their knowingness?

[MrNobody]

This conversation is getting interestinger as it develops!:) Some very thoughtful contributions, from everybody, very cool. :thumbsup:
To me anyway, belief is the simplest of concepts-just simply believing something. We've all experienced that, whether we just puzzled over it or assigned it to extra sensory perception, clairvoyance, channeling, divine inspiration or whatever. Maybe its just the way I see things, but it couldn't be simpler to me. Its just believing something.

Einstein believed the advanced concepts in his mind derived from divine inspiration- not extensions of logic, or observation of physical phenomena. He was a very spiritual being. He was outraged and severely distressed over the idea that certain powers used his theories to work toward developing a means of annihilation of masses of people.

Belief is neither a complicated subject, nor is it proprietary to the world of Scientology. It goes back, at least to ancient eastern civilizations. Those who would seize on this concept to throw stones at Scientology would do well to get their facts straight.

Unique, I don't mean to "obfuscate", or cloud up, anything. (I had to look up that one to be sure I knew what you meant).:) I think "Intuition" can be another word for it, no disagreement there. I think that your need for proof or evidence to trust your intuition can be a reflection of self-doubt.

Classifying belief as belief, in my own view, demonstrate a certain lack of confidence in their selves, not trusting their intuition. Or alternately, if one is uncomfortable with another's belief, they might degrade it as "belief". But even then, I think that if you aren't willing to see things from another's viewpoint, you would tend to employ, as a defense mechanism against the ideas of others, such invalidation. I don't think you would feel a need to resist other views unless you were less than secure in your own concepts.

There's plenty of room in this world for all viewpoints, and no harm will ever come to you for granting respect to how others see things, or better yet, taking a moment to consider another person's view of things.

Love, Dex

Now that I've fixed it for you, it makes even more sense. :thumbsup:


Some people have the intuition that Allah Akbar, and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah. They are quite sure that they should kill the infidel, and install Sharia Law.

Should they question their knowingness?

Of course not, that would only invalidate their knowingness.

[Voltaire's Child]

A person can know something whether or not it's evident to others. And sometimes a person thinks he or she knows but it's only belief. But the fact that belief can be mistaken for knowingness doesn't mean there's no such thing as knowingness.

[Infinite]

Scientology knows the answer to this question (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html):


I often start my undergraduate lectures by asking students the following question: which cognitive faculty would you most hate to lose? Most of them pick the sense of sight; a few pick hearing. Once in a while, a wisecracking student might pick her sense of humor or her fashion sense. Almost never do any of them spontaneously say that the faculty they'd most hate to lose is language. Yet if you lose (or are born without) your sight or hearing, you can still have a wonderfully rich social existence. You can have friends, you can get an education, you can hold a job, you can start a family. But what would your life be like if you had never learned a language? Could you still have friends, get an education, hold a job, start a family? Language is so fundamental to our experience, so deeply a part of being human, that it's hard to imagine life without it. But are languages merely tools for expressing our thoughts, or do they actually shape our thoughts?

[MrNobody]

A person can know something whether or not it's evident to others. And sometimes a person thinks he or she knows but it's only belief. But the fact that belief can be mistaken for knowingness doesn't mean there's no such thing as knowingness.

Knowingness and belief are synonymous. I thought that was already settled? If not, please explain. Oh, and please use small words, I'm a simple guy. :)

Ps: A hands-on practical example would be nice, too.

[Voltaire's Child]

Knowingness and belief are synonymous. I thought that was already settled? If not, please explain. Oh, and please use small words, I'm a simple guy. :)

Ps: A hands-on practical example would be nice, too.

I awready did explain, cupcake. Just a few posts ago. And that post DID contain hands on practical examples.

[MrNobody]

I awready did explain, cupcake. Just a few posts ago. And that post DID contain hands on practical examples.

And you didn't even give a link? Well, so much for "practical". :)

But if you mean this one:


Except it's NOT. It's what the person believes.

But to someone else who thinks the person is exercising his or her belief, it will seem like belief. It's a sort of eye of the beholder type thing. This relates to all sorts of things, not just Scn and Scn'ists.

I've met (here and there, you know) a lot of religious people or people interested in political issues who said they BELIEVED such and such was true. Someone else comes along and says, "whoa, wait a minute. That's just your opinion. You don't KNOW and furthermore MY observations are different from yours and so I don't think you're correct on that. Those are your beliefs about God/Heaven/Hell/xenu/Liberals/Republicans/etc."

I meditated last night and touched bases with what I call The Divine. I really think I did this. In fact, I believe I reached something. But if I were to mention it to someone else (well, I'm doing so now, aren't I?) they might not see it that way. I can't KNOW that. I didn't touch or hear anyone and if I did, what if it was my imagination. So to them, it's my belief. To me, it's not.

So is there any belief?

Yes. Yesterday I had the knowingness that the sun was out and that it was in the upper 50s even though it's November in Seattle. Later, I had the knowingness that Jojo kitten stuck her paw in my eye and it hurt for hours. This morning I had the knowingness that John woke up an hour before he had to because of a confusion with his resetting of his clock for Daylight Savings Time. Those are verifiable to other individuals. They also relate to the physicial realm.

So there IS knowingness but ANY time you get into the intangible, you will get skepticism. It's there that the "true for you" thingie kicks in.

Fixed some of it for you, but in the last chapters you used "knowingness" and meant knowledge. Isn't that a bit unfair?

[Voltaire's Child]

And you didn't even give a link? Well, so much for "practical". :)

But if you mean this one:



Fixed some of it for you, but in the last chapters you used "knowingness" and meant knowledge. Isn't that a bit unfair?



No, you did NOT fix it for me. That's NOT what I wrote. I was saying WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID.

And, no, knowingness does not mean knowledge. But the two are similar.

And a few posts ago in the same thread should be pretty easy to find...

[dexter gelfand]

[QUOTE=MrNobody;492994]Now that I've fixed it for you, it makes even more sense. :thumbsup:
I'm sorry it disturbs you so much that others see things differently from you that you have to "fix" their statements, and not only in your mind, but publicly. I hope you feel better now. You might be better off not exposing yourself to places where a variety of viewpoints are freely expressed, and limit yourself to those venues where you can preach to your own choir.

As I expressed earlier in this thread:

In my experience and observation, a person who does not feel very threatened by differing viewpoints is either secure enough in his own viewpoint, or not troubled by the idea of changing his mind. He doesn't feel much of a need to assert that those who see things differently have to be wrong so he can be safe and be right. Such a person would tend to express their own views by prefacing their statements with "I feel..." "In my opinion...", "In my experience...", etc. He doesn't feel a need to enforce his views on others with assertive statements that make others wrong for seeing things differently. He can receive and experience differing views without mounting resistance to them, because he does not feel threatened. Ridiculing people for thinking differently than you is a symptom of feeling threatened by them. Stating your professed views in a way intended to enforce them on others(which is foolish), and doing so publicly will create a conflict. When it descends into "You're obviously wrong because everybody else agrees with me, and they are snickering at you", well, clearly, that's just not a good way to be, and doesn't speak well for whatever views are being asserted.


I enjoy having a friendly and spirited exchange of viewpoints, and we've got a good one going, for the most part, on this thread.

I'd like to respectfully point out that a friendly, spirited exchange of viewpoints can be furthered by making your point by acknowledging in your statements that it is your viewpoint, and not some rigid universal fact that makes everyone who has a different view wrong, and by demonstrating that its perfectly ok for others to have their own viewpoints.

This actually makes it much easier for people to accept or consider your views, rather than reacting to them. Really facilitates our understanding and appreciating each other, and makes it more fun:)


Love, Dex

[EP - Ethics Particle]

This: "fixing" another's post by altering it with additions, deletions, etc where it is not VERY obviously shown what was done by way of "fixing" is not OK on my book - and possibly a violation of the ESMB rules.

Using color does not clearly show this "fixing" - not to my mind, anyway.

Often, I myself, "snip" portions and "bold" or "underline" some stuff for emphasis - that said, I hope I never try to "fix" another's message.

I figger I'd deserve a real "ass-kickin" if I were rude or arrogant 'nuff ter pull that kinda shit. :whistling:

EP

[AlphOhm]

This: "fixing" another's post by altering it with additions, deletions, etc where it is not VERY obviously shown what was done by way of "fixing" is not OK on my book - and possibly a violation of the ESMB rules.

Using color does not clearly show this "fixing" - not to my mind, anyway.

Often, I myself, "snip" portions and "bold" or "underline" some stuff for emphasis - that said, I hope I never try to "fix" another's message.

I figger I'd deserve a real "ass-kickin" if I were rude or arrogant 'nuff ter pull that kinda shit. :whistling:

EP

It is a carry over from Enturb/WWP where "fixd it for ya" is done to label a post modified in sarcasm, to troll or for humor.

Annoying, yes if you are expecting some sort of discussion.

[MrNobody]

I'm sorry it disturbs you so much that others see things differently from you that you have to "fix" their statements, and not only in your mind, but publicly.

I "fixed" it, and did it publicly, so that people can see for themselves in which way the original message would change for them, if any.


I hope you feel better now.

I'm fine, thank you. :) It rarely happens that reading and/or replying to a message changes the way I feel at that moment.


You might be better off not exposing yourself to places where a variety of viewpoints are freely expressed, and limit yourself to those venues where you can preach to your own choir.

OK, step by step:
I expose myself to whatever place I want to. I'm terribly sorry that you don't like that.

The variety of viewpoints: I like that. What I don't like is when people hide a simple word behind a huge network of big and partially self-referential words. That's one of the reasons I think $cientology and all of it's derivatives are harmful: They clutter innocent people's minds.

I do or don't limit myself to whatever I choose to. I may not be a very "spiritual" being, but I'm a free one. Deal with it.

Last: I don't need no personal choir and I don't want one. People who don't want to read about my point(s) of view(s), are free to not read me, criticize me, or ignore me. Whatever floats their boat.


As I expressed earlier in this thread:

In my experience and observation, a person who does not feel very threatened by differing viewpoints is either secure enough in his own viewpoint, or not troubled by the idea of changing his mind. He doesn't feel much of a need to assert that those who see things differently have to be wrong so he can be safe and be right. Such a person would tend to express their own views by prefacing their statements with "I feel..." "In my opinion...", "In my experience...", etc. He doesn't feel a need to enforce his views on others with assertive statements that make others wrong for seeing things differently. He can receive and experience differing views without mounting resistance to them, because he does not feel threatened. Ridiculing people for thinking differently than you is a symptom of feeling threatened by them. Stating your professed views in a way intended to enforce them on others(which is foolish), and doing so publicly will create a conflict. When it descends into "You're obviously wrong because everybody else agrees with me, and they are snickering at you", well, clearly, that's just not a good way to be, and doesn't speak well for whatever views are being asserted.

A lot of words to express that you didn't understand my simple message, let alone me.


I enjoy having a friendly and spirited exchange of viewpoints, and we've got a good one going, for the most part, on this thread.

The "most part" you're speaking of, is probably that part that I find disgusting, because I generally find these "Let's validate each other! We're so marvelous!" kind of circlejerks disgusting.

I've seen these self-validating circlejerks as a beginning musician, an I've seen this pattern on many different occasions ever since. If I, back then, hadn't broken this jerk-circle, neither I, nor my fellow musicians from back then, would have had a chance to evolve our understanding of music.

No, I don't expect you to see my point here.


I'd like to respectfully point out that a friendly, spirited exchange of viewpoints can be furthered by making your point by acknowledging in your statements that it is your viewpoint, and not some rigid universal fact that makes everyone who has a different view wrong, and by demonstrating that its perfectly ok for others to have their own viewpoints.

If it was about an exchange of viewpoints, my critical one would have a place here. Does it?


This actually makes it much easier for people to accept or consider your views, rather than reacting to them. Really facilitates our understanding and appreciating each other, and makes it more fun[/I]:)


Love, Dex

About your last line up there: I don't believe you have love for me. I'd even say it'd be OK to admit it. When I joined ESMB, I wasn't looking for love, I was looking for some information and knowledge. Your technique, to hide simple words and simple concepts behind these huge networks of words , is what disturbs me.

KISS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) is my answer, and my techniques and "spiritual" guidances, if one wants to call them that, are free of charge. Not only here. Always.

