Keeping Alan C. Walter In View

[uniquemand]

It's one gauge of "success".

Each person has their own gauge of success: let that be the mark you're shooting for with processing that person.

[FoTi]

Thanks for more dumping, Ted.

[Ted]

Thanks for more dumping, Ted.

You are welcome.

Reading Alan's takes on different issues, and discussion as he posted on alt.clearing.technology, gave me a new, fine-tuned perspective on processing. One thing I always wanted to do was the GPM processes of the early '60s. After the BC I felt shortchanged. We studied the processes, never drilled them, and they had long since disappeared by the time I got to R6EW and the CC. From his own experience in being there, Alan was able to clarify some of the difficulties that arose personally with pc's and also with organizations as LRH attempted to implement the processes in the field. Bottom line: I am glad that I did not have these processes run on me, and I have moved on.

[Vinaire]

Based on his many expressions of such opinions in his lectures & written materials Hubbard certainly did. I would not extend the personal views he expressed in the matter as a delimiter for the subject more generally. Doing so would amount to unwarranted assumption.

As to Alan, I have insufficient knowledge of either his subject or the man to render an opinion.


Mark A. Baker

You don't have to look far to figure that out.

.

[Vinaire]

It's one gauge of "success".

Each person has their own gauge of success: let that be the mark you're shooting for with processing that person.

Yes, there are plenty of solutions.

.

[Vinaire]

You are welcome.

Reading Alan's takes on different issues, and discussion as he posted on alt.clearing.technology, gave me a new, fine-tuned perspective on processing. One thing I always wanted to do was the GPM processes of the early '60s. After the BC I felt shortchanged. We studied the processes, never drilled them, and they had long since disappeared by the time I got to R6EW and the CC. From his own experience in being there, Alan was able to clarify some of the difficulties that arose personally with pc's and also with organizations as LRH attempted to implement the processes in the field. Bottom line: I am glad that I did not have these processes run on me, and I have moved on.

I am sure Alan's material clarified a lot of stuff for you, Ted. That's very good.

.

[Leon]

I find there is much of great interest in what Alan wrote but also at times I groan at the turgid and verbose style he uses in describing concepts. And sometimes too I feel he just didn't push himeself hard enough - this was one of Hubbard's big failings too in my opinion - he got a partial perception of something and thought Aha! I have it, when in fact he has only part of it.

As an example of this: Per Alan - INTELLIGENCE: n. The correct evaluations of orders of importance with the exact and precise correctness of spirit, knowledge, game, perception, intention, vision, plan, who, what, where, when, why, how, importance, value, mood, responsibility, motion, and action, with accurately predicted consequences, outcomes, and accomplishments.

A closer look at this shows at once that in order to obtain an "evaluations of orders of importance" of anything requires that one first duplicate it and gain an understanding of it. And to duplicate it thoroughly one needs to pervade it fully, and before that it needs to be coonfronted. So we have a cycle of action here - Confront, Pervade, Duplicate, Understand, Evaluate, and then perhaps Follow and contribute to the motion and Assume the viewpoint of source over what happens next. Only in this way will one be able to "accurately predicted consequences, outcomes, and accomplishments."

So to be really intelligent in an area - be it mathematics or little IQ test puzzles or playing rugby or going fishing - one needs to follow through on this cycle. And the degree to which one does this, or the extent to which one does this, determines one's relative state of intelligence or stupidity regarding it.

And just a little segue shoe-shuffle to the side will allow one to recognise that this is also the exact definition for Havingness. Which comes after Beingness and Doingness.

Other definitions of his also leave much to be desired.

[Mark A. Baker]

I am sure Alan's material clarified a lot of stuff for you, Ted. That's very good.

.

Not when you are content to leap rashly to a possibly inaccurate conclusion.


Mark A. Baker

[I told you I was trouble]

I find there is much of great interest in what Alan wrote but also at times I groan at the turgid and verbose style he uses in describing concepts. And sometimes too I feel he just didn't push himeself hard enough - this was one of Hubbard's big failings too in my opinion - he got a partial perception of something and thought Aha! I have it, when in fact he has only part of it.

As an example of this: Per Alan - INTELLIGENCE: n. The correct evaluations of orders of importance with the exact and precise correctness of spirit, knowledge, game, perception, intention, vision, plan, who, what, where, when, why, how, importance, value, mood, responsibility, motion, and action, with accurately predicted consequences, outcomes, and accomplishments.

A closer look at this shows at once that in order to obtain an "evaluations of orders of importance" of anything requires that one first duplicate it and gain an understanding of it. And to duplicate it thoroughly one needs to pervade it fully, and before that it needs to be coonfronted. So we have a cycle of action here - Confront, Pervade, Duplicate, Understand, Evaluate, and then perhaps Follow and contribute to the motion and Assume the viewpoint of source over what happens next. Only in this way will one be able to "accurately predicted consequences, outcomes, and accomplishments."

So to be really intelligent in an area - be it mathematics or little IQ test puzzles or playing rugby or going fishing - one needs to follow through on this cycle. And the degree to which one does this, or the extent to which one does this, determines one's relative state of intelligence or stupidity regarding it.

And just a little segue shoe-shuffle to the side will allow one to recognise that this is also the exact definition for Havingness. Which comes after Beingness and Doingness.

Other definitions of his also leave much to be desired.

I believe that some people see themselves as the teachers of the world, they are always on the lookout for an opportunity to teach another something and people of a similar mind seem to enjoy studying these often overblown teachings thus providing them (presumably) with yet more ammunition with which they can go forth and TEACH others themselves.

It's very odd.

Many of us love to learn but I believe a lot less like being 'taught' especially by someone that is really just expressing an opinion while using that familiar 'all knowing' thingy that scientologists like to use often in a technical or professional style.

It's very 70's ... and just because someone labels it 'tech' doesn't mean that it is.

[Vinaire]

Not when you are content to leap rashly to a possibly inaccurate conclusion.


Mark A. Baker

Like what? I don't follow you.

.