Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 221

Thread: L10 and Obesity

  1. #31
    Gold Meritorious Patron gomorrhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    virtual reality
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Wrong, read the book, read the site, talked to Mike.

    I guess that's the business, though: proprietary materials make the money all come to one place.

    Here, again, I assert that I have no secrets. When it comes to technical materials of metapsychology, the only things I don't share or won't explain are the things I don't know. I find it absurd that people who are interested in helping others would prevent widespread distribution of their material. "Confidentiality" is a completely weak excuse.

    That goes for my own organization. If they really wanted to help people, they'd put their material on the web, and offer workshops training people to use it. To some extent, they have done so, but there are still materials that they don't put up for free. To me, this is essentially occultism (hiding the truth). It bothers me. If I were in charge, I'd put it all up for free inspection, and offer troubleshooting services and training, but put the subject in the hands of academics.

    I'm not aware of anyone who puts it all up on the web, which, to me, is a bad indicator (create a mystery to jack up prices and limit competition).

  2. #32
    Silver Meritorious Patron Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In three dimensions
    Posts
    1,327

    Default comment to gomorrhan

    Kevin,
    In the first posting on this thread that you replied to, I did not have you in mind among those who I was refering to, but you have answered as if you were.
    I suggest you directly address the folks in charge of Metapsychology curricula to redress your disagreements on technical methods publication policies. I have no idea of what the rational is in that case, but I hardly think the folks who run the MP organization can be fairly characterized as "occult".
    I have spoken with Mike some time ago about his publication policies. I will paraphrase what he told me: Idenics was developed with self-funding by John Galusha and Mike Goldstein, who were business partners. Therefore, Mike is free to release what information about Idenics he so chooses. The initial versions of the Idenics procedure were published with nothing more than copyrights. Several of the many practicianers trained by John and Mike, altered and/or mixed the Idenics materials with other stuff, yet were representing their new practice as Idenics. In response, Mike and John changed their business model to one of licensing with greater control over the Idenics materials.
    Mike is not opposed to anyone doing a different practice to help someone. He simply does not want Idenics mixed with something else and falsely represented as Idenics.
    At present, he is comfortable with the material released in his book and that which you can find here: http://www.idenics.com
    That is actually MOST of the material that was researched.
    Smitty

  3. #33
    Gold Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olska View Post
    Alan, would you care to elaborate on how you came to conclude that as the "correct" sequence? I ask because I, in [this] life both past and present, feel that I experience(d) it as:

    Presence precedes emotion
    Emotion precedes thought
    Thought precedes action
    Action precedes accomplishment.

    So maybe you can enlighten me as to what's "wrong" with me
    Hmmm,

    Now why not

    Presence precedes observation
    Observation precedes sensation
    Sensation precedes perception
    Perception precedes emotion

    on one scale

    and on another scale

    Presence precedes observation
    Observation precedes sensation
    Sensation precedes perception
    Perception precedes thought

    And now that emotion and thought have been full circled (after all a static is capable of consideration [thought] and experiencing [emotion]) then they can move onwards towards accomplishment.

    Would one then proceed towards "thought" without "emotion" or towards "emotion" without "thought"?

    Hubbard says "no thinkee", thinkee is bad, only lookie is ok.

    All crazy BS. the people on this board have better ideas than Hubbard.

    Rd00




    precedes
    precedes emotion
    Emotion precedes thought
    Thought precedes action
    Action precedes accomplishment

  4. #34
    Silver Meritorious Patron Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In three dimensions
    Posts
    1,327

    Default comment to Rene Descartes

    Quote Originally Posted by Rene Descartes View Post
    Hubbard says "no thinkee", thinkee is bad, only lookie is ok.
    All crazy BS. the people on this board have better ideas than Hubbard.
    Actually, in one of the scientology axioms or logics Hubbard states, "A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated". Hubbard did lots of "thinkee", even on things that did not need evaluation. And in scientology, "lookie" is o.k. as long as you look at only those things that you have been instructed to look at, and you will even be proscribed what is there to look at!
    It is not difficult to develope better ideas than Hubbard. He is a lesson in what NOT to do.
    Smitty

  5. #35
    Sponsor Vinaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    I live in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    12,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gomorrhan View Post
    Wrong, read the book, read the site, talked to Mike.