:cheers:

[MrNobody]

This: "fixing" another's post by altering it with additions, deletions, etc where it is not VERY obviously shown what was done by way of "fixing" is not OK on my book - and possibly a violation of the ESMB rules.

Using color does not clearly show this "fixing" - not to my mind, anyway.

Often, I myself, "snip" portions and "bold" or "underline" some stuff for emphasis - that said, I hope I never try to "fix" another's message.

I figger I'd deserve a real "ass-kickin" if I were rude or arrogant 'nuff ter pull that kinda shit. :whistling:

EP


It is a carry over from Enturb/WWP where "fixd it for ya" is done to label a post modified in sarcasm, to troll or for humor.

Annoying, yes if you are expecting some sort of discussion.

"Fixing" is OK for me as long as it isn't done "secretly". If done secretly it's called Quote Mongering, which is frowned upon almost everywhere.

I DID indicate that I changed the quotes, didn't I?
I did it to make a point.

If Mods and Admins here think it's not OK; I'll gladly take my punishment.

[EP - Ethics Particle]

"Fixing" is OK for me as long as it isn't done "secretly". If done secretly it's called Quote Mongering, which is frowned upon almost everywhere.

I DID indicate that I changed the quotes, didn't I?
I did it to make a point.

If Mods and Admins here think it's not OK; I'll gladly take my punishment.

Perhaps you did make the point that language is a perilous tool with which to attempt communication. :p

"Quote Mongering" huh? Never heard that one before... :yawn:

EP

[dexter gelfand]

I "fixed" it, and did it publicly, so that people can see for themselves in which way the original message would change for them, if any.I'm fine, thank you. :) It rarely happens that reading and/or replying to a message changes the way I feel at that moment.
OK, step by step:
I expose myself to whatever place I want to. I'm terribly sorry that you don't like that.
The variety of viewpoints: I like that. What I don't like is when people hide a simple word behind a huge network of big and partially self-referential words. That's one of the reasons I think $cientology and all of it's derivatives are harmful: They clutter innocent people's minds.
I do or don't limit myself to whatever I choose to. I may not be a very "spiritual" being, but I'm a free one. Deal with it.
Last: I don't need no personal choir and I don't want one. People who don't want to read about my point(s) of view(s), are free to not read me, criticize me, or ignore me. Whatever floats their boat.
A lot of words to express that you didn't understand my simple message, let alone me.
The "most part" you're speaking of, is probably that part that I find disgusting, because I generally find these "Let's validate each other! We're so marvelous!" kind of circlejerks disgusting.
I've seen these self-validating circlejerks as a beginning musician, an I've seen this pattern on many different occasions ever since. If I, back then, hadn't broken this jerk-circle, neither I, nor my fellow musicians from back then, would have had a chance to evolve our understanding of music.
No, I don't expect you to see my point here.
If it was about an exchange of viewpoints, my critical one would have a place here. Does it?
About your last line up there: I don't believe you have love for me. I'd even say it'd be OK to admit it. When I joined ESMB, I wasn't looking for love, I was looking for some information and knowledge. Your technique, to hide simple words and simple concepts behind these huge networks of words , is what disturbs me.
KISS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) is my answer, and my techniques and "spiritual" guidances, if one wants to call them that, are free of charge. Not only here. Always.
:cheers:

Hey MN, I give you points for honesty and being direct, but it is unnecessary and inconsiderate to choose to do so crudely and disrespectfully. I don't mind at all if you contribute how you see things, in fact, although you may not think so, I'm happy if you do. I'd just appreciate it if you'd knock off the deprecating "if you don't see it my way, you're an idiot" attitude. Other than that, I am glad you're participating here.

You see, there's an element here of understanding that we can all grow and benefit from experiencing other views, rather than dismissing other views. I would ask that you participate, and contribute here in that spirit. If all you're here to do is to dismiss other's views, nobody needs that.

You mentioned being a musician, What type of music, and what instrument?

Love, Dex

[MrNobody]

No, you did NOT fix it for me. That's NOT what I wrote. I was saying WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID.

And, no, knowingness does not mean knowledge. But the two are similar.

And a few posts ago in the same thread should be pretty easy to find...


Yes. Yesterday I had the knowingness that the sun was out and that it was in the upper 50s even though it's November in

This statement, and the others like this, are bullshit, IMO. Either the sun is out and you know it, or the son does whatever it does and you don't know it.

This thread isn't interesting enough for me right now, so I will not wade through it all again to find whatever it is that you think is there.

You will not bore me to death with that kind of crap. :p

[olska]

I think the difficultness and the disagreeingness -- I daresay the problematicness -- of this discussion of whether a quality is best described as “knowingness” or “believingness” comes down to whether we grant more weightyness to the evidentialness of what one poster offers rather than the obviousness or truthiness of what has been offered by another.

How then, shall we verify the authenticness of either claim? To some degree it will depend on the assertiveness, the cleverness, and the convincingness put forth by the different parties to the discussion, and the skillfulness of each at discussingness. Argumentativeness plays a part, as well; as does insightfulness; but some people no doubt will be put off by the silliness of it all.

My personal opinion is that -- as with pretty much all religions and spiritual practices -- the belief in, practice of, and experience of phenomena that might seem "unique” to scientology, as well as the “success” of scientology, rests on FAITH.

…and FAITH is powerful stuff, not to be underestimated.

[MrNobody]

Hey MN, I give you points for honesty and being direct, but it is unnecessary and inconsiderate to choose to do so crudely and disrespectfully.

Some people love for my "style" some hate me for it, and some don't care. It's not up to me to decide who does what.

About disrespect: Apart from a very crude and basic form of respect, which any good form of communication requires, I have the opinion that respect has to be earned.To be frank, How can I have respect for a viewpoint that I cannot even SEE, because it is hidden in a huge nebulous cloud of unnecessarily big words?


I don't mind at all if you contribute how you see things, in fact, although you may not think so, I'm happy if you do. I'd just appreciate it if you'd knock off the deprecating "if you don't see it my way, you're an idiot" attitude. Other than that, I am glad you're participating here.

You think I have that attitude? I don't. It's just that don't see your point. If such a point exists, you just hid it too well.


You see, there's an element here of understanding that we can all grow and benefit from experiencing other views, rather than dismissing other views. I would ask that you participate, and contribute here in that spirit. If all you're here to do is to dismiss other's views, nobody needs that.

I don't even need to dismiss it in the 1st place, because from my point of view, yours doesn't even exist. So no matter how hard I try to look at your point, all I see a big fat nothing that you would like me to understand. If I wanted to understand "nothing", I should just go to sleep.

Honestly, I tried to watch your video 2 times, and both times the same thing happened: My brain shut down after 30-40 seconds of nothing. It just isn't designed to process "nothing". I'm sure you don't understand me, but it's the same feeling I have when I read Terril's "success stories", only much stronger.

Give me something to sink my hooks into, and I might give it a go. Give me "nothing" and pretend it was something, and I feel kinda ripped off.


You mentioned being a musician, What type of music, and what instrument?

Love, Dex


I played guitar successfully for many years, then after some serious health issues I had to restart from 0 and chose to play bass guitar (and occasionally upright bass) in Jazz and Blues bands, because guitar was and still isn't an acceptable option. Look at my posts in the "music Video" section to find out what I play and what I like. Oh, and I occasionally play Keyboard, Drums and a bunch of other instruments, but I'm not really skilled and/or useful with these.

[Voltaire's Child]

This statement, and the others like this, are bullshit, IMO. Either the sun is out and you know it, or the son does whatever it does and you don't know it.

This thread isn't interesting enough for me right now, so I will not wade through it all again to find whatever it is that you think is there.

You will not bore me to death with that kind of crap. :p

You don't have to wade through the thread to find whatever I think is there. You already quoted it in your response to me. So that 's cool.

I'm glad I won't bore you to death. That's a good thing.

We can certainly agree to disagree. I'm mainly interested in explaining the concepts-and, really, I'm more than happy to call them "theories", if anyone'd rather. I'm not interested in purveying my personal beliefs for anyone's ratification. Hope that helps a bit...

[Voltaire's Child]

"Fixing" is OK for me as long as it isn't done "secretly". If done secretly it's called Quote Mongering, which is frowned upon almost everywhere.

I DID indicate that I changed the quotes, didn't I?
I did it to make a point.

If Mods and Admins here think it's not OK; I'll gladly take my punishment.

It's not forbidden or against any ROCs, that I can see. But it's kind of uncool when I'm politely trying to explain a concept, and I'm talking about WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK and I'm posting what THEY might say in a certain situation, and then you go in and fuck with it. It discourages discussion of the topic, to say the least.

[uniquemand]

It's intellectually dishonest, unless the "fix" is really clearly shown not to be the author's original text.

[Zinjifar]

It's intellectually dishonest, unless the "fix" is really clearly shown not to be the author's original text.

It was.

The 'I fixed it for you' may be irritating for some; it even has been for me, and, I'm notoriously sanguine :)

Zinj

[uniquemand]

It was.

The 'I fixed it for you' may be irritating for Claire; it even has been for me, and, I'm notoriously a douche :)

Zinj

Fixed it for you.

[Zinjifar]

Fixed it for you.

Obviously :)

Zinj

[MrNobody]

It's not forbidden or against any ROCs, that I can see. But it's kind of uncool when I'm politely trying to explain a concept, and I'm talking about WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK and I'm posting what THEY might say in a certain situation, and then you go in and fuck with it. It discourages discussion of the topic, to say the least.

So you also ignore the point I tried to make when I made that fix? That makes me sad.

[uniquemand]

So you aren't willing to discuss the point I tried to make by altering what you said? That makes me sad.

Fixed it for you.

[dexter gelfand]

I have the opinion that respect has to be earned.
It's just that don't see your point. If such a point exists, you just hid it too well.
I don't even need to dismiss it in the 1st place, because from my point of view, yours doesn't even exist.
Honestly, I tried to watch your video 2 times, and both times the same thing happened: My brain shut down after 30-40 seconds of nothing. It just isn't designed to process "nothing". I'm sure you don't understand me, but it's the same feeling I have when I read Terril's "success stories", only much stronger.


Alright M.N., I got your assertion that my communication is nothing, and I am nothing. Well, since there's nothing here, I guess you might as well disregard this thread and move on to others, as you said you would earlier today. Thanks for "nothing" :D

Love, Dex

[MrNobody]

Fixed it for you.

Why, thanks, but that still doesn't address my point. :)

[uniquemand]

You had a point? I thought you were altering Claire's point.

[MrNobody]

Alright M.N., I got your assertion that my communication is nothing, and I am nothing. Well, since there's nothing here, I guess you might as well disregard this thread and move on to others, as you said you would earlier today. Thanks for "nothing" :D

Love, Dex

I did NEVER say that you are nothing. Geeze Louise, are you now making me defend you against yourself? :)

Let me try again: Whatever message, if any, you tried to transmit, ended up as nothing at one recipient's end, and I was that recipient.

[programmer_guy]

I think the difficultness and the disagreeingness -- I daresay the problematicness -- of this discussion of whether a quality is best described as “knowingness” or “believingness” comes down to whether we grant more weightyness to the evidentialness of what one poster offers rather than the obviousness or truthiness of what has been offered by another.

How then, shall we verify the authenticness of either claim? To some degree it will depend on the assertiveness, the cleverness, and the convincingness put forth by the different parties to the discussion, and the skillfulness of each at discussingness. Argumentativeness plays a part, as well; as does insightfulness; but some people no doubt will be put off by the silliness of it all.

My personal opinion is that -- as with pretty much all religions and spiritual practices -- the belief in, practice of, and experience of phenomena that might seem "unique” to scientology, as well as the “success” of scientology, rests on FAITH.

…and FAITH is powerful stuff, not to be underestimated.

Very funny!
Except I take issue with your last word... it should be "underestimatedness". :D

[degraded being]

Just more cult jargon

www.thefreedictionary.com/jargon

jargon

jar·gon (järgn)
n.
1. Nonsensical, incoherent, or meaningless talk.
2. A hybrid language or dialect; a pidgin.
3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group. See Synonyms at dialect.
4. Speech or writing having unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, and vague meaning.
intr.v. jar·goned, jar·gon·ing, jar·gons
To speak in or use jargon.

_______________________________________

thesaurus.com/browse/jargon

Main Entry: jargon
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: specialized language; dialect


Synonyms:
abracadabra, argot, balderdash, banality, bombast, bunk, buzzwords, cant, cliché, colloquialism, commonplace term, doublespeak, drivel, fustian, gibberish, hackneyed term, idiom, insipidity, lexicon, lingo, mumbo jumbo, neologism, newspeak, nonsense, overused term, palaver, parlance, patois, patter, rigmarole, shoptalk, slang, slanguage, speech, stale language, street talk, tongue, trite language, twaddle, usage, vernacular, vocabulary


Antonyms: standard

[Voltaire's Child]

Mr. Nobody, I had, indeed taken up the matter of belief vs knowing in the post you quoted. My point had only been that when you get into the realm of the intangible- where others can't verify something being said and they have THEIR thoughts on the matter, that to them, the person doesn't know the thing, he only believes it's so. Whereas with the tangible, it's easier to get everyone on the same page. Such as my example with Jojo the kitten. John SAW her stick her paw in my eye. My coworkers SAW that it was kinda red. Or the example about the Seattle weather on Sunday. A number of us witnessed it. So yeah, we all knew it was like that.

Although you can have subjective views of tangible events, too. Such as when you get several witnesses to an accident and they don't all give the same version of events. Still and all, though, when it comes to things that aren't so tangible, it's not so clear cut. I said all this in my previous post. (the one you fixed) So I don't push my beliefs on people. Never did. Anyone who says I did is mistaken or lying, in fact. (but just my having -and publicly saying so- any beliefs that differed from theirs was taken as a personal insult to some, it seems.)

And as I said before, it is my personal opinion that this could be where the "true for you" thingie kicks in.

So that's exactly why I prefer to discuss Scn as a third party, Tab A goes in Slot b (I'd be a LOT happier right now if that's what I was doing, in fact) type discourse. I preferred it when I was a CofS Scn'ist posting to fora, I preferred it when I was a non CofS Scn'ist posting, and I prefer it now that I'm neither of those things.

heeere and there, heeere and there...:whistling::whistling::whistling: :coolwink:

[dexter gelfand]

I did NEVER say that you are nothing. Geeze Louise, are you now making me defend you against yourself? :)


Sure, why not, I'm lazy, saves me the work:)

Love, Dex

[MrNobody]

Mr. Nobody, I had, indeed taken up the matter of belief vs knowing in the post you quoted.

I've quoted more than one post in this thread. When you are to lazy to quote it, well, I am too lazy to dig it up, ATM.


My point had only been that when you get into the realm of the intangible- where others can't verify something being said and they have THEIR thoughts on the matter, that to them, the person doesn't know the thing, he only believes it's so. Whereas with the tangible, it's easier to get everyone on the same page. Such as my example with Jojo the kitten. John SAW her stick her paw in my eye. My coworkers SAW that it was kinda red. Or the example about the Seattle weather on Sunday. A number of us witnessed it. So yeah, we all knew it was like that.

Although you can have subjective views of tangible events, too. Such as when you get several witnesses to an accident and they don't all give the same version of events. Still and all, though, when it comes to things that aren't so tangible, it's not so clear cut. I said all this in my previous post. (the one you fixed) So I don't push my beliefs on people. Never did. Anyone who says I did is mistaken or lying, in fact. (but just my having -and publicly saying so- any beliefs that differed from theirs was taken as a personal insult to some, it seems.)

And as I said before, it is my personal opinion that this could be where the "true for you" thingie kicks in.

So that's exactly why I prefer to discuss Scn as a third party, Tab A goes in Slot b (I'd be a LOT happier right now if that's what I was doing, in fact) type discourse. I preferred it when I was a CofS Scn'ist posting to fora, I preferred it when I was a non CofS Scn'ist posting, and I prefer it now that I'm neither of those things.

heeere and there, heeere and there...:whistling::whistling::whistling: :coolwink:

Look, we have two different issues here.

1. knowledge vs. belief.

2. knowingness = belief.


1. knowledge vs. belief.

Knowledge vs. belief is indeed an interesting issue. My ex-wife and I have many funny fights, when we talk about events we've witnessed together side by side, back in our days, because our "truths" sometimes differ greatly. If you heard each of us describe the same event separately, you would hardly recognize the it was the same event we've seen.

So, do we have 2 different truths about the same event? Nope, we have 2 different perceptions of truth, resulting in different interpretations. It gets more interesting, when a 3rd person who's been there joins the discussion. Now we have 3 truths and so on.

OK, in everyday conversations I call that truth, I'm sloppy like that. Technically, it's just perception of truth, and if more people are involved, it's an agreement of common perceptions all people share.

A coffee cup fell off the table. True. Everybody has seen if fall, everybody sees it is down on the floor and broken.

It's true, we have a broken cup on the floor. Undisputable truth, cold, hard fact.

Now how did it happen?

Here is where truth becomes muddy. Did I shove it off the table with my elbow? Did my wife's jacket "grab" it while she was walking by?

Here we leave the truth section and go over to the belief section. I believe my wife did it, my wife believes I did it. So although we both have our personal perception of truth, there is no actual truth there. All we have are 2 different beliefs with no actual truth in any of them.

We can't even say "One of the two must be true", because it could have been our dog, who shattered the table, or an other unknown external source.

OK, if that didn't make it clear, then I don't know what does. On to:


2. knowingness = belief.
Sigh, good thing this is easier.
Knowingness is an artificial word the Hubtard made up to muddy the waters between knowledge and belief. Therefore, and since I'm too lazy to do any further digging, it falls in the belief section.

[AlphOhm]

<snip>


2. knowingness = belief.
Sigh, good thing this is easier.
Knowingness is an artificial word the Hubtard made up to muddy the waters between knowledge and belief. Therefore, and since I'm too lazy to do any further digging, it falls in the belief section.

Looks like an invented definition.

here 3 defs from older Tech Dictionary:

KNOWINGNESS,
1. being certainness. (PAB 1)
2 . a capability for truth; it is not
data. (PDC 47)
3 . knowingness would be self-determined knowledge.
(5405C20)



...and some regular English data:



Suffix "-ness"
ness- in "happiness", "worthiness", and "emptiness" where -ness makes the word into an abstract concept

( http://www.oed.com/learning/a-level/lessons.html )



http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=knowingness :

Noun

* S: (n) awareness, consciousness, cognizance, cognisance, knowingness (having knowledge of) "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
* S: (n) knowingness (shrewdness demonstrated by knowledge)



look a bit further on the web for more data on this word--it is interesting

[Infinite]

This twisting of language is an academically recognised phenomena among cults. Dr Robert J Lifton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Lifton)'s book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, orignally published in 1956, provided some initial definitions in this regard, among which is his description of what he termed as "loading the language": (http://www.ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria)


LOADING THE LANGUAGE

the language of the totalist environment [ within cults ] is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche (thought-stoppers) repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon "the language of non-thought" [in which] words are given new meanings -- the outside world does not use the words or phrases in the same way -- it becomes a "group" word or phrase.

Old Guard and Legend, Margery Wakefield, expands on this use of language to twist reality in her book Understanding Scientology. Check out Chapter Eight (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-08.html) for a partial list of English language words which have been modified by L Ron Hubbard so as to manufacture agreement with his science fiction.

[Infinite]

Looks like an invented definition.

here 3 defs from older Tech Dictionary:

KNOWINGNESS,
1. being certainness. (PAB 1)
2 . a capability for truth; it is not
data. (PDC 47)
3 . knowingness would be self-determined knowledge.
(5405C20)

In this instance, the inventor of the new meaning is L Ron Hubbard. Note how the tech dictionary carries another invented word: certainness. Start meddling with definitions of such key words in a philosophy framework and it won't be long before you too are convinced you are infested with the spiritual debris of space aliens blown up 75 million years ago in volcanoes that never existed at the time by an evil galactic overlord now imprisoned in a mountain thanks to eternal-life batteries.

But, never mind. Lucky for us there are "auditors" who can "clear" your "reactive mind" from such "whole track" infestations and prevent you "pulling in" a "motivator" which results in "overts". Such an "aberee" will have to ensure their "ethics are in" if they are to "destimulate" and avoid "overt motivator sequences" which generate "band indicators" and "entheta" and engage in "theta cycles of action" and progress toward "the eighth dynamic".

[AlphOhm]

In this instance, the inventor of the new meaning is L Ron Hubbard. Note how the tech dictionary carries another invented word: certainness. Start meddling with definitions of such key words in a philosophy framework and it won't be long before you too are convinced you are infested with the spiritual debris of space aliens blown up 75 million years ago in volcanoes that never existed at the time by an evil galactic overlord now imprisoned in a mountain thanks to eternal-life batteries.

But, never mind. Lucky for us there are "auditors" who can "clear" your "reactive mind" from such "whole track" infestations and prevent you "pulling in" a "motivator" which results in "overts". Such an "aberee" will have to ensure their "ethics are in" if they are to "destimulate" and avoid "overt motivator sequences" which generate "band indicators" and "entheta" and engage in "theta cycles of action" and progress toward "the eighth dynamic".

If you will hop off that soapbox, take the "all Scn data is garbage" goggles off and scroll up--you may notice that "Knowingness" was not an invented word.

Or not--salvaging you from prejudice and/or ignorance is not my goal here. :shrug:

[programmer_guy]

In this instance, the inventor of the new meaning is L Ron Hubbard. Note how the tech dictionary carries another invented word: certainness. Start meddling with definitions of such key words in a philosophy framework and it won't be long before you too are convinced you are infested with the spiritual debris of space aliens blown up 75 million years ago in volcanoes that never existed at the time by an evil galactic overlord now imprisoned in a mountain thanks to eternal-life batteries.

But, never mind. Lucky for us there are "auditors" who can "clear" your "reactive mind" from such "whole track" infestations and prevent you "pulling in" a "motivator" which results in "overts". Such an "aberee" will have to ensure their "ethics are in" if they are to "destimulate" and avoid "overt motivator sequences" which generate "band indicators" and "entheta" and engage in "theta cycles of action" and progress toward "the eighth dynamic".

Good post. :thumbsup:

But trying to talk some sense to freezoners is probably a lost cause.

[dexter gelfand]

I sure lacked knowingness about how difficult to understand this concept could be for some people!

To avoid using Scientology sources as a reference (anti-Scientologists will be more willing to understand once they see that this idea predates Scientology by many centuries) I googled the term:

Knowingness
The inherent knowingness, or nous, was called the logos by some Christians, total intellect by the Sufis, and discriminating awareness by the Buddhists. Now, this discriminating awareness or knowingness is the source of all experience – the various impressions, forms, and colors. Whether they are extraordinary physical experiences or unusual spiritual experiences, they are all the same to the inherent knowingness – they are all knowingness at different levels and intensities of brilliance. The ego experience is just dull knowingness, while the essential experience is bright knowingness, a luminous presence. (http://www.ahalmaas.com/Glossary/k/knowingness.htm)

More at this link: http://www.illuminatetoday.com/yoga/intution-knowingness-that-comes-without-explanation.htm

and this: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Other_Spiritual_Pieces_68/Accessing-your-Knowingness-from-Thousands-of-Past-Lives_printer.shtml

and this: http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=88404

This one, from Urban Dictionary, might communicate it best for you:
1. knowingness
An awareness of self that transcends age or experience.

Please understand, I'm not trying to enforce or even influence at all your acceptance or belief of this concept. Just trying to help clear up and settle the meaning, at least as I use the term.

Since all this discussion is based on my use of the term in my freezone talk video, THIS is what I'm intending to communicate.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kD_8WMb0k&feature=sub



Just to bring things back to the point.

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

If you will hop off that soapbox, take the "all Scn data is garbage" goggles off and scroll up--you may notice that "Knowingness" was not an invented word.

Or not--salvaging you from prejudice and/or ignorance is not my goal here. :shrug:

You'll note I said: "the inventor of the new meaning" of the word "knowingness". No one is arguing over the existence of the word, just the fact that it is a primary example of L Ron Hubbard's use of language to manufacture agreement. You seem "stuck in an incident", or perhaps you've simply failed to "obnose".

[AlphOhm]

You'll note I said: "the inventor of the new meaning" of the word "knowingness". No one is arguing over the existence of the word, just the fact that it is a primary example of L Ron Hubbard's use of language to manufacture agreement. You seem "stuck in an incident", or perhaps you've simply failed to "obnose".

Language changes, evolves. New definitions appear, archaic ones fall away. It is not a static state, but a dynamic one.

How is what you propose that he was supposedly doing all that much different than what you are attempting to do "now"?

[Infinite]

I sure lacked knowingness about how difficult to understand this concept could be for some people

No. People understand exactly the concept behind your use of the word "knowingness" - its just that some here don't agree. Equally, as per you video, some here find it manipulative that you would seek to apply "affinity" as a tool to leverage "communication" and, presumably, "agreement". Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain your "intent" in doing so?

[programmer_guy]

Just to bring things back to the point.

Love, Dex


Dex, you definitely talk like a Scientologist. (Can I get an "okay" on that?)
This is a pseudo-science that you are trapped in.

My opinion is that it is most difficult to get intellectuals out of Scientology because they think that they have finally found where science meets the spiritual. And this is where that trap is (that, and the "group validation" that you get and makes you feel good).

[Infinite]

Language changes, evolves. New definitions appear, archaic ones fall away. It is not a static state, but a dynamic one.

Absolutely. Its one of the reasons I love language - it seems to me at times to be a living thing. Its instrumental in shaping our thoughts and determining our actions. Its essential, therefore, that we understand how it is being applied, what thoughts are being shaped and what actions are being sought.


How is what you propose that he was supposedly doing all that much different than what you are attempting to do "now"?

You've lost me. What, exactly, am I attempting to do?

[AlphOhm]

Absolutely. Its one of the reasons I love language - it seems to me at times to be a living thing. Its instrumental in shaping our thoughts and determining our actions. Its essential, therefore, that we understand how it is being applied, what thoughts are being shaped and what actions are being sought.



You've lost me. What, exactly, am I attempting to do?

Well unless you just like to read lines of text you type onto a board, I would estimate that you would like to be "understood"--perhaps through gaining "agreement" (reality).

Maybe you can tell me?

[Infinite]

Well unless you just like to read lines of text you type onto a board, I would estimate that you would like to be "understood"--perhaps through gaining "agreement" (reality).

Maybe you can tell me?

Bzzzt . . . wrong.

Understanding is not dependant on agreement and, further, reality is not agreement. In fact, reality is the arena where agreement and disagreement face off. If reality were agreement, Earth would still be flat, the Sun would revolve around the disc, and it would be "turtles all the way down".

Surely you're not trying to say, for example, there was no such thing as gravity until we all agreed that it existed?

[AlphOhm]

Surely you're not trying to say, for example, there was no such thing as gravity until we all agreed that it existed?



Please specify "time" if applicable and "which universe".

:hysterical:

[uniquemand]

Agreement doesn't create reality, but it does establish a sense of sharing a perception of reality. Sharing is so soft and cuddly, how can you not like it!

[Infinite]

Please specify "time" if applicable and "which universe".

Now you're just being silly. I knew there was something I liked about you.

[Infinite]

I actually have not seen any promo recently for freezoners. Is there an online link to some you have noticed? To me it is important to be honest in representation. If you are open about using Dianetics or Scientology techniques, fine. If you use them but do not say what they are--probably OK too. If you do not say what they are and attempt to coerce someone into some "belief system"--that seems deceptive or dishonest to me.


Found one (http://www.lifeimp.com/) . . . and its a classic. I should have picked it up earlier when one of these people talked specifically about NOT telling people they are about to encounter Scientology when evangelising (Scilons call it dissemination). Listen carefully at 1:30 when Anita Warren tells how she learned to avoid using the word Scientology,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKvZyQbmzHo&feature=related

So much for ethics. So much for freedom of religion. So much for integrity.

There is not one mention of the word "Scientology" within the entire website. The front page makes the disclaimer that: "We are not affiliated with any organization using L. Ron Hubbard's technologies", yet, as you can see from the video above, there is Anita Warren fronting the FreeZone 2010 Conference. They also have the bare-faced audacity to offer a drug rehab programme - despite clear evidence that Hubbard's idiocy in this regard is not only ineffective but, worse, highly dangerous. There is a reference to Dianetics. I was horrified to see these charlatans claiming Dianetic Auditing will help heal high blood pressure, migraine headaches, and asthma. Most frightening for me was the promotion of this pernicious necromancy as being suitable for children. Check out what L Ron Hubbard believes is a suitable set of questions to ask children as young as 6 years:

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4318/58597164.jpg

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1907/97129005.jpg

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7638/74538732.jpg

Sick sick sick.

[Infinite]

I actually have not seen any promo recently for freezoners. Is there an online link to some you have noticed? To me it is important to be honest in representation. If you are open about using Dianetics or Scientology techniques, fine. If you use them but do not say what they are--probably OK too. If you do not say what they are and attempt to coerce someone into some "belief system"--that seems deceptive or dishonest to me.


And . . . another one. (http://www.highintegrityliving.com/index.html)

Ironically, this FreeZoner, Mary Freeman, talks about "high integrity" living and yet her website makes no mention of Scientology, or L Ron Hubbard, or Dianetics. Like the Warrens, Freeman masks her Scientology beliefs under the guise of "Life Coach". Here she is at the 2010 FreeZone Conference discussing the the importance of "Standard Tech".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeoiJc-4Taw

[dexter gelfand]

Found one (http://www.lifeimp.com/) . . . and its a classic. I should have picked it up earlier when one of these people talked specifically about NOT telling people they are about to encounter Scientology when evangelising (Scilons call it dissemination). Listen carefully at 1:30 when Anita Warren tells how she learned to avoid using the word Scientology,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKvZyQbmzHo&feature=related

So much for ethics. So much for freedom of religion. So much for integrity.

There is not one mention of the word "Scientology" within the entire website. The front page makes the disclaimer that: "We are not affiliated with any organization using L. Ron Hubbard's technologies", yet, as you can see from the video above, there is Anita Warren fronting the FreeZone 2010 Conference. They also have the bare-faced audacity to offer a drug rehab programme - despite clear evidence that Hubbard's idiocy in this regard is not only ineffective but, worse, highly dangerous. There is a reference to Dianetics. I was horrified to see these charlatans claiming Dianetic Auditing will help heal high blood pressure, migraine headaches, and asthma. Most frightening for me was the promotion of this pernicious necromancy as being suitable for children. Check out what L Ron Hubbard believes is a suitable set of questions to ask children as young as 6 years:

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4318/58597164.jpg

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1907/97129005.jpg

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7638/74538732.jpg

Sick sick sick.

Hey Blip, now you're making me sick. If you knew Anita even a little, you would never piss on her like that. She's as good a person as you'll ever hear of. Grow up just a little, and make the honest effort to wrap your head around this:

There are plenty of us who practice Scientology, because it works great for us and our PC's.

We have left the CoS because of our own experiences, which proved that the Church was doing more harm than good, despite our having found to our satisfaction that tremendous good can be accomplished with conscientious application of pre-Miscaviage era Scientology and Dianetics techniques.

In our view, (Get that, Blip? We have our own view- we are not being dishonest, we are being true to ourselves)The word "Scientology" has largely negative connotations, due not to any inherent evil, deceit or lack of workability, but to the actions of the CoS, and Miscaviage's corruption of the techniques to repackage/resell/dramatize his need to be "source".

So, in order to be true to what we consider to be our callings in life (newsflash Blip, the fact that you see it differently doesn't make us liars, scammers or sheep, deal with it) it is not unreasonable that we can make the choice to, at least initially, not shoot ourselves in the foot by using the term in promoting ourselves, at least until the person can experience a bit of what we have to offer, at which point they can better differentiate between what we do and what the Church does.

Freezoners don't have the CoS's million$ to spend on PR campaigns, so, if we are going to take the initiative to make helping others with these techniques our life's work, we have to find a way to work with the existing situation.

How dare you slime good people like Mary and Anita, both of whom I personally know well to be people who would help anybody in need whether or not the person could pay. How reckless and irresponsible you are being in doing this.

You know what, Blip? While you spend so much of your time indiscriminately badmouthing anything and everything connected with Scientology, making knowing and reckless leaps of logic and stretches of credibility to paint it all black, Mary and Anita have been helping people to fix their bad marriages, get many people over drug habits and lifestyles, and be able to smile and enjoy life after some very rough times. You could call Mary today, show her every nasty thing you've ever said about what she does and believes in, and then ask her help in resolving some issue that was really troubling you, over the phone, and she would happily and sweetly give you some useful and helpful advice, without taking a dime from you. Same for Anita.

Speak your mind to your heart's desire about your experiences, your observations, and your viewpoint, Blip, I wouldn't have it any other way. But for the sake of decency, be considerate, be responsible, measure your words, don't overstep beyond what you really know when you talk about another person. In short, grow up.

Love, Dex

[Voltaire's Child]

I've quoted more than one post in this thread. When you are to lazy to quote it, well, I am too lazy to dig it up, ATM.



Look, we have two different issues here.

1. knowledge vs. belief.

2. knowingness = belief.


1. knowledge vs. belief.

Knowledge vs. belief is indeed an interesting issue. My ex-wife and I have many funny fights, when we talk about events we've witnessed together side by side, back in our days, because our "truths" sometimes differ greatly. If you heard each of us describe the same event separately, you would hardly recognize the it was the same event we've seen.

So, do we have 2 different truths about the same event? Nope, we have 2 different perceptions of truth, resulting in different interpretations. It gets more interesting, when a 3rd person who's been there joins the discussion. Now we have 3 truths and so on.

OK, in everyday conversations I call that truth, I'm sloppy like that. Technically, it's just perception of truth, and if more people are involved, it's an agreement of common perceptions all people share.

A coffee cup fell off the table. True. Everybody has seen if fall, everybody sees it is down on the floor and broken.

It's true, we have a broken cup on the floor. Undisputable truth, cold, hard fact.

Now how did it happen?

Here is where truth becomes muddy. Did I shove it off the table with my elbow? Did my wife's jacket "grab" it while she was walking by?

Here we leave the truth section and go over to the belief section. I believe my wife did it, my wife believes I did it. So although we both have our personal perception of truth, there is no actual truth there. All we have are 2 different beliefs with no actual truth in any of them.

We can't even say "One of the two must be true", because it could have been our dog, who shattered the table, or an other unknown external source.

OK, if that didn't make it clear, then I don't know what does. On to:


2. knowingness = belief.
Sigh, good thing this is easier.
Knowingness is an artificial word the Hubtard made up to muddy the waters between knowledge and belief. Therefore, and since I'm too lazy to do any further digging, it falls in the belief section.

I had quoted it, earlier and you responded to that post. You quoted my text. You responded to it. Then, later, you said I didn't post things I'd posted. So then, I reiterated what I'd said to you. That's far from lazy. I went in and wrote details on my thoughts on knowingness, in responses to you, twice.

As I said before, one can have knowingness about something that can be verified. So there it clearly isn't belief. One can have knowingness about something that is true but is intangible, meaning that it cannot be verified. To another person, that looks like belief. That's FINE with me. I've also seen people claim they knew something when they were A) Stating an opinion and B) stating an INCORRECT opinion. So that's an example right there of someone claiming to know when they only believe.

But it's not always that way. Sometimes knowingness is about something true and correct, sometimes the person only thinks they hit the nail on the head and they didn't. So there it was only their belief even though they thought they knew. But I would never say Knowingness=belief any more than I'd say that everyone who states they have knowingness about something really DID know. I don't make those generalizations.

So that brings me to "knowingness" as a concept. The idea is that maybe there IS a state/action one can achieve where one truly KNOWS. I think it's an interesting concept. Conceptually, it's not about belief. But if one happens to think that "knowingness" does not exist, then that person WILL perceive it as belief. As an abstract concept being discussed, I would compare the theory of knowingness to "grokking". Whether or not these things are real, I leave up to the individual to decide.


I don't need people to agree with me about my beliefs. I don't even really post much about them on this forum. I sure haven't done so on this thread. My interest in discussing this topic is from an outside party point of view. I'm not here to discuss or defend any beliefs. The only thing that ever pisses me off here is the idea that others shouldn't be able to say or believe what they do. You know how I felt when a good friend of mine dismissed the posts on ESMB as "mutual out ruds"? I was unhappy with the person and I expressed my disagreement, too. When I read that stupid post on Marty's blog by atcause about the kind of people (he thinks) post here, I was extremely annoyed. I wrote a fairly low key and polite response taking issue with it. It was nuked, however. I feel the same way about people doing Scn outside the cult. It's the same issue, as far as I'm concerned. I have NOTHING emotionally invested in anyone believing in knowingness. To me, it's JUST a concept being discussed. That's IT.

