An Evaluation of Dianetics

[lionheart]

Heh. That's like saying the pinprick is not the enemy of the balloon.

Zinj

If the ballon is fighting to survive as an inflated balloon, then the pin is its "enemy". But the balloon could take an alternative view of the pin if it cared to!

[Zinjifar]

If the ballon is fighting to survive as an inflated balloon, then the pin is its "enemy". But the balloon could take an alternative view of the pin if it cared to!

Or, of itself. As in deflated Thank you prick!

Zinj

[lionheart]

Or, of itself. As in deflated Thank you prick!

Zinj

Thank you Zinj - I've been called many things in the past but never "prick"!

Now back to this dynamic principle business. Anybody know how we could prove Hubbard's theory rather than asserting it?

[Alan]

If the ballon is fighting to survive as an inflated balloon, then the pin is its "enemy". But the balloon could take an alternative view of the pin if it cared to!

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I'm outta here!

Or - as those who have inflated status importances and are besieged by "a host of prickly things" go Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I'm outta here!

[Zinjifar]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I'm outta here!

Or - as those who have inflated status importances and are besieged by "a host of prickly things" go Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I'm outta here!

Isn't that called a 'rocket read'?

Zinj

[Alan]

Isn't that called a 'rocket read'?

Zinj

[Ego]

It would be interesting to understand how such charge is created. What is the source of sudden overwhelm that one simply shuts down in terms of awareness and some automaticity takes over.

What is this automaticity? What is its primary nature?

Maybe this automaticity is the encysted charge. It is what one has become.

Maybe, charge consists of a desire to understand. When things happen too fast, this desire to understand gets encysted.

I am just thinking out loud.

.

I once followed a train of thought that led me to thinking that charge was related to belonging. Maybe charge can be seen as separation from belonging or as potential for belonging.

Ego

[gomorrhan]

Blah blah blah. Charge is repressed, interrupted intention. This is why it discharges when the postulate is recovered: the person either discontinues the postulate (usually accompanied by laughter or line charge), or decides to continue the intention, consciously, at which point it's no longer charge.

This applies to any sort of situation: if you wanted to belong (intention), and you stopped belonging, then you'd have charge about it, because your intention was interrupted, and this would likely be repressed. If it weren't, then you'd still be consciously operating on the intention, and it wouldn't be charge, although alteration of the intention, if the original weren't discontinued, has the same effect as not-ising the intention. Leaves it hung.

[Leon]

Leon, Vinaire asked for outpoints, I pointed out one, therefore his "conclusion" was illogical. Your multiple question marks do not turn an illogical conclusion into a logical one.

Of course living beings try to survive! That's not the point.

To quote the CofS:
One of the most fundamental breakthroughs of Dianetics is the concise statement of the goal of life itself. This, the dynamic principle of man's existence, was discovered by L. Ron Hubbard. From this fundamental discovery many hitherto unanswered questions about man and life were resolved. The goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival. That man seeks to survive has long been known, but that it is his primary motivation is new. Man, as a life form, can be demonstrated to obey in all his action and purposes the one command: SURVIVE!
The link for this is http://www.scientology.org/en_US/rel...ion/pg001.html

So the claim is much more than your bland account of the dynamic principle of existence.

Vinaire glibly perpetuated the same "research" gobbledygook of Hubbard's by intoducing an outpoint: "Life is energy of some sort. Energy is surviving".

Hubbard's dynamic priciple of existence is unproven and Vinaire failed to prove it. I am not your enemy by stating this.

There is nothing more to it at all than the "bland account" I gave. The paragraph you quote dresses it up a bit but adds nothing. Life is alive. That is the entirety of. All of living life's activity is related to being alive. It is a simplicity and a tautology. It requires no proof.

[gomorrhan]

Life is an energy? Really? Bzzt.