Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

  1. #1
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,510

    Default Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    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 . . .

    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

    /
    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!
    Visit: http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

  2. Thanks JustSheila says "thank you" for this post
    Likes Enthetan, Ogsonofgroo, WildKat liked this post
  3. #2

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    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:[12]
    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_...neurotic_needs
    "Looking back on it I think I got these gains only because the processing made me self reflect and try to repair the damage done by it. So I made gains in spite of Scientology not because of it. It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."

    - Cleared Cannibal


  4. Thanks tesseract says "thank you" for this post
  5. #3
    Oh, a wise guy,eh? F.Bullbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    942

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    My panther's idea of cooperation is that I feed her when she isn't sleeping.

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


    "Go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company." –Mark Twain

    "Religion and theology must not be confounded. Religion is not doctrine, but a new birth." - R. Falckenberg History of Modern Philosophy (on German mysticism).

  6. LOL! phenomanon, Enthetan laughed at this post
  7. #4
    Gold Meritorious Patron WildKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    None of your G-D- bid ness
    Posts
    3,233

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    You can pat the panther on the head and give him a bowl of milk. He will then purr for you.

    Nice kitty!

    Dismayed and confused by terrorist attacks? Educate yourself and take action. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...inst-the-west/

  8. Thanks strativarius says "thank you" for this post
    Likes Bluebell, AngeloV, tesseract liked this post
  9. #5
    Comfortably Numb strativarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    4,106

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by WildKat View Post
    You can pat the panther on the head and give him a bowl of milk. He will then purr for you.

    Nice kitty!
    Oh dear, I'm a real sucker for that kind of stuff!

    To err is human, to purr is feline - Alexander Pope

  10. Thanks I told you I was trouble says "thank you" for this post
  11. #6
    Silver Meritorious Patron George Layton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,374

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerB View Post
    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 . . .

    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.
    Each time I spot hypocrisy, it turns around and points at me.

  12. Likes Ogsonofgroo, Gib liked this post
  13. #7
    Crusader
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,040

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by F.Bullbait View Post
    My panther's idea of cooperation is that I feed her when she isn't sleeping.

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



    feeding time


  14. Thanks F.Bullbait says "thank you" for this post
    Likes tesseract, F.Bullbait liked this post
    LOL! tesseract, Enthetan, Ogsonofgroo laughed at this post
  15. #8
    Crusader
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,040

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerB View Post
    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 . . .

    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

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

    Aristotle on friendship:

    https://www.stpeterslist.com/14140/t...-to-aristotle/

  16. Likes RogerB, Ogsonofgroo liked this post
  17. #9
    Patron Meritorious
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    676

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    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

  18. Thanks Enthetan, RogerB, Gib says "thank you" for this post
  19. #10
    Gold Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,196

    Default Re: Hubbard's Limited, Destructive Response Paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by strativarius View Post
    Oh dear, I'm a real sucker for that kind of stuff!

    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.

  20. Huh? WildKat, strativarius didn't understand this post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion: Freeing Yourself from Destructive Thoughts
    By lotus in forum Books About Cults and Extracting Oneself from Coercive Thinking
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 12th June 2016, 06:18 AM
  2. Conference on destructive cults in Sakhalin, Russia (October 21-22, 2014)
    By Caroline in forum Conferences, Speeches, Radio Shows, and Live Public Presentations
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12th December 2014, 05:20 PM
  3. The most destructive writings of LRH
    By PirateAndBum in forum L Ron Hubbard
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 14th July 2012, 11:09 AM
  4. The Leader of a Destructive Group can never be blamed….
    By Terril park in forum Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scientology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th June 2011, 08:13 PM
  5. The New Paradigm
    By lexmark in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 6th July 2010, 09:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •