What's new

Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

RogerB

Crusader
In many respects this could be a complement to DOF's "the Tone Scale: How Valid is It?" thread . . . but I think it might well provoke sufficient comment to stand on its own . . . :biggrin:

I got this in an email this morning from an Old Timer Scn who is now ex-choich . . . . it speaks for itself.

My point in presenting it is to discuss the issue of: is it possible, likely or probable, or even definitely the case, that the Scientology address to and handling of all perceived alternative views and/or dissent is met with such DESTRUCTIVE attack and put down . . . .

Look at Hubbard's putative "Black Panther" Mechanism . . . . it posits only that a Being is responsive to THREAT . . . . nowhere in this proposition of his is there any notion of work with or attempts at reconciliation . . . nope: his think could only embrace negative responses!!!

[FONT=&amp]
I found this article in an old Ivy issue. I had not seen it​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
before, but it made a lot of sense to me, so I want to​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
share it with you.​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Let me know what you think. Do you see it the same way?​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Love​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Per​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
*******​
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The Black Panther Mechanism:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]A Dangerous Omission[/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]by Da Professor, USA[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]One possible explanation for the Church’s persistent world view ofUS vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would handlemost situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under “Black PantherMechanism,” which outlines the possible methods for coping with theenvironment. Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this definition,only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb. While thiscertainly is quite an improvement over the psych’s “fight or flight” response,it still is missing vital viewpoints.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The selection of “a particularly black-tempered black panther” asa model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures otheroptions. Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up any other option,the definition goes on to say: “All actions can be seen to fall within thesecourses.” Where some see only problems, others see solutions or opportunities. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]I propose a new name and definition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“The Grey Wolf Options”[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]There are several ways in which a human being reacts toward apossible source of danger. Let us suppose that a man named Sam and a grey wolfinhabit the same wood. Both people and wolves are pretty dangerous critters andthey compete for food and cave space. How can Sam resolve this situation?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]1. he could attack the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]2. he could flee from the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]3. he could stay in parts of the wood to avoid the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]4. he could neglect the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]5. he could succumb to the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]or[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]6. he could cooperate with the grey wolf.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Recognizing that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem isstaying alive in the woods, and that the wolf shares the problem, allows theman and the wolf to form an alliance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The wolf brings his intelligence, keen sense of smell andswiftness to the bargain. Sam adds his intelligence, thumb, “ability to usetools” and fire.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Together, they survive much better t[/FONT][FONT=&amp]han either could alone. Indeed, over time, what could just aseasily have been Sam’s worst enemy, turns into “man’s best friend.” This blindspot on cooperation is clearer in the definition of ally in the “TechDictionary.” According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps youwhen you are weak (and we are never weak, are we?), and is someone whosebeingness takes over the PC. In other words, that with which you ally, youalloy. An ally is something found in reactive engrams, not in analyticalthought. So now, what can or should be done about this? Perhaps an auditingrundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being’s abilityto recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and to exercise thatoption. A model Grey Wolf process might start off with word clearing on theabove definition. This could be followed by having the PC spot times whencooperation could have occurred, should have occurred, would have occurred ordid occur (a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” rundown). R3R any reading items in orderof read. Perhaps this could be played against the CDEINR scale, the Know-to-MysteryScale or the Prepcheck Buttons. Another possibility would be to have the PCspot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown. This kills thewrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal. This, of course, is only a roughoutline. I invite you to generate and test other rundowns that smooth over aPC’s handling of his environment. Such as running DEEP . (My comment/Per).[/FONT]

*******

I replied . . .

Absolutely brilliant, Per . . . . thanks.​

There is one addition to the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown that I would make though.

For each of the coulda, shoulda, woulda answers, one gets the item/answer and asks: "What could or would be the outcome or consequences of (item)?"

This, of course, is spiritual level processing that facilitates the capacity to create clean futures.

Running of old engramic materials is more in the vein of processing/cleaning the mind . . . that is, a "mental level process" versus restoration of spiritual powers and capacities.