    I guess that's the business, though: proprietary materials make the money all come to one place.

    Here, again, I assert that I have no secrets. When it comes to technical materials of metapsychology, the only things I don't share or won't explain are the things I don't know. I find it absurd that people who are interested in helping others would prevent widespread distribution of their material. "Confidentiality" is a completely weak excuse.

    That goes for my own organization. If they really wanted to help people, they'd put their material on the web, and offer workshops training people to use it. To some extent, they have done so, but there are still materials that they don't put up for free. To me, this is essentially occultism (hiding the truth). It bothers me. If I were in charge, I'd put it all up for free inspection, and offer troubleshooting services and training, but put the subject in the hands of academics.

    I'm not aware of anyone who puts it all up on the web, which, to me, is a bad indicator (create a mystery to jack up prices and limit competition).
    All the Vedas are freely available.

    I am Shiva, the destroyer of illusion...
    Vinaire's Story.....
    Vinaire's Blog.....

    .

  6. #36
    Silver Meritorious Patron nw2394's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neo View Post
    Did you get any positive benefit out of it either?
    Well, subjective question, but in my opinion yes.

    And if so, do you "blame" the Ls for this condition?
    Neo
    It is possible that I might have got the same thing out of other auditing. But, there again, that alternative reality didn't happen.

    Nick

  7. #37
    Gold Meritorious Patron nexus100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    East of Seattle
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gomorrhan View Post
    Wrong, read the book, read the site, talked to Mike.

    I guess that's the business, though: proprietary materials make the money all come to one place.

    Here, again, I assert that I have no secrets. When it comes to technical materials of metapsychology, the only things I don't share or won't explain are the things I don't know. I find it absurd that people who are interested in helping others would prevent widespread distribution of their material. "Confidentiality" is a completely weak excuse.

    That goes for my own organization. If they really wanted to help people, they'd put their material on the web, and offer workshops training people to use it. To some extent, they have done so, but there are still materials that they don't put up for free. To me, this is essentially occultism (hiding the truth). It bothers me. If I were in charge, I'd put it all up for free inspection, and offer troubleshooting services and training, but put the subject in the hands of academics.

    I'm not aware of anyone who puts it all up on the web, which, to me, is a bad indicator (create a mystery to jack up prices and limit competition).
    In order to understand something one must wish to understand it.

    Viewpoint is truth. If one doesn't take the necessary viewpoint one will not understand the truth of that vewpoint.

    If one takes the viewpoint one will understand it. One always agrees with viewpoints one understands. One's own viewpoint may be different but only in position. The difference is one's position, not an absolute.

    If you were in charge you'd do exactly as they have done, Gom. You would have taken the path they have to arrive where they are. Your viewpoint would therefore match theirs.

    There are no secrets, there is only what one does not want to know.

  8. #38
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gomorrhan View Post
    Wrong, read the book, read the site, talked to Mike.

    I guess that's the business, though: proprietary materials make the money all come to one place.

    Here, again, I assert that I have no secrets. When it comes to technical materials of metapsychology, the only things I don't share or won't explain are the things I don't know. I find it absurd that people who are interested in helping others would prevent widespread distribution of their material. "Confidentiality" is a completely weak excuse.

    That goes for my own organization. If they really wanted to help people, they'd put their material on the web, and offer workshops training people to use it. To some extent, they have done so, but there are still materials that they don't put up for free. To me, this is essentially occultism (hiding the truth). It bothers me. If I were in charge, I'd put it all up for free inspection, and offer troubleshooting services and training, but put the subject in the hands of academics.