This makes three very detailed responses to you. Far from lazy.

It seems that you might not approve of me or my posting here. If that is the case, then perhaps we should see other people. It's not you, it's me. I need more from a relationship than this. :coolwink:

[Infinite]

Speak your mind to your heart's desire about your experiences, your observations, and your viewpoint, Blip, I wouldn't have it any other way. But for the sake of decency, be considerate, be responsible, measure your words, don't overstep beyond what you really know when you talk about another person. In short, grow up.

Tsk tsk tsk . . . getting a tad banky there, aren't you Dex?

A closer examination of the FreeZone has turned up a bunch of people with no formal qualifications offering all manner of cures for mental and physical ailments based on the teachings of a mad man. Here in wog world that sort of activity is defined as quackery.

No one here has a problem with anyone practising their religious beliefs. The objection comes from an abhorrence of those who would lure innocents into participating in spiritual ceremonies via the use of deception. In the case of the Warrens its also dangerous. Do they have anyone with any medical training on site when they are overdosing people on niacin (http://www.slate.com/id/2108471/) and leaving them to stew in saunas?

It was interesting to hear Mary talk about Standard Tech. Perhaps she doesn't recall, or never did, the L Ron Hubbard Dissemination Course (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5100290/scientologydisseminationtechnology). Take a look. You will see that Hubbard mentions over and over again the need to be overt about Scientology, to be proud of it in fact. Any other approach, Hubbard says, will lead to very poor results. Can I assume from the FreeZone's approach to the marketing of the tech that it has found this particular aspect of it to be faulty and, if so, what does that say about any other aspect of it?

Perhaps you haven't had a chance to catch up with some of the news in relation to the WHO and the WHY (http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/scientology-and-wrong-why.html) in regard to the failure of Scientology. There's two parts, so make sure you read both - unless your "knowingness" prevents you, of course. If it does, be advised: the rest of the world has moved on.

Your suggestion to me is "grow up"; mine to you is "wake up".

[Veda]

:dance3::dance3::dance3::dance3::dance3::dance3: :dance3::dance3::dance3: :dance3:





-snip-

The word "Scientology" has largely negative connotations, due not to any inherent evil, deceit or lack of workability, but to the actions of the CoS, and Miscaviage's corruption of the techniques to repackage/resell/dramatize his need to be "source".

-snip-

http://www.friendsoflrh.org Please stand http://galac-patra.narod.ru/index.html

:dance3::dance3::dance3::dance3::dance3: :dance3::dance3::dance3::hysterical:

[MrNobody]

I had quoted it, earlier and you responded to that post. You quoted my text. You responded to it. Then, later, you said I didn't post things I'd posted. So then, I reiterated what I'd said to you. That's far from lazy. I went in and wrote details on my thoughts on knowingness, in responses to you, twice.

As I said before, one can have knowingness about something that can be verified. So there it clearly isn't belief. One can have knowingness about something that is true but is intangible, meaning that it cannot be verified. To another person, that looks like belief. That's FINE with me. I've also seen people claim they knew something when they were A) Stating an opinion and B) stating an INCORRECT opinion. So that's an example right there of someone claiming to know when they only believe.

But it's not always that way. Sometimes knowingness is about something true and correct, sometimes the person only thinks they hit the nail on the head and they didn't. So there it was only their belief even though they thought they knew. But I would never say Knowingness=belief any more than I'd say that everyone who states they have knowingness about something really DID know. I don't make those generalizations.

So that brings me to "knowingness" as a concept. The idea is that maybe there IS a state/action one can achieve where one truly KNOWS. I think it's an interesting concept. Conceptually, it's not about belief. But if one happens to think that "knowingness" does not exist, then that person WILL perceive it as belief. As an abstract concept being discussed, I would compare the theory of knowingness to "grokking". Whether or not these things are real, I leave up to the individual to decide.


I don't need people to agree with me about my beliefs. I don't even really post much about them on this forum. I sure haven't done so on this thread. My interest in discussing this topic is from an outside party point of view. I'm not here to discuss or defend any beliefs. The only thing that ever pisses me off here is the idea that others shouldn't be able to say or believe what they do. You know how I felt when a good friend of mine dismissed the posts on ESMB as "mutual out ruds"? I was unhappy with the person and I expressed my disagreement, too. When I read that stupid post on Marty's blog by atcause about the kind of people (he thinks) post here, I was extremely annoyed. I wrote a fairly low key and polite response taking issue with it. It was nuked, however. I feel the same way about people doing Scn outside the cult. It's the same issue, as far as I'm concerned. I have NOTHING emotionally invested in anyone believing in knowingness. To me, it's JUST a concept being discussed. That's IT.

This makes three very detailed responses to you. Far from lazy.

You seem to want to play the same game with me that my ex-wife likes to play. The thing is: You aren't my ex-wife. Yet. :wink:

"I said something somewhere, and if you want to know what it was, go look for your self." Nobody can win in this kind of game, so I don't play it anymore. At least not for too long. Had you wanted me to see your post, you would have just said "OK, here's the link." You didn't do that. I had and still have no desire to wade through 20 pages and check every post from you whether it could be the one you were talking about. I also have no intention to let this new little "who did when what" game escalate.

I tried to make you see my point, you didn't want to see it, end of story.



It seems that you might not approve of me or my posting here.

Huh? what makes you think so? Is this a duet with Dex? He says I had said he's nothing, which I didn't, now you say something about me not approving you or your postings here? What is this shit?

I didn't disapprove you, nor did I disapprove your postings. And even if, since when do YOU need my approval, Claire?

I might very well disagree with some of the content in some of your posts, but that's as far as it goes.


If that is the case, then perhaps we should see other people. It's not you, it's me. I need more from a relationship than this. :coolwink:

Being able to let go is one of my bestest features. "If they were worth it, they'll come back", i always say. :)

:cheers:

[Voltaire's Child]

I didn't tell you to go look for yourself. I pointed out that you did do so and that you quoted it. So good job. I'm glad you did it. Then, I reiterated what I'd said, though trying to expound further, rather than recycle an old post. So I think that worked out ok. Either way, you didn't have to wade back through anything. I never asked you to do so. I made it so that you would not have to do so.

As far as anything else goes, I'm just going by the things you say to me. If it applies, fine. If not, that's fine, too. I have nothing emotionally invested here. I assume that this is true of others, too. So good on that.

[dexter gelfand]

You seem to want to play the same game with me that my ex-wife likes to play. The thing is: You aren't my ex-wife. Yet. :wink:
:cheers:

:roflmao:

Love, Dex

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh hell, I'd not be inclined to ever pick up another husband. Were I to go git me some, I'd be more likely to just have sex with the (lucky) guy...

[Voltaire's Child]

Though if it was like posts on this thread, it would be like, ok, did I not just suck your dick? :dieslaughing:

[Infinite]

At least FreeZoner Pat Krenic was slightly more open about what's going on:


The question was asked, "What is this religion all about?"

So lets start at the beginning with Dianetics. Dianetics used to be called "through the mind". It is a therapy . . . <snip> . . . Scientology has been a religion since 1953, when LRH realized that dealing with the spirit is a religious activity. It also solved a big problem we were having earlier...how to deliver Dianetics and Scientology in States that required a degree in psychology for a license to practice. I know I had tried to "hang out a shingle" as a Dianetic auditor, and could not in this State as I did not have a degree.

In her "knowingness", however, she's made a factual error. Scientology became a religion after Hubbard sold the rights to the word "Dianetics" and, still having financial troubles, was ducking and diving from the IRS. She's quite right in her statement that the religious cloaking "solved a big problem" - trouble is, its solved the problem for the auditors but passed the problem onto the innocent public.

The FreeZone is going to have to piss or get off the pot. Is it a religion, in which case stop luring people into your wacko spiritual nonsense with mendacious marketing. If not, then get up to speed with modern mental and physical health practises instead of hiding out in some disproved 1950s model putting people at risk, perpetuating myths, and poisoning drug addicts. And, FFS - keep your hands off our children!!

I have little doubt that it is your intention to bring healing to the world. But, as we all know, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.

[AlphOhm]

Found one (http://www.lifeimp.com/) . . . and its a classic. I should have picked it up earlier when one of these people talked specifically about NOT telling people they are about to encounter Scientology when evangelising (Scilons call it dissemination). Listen carefully at 1:30 when Anita Warren tells how she learned to avoid using the word Scientology,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKvZyQbmzHo&feature=related

So much for ethics. So much for freedom of religion. So much for integrity.

<snip>




Thank you.

I looked at her video again--she is describing someone else's successful actions from sometime last millenium at 1:30.

I looked at her site again and I really don't see anything objectionable. You did leave out of your quote from their disclaimer a statement of intent that seems important: "...We have no agenda except to help our clients improve their lives, to THEIR satisfaction. We will only accept as clients those individuals we honestly believe we can help." To me this indicates no hidden standard of trying to coerce someone into a "belief system".

Appears to me that they are interested in helping others to lead better lives.

I think you are being just a bit harsh.

[dexter gelfand]

Tsk tsk tsk . . . getting a tad banky there, aren't you Dex?
What's your point, Blip?:)

A closer examination of the FreeZone has turned up a bunch of people with no formal qualifications ....Here in wog world that sort of activity is defined as quackery....those who would lure innocents.....Do they have anyone with any medical training....

Yada, yada, yada. Anita and Les have nothing to show but great results, hundreds of them. So much for all your blab about "formal qualifications" and "medical approval". At the end of the day, results talk, bullshit walks, Blippie. You're reminding me of pharmaceutical interests who dismiss all the successful non-chemical approaches many people have used to succesfully treat conditions as "anecdotal", which is double-speak for REAL-LIFE RESULTS.

Hubbard mentions over and over again the need to be overt about Scientology, to be proud of it in fact.

I'm proud of my skills, actions and accomplishments in practicing Scientology, and so are Mary and Anita. But how many people are going to ever get past the ugly connotations the word "Scientology" has, to experience all the good that can be accomplished with skilled use? Its far more practical to first get the concept understood, and then people are more amenable to differentiating between the CoS and Scientology auditing tech. I explained that in my previous post to you.

Speaking for myself, (1) Hubbard was speaking from a different situation than the one that exists today, after 30 years of ugliness, and (2) Although I give much credit to Hubbard for what to me are great and important contributions, I don't ignore that dark side, or robotically accept all that he has said.

Try to conceive of meeting face to face with Mary or Anita, and confronting and appreciating that they aren't cardboard stereotypes, but real, thinking, caring, and likeable people, who's ideas and activities would then not be so unilaterally dismissable for you.

Your suggestion to me is "grow up"; mine to you is "wake up".

Jeeze Blip, its early yet!:)

Love, Dex

[Voltaire's Child]

(shrugging) Not everyone has the same philosophical beliefs. Now, I personally know the Kreniks and the Warrens. They really do want to use Scn techniques and theories to help others. Now, whether or not anyone feels this CAN be done with Scn or if it's impossible due to various factors inherent in or believed to be inherent in Scn, is another matter. But I do know those people and they are interested in helping others.

[dexter gelfand]

...stop luring people into your wacko spiritual nonsense

Blip, I gotta wonder how many people, in "real life", not on the 'net, can tolerate such obnoxiousness. That is assuming you go out at all.


....as we all know, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.
If that's the qualification for entry into hell, you're perfectly safe, Blip.:)
Love, Dex

[Voltaire's Child]

I always wondered about that quote. I never liked it. To me, if someone has good intentions, they may be right, they may be wrong, but they're going to be more constructive than someone who intends ill toward others.

Perhaps it comes from the Protestant Fundie concept that good works cannot get you into heaven. A belief, by the way, that Catholics do not share.

[Infinite]

I think you are being just a bit harsh.

If I sold you a 2010 Ford sedan on the internet and you turned up to find out it was really a 1953 Chevy van, how would you feel? Would you be impressed with my ethics and integrity?

[dexter gelfand]

If I sold you a 2010 Ford sedan on the internet and you turned up to find out it was really a 1953 Chevy van, how would you feel? Would you be impressed with my ethics and integrity?