Rog

/
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Karen Horney covered it better, IMO, and her research was impeccable. She predates Hubbard:
Ten neurotic needs

The ten needs, as set out by Horney, (classified according to her so-called coping strategies) are as follows:[SUP][12][/SUP]
Moving Toward People

  • 1. The need for affection and approval; pleasing others and being liked by them.
  • 2. The need for a partner; one whom they can love and who will solve all problems.
Moving Against People

  • 3. The need for power; the ability to bend wills and achieve control over others—while most persons seek strength, the neurotic may be desperate for it.
  • 4. The need to exploit others; to get the better of them. To become manipulative, fostering the belief that people are there simply to be used.
  • 5. The need for social recognition; prestige and limelight.
  • 6. The need for personal admiration; for both inner and outer qualities—to be valued.
  • 7. The need for personal achievement; though virtually all persons wish to make achievements, as with No. 3, the neurotic may be desperate for achievement.
Moving Away from People

  • 8. The need for self-sufficiency and independence; while most desire some autonomy, the neurotic may simply wish to discard other individuals entirely.
  • 9. The need for perfection; while many are driven to perfect their lives in the form of well being, the neurotic may display a fear of being slightly flawed.
  • 10. Lastly, the need to restrict life practices to within narrow borders; to live as inconspicuous a life as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Horney#Ten_neurotic_needs
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
My panther's idea of cooperation is that I feed her when she isn't sleeping.

Then there is the 'chill dude' strategy...

crrub150108.gif_zpsyvjqptjx.jpeg

 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
In many respects this could be a complement to DOF's "the Tone Scale: How Valid is It?" thread . . . but I think it might well provoke sufficient comment to stand on its own . . . :biggrin:

I got this in an email this morning from an Old Timer Scn who is now ex-choich . . . . it speaks for itself.

My point in presenting it is to discuss the issue of: is it possible, likely or probable, or even definitely the case, that the Scientology address to and handling of all perceived alternative views and/or dissent is met with such DESTRUCTIVE attack and put down . . . .

Look at Hubbard's putative "Black Panther" Mechanism . . . . it posits only that a Being is responsive to THREAT . . . . nowhere in this proposition of his is there any notion of work with or attempts at reconciliation . . . nope: his think could only embrace negative responses!!!

I found this article in an old Ivy issue. I had not seen it​
before, but it made a lot of sense to me, so I want to​
share it with you.​

Let me know what you think. Do you see it the same way?​

Love​
Per​
*******​

The Black Panther Mechanism:
A Dangerous Omission


by Da Professor, USA

One possible explanation for the Church’s persistent world view ofUS vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would handlemost situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under “Black PantherMechanism,” which outlines the possible methods for coping with theenvironment. Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this definition,only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb. While thiscertainly is quite an improvement over the psych’s “fight or flight” response,it still is missing vital viewpoints.

The selection of “a particularly black-tempered black panther” asa model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures otheroptions. Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up any other option,the definition goes on to say: “All actions can be seen to fall within thesecourses.” Where some see only problems, others see solutions or opportunities.

I propose a new name and definition.

“The Grey Wolf Options”

There are several ways in which a human being reacts toward apossible source of danger. Let us suppose that a man named Sam and a grey wolfinhabit the same wood. Both people and wolves are pretty dangerous critters andthey compete for food and cave space. How can Sam resolve this situation?

1. he could attack the grey wolf,
2. he could flee from the grey wolf,
3. he could stay in parts of the wood to avoid the grey wolf,
4. he could neglect the grey wolf,
5. he could succumb to the grey wolf,
or
6. he could cooperate with the grey wolf.

Recognizing that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem isstaying alive in the woods, and that the wolf shares the problem, allows theman and the wolf to form an alliance.

The wolf brings his intelligence, keen sense of smell andswiftness to the bargain. Sam adds his intelligence, thumb, “ability to usetools” and fire.

Together, they survive much better than either could alone. Indeed, over time, what could just aseasily have been Sam’s worst enemy, turns into “man’s best friend.” This blindspot on cooperation is clearer in the definition of ally in the “TechDictionary.” According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps youwhen you are weak (and we are never weak, are we?), and is someone whosebeingness takes over the PC. In other words, that with which you ally, youalloy. An ally is something found in reactive engrams, not in analyticalthought. So now, what can or should be done about this? Perhaps an auditingrundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being’s abilityto recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and to exercise thatoption. A model Grey Wolf process might start off with word clearing on theabove definition. This could be followed by having the PC spot times whencooperation could have occurred, should have occurred, would have occurred ordid occur (a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” rundown). R3R any reading items in orderof read. Perhaps this could be played against the CDEINR scale, the Know-to-MysteryScale or the Prepcheck Buttons. Another possibility would be to have the PCspot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown. This kills thewrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal. This, of course, is only a roughoutline. I invite you to generate and test other rundowns that smooth over aPC’s handling of his environment. Such as running DEEP . (My comment/Per).

*******

I replied . . .

Absolutely brilliant, Per . . . . thanks.​

There is one addition to the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown that I would make though.

For each of the coulda, shoulda, woulda answers, one gets the item/answer and asks: "What could or would be the outcome or consequences of (item)?"

This, of course, is spiritual level processing that facilitates the capacity to create clean futures.

Running of old engramic materials is more in the vein of processing/cleaning the mind . . . that is, a "mental level process" versus restoration of spiritual powers and capacities.

Rog

/


scientology in a nutshell, hubbard's point of view.
 

Gib

Crusader
In many respects this could be a complement to DOF's "the Tone Scale: How Valid is It?" thread . . . but I think it might well provoke sufficient comment to stand on its own . . . :biggrin:

I got this in an email this morning from an Old Timer Scn who is now ex-choich . . . . it speaks for itself.

My point in presenting it is to discuss the issue of: is it possible, likely or probable, or even definitely the case, that the Scientology address to and handling of all perceived alternative views and/or dissent is met with such DESTRUCTIVE attack and put down . . . .

Look at Hubbard's putative "Black Panther" Mechanism . . . . it posits only that a Being is responsive to THREAT . . . . nowhere in this proposition of his is there any notion of work with or attempts at reconciliation . . . nope: his think could only embrace negative responses!!!

[FONT=&amp]
I found this article in an old Ivy issue. I had not seen it​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
before, but it made a lot of sense to me, so I want to​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
share it with you.​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Let me know what you think. Do you see it the same way?​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Love​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
Per​
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
*******​
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The Black Panther Mechanism:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]A Dangerous Omission[/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]by Da Professor, USA[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]One possible explanation for the Church’s persistent world view ofUS vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would handlemost situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under “Black PantherMechanism,” which outlines the possible methods for coping with theenvironment. Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this definition,only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb. While thiscertainly is quite an improvement over the psych’s “fight or flight” response,it still is missing vital viewpoints.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The selection of “a particularly black-tempered black panther” asa model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures otheroptions. Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up any other option,the definition goes on to say: “All actions can be seen to fall within thesecourses.” Where some see only problems, others see solutions or opportunities. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]I propose a new name and definition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“The Grey Wolf Options”[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]There are several ways in which a human being reacts toward apossible source of danger. Let us suppose that a man named Sam and a grey wolfinhabit the same wood. Both people and wolves are pretty dangerous critters andthey compete for food and cave space. How can Sam resolve this situation?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]1. he could attack the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]2. he could flee from the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]3. he could stay in parts of the wood to avoid the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]4. he could neglect the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]5. he could succumb to the grey wolf,[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]or[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]6. he could cooperate with the grey wolf.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Recognizing that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem isstaying alive in the woods, and that the wolf shares the problem, allows theman and the wolf to form an alliance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The wolf brings his intelligence, keen sense of smell andswiftness to the bargain. Sam adds his intelligence, thumb, “ability to usetools” and fire.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Together, they survive much better t[/FONT][FONT=&amp]han either could alone. Indeed, over time, what could just aseasily have been Sam’s worst enemy, turns into “man’s best friend.” This blindspot on cooperation is clearer in the definition of ally in the “TechDictionary.” According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps youwhen you are weak (and we are never weak, are we?), and is someone whosebeingness takes over the PC. In other words, that with which you ally, youalloy. An ally is something found in reactive engrams, not in analyticalthought. So now, what can or should be done about this? Perhaps an auditingrundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being’s abilityto recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and to exercise thatoption. A model Grey Wolf process might start off with word clearing on theabove definition. This could be followed by having the PC spot times whencooperation could have occurred, should have occurred, would have occurred ordid occur (a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” rundown). R3R any reading items in orderof read. Perhaps this could be played against the CDEINR scale, the Know-to-MysteryScale or the Prepcheck Buttons. Another possibility would be to have the PCspot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown. This kills thewrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal. This, of course, is only a roughoutline. I invite you to generate and test other rundowns that smooth over aPC’s handling of his environment. Such as running DEEP . (My comment/Per).[/FONT]

*******

I replied . . .

Absolutely brilliant, Per . . . . thanks.​

There is one addition to the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown that I would make though.

For each of the coulda, shoulda, woulda answers, one gets the item/answer and asks: "What could or would be the outcome or consequences of (item)?"

This, of course, is spiritual level processing that facilitates the capacity to create clean futures.

Running of old engramic materials is more in the vein of processing/cleaning the mind . . . that is, a "mental level process" versus restoration of spiritual powers and capacities.

Rog

/

there is seventh, as far as a dangerous encounter, and that is make friends.

Aristotle on friendship:

https://www.stpeterslist.com/14140/the-3-types-of-friendship-according-to-aristotle/
 

arcxcauseblows

Patron Meritorious
scientology would have been a lot better if hubbard thought like that

coexist, cooperate, those weren't in his mindset, he clearly enjoys making enemies and trying to destroying them

at the heart of scientology is not a cooperation, or a coexistence, it's destruction of everything except scientology

one selfish man having only his way, being the only source

hammering out of existence?

dispose of quietly without sorrow?

scared until the day he died that he was surrounded by evil spirits controlling him, dude was sick
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh dear, I'm a real sucker for that kind of stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygPvj29l9YQ

Did you have a lot of cats around when you grew up. or stuffed animals

Psychic drives or Object Seeking ?

And what is the EP of that hug? The man goes away purring and the feline goes away erring? By the way in the Basaya dialect iring, or if you are spelling handicapped like I am , err-ring is a cat.
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
scientology would have been a lot better if hubbard thought like that

coexist, cooperate,
those weren't in his mindset, he clearly enjoys making enemies and trying to destroying them

at the heart of scientology is not a cooperation, or a coexistence, it's destruction of everything except scientology

one selfish man having only his way, being the only source

hammering out of existence?

dispose of quietly without sorrow?

scared until the day he died that he was surrounded by evil spirits controlling him, dude was sick

I do not think he could have done that, he had a giant, well planned, long-con to envision and manifest, and the crippled/malignant/cancer-o'-Hubbard ploy, limps on under his murderous protege's (DM) guidance and manipulations.
Psychic vampirism at its finest imho.

:cheers:
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
What would a cooperative Church of Scientology be like?

The HelluvaHoax version:


1) Taking care of Basics...

9607143_orig.jpg




2) Dealing with personnel issues:

uncle_sam_get_a_job_postcard-r4686280785084fbbafe1e284a50fbe9a_vgbaq_8byvr_324.jpg


3) Re-purposing real estate:

gas-station.png





:)
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
I do not think he could have done that, he had a giant, well planned, long-con to envision and manifest, and the crippled/malignant/cancer-o'-Hubbard ploy, limps on under his murderous protege's (DM) guidance and manipulations.
Psychic vampirism at its finest imho.

:cheers:

Hubbard was quite threatened by the idea of anyone feeling loyalty to anyone but HIM. Hence the mandatory use of knowledge reports on any hint of "disaffection", to create an environment where nobody could have a truly intimate friendship.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Sorry for being so obtuse..

Did you have a lot of cats around when you grew up. or stuffed animals forward reference to 'OBJECT SEEKING >>>

Psychic drives or Object Seeking ?

PSYCHIC DRIVES >>>http://www.encyclopedia.com/psychol...es-pictures-and-press-releases/psychic-energy

OBJECT SEEKING...>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_relations_theory

And what is the EP of that hug? The man goes away purring and the feline goes away erring? reference to the Alexander Pope quotation/signature By the way in the Basaya dialect iring, or if you are spelling handicapped like I am , err-ring is a cat.
the lion

All said in sport....
 
Top