The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[CarmeloOrchards]

Not sure what you meant by the above statement. Is it possible you meant to say: GPM’s are the result of the other-creation and the attendant assumption of being opposed, occasioned by the loss of co-creation (shared beingness) the resultant counter-creation is an attempt at continuing a continuum with the ex-co-creator. Or is something else intended?


Mark A. Baker

you are correct. my error

[CarmeloOrchards]

[Mark A. Baker]

you are correct. my error

Thanks for the clarification. I found that post to be a particularly insightful one well worth deeper consideration for the principle it illuminates as well as actually auditing on it. Thanks for that too.


Mark A. Baker

[Leon]

Thanks for the clarification. I found that post to be a particularly insightful one well worth deeper consideration for the principle it illuminates as well as actually auditing on it. Thanks for that too.


Mark A. Baker

I find TROM to be very illuminating in this regard. What Carmelo posted aligns exactly with what is described there, except only that Carmelo's unknown author is a lot more verbose and hard to access.

[CarmeloOrchards]

I find TROM to be very illuminating in this regard. What Carmelo posted aligns exactly with what is described there, except only that Carmelo's unknown author is a lot more verbose and hard to access.

It's a word doc that I found on an old old old hard drive (probably early 1990s). for all I know the author is me. I think I try to save authors signatures on purloined writings. There wasn't a reference. I don't think this is Ted, Alan, John Mace, John McMaster, Jack Horner. I can't think who else would have written it, that I would save it with no attribution.

It led me to reconsider the discussion I had with Trouble the other day.

see (starting here)

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...l=1#post694133

Synthetic valence is another word for "FAKE."

I have to say, I wasn't a dilettante Scientologist. I was a fake Scientologist. I personally never bought the full package. It (Scientology) was better in many regards than my own observations and abilities, but it asked for compromises in my perceptions and integrity that I only grudgingly made, and only in not rocking the boat. I held onto my versions of truth. I always saw myself as an outsider, not a real Scientologist. I held critical opinions of LRH and the tech and ethics stuff from day one.

Prior to Scientology a friend and I sat most days of the week for years, just looking at one another, without speaking. We got huge off that. We returned daily to a oneness with each other.



(It is nearly 2 AM, I wish I wouldn't have these dumb cognitions in the middle of the night)

TR0 was always confronting for me, never oneness. Always individuated. I knew it to be completely inferior to what my friend(s) and I did before Scientology.

When my friend, pictured above, decided to join the Sea Org, I offered to pay for her auditing and training if only she wouldn't join. It was quite important to me that she didn't join. She did anyway, and it was OK, she left several years later. We're still close friends and buddies.

When I was 15, I hit the truth **for myself** that love was the most important thing.

I never accepted survival as the basic principle of existence. It just wasn't true. Still isn't. It belongs on a scale, but so do death and taxes. BFD

The first time I saw / read goldenrod, I was appalled. I never got over my complete disagreement with that. I was a child of Stranger in a Strange Land. "Thou art god," was my mantra, not, "you are an SP and I'm OK."

I loved and continue to love auditing, but not all the auditing I saw was beneficial. OT 3 was, and remains to this day harmful at best.

Then there were the retaliatory actions taken on people when an auditor found something from a PC that bugged them. I had a girl friend, who got sent to ethics after she criticized an auditor's daughter. It was totally malicious.

This picture is my wife with a granddaughter.



When I had been "in" Scientology for about two years. I wasn't Clear yet. There was a girl about 5 or 6 (like the girl above), sparkly and nice, living with friends, because her parents were divorced. She used to sit on my knee, and I read to her. Then her dad took her away to the Apollo. She became a Commodore's Messenger. One night at 2 AM, she fell asleep outside Ron's room. he found her, and had her put in the chain lockers for several days. There is now and never was any way I could reconcile that action. The anger it triggers in me as I type this hasn't dissipated in 40 years.

So I got terrific gains, of a permanent nature from Scientology, but the best I could do was remain aloof, and be a fake. It is not good to go through life faking it.

[Mark A. Baker]

... So I got terrific gains, of a permanent nature from Scientology, but the best I could do was remain aloof, and be a fake. It is not good to go through life faking it. ...

Like you I kept my own counsel and remained somewhat aloof, preferring my own understanding of my studies & experiences to the explanations or interpretations of others. Unlike you I don't consider that qualifies me as a 'fake scientologist' as that approach is consistent with the stated principles of the subject of scientology, whether or not hubbard actually meant what he said .

For me the fakes have always been those who chose to accept the 'Revelation of Orthodox Hubbardism' in the form of hubbard's views, command intention, SO/Org dictat, or group peer pressure in place of their own judgement. By doing so they effectively abandoned their responsibility for making their own decisions, preferring instead conformance to the group.



From what you say, I don't see that you ever made that choice. Ergo, I don't see you as a fake.


Mark A. Baker

[RogerB]

Ant,

Thanks for that Pilot's piece "Knowingness and Creation" . . .

There's some very good info in it that should help many.

One of the things I have observed over the years which aligns with The Pilot's thing of blowing all the mechanics of using the mind to look for "definitions and meanings" of words is this: my observation is that words, whether written or spoken, are actually representation symbols for concepts. That is, words are symbols that represent concepts . . . and of course, above concepts one has the creative act that brought such into being.

Rog

[RogerB]

The core of case is the target, and this core is a moment of disruptive loss, the moment of moving from co-creation and a shared beingness to other-creation (the loss of the shared beingness). This is what results in the assumption of synthetic beingnesses (valences) and created shared beingnesses (“entitity case”, i.e., “demon circuits”).
GPM’s are the result of the other-creation and the attendant assumption of being opposed, occasioned by the loss of co-creation (shared beingness) the resultant counter-creation is an attempt at containing a continuum with the ex-co-creator.

The huge, basic charge is loss of shared beingness, which is loss of occupying the same space, which is loss of love, the pinnacle of ARC.

Valences are created primarily to try to attract or have co-creation with another. Failing this, valences are created to have counter-creation, which still maintains an active relationship.

Any processing directed at removing valences should be complimented with ARC processes in the direction of rehabilitating the being’s ability to experience love.

Possible techniques: F0, “What could you love about yourself”,
F3 “What could another or others love about another or others?”
F2 “What could another love about you?”
F1 “What could you love about another?”
(In this “reverse order”).
It could be run using specific terminals in one’s environment, e.g., “What could you love about yourself in the presence of ______?”
“What could ______ love about another”, “What could another love about _____?”
“What could you love about ____?”
“What could ____ love about you?”

This looks very much like a John MacMaster piece.

He too was big into LOVE as being the most important aspect/thing/action of existence. And I well remember his speaking of the issues of co-existence and co-create and the upsets at the loss and departure from them. We had private chats on these issues.

Love is an important item for many folks: for some it is THE most important . . . . but not so for all folks. Others have as their most important "thing" in the game of life as being other items such as knowledge, truth, creation, relationships/alignment, etc., etc.,

Hence, the error in the above piece is that it tells everyone what is true for them . . . and that is always a wrong move . . . Hubbard made that egregious error.

It is wiser to present one's personal discoveries and "importances" as relative. This way others can relate to the datum and fit such correctly in relative terms in accordance to their order of importances.

It is for this reason that when I write what I have to say on "tech" issues, I preface them with "in my observation" . . . for I well know others likely observe differently!

Rog

[FoTi]

Hats -
FoTi gave me an excellent cook book type of instruction Hat to post photos on ESMB almost 2 years ago. I put up about 7 albums on ESMB with ease. Now I went to put up my cat photos but since then ESMB closed down and reopened with a new format, and I hadn't put any albums up for well over a year. Combine those two things and I tried to post my cat pictures here but couldn't get it to work.

FoTi, can you do a new photo instruction Hat for me? You know how it goes, people my age usually are not very computer literate.
Lakey

Lakey....I'm not any more computer literate than you are. If there is a new format, I don't know anything about it or how it works. I haven't posted any pics on ESMB for over 2 years. Maybe you could get Emma or one of the admins to help you or PM someone who posts pics here, like Hat or Carmelo. There is an image icon in the bar right above the area where you can make a post....it's the square icon just to the right of the envelope icon......looks like all you have to do is enter the image URL....maybe from your pics in your computer? Might give it a try.

[lkwdblds]

Debating Academia

I want to make these last comments regarding debating Academia because I feel they are important.

Academia refers to our modern day Universities and those well educated there. I want to cover two areas in the Universities, #1 Politics and #2 Origins of the Universe. My opinions are generalities - certainly there are exceptions.

Politics and History - Academia teaches a Marxist leaning approach; they believe in a strong central government run using Keynesian economics with the government usurping some individual freedoms in an effort to maintain order and spread the wealth in a fair manner to all. Those in charge feel they know best and they are not interested in other points of view. To them, history shows that the other points of view have all failed and are not worth listening to.

If someone vehemently holds to viewpoints other than theirs, they tend to consider this person evil and they will do whatever it takes to either convert him to their way of thinking or, if that fails, they will dead agent him.

Origins of the Universe - All the same things apply except that they don't necessarily consider you evil. Instead they consider you dishonest, tricky or ignorant.

Being involved with this now with TAJ and S of T there was a short period of debate, where they tried to win me over and when that was not successful, S of T then switched over to name calling and impugning by motives by calling my debate tactics dishonest.

USING IGNORANCE AND DISHONESTY INSTEAD OF EVIL Its hard to accuse someone of being evil merely because they believe differently about how the universe was formed. Therefore they use other terms such as dishonest and misleading instead. MAB jumped in and used ignorance. I don't object to that as much because if he feels that way he has a right to say it but the other terms impugn my motives and I believe that is unjust.

DESTABILIZING AN OPPONENTS IDEAS - People can walk outside and take a look - immediately they are bombarded with evidence of intelligent design. For those who know a little science there are other more specific evidences such as the manner in which water freezes. The Academics handle this by attempting to knock out a person's stable datum.

They say, that your sensory perceptions are too limited, what you see as evidence is not evidence, they brag that they have a PHD so you must agree with them, you are just a kibbitzer and have no business debating them, etc. Finally if they don't get anywhere, they go in two directions, they either say you are dishonest and are attempting to trick people or make the stronger assertion that you are ignorant.

This would make sense if what they were offering in opposition to your views was superior knowledge but it isn't! A lot of it is just made up crap, designed to make things too complex to challenge. The worst thing you can do in their eyes is to just look and use common sense. To them, if you do that you are a complete Neanderthal, a completely ignorant person. Invalidate the human senses , invalidate human intelligence, say evidence isn't really evidence, introduce the ultimate "Authority", a Trans-Intelligence which is so totally beyond human intelligence that it can no longer even be called intelligence.

These things do not evoke superior knowledge. They are ad hoc creations designed to knock out an opponent's stable datum so as to get him to shut up.

If they pulled my stable datum out from under me and replaced it with something more sound, I would join up with them immediately and sign up for classes. Instead they replace them with very questionable complexities which only serve to confuse the issue.

The tip off as to what is happening is that when they can't get one's agreement they need to resort to personal attacks and dead agenting of their opponents. That is the tip off that what they have to offer is not good. Did Einstein react to his opponents with dead agenting and personal attacks? Of coure not, he knew what he was talking about. Think about that!
Lakey