In your case, I'd be pleasantly surprised it wasn't a burnt out Yugo:)

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

wacko spiritual nonsense

In the words of a maestro:


Well, the core 'theory' of Dianetics is more than just 'engrams'. It's engrams *plus* a natural state of 'Clear', which is being 'suppressed' by engrams, which can be *restored* by Dianetic techniques.

Taken singly or together, none of these elements have been demonstrated to have any validity.

Things like 'charge' and 'mass' and 'bank' are further rube-goldbergian extensions on this primary flawed paradigm, which, based as they are on the original *false* premise.

It's like 'theorizing' that automobile engines work because gasoline contains tiny blue dwarfs who are angry at being shocked by spark plugs. I suppose that one could see that as a fanciful metaphor for chemical reactions, but, when taken literally, it leads to insane attempts to expand the theory into predictions about dwarf psychology and cultural relationships and, eventually, a whole parallel universe of dwarfs, with its own history and yadda yadda.

In Dianetics terms, since the basic *axiom* (not theory) is that Clear is a 'perfect' natural state and Dianetics Processes *restore* it by removing engrams, when all current life engrams are removed *without* restoring the Natural State, with all its glorious powers, then one must further delve into *past life* engrams, and, since Dianetics Processing *reveals* these previous experiences and engrams, it's also capable of revealing past *history*, including ancient plots against mankind by eeevil psychs and space lords, intent on enslaving us for all eternity who must be destroyed in order for us all to go 'free'......

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTimXpmKa4bKPpSXA9LKIOPDGk-xdYH2MZlktb0u-uBs1Lq0xY&t=1&usg=__slCrJdWzKBh7WLFdtf6N0ImwrC0=

[dexter gelfand]

In the words of a maestro:



http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTimXpmKa4bKPpSXA9LKIOPDGk-xdYH2MZlktb0u-uBs1Lq0xY&t=1&usg=__slCrJdWzKBh7WLFdtf6N0ImwrC0=

You couldn't reference professor Clyde Crashcup from the original Alvin and the Chipmunks cartoon show? Would have been more credible. Or how about Rocket J Squirrel, graduate of Wosamatta U.? :clap::clap::clap:

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Oh hell, I'd not be inclined to ever pick up another husband. Were I to go git me some, I'd be more likely to just have sex with the (lucky) guy...

W.C. Fields: "That woman drove me to drink, its the one thing I'm indebted to her for" :)

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

Talking of cartoons . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd1v7K5CsT4

[Mark A. Baker]

And . . . another one. (http://www.highintegrityliving.com/index.html)

Ironically, this FreeZoner, Mary Freeman, talks about "high integrity" living and yet her website makes no mention of Scientology, or L Ron Hubbard, or Dianetics. Like the Warrens, Freeman masks her Scientology beliefs under the guise of "Life Coach". Here she is at the 2010 FreeZone Conference discussing the the importance of "Standard Tech".



I know both Anita & Mary. They are highly ethical first class people. :thumbsup:

I only know you only by the character of your public postings. Therein, you have routinely played fast & loose with facts and had no qualm at denigrating the character of others, including many of whom you are wholly ignorant. :yawn:.



Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

I always wondered about that quote. I never liked it. To me, if someone has good intentions, they may be right, they may be wrong, but they're going to be more constructive than someone who intends ill toward others.

Perhaps it comes from the Protestant Fundie concept that good works cannot get you into heaven. A belief, by the way, that Catholics do not share.

Al Qaeda is motivated by the "good intention" of following god's law as they understand it. So are quite a few christians in this country, as well as other devout adherents of a wide variety of belief systems, self-styled "sceptics", and those who prefer to think of themselves as detractors from belief systems.


Mark A. Baker

[AlphOhm]

If I sold you a 2010 Ford sedan on the internet and you turned up to find out it was really a 1953 Chevy van, how would you feel? Would you be impressed with my ethics and integrity?

If it looked like this I might hug you:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a179/Kurt_Larsen_/Not%20Scenery/th_53ChevyPanel.jpg

[Voltaire's Child]

Al Qaeda is motivated by the "good intention" of following god's law as they understand it. So are quite a few christians in this country, as well as other devout adherents of a wide variety of belief systems, self-styled "sceptics", and those who prefer to think of themselves as detractors from belief systems.


Mark A. Baker

Sure. But they do also have destructive inclinations.

[uniquemand]

Not at all, VC. They are trying to bring about paradise. That's not destructive. They LOVE you. Islam means PEACE (or die).

[Voltaire's Child]

Re Mary Freeman...

She was at a SCIENTOLOGY FREEZONE convention. So of course she admits to being a Scnist. And how would anyone even know whether or not she states that she uses Scn techniques in her life coaching?

And, also, if I were to employ, say, the ARC triangle or something I learned in a communication drill but did it in my own way, then I wouldn't necessarily have to tell everyone, "I just used Scn on you." Don't skeptics often point out that a lot of Scn came from other sources anyway? Yes, they do.

I agree with Mark about Mary. She's a very good and nice person. She's direct, she doesn't lie to anyone and all she wants to do is help others. And if she met Blip, say, and formed any opinion other than a positive one, she wouldn't speak nastily about him or post speculations represented as fact about him, either.

Can't people just realize that not everyone has the same chosen path?

[Voltaire's Child]

Not at all, VC. They are trying to bring about paradise. That's not destructive. They LOVE you. Islam means PEACE (or die).

Ever hear of false purposes or evil intentions? Their STATED intentions may be to create paradise, but their impulses are destructive toward anyone who doesn't toe their line.

[uniquemand]

Those people are just infidels, VC.

[Mark A. Baker]

Islam means PEACE (or die).

It is more commonly taken as meaning "submission" and refers to those who have submitted to the will of god. Just as in christianity, judaism, scientism, and other "-isms", many who see themselves as pious observers espousing the kingdom of their chosen god are seen by others as fanatical zealots intent on destroying those who do not accept their chosen faith.

"Destructive Intent" is very much a matter of what is being built and who is doing the building. And of course the same applies to "Creative Intent".


Mark A. Baker

[Voltaire's Child]

I believe that, in my own blonde way, I see the point you guys are making. But what I think is this: anyone can say or convince themselves that they have good intentions. People are great at rationalization. But what's beneath the goal the person has? I just saw a true crime show about some asshole in CA who had a mini cult. He was killing people, sawing their bodies, betraying his friends...oh bullshit that he was trying to save the world. But when he was doing those things before they caught him and sent his ass to prison, I bet he would have said he was justified because of this and that. But he was a destructive fuckwad.

So to me, if it's a true good constructive intention, the road to hell cannot be paved therewith.(that is not a real word. I just made it up.) I am VERY sure there's a grey area or maybe many. Like what if someone's really incorrect but is trying to be helpful, even deep down inside? Well, I'd look at- what are his results? A bunch of dead people, for example? Or what?

I'm sure you guys probably have some more thoughts on the subject.

[uniquemand]

The Scientologists have a very constructive intention. They want a Clear planet. The Islamists have a very constructive intention, they want an Islamic planet. The Christians have a very constructive intention, they want a Christian planet.

See a pattern?

Who decides what constructive is?

What's really humorous is that some people think ecumenical multiculturalism is trying to spread itself in the same manner. "We accept your faith, and you accept ours, or we'll litigate about it!" is not quite the same thing as "Die, infidel!".

[Mark A. Baker]

Who decides what constructive is?

I do, of course.:p


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:

[draetti]

The Scientologists have a very constructive intention. They want a Clear planet. The Islamists have a very constructive intention, they want an Islamic planet. The Christians have a very constructive intention, they want a Christian planet.

See a pattern?

Who decides what constructive is?



Maybe I'm to late and you have already told. Excuse me if so. But I really, really wonder - what intentions do you dare to follow, project, apply? How do you live, if not following intentions? Or, how do you estimate which to follow and which not? What's your pattern there? And where does it come from?

I guess you have the right to, from a newbie in this thread, get shown first my own answer to this questions. I try to point more then command. I believe one cannot live without also commanding, which is dominating and - simplified to wrongness, but in short it serves, our momentary fate to do. But I believe that with more pointing than commanding the risk of good intentions to lead to hell is very small. (That's my personal construct of belief/conviction/evaluation, not Scientology.)

Now, please, would you mind to answer the question / point me to how you deal with the matter of choosing intentions to follow if it comes to action and exchange? How do you do different / better than the described pattern (which I concur is mainly bad)?

(With good I mean similar as you probably with constructive. I don't like constructive as the "good" and destructive as the "bad". They're for me so obviously two sides of the same coin and neither good nor bad without specific context, that using them as synonyms for good and bad confuses. You would probably consider the destruction of the constructs of Scientology, Islam and Christianity as constructive ... so I'd prefer simple good and bad, it's less confusing to me. - By the way, the central intentions of Scientologists are not constructive, but destructive - good destructive. Much of it deals with destroying bad connections, which is considered as good by the technicians of Scientology.)

[uniquemand]

It's a good question. I have several different identities/roles in my life. I choose my activities based on what would suit those roles best. Some of those roles were inherited, some were chosen. In general, I have opted OUT of the systems that I was born into, and out of many that I chose. The question of why I would leave those systems, and decide that I couldn't support them, is a valid one. I guess, on a fundamental level, I've always considered my own feelings to be more valid than whatever system I was being taught, and my own judgment senior to anyone else's. I've been wrong a lot, and learned a lot, so I don't want to sound TOO arrogant, but ultimately, it's me that has to live with my choices, so I make them for myself.

So, I'd say my value system has been learned through interactions. I learned I don't like to hurt people, not because the Bible says it's wrong, but because I feel bad when I hurt people. I also learned the value of honest, direct and genuine communication, which has informed a lot of my decisions, as well.

[MrNobody]

A person can know something whether or not it's evident to others. And sometimes a person thinks he or she knows but it's only belief.

I've written something about that here:


<snip>

Look, we have two different issues here.

1. knowledge vs. belief.

2. knowingness = belief.


1. knowledge vs. belief.

Knowledge vs. belief is indeed an interesting issue. My ex-wife and I have many funny fights, when we talk about events we've witnessed together side by side, back in our days, because our "truths" sometimes differ greatly. If you heard each of us describe the same event separately, you would hardly recognize the it was the same event we've seen.

So, do we have 2 different truths about the same event? Nope, we have 2 different perceptions of truth, resulting in different interpretations. It gets more interesting, when a 3rd person who's been there joins the discussion. Now we have 3 truths and so on.

OK, in everyday conversations I call that truth, I'm sloppy like that. Technically, it's just perception of truth, and if more people are involved, it's an agreement of common perceptions all people share.

A coffee cup fell off the table. True. Everybody has seen if fall, everybody sees it is down on the floor and broken.

It's true, we have a broken cup on the floor. Undisputable truth, cold, hard fact.

Now how did it happen?

Here is where truth becomes muddy. Did I shove it off the table with my elbow? Did my wife's jacket "grab" it while she was walking by?

Here we leave the truth section and go over to the belief section. I believe my wife did it, my wife believes I did it. So although we both have our personal perception of truth, there is no actual truth there. All we have are 2 different beliefs with no actual truth in any of them.

We can't even say "One of the two must be true", because it could have been our dog, who shattered the table, or an other unknown external source.

OK, if that didn't make it clear, then I don't know what does. On to:
Interesting that nobody addressed my little story. This time I made the key sentence red.

Here's the reason why I made these "fixes":


2. knowingness = belief.
Sigh, good thing this is easier.
Knowingness is an artificial word the Hubtard made up to muddy the waters between knowledge and belief. Therefore, and since I'm too lazy to do any further digging, it falls in the belief section.


But the fact that belief can be mistaken for knowingness doesn't mean there's no such thing as knowingness.

Here you're using "Knowingness" as a synonym for "knowledge". Why?


I awready did explain, cupcake. Just a few posts ago. And that post DID contain hands on practical examples.


And you didn't even give a link? Well, so much for "practical". :)

Here I called you out on it....
Calling me "cupcake" doesn't change a thing, BTW. :)


But if you mean this one:

And I gave my GUESS what I think you might gave meant.


Fixed some of it for you,

... which you didn't like.


but in the last chapters you used "knowingness" and meant knowledge. Isn't that a bit unfair?

You never addressed why you did that


No, you did NOT fix it for me. That's NOT what I wrote. I was saying WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID.

This WAS what you wrote:

Except it's NOT. It's what the person knows.

But to someone else who thinks the person is exercising his or her belief, it will seem like belief. It's a sort of eye of the beholder type thing. This relates to all sorts of things, not just Scn and Scn'ists.

I've met (here and there, you know) a lot of religious people or people interested in political issues who said they KNEW such and such was true. Someone else comes along and says, "whoa, wait a minute. That's just your opinion. You don't KNOW and furthermore MY observations are different from yours and so I don't think you're correct on that. Those are your beliefs about God/Heaven/Hell/xenu/Liberals/Republicans/etc."

I meditated last night and touched bases with what I call The Divine. I really think I did this. In fact, I know I reached something. But if I were to mention it to someone else (well, I'm doing so now, aren't I?) they might not see it that way. I can't KNOW that. I didn't touch or hear anyone and if I did, what if it was my imagination. So to them, it's my belief. To me, it's not.

So is there any knowingness?

Yes. Yesterday I had the knowingness that the sun was out and that it was in the upper 50s even though it's November in Seattle. Later, I had the knowingness that Jojo kitten stuck her paw in my eye and it hurt for hours. This morning I had the knowingness that John woke up an hour before he had to because of a confusion with his resetting of his clock for Daylight Savings Time. Those are verifiable to other individuals. They also relate to the physicial realm.

So there IS knowingness but ANY time you get into the intangible, you will get skepticism. It's there that the "true for you" thingie kicks in.

I made the times when you clearly weren't talking about "other people's" words red.

However,


And, no, knowingness does not mean knowledge. But the two are similar.

And a few posts ago in the same thread should be pretty easy to find...

... and you STILL hadn't mentioned which post of yours you were talking about. Is giving a link really too much to ask of you? See, YOU may occasionally know what you mean when you refer to something you've said in the past, but you can't expect that knowledge from me, because I usuall don't have it.

Now you begin this game:

Though if it was like posts on this thread, it would be like, ok, did I not just suck your dick? :dieslaughing:

Good thing that you didn't point out who you were talking to. :D

Thanks for playing. ...I guess...

:cheers:, MrN

[Terril park]

Hey Blip, now you're making me sick. If you knew Anita even a little, you would never piss on her like that. She's as good a person as you'll ever hear of. Grow up just a little, and make the honest effort to wrap your head around this:

There are plenty of us who practice Scientology, because it works great for us and our PC's.

We have left the CoS because of our own experiences, which proved that the Church was doing more harm than good, despite our having found to our satisfaction that tremendous good can be accomplished with conscientious application of pre-Miscaviage era Scientology and Dianetics techniques.

In our view, (Get that, Blip? We have our own view- we are not being dishonest, we are being true to ourselves)The word "Scientology" has largely negative connotations, due not to any inherent evil, deceit or lack of workability, but to the actions of the CoS, and Miscaviage's corruption of the techniques to repackage/resell/dramatize his need to be "source".

So, in order to be true to what we consider to be our callings in life (newsflash Blip, the fact that you see it differently doesn't make us liars, scammers or sheep, deal with it) it is not unreasonable that we can make the choice to, at least initially, not shoot ourselves in the foot by using the term in promoting ourselves, at least until the person can experience a bit of what we have to offer, at which point they can better differentiate between what we do and what the Church does.

Freezoners don't have the CoS's million$ to spend on PR campaigns, so, if we are going to take the initiative to make helping others with these techniques our life's work, we have to find a way to work with the existing situation.

How dare you slime good people like Mary and Anita, both of whom I personally know well to be people who would help anybody in need whether or not the person could pay. How reckless and irresponsible you are being in doing this.

You know what, Blip? While you spend so much of your time indiscriminately badmouthing anything and everything connected with Scientology, making knowing and reckless leaps of logic and stretches of credibility to paint it all black, Mary and Anita have been helping people to fix their bad marriages, get many people over drug habits and lifestyles, and be able to smile and enjoy life after some very rough times. You could call Mary today, show her every nasty thing you've ever said about what she does and believes in, and then ask her help in resolving some issue that was really troubling you, over the phone, and she would happily and sweetly give you some useful and helpful advice, without taking a dime from you. Same for Anita.

Speak your mind to your heart's desire about your experiences, your observations, and your viewpoint, Blip, I wouldn't have it any other way. But for the sake of decency, be considerate, be responsible, measure your words, don't overstep beyond what you really know when you talk about another person. In short, grow up.

Love, Dex


I think its also worth pointing out that CO$ is still in the habit of
making legal threats re website contents, even if the websites don't
use the word scientology. Using that word would of course be violating a trademark.

That is why there is no TV programme " The beginners guide to Scientology." We have instead " The beginners guide to L Ron Hubbard."
Courtesy of CO$ lawyers.

[Terril park]

Re Mary Freeman...

She was at a SCIENTOLOGY FREEZONE convention. So of course she admits to being a Scnist. And how would anyone even know whether or not she states that she uses Scn techniques in her life coaching?

And, also, if I were to employ, say, the ARC triangle or something I learned in a communication drill but did it in my own way, then I wouldn't necessarily have to tell everyone, "I just used Scn on you." Don't skeptics often point out that a lot of Scn came from other sources anyway? Yes, they do.

I agree with Mark about Mary. She's a very good and nice person. She's direct, she doesn't lie to anyone and all she wants to do is help others. And if she met Blip, say, and formed any opinion other than a positive one, she wouldn't speak nastily about him or post speculations represented as fact about him, either.

Can't people just realize that not everyone has the same chosen path?


I've posted dozens of success stories here by both the Warrens and the Freemans. Its beyond obviousness that they are delivering scientology.

The latest example:-

TECH outside COS: NOTS Success

12 October 2010

After three days at the Freemans, I have already achieved the main purpose for my trip here: to allow myself to be back in power over my every day situations, and see the future as an existing journey. I cannot even imagine how much more freedom I will have by the end of the week.


I am once again in control of ME – cause over my life. I have had a tremendous relief from being suppressed by those around me. I can approach life with a different, free attitude and recognize others for who and what they are to me and toward me. I will no longer be affected by others’ attitudes and problems. I am able to look at them but not become involved or suppressed – a truly new freedom.

GA

Auditor: Franklin Freeman

C/S : Mary Freeman

[Veda]

I think its also worth pointing out that CO$ is still in the habit of
making legal threats re website contents, even if the websites don't
use the word scientology. Using that word would of course be violating a trademark.

That is why there is no TV programme " The beginners guide to Scientology." We have instead " The beginners guide to L Ron Hubbard."
Courtesy of CO$ lawyers.

Cof$ is as proprietary and protective of the name L. Ron Hubbard as it is of the name Scientology. The decision re. the title would have been made by the employer of the agreeable slack jawed turban-wearing guy in the video, not by the Cof$.

[Veda]

duplicate

[Veda]

I've posted dozens of success stories here by both the Warrens and the Freemans. Its beyond obviousness that they are delivering scientology.

The latest example:-

TECH outside COS: NOTS Success

12 October 2010

-snip-

I am once again in control of ME – cause over my life. I have had a tremendous relief from being suppressed by those around me. I can approach life with a different, free attitude and recognize others for who and what they are to me and toward me. I will no longer be affected by others’ attitudes and problems. I am able to look at them but not become involved or suppressed – a truly new freedom.

-snip-



This sounds like a Comm Course Success Story.

[Infinite]

Reminds me of another FreeZone success story, this one by the (former?) "Keeper of the Tech":




It is after 4PM. I am driving fast on the Highway because I'm really cutting it tight to be on time for work. Oh No! the traffic on the highway is slowing down and further ahead even appears to have stopped! Should I stay on, or quickly go three lines on the right for the exit?

Let's find out! I exteriorize.

1 mile ahead, I perceive severe Enturbulation. There is a Man over the Railing of the overpass. He is clutching what must be a 5 years old girl (she is dressed in pink) and he is threatening to jump! Horror! He throws the child down. It must be 50 feet! Instantly, I mock up a gigantic hand and scoop the child just before she hits the pavement. Ouch! an SUV just hit my hand.

I am suddenly back in my car, still shaken by the experience. The traffic hasnt moved. I cut across three lanes of traffic to get off the highway and barely make it on time for work.

I take a break at 11Pm to watch the Evening News. The child is safe in the hospital and without a broke bone. A witness says she saw an "angel breaking her fall". Another talks about her SUV "miraculously stopping" just before hitting "something" in front of the child.

Causing Miracles,... being called an Angel...: just an ordinary day for an OT...

Lets dive into the realm of fantasy and assume the story is not a delusion - or an outright fabrication - why haven't there been more like this "miracle"?

[Voltaire's Child]

There's been a lot of success stories of this type. Every now and then, someone posts about some of them.

[Infinite]

There's been a lot of success stories of this type. Every now and then, someone posts about some of them.

Oh, really? Please, do share. Which ones of a similar type are you aware of?

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh, really? Please, do share. Which ones of a similar type are you aware of?

Oh, gawd. I've been seeing very high flown wowie zowie success stories for YEARS. I've seen them in Advance Mag, I've seen critical posts on just about every forum to which I've posted quoting some and making fun of them. I do not have a compendium of such, never bothered to keep one. Never was asked for any specifics til now. I just figured my other fellow forum contributors had also seen oodles of 'em.

[dexter gelfand]

Reminds me of another FreeZone success story, this one by the (former?) "Keeper of the Tech":
Lets dive into the realm of fantasy and assume the story is not a delusion - or an outright fabrication - why haven't there been more like this "miracle"?
Hiya Blip, I missed you :)
As to your question, I never saw that story before, but if I experienced something like that, I don't know that I'd post it where I could be bashed and ridiculed for it (like, you know,..here:D) I do think such things are possible, and have happened in this world, and not necessarily or particularly by Scientologists, so maybe this story is factual, I don't know.

My talk at the Freezone convention was to simply put across the point that, in my opinion, one of the greatest things you can do is to let yourself see things from other people's viewpoints, in the process, enable yourself to go through life without having reactions to these, and in doing so, relieve others of their need to react to your non-acceptance of them; and how much each of us gains when we can experience others' viewpoints instead of denying or resisting them. I think that the difference this can make in life is tremendously underappreciated.

I think that some here could readily accept and benefit from that, if they were not caught up in rejecting the trappings and expressions of the Scientology environment that my talk was given in. Its not "Scientology", its an idea. As this idea also occurs in Scientology, and has relevance to the practices of Scientology, I felt (and feel) that it was appropriate for that audience, and expressed it as best I could in the terms that audience could appreciate it.

Love, Dex

[Veda]

-snip-

The word "Scientology" has largely negative connotations, due not to any inherent evil, deceit or lack of workability, but to the actions of the CoS, and Miscaviage's corruption of the techniques to repackage/resell/dramatize his need to be "source".

-snip-



"It's Miscavige's fault. Tech is out in Orgs."

The irony is that Scientology purports to increase awareness; yet look at FZ/Ind. Scientologists who express views such as the above - views that demonstrate naivete, unawareness, and denial of reality.

I can remember being naive myself, and being impressed by books such as the 'Phoenix Lectures' (now out of print), and 'Scientology 8-8008', and also being impressed with the experience of auditing others on Dianetics and Scientology - so impressed that, when I read (the critical book) 'The Now Religion' by George Malko, although I found it annoying, it had no effect on me. I was too impressed with Scientology's books and with auditing.

But I was naive, and I was uninformed, and I was very young, and much information that is now available was not available then, and there was no Internet.

Now there is an Internet, much information has become available, and most of the FZ/Ind. Scientologists aren't college kids, but middle-aged people, or older, and yet they still can't connect the dots.

And here they are lecturing the rest of us on how we need to increase our awareness, etc.

One can only laugh.

[degraded being]

Hiya Blip, I missed you :)
As to your question, I never saw that story before, but if I experienced something like that, I don't know that I'd post it where I could be bashed and ridiculed for it (like, you know,..here:D) I do think such things are possible, and have happened in this world, and not necessarily or particularly by Scientologists, so maybe this story is factual, I don't know.

