The Major Flaw in Knowledgism

[Alanzo]

So rather than deal with the concepts I posted you accuse me of being OSA and uninformed.

Speaks for itself.

I have to agree with Alex here, Dart.

You totally dodged the issues that Alex raised.

[Ted]

The major flaw in knowledgism is spiritual teammates.

What? Teams bad? Spiritual teams sounds like a great idea...

A team is a group organized for a common purpose. Nothing wrong with that.

But with the knowledgism technology these teams are composed partly of the entities that were once unconsciously bound to others.

Entities that may have been unconscious and completely other determined for quite a long time. Knowledgism, rather than completely freeing these entities, uses help and affinity bind them into a team and then organizes them for purposes other than what the entity may have decided to do let to their own choices.

"Spiritual Teammates" could also be called subtlety enslaved entities. Yes a nice enslavement, affinity flows and all, but still, not completely free.

The purpose of developing these teams is the trap of thinking that power and dominion over material life it necessary to "win" the "game".

It is a trap of not seeing what freedom is, but rather trying to beat a game that is an illusion in the first place.

Power, control, sovereignty, are in themselves elements of separation from true freedom.

My opinion.

Your opinion, yes, I believe I understand.

Alan has said or written much regarding Spiritual Teammates. You seem to have but scratched the surface. Check the a.c.t. archives.

What Hubbard said? A being is in Treason on the first dynamic of he fails to get rid of all his BT's. (OT-3 pack)

Hubbard said a being will do with entities in the mind as he does with entities in the physical universe. (DMSMH) A corollary vise versa would naturally follow.

Around the time of OT-3 being originated as a level, you also find Scientology emphasis on Lower Ethics Conditions, heavy ethics actions, RPF, and more. Looks to me like Hubbard was doing with entities in the mind as he was doing with entities in the physical universe.

Many people have come and gone in Scientology. In a sense they were people who woke up because they were "scanned" by a book or someone setting a good example of Scientology. After those people joined they met with differing levels of abuse, then they were gone. But, many didn't leave cleanly. Scientology has created most, if not all, of its own enemies.

"Many are called and few are chosen" is both a slogan and a justification for the innies who remain.

To relate to BT's as if they are Spiritual teammates is a new perception. And, I might add, a huge improvement over perceiving them as a hinderance that needs to be audited off.

I related to BT's as if they were any other pc, infinitely capable, only needing a bit of good, non-evaluative, non-invalidative auditing to help them along.

My own finding on the matter is that some leave, some stay. They shouldn't be forced in either direction. That would be bad auditing. The one's that stay belong. Whether that's an actual entity or a piece of one's self is a matter for philosophers to debate.

All in all, I don't see how anyone could complete any auditing where other beings or entities are involved if the auditor did anything other than a professional level of auditing following its most basic of rules.

[Ted]

Alan does and teachs how to deal with them.

He also sort of validates ot3 as an incident and discusses spiritual teams.

Regarding OT-3, Alan has stated a number of times, "Right item for some, wrong item for others."

I agree.

[Panda Termint]

I have to agree with Alex here, Dart.

You totally dodged the issues that Alex raised.

Alanzo, it's only an "issue" if you grant credence to the arbitrarily declared "flaw".

Surely a man of your experience (6 nooses) can spot the inconsistency in a scn defender, Alex in this case, accusing Alan of the "flaw" of openly discussing something that most scientologists believe?

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Hullo Alex,

Which hat are you wearing for this thread?

From your recent posts on Knowledgism you appear to be operating to an agenda, is this the case?

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to say whatever you like about any subject here on the board, providing you are expressing your own views and are not working to a prepared script.

I get the impression you are confused and are struggling to align concepts regarding what one's spiritual team are and what they do.

Hubbard demonstrated his drug fuelled paranoia about one's beings in and around you and your space. He wanted to get rid of them all. Well, look where that idea got him and many suffering followers.

Before you decide whether a body of knowledge is flawed or not, it might be a good idea to actually read up a bit about it first.

So rather than deal with the concepts I posted you accuse me of being OSA and uninformed.

Speaks for itself.

I have to agree with Alex here, Dart.

You totally dodged the issues that Alex raised.

Where, exactly, does Dart accuse alex of being OSA in the post?

Alan is so senior to alex as to make specious and/or irelevant any of alex's ruminations. IMO.

EP

[Alanzo]

Alanzo, it's only an "issue" if you grant credence to the arbitrarily declared "flaw".

Surely a man of your experience (6 nooses) can spot the inconsistency in a scn defender, Alex in this case, accusing Alan of the "flaw" of openly discussing something that most scientologists believe?

In my experience, the problem with Knowledgists is that they employ the same dead agent tactics that Scientologists employ: Character assassinations and red-herrings, insults and ad hom.

They never answer a question or talk to anyone about Kn who seems to be critical or challenging any of their concepts.

I think that Alex made a perfectly legitimate post for discussion. And what he got back was ad hom.

So I pointed it out because I have seen it many times before from them.

It's the worst of Scientology.

They should go ahead and drop that Hubbard technique.

[alex]

Hullo Alex,

snip

Hubbard demonstrated his drug fuelled paranoia about one's beings in and around you and your space. He wanted to get rid of them all. Well, look where that idea got him and many suffering followers.

snip

You and alan and others who bash hubbard, calling him turd, paranoic, drugged etc, ARE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO LET HIM HANG HIMSELF WITH HIS OWN ROPE.

You were his friends and the ones who could have helped him.

I see a ser fac at play here....he "betrayed" you....you'll be right, somehow.

Your accusations speak loud of the overt.

[Carmel]

In my experience, the problem with Knowledgists is that they employ the same dead agent tactics that Scientologists employ: Character assassinations and red-herrings, insults and ad hom.

They never answer a question or talk to anyone about Kn who seems to be critical or challenging any of their concepts.

I think that Alex made a perfectly legitimate post for discussion. And what he got back was ad hom.

So I pointed it out because I have seen it many times before from them.

It's the worst of Scientology.

They should go ahead and drop that Hubbard technique.

Hey Alanzo,

Look at the title - "The major Flaw in Knowledgism"
Then the category - "Cults in general"
Then the content of the op - Quite a misrepresentation of a concept in Knowledgism I gather.

It all came across as pretty slanderous and ad hom to me, and then Dart responded by calling a spade a spade, and fairly politely too I might add.

Pot kettle black on this one.

[alex]

Hey Alanzo,

Look at the title - "The major Flaw in Knowledgism"
Then the category - "Cults in general"
Then the content of the op - Quite a misrepresentation of a concept in Knowledgism I gather.

It all came across as pretty slanderous and ad hom to me, and then Dart responded by calling a spade a spade, and fairly politely too I might add.

Pot kettle black on this one.

More ad hom, I make a point, and rather than discuss it, my motives are questioned, and my integrity is subtlely impugned.

I don't believe I have misrepresentd anything.

[EP - Ethics Particle]

More ad hom, I make a point, and rather than discuss it, my motives are questioned, and my integrity is subtlely impugned.

I don't believe I have misrepresentd anything.

Your faith has major hole!

EP