    I'm not aware of anyone who puts it all up on the web, which, to me, is a bad indicator (create a mystery to jack up prices and limit competition).
    It's interesting that the only people who have ever even suggested that I give my services or tech away for free were people who were former members of the CoS. And those out-of-the-Church people who most vehemently expressed their concern about my not publishing all my materials for free were still Scientologists - Scientologists who either refused to read the available data about Idenics, or who read that information but didn't understand the data because they were so heavily stuck in the Scientology viewpoint they couldn't "see" anything except through their Scientology "eyes."
    You, Kevin, fit into the latter category. Until you take your Scientology blinders off, what you read about Idenics won't mean much to you even if you did have all of the Idenics course materials available. I have conversed with you in forums and over the telephone for years, and you just don't get what Idenics is really about. You may insist that you are no longer a Scientologist, but your posts on this and other forums would demonstrate otherwise. And even though you deny it (which I do understand as you want to distance yourself from Scientology), the tech of Metapsychology is mainly just Dianetics and lower level Scientology reworded in psychological terms, with some alterations.
    Mike Goldstein

  9. #39
    Gold Meritorious Patron gomorrhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    virtual reality
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Tell that to the NSA, Nexus.

    I don't believe in the idea that we have access to any viewpoint at all. I don't believe that we are unlimited beings who can have any viewpoint. I do think that we can change or adopt viewpoints, but not ANY viewpoint. For instance, when you go into an area you haven't been to, before, I invite you to adopt a viewpoint which can see the whole area, rather than moving around and discovering viewpoints from which you can view what you need to see. I pretty much guarantee that information you get from discovery will be more valid than from assumed viewpoints.

    I disagree, btw, that I would have taken the viewpoints that my predecessors have, simply having experienced the same incident track as they had.

    I think I'm due to email Sarge. This has been sort of a suppressed communication, from my end. I want to hear what his reason is for not simply putting his book out in a PDF. I almost did it, but then decided I would respect his copyright. I wish he'd just let it go into public domain.

  10. #40
    Patron with Honors hbeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Austria, Europe
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iknowtoomuch View Post
    That might have to do with the fact they eat properly?

    Why is it Scientologists disregard the physical universe?? If you eat 40 doughnuts every day and don't exercise it off, you will gain weight, no matter what you do.


    I see several issues here:

    1. "Subject Illiteracy". LRH has not written much about diet. The author he recommended, Adelle Davis, has written good books but much more material has surfaced later and was never recommended by LRH. If a body of knowledge is ignored by LRH, then many Scientologists will ignore it too. It's a sheer miracle that they use the internet today, because as far as I know, LRH never recommended the internet!

    2. "Delusions of Grandeur": Sometimes people come out of sessions with such an inflated ego that they forget any critical thinking about what they eat or otherwise do to enjoy themselves. They are winning so big that "nothing can harm them", and then the weight is "just the body" anyway. They quickly fall down the ethics conditions until they are in outright danger, but then don't spot the condition and therefore don't apply the formula.

    3. "Mutual Out-Ruds": The same bad diet is eaten not only by the surrounding Scientology Org and immediate family, but by the whole surrounding culture altogether. Only few will cognite on LRH's "Mutual Out Ruds" material and apply it to overts of commission (eating the wrong stuff), much less to overts of omission (not getting actively educated in such a critically important matter).


    May I recommend this book:

    "Death to Diabetes", written by DeWayne McCulley, a former diabetic who was at the brink of death from diabetic coma, and worked himself all the way back to a healthy man.

    http://www.amazon.com/Death-Diabetes...8480360&sr=8-1

    I don't have diabetes yet, and bought the book because I never want to get it. A diabetic whom I gave the book is very impressed and already making progress in reducing his medication (an expected outcome of the diet and lifestyle changes described in the book).

    Diabetes, body weight, blood pressure and the risk of early death from stroke, heart attack or diabetic complications are all closely related. This books explains the connections and shows the way back to health, not only for diabetics but also the obese who haven't developed diabetes yet.

Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obesity is Contagious?
    By Div6 in forum The Attick
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27th July 2007, 07:55 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
  •