My talk at the Freezone convention was to simply put across the point that, in my opinion, one of the greatest things you can do is to let yourself see things from other people's viewpoints, in the process, enable yourself to go through life without having reactions to these, and in doing so, relieve others of their need to react to your non-acceptance of them; and how much each of us gains when we can experience others' viewpoints instead of denying or resisting them. I think that the difference this can make in life is tremendously underappreciated.

I think that some here could readily accept and benefit from that, if they were not caught up in rejecting the trappings and expressions of the Scientology environment that my talk was given in. Its not "Scientology", its an idea. As this idea also occurs in Scientology, and has relevance to the practices of Scientology, I felt (and feel) that it was appropriate for that audience, and expressed it as best I could in the terms that audience could appreciate it.

Love, Dex



I think that some here could readily accept and benefit from that, if they were not caught up in rejecting the trappings and expressions of the Scientology environment that my talk was given in.

Hey, thanks for being Mother Hen around here Dex.
Mother Ship to Dex. They are EX, I repeat Ex culties and had Mother Hen telling them how they should be until it made them spew. Actually Mothering rhymes with Smothering.
And if you really love the ARC thing so much get REAL and give up magical thinking if you want to be taken seriously.

[Mark A. Baker]

I think that some here could readily accept and benefit from that, if they were not caught up in rejecting the trappings and expressions of the Scientology environment that my talk was given in.

Hey, thanks for being Mother Hen around here Dex.
Mother Ship to Dex. They are EX, I repeat Ex culties and had Mother Hen telling them how they should be until it made them spew. Actually Mothering rhymes with Smothering.
And if you really love the ARC thing so much get REAL and give up magical thinking if you want to be taken seriously.

Well this thread is about Dexter's talk at the "2010 Freezone Convention". If you feel an overwhelming need to "spew", try starting a thread about What I Didn't Say at the 2010 Freezone Convention.


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

[Infinite]

Hiya Blip, I missed you :)
As to your question, I never saw that story before, but if I experienced something like that, I don't know that I'd post it where I could be bashed and ridiculed for it (like, you know,..here:D) I do think such things are possible, and have happened in this world, and not necessarily or particularly by Scientologists, so maybe this story is factual, I don't know.

My talk at the Freezone convention was to simply put across the point that, in my opinion, one of the greatest things you can do is to let yourself see things from other people's viewpoints, in the process, enable yourself to go through life without having reactions to these, and in doing so, relieve others of their need to react to your non-acceptance of them; and how much each of us gains when we can experience others' viewpoints instead of denying or resisting them. I think that the difference this can make in life is tremendously underappreciated.

I think that some here could readily accept and benefit from that, if they were not caught up in rejecting the trappings and expressions of the Scientology environment that my talk was given in. Its not "Scientology", its an idea. As this idea also occurs in Scientology, and has relevance to the practices of Scientology, I felt (and feel) that it was appropriate for that audience, and expressed it as best I could in the terms that audience could appreciate it.

Love, Dex


You probably believe what you say is true, and it would be if it were not for the poisonous effect of the Scientology tech. Yes, by all means, it is not only desirable that people consider other viewpoints, it is essential in gaining an understanding of the individual and their actions. The idea that seeing another's viewpoint will "relieve others of their need to react to your non-acceptance of them" is delusional.

Consider the Ku Klux Clan. Are you seriously suggesting that by understanding their viewpoint the survivors of racism will be relieved of their need to react in non-acceptance? The same applies to Scientology. Survivors (or victims as you prefer to call them) who reject the tech certainly understand the viewpoint of those who advocate that which nearly crushed them, but they continue to resist.

Your approach is further flawed by Scientology's own definition of "affinity" as being little more than a device to manufacture agreement. As per Hubbard's words on the subject:


Affinity. Now, its obvious there's no such thing as affinity.

. . . he then goes on to contradict himself by acknowledging its existence, but only so far as it is a constituent part of Theta as represented by the ARC model. You'll find all this in the Dissemination Course material I linked to earlier . . . or maybe you already have it open by your computer and are seeking to "handle" us "bashers"?

The only agreement you can hope to have with critics given your approach is the agreement to disagree.

[degraded being]

Well this thread is about Dexter's talk at the "2010 Freezone Convention". If you feel an overwhelming need to "spew", try starting a thread about What I Didn't Say at the 2010 Freezone Convention.


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

So now we have Daddy Hen too?

[dexter gelfand]

So now we have Daddy Hen too?

Technically, that would be daddy rooster, DB:D

Love, Dex

[AlphOhm]

Hiya Blip, I missed you :)
<snip>
Love, Dex


Aim more carefully next time.

:roflmao:

[dexter gelfand]

You probably believe what you say is true, and it would be if it were not for the poisonous effect of the Scientology tech. Now Blippie, here you expose your bias. If something is true, than it is true. Regardless of whether or not "Scientology" states it.(Deep, slow breaths, Blippie, deep slow breaths, ahhhhh.....:)

Yes, by all means, it is not only desirable that people consider other viewpoints, it is essential in gaining an understanding of the individual and their actions. The idea that seeing another's viewpoint will "relieve others of their need to react to your non-acceptance of them" is delusional. ...(Count to 5 as you inhale, count to 10 as you exhale-1,2,3...)

Your approach is further flawed ... You'll find all this in the Dissemination Course material I linked to earlier . . . or maybe you already have it open by your computer and are seeking to "handle" us "bashers"? (..don't forget to exhale...)
The only agreement you can hope to have with critics given your approach is the agreement to disagree. (and maybe some chamomile tea..)
Blip, you're reminding me of the old "Saturday Night Live"tv "Point-Counterpoint" skits with Dan Ackroyd responding to Jane Curtain's statements- "Jane, you ignorant slut...."
Get back to me when if you're ever interested in a constructive exchange of viewpoints, by whatever means you can elevate yourself to that mindset.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

[SIZE="2"]IAnd if you really love the ARC thing so much get REAL and give up magical thinking if you want to be taken seriously.

Sure thing, DB, I'll get right on it- the moment it becomes important to me to be "taken seriously" by you.

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

Blip, you're reminding me of the old "Saturday Night Live"tv "Point-Counterpoint" skits with Dan Ackroyd responding to Jane Curtain's statements- "Jane, you ignorant slut...."
Get back to me when if you're ever interested in a constructive exchange of viewpoints, by whatever means you can elevate yourself to that mindset.

Love, Dex


Is that an example of the type of affinity you are preaching?

[uniquemand]

I think he's matching your tone, BLiP. Seriously, there's no reason to antagonize him, he's an honest broker. You might not like what he does, but that doesn't mean you have to be rude. (This from me, who is highly rude whenever the impulse strikes)

[Infinite]

I think he's matching your tone, BLiP. Seriously, there's no reason to antagonize him, he's an honest broker. You might not like what he does, but that doesn't mean you have to be rude. (This from me, who is highly rude whenever the impulse strikes)

Nah. The poor soul has constructed a world where he is the faultless victim of those who see his version of affinity as being the manipulation that it is. I'm attempting to relieve him of his need to react by pointing out the dichotomy in what he preaches and what he practises.

[uniquemand]

Have it your way. I happen to think you're just crusading, instead of talking to the guy. He's willing to talk, unlike most Scientologists.

[dexter gelfand]

Nah. The poor soul has constructed a world where he is the faultless victim of those who see his version of affinity as being the manipulation that it is. I'm attempting to relieve him of his need to react by pointing out the dichotomy in what he preaches and what he practises.

No, you're not. Calling me a "poor soul" And saying that I see myself as some sort of victim. I am neither, I know it and you know it. Unique hit the nail right on the head, although "crusading" is a euphemism for your regurgitating your bile in my direction. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Love, Dex

[AlphOhm]

... his version of affinity...

You do know that "FUCK YOU" is an expression of affinity at a particular tone level don't you?

Affinity is present on all "bands".

[Infinite]

Have it your way. I happen to think you're just crusading, instead of talking to the guy. He's willing to talk, unlike most Scientologists.

Yeah, true. Still, my main point, so far as this latest slice of dialogue is concerned, stands. Entering a person's viewpoint may well assist in understanding but, in many cases, it will decrease affinity rather than increase it - depending on how you define "affinity", of course. I had assumed from Dexter's talk he was talking about everyone but it may well be he was talking only about a PC in an auditing session. In which case, sure, an auditor entering a KKK Grand Dragon's viewpoint could well make the Grand Dragon a more effective racist.

I guess to help further miscommunication I should apply my word filter. Just like when a Scientologist uses the word "knowingness" I substitute "belief", so I shall apply "smarm" when one of them uses the word "affinity".

[MrNobody]

Dex, just one question: Do you do all this for free in all cases?


Dexter Gelfand
Grad V field auditor
Power Processing and "Wants" Handling specialist
Resolution/Clean-up of previous case handling

[Infinite]

You do know that "FUCK YOU" is an expression of affinity at a particular tone level don't you?

In that case, here's some "affinity" just for you . . .

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/15/gorilla_middle_finger.jpg

[Infinite]

"there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

And saying that I see myself as some sort of victim. I am neither, I know it and you know it.

[degraded being]

Sure thing, DB, I'll get right on it- the moment it becomes important to me to be "taken seriously" by you.

Love, Dex

Ouch! Where is that ARC? Well actually you are sounding real at last.
But the affinity has gone down. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Back to preaching to the converted, or converting the already converted. The theory will work with them and high arc will be assured.

[Sharone Stainforth]

I love that picture BLip, is it really you?

[Voltaire's Child]

Ok. Let's not call either party a victim. No one's a victim. Dex is a strong person. Blip is a strong person. Everyone here cares deeply about these issues and all of us take issue (to put it mildly) with the abuses of the cult. Those who aren't in agreement with someone doing Scn outside CofS probably feel that way because of all the problems inherent in CofS that actually, in many cases, stemmed from "tech" and "policy". So we've got a crew of idealists here.

Group hug!

[I told you I was trouble]

Ok. Let's not call either party a victim. No one's a victim. Dex is a strong person. Blip is a strong person. Everyone here cares deeply about these issues and all of us take issue (to put it mildly) with the abuses of the cult. Those who aren't in agreement with someone doing Scn outside CofS probably feel that way because of all the problems inherent in CofS that actually, in many cases, stemmed from "tech" and "policy". So we've got a crew of idealists here.

Group hug!



:grouphug:

[Voltaire's Child]

Ok, ITYIWT gets an extra hug. Sorry, guys, but that's just how we roll. :happydance:

[AlphOhm]

In that case, here's some "affinity" just for you . . .

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/15/gorilla_middle_finger.jpg

Why, thank you BLiP, nicest thing anyone has sent to me all day.

You are such a theta-potata! :happydance: :happydance:

Me love you long time.

[uniquemand]

Apparently, he has gorilla goals in restim.

[dexter gelfand]

Dex, just one question: Do you do all this for free in all cases?

In all cases? No, Mr N. I'm not independently wealthy. I would prefer to have a good income. I don't turn someone away who is really in need of help because they haven't money to pay me for a session or a few sessions. I have been doing an average of about 4 free sessions a week for the past several months, no strings attached.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

You do know that "FUCK YOU" is an expression of affinity at a particular tone level don't you?

Affinity is present on all "bands".

I used to have this running joke with a friend I worked with in a printing company in New Jersey: "Don't take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself":D

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Ouch! Where is that ARC? Well actually you are sounding real at last.
But the affinity has gone down. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Back to preaching to the converted, or converting the already converted. The theory will work with them and high arc will be assured.

DB, how can it escape you that you have chosen to enter into a thread entitled "My talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention" and thus made yourself an audience for me, and then complained that you are not my audience? Sounds to me more like sour grapes over the fact that ESMB includes Freezoners, and you aren't one. You need to find a way to stop whining, and deal with it. Emma created this board, and she made the rules, not you. If you don't like it, why don't you show the courage and initiative she has, and start your own forum?

Love, Dex

[MrNobody]

In all cases? No, Mr N. I'm not independently wealthy. I would prefer to have a good income. I don't turn someone away who is really in need of help because they haven't money to pay me for a session or a few sessions. I have been doing an average of about 4 free sessions a week for the past several months, no strings attached.

Love, Dex

So you're basically defending your income source here, not your belief. Thanks, that clears it all up. :)

[uniquemand]

Set 'em up and knock 'em down, eh, Mr Nobody? I think you started with a false premise, as well as a false conclusion, and are only interested in arguments that support it.