Hubbard's 'Reality'!!!

[SchwimmelPuckel]

1. You are so predictable, SchwimmelPuckel. You behave exactly -step by step- as I posted at
   http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=291756#post291756

This is true! - Good observation too!

The 'usefulness' of OTIII is more for the general pupblic.. As an example of crazy shit believed by Scientology. Made poignant by OTII being alarmingly secret and Hubbard warning that we will get phneumonia and die horribly from reading it..

A lot of Hubbards unlikely SpaceOpera stuff is equally entertaining... Ie: The Obscene Dog is fuckn' hilarious, being a 'poetic' description of Scientology itself.

The above is a typical SchwimmelPuckel post:

• Contains swearwords to prove how crazy Scientology is (I found the use of swear words like sh*t and f*ck in hundreds of SchwimmelPuckel's posts).
• Contains statements invented by SchwimmelPuckel that are put into Hubbard's mouth and then laughed about as "crazy", although they are SchwimmelPuckel's own inventions.
• Ends with a nodding smiley as if to support his own statements. Maybe Schwimmel is posting and Puckel nodding?
• And then if SchiwmmelPuckel disagrees (for example about this post here) he would post some personal insults.

WUPS!? - Seems like you've got me figured out!

I've quoted the post in full.. A piece of valuable breakthrough PuckelTech.. Well, aside from the last pin.. Only very seldom is there any need for personal insults.. But then again, 'need' is rarely the reason for personal insults. (I hereby place this tech in the public domain!)

• You failed to prove that Hubbard is "full of sh*t". All you do so far is posting YOUR crazy interpretations and inventions and claim that they're Hubbard's.

I don't have to prove Hubbard is full of shit! - I'm not in a courtroom, and this message board is full of 'proof' that he is.

Besides. it's Hubbard tech to not prove anything. Indeed, people who demands proof are very suspicious. They are a special kind of PTS and needs to be handled!

I don't accept the challenge to be very knowledgeable about 'the tech' or Hubbards 'philosophy'.. I don't think I should shut up for that reason either..

Most scientologists I ever knew took the 'reality by agreement' quite literally. So I'm not the only one with that misunderstood then.. If indeed it is a misunderstood?

My point here is that Hubbard chose to use the word 'reality' in quite a devious way. To make scientologists accept belief, opinion and hearsay (his own) as the literal truth.

A deliberate redefinition of the word and concept of 'reality'.

However, You give me the impresson that you know of some place where Hubbard explains that the kind of 'reality' he's talking about is all in the mind? - Ie: Not the real reality, which will remain unchanged in the face of OT power postulates?

<snip> No, SchwimmelPuckel, Hubbard claims the EXACT opposite of what you, SchwimmelPuckel, put into his mouth (yet again) because you confuse Isness (reality) with Not-Isness:

• Hubbard never claimed Isness stops to exist when one not-ises and
• Hubbard never claimed you can easily postulate away reality with new postulates while keeping old postulates

<snip>

Would you care to post about that?

I think that information would be quite a shock to a lot of scientologists.. Something they need to know!

 

[Rmack]

Shwimmy, is this who you really are?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6-zTy6DZ3E

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

heheheee... (Seems like I'm pulling in something or other!?)

 

[KnightVision]

And, apparently, the S.P.'s are more 'OT' than the OT's!

I wonder how the rondroids justify that one?

So fucking true. Reality is that Lcon's 'Clears' and 'OTs' are little more than set up dominoes that self tumble at the slightest breath released from a critical eye.

Spending all that money for a reserved seat in the house of cards...

 

[knn]

I don't have to prove Hubbard is full of shit!....people who demands proof are very suspicious... I don't accept the challenge to be very knowledgeable about 'the tech'....

That is exactly the problem with you, SchwimmelPuckel. You start some wild accusations about Hubbard based on twisted statements AND THEN DON'T ENGAGE IN AN HONEST DISCUSSION about them. You prefer to stick to the twisted facts because you like "Hubbard Bashing" for no other purpose than Hubbard bashing.

I have nothing against Hubbard bashing. You can bash him for his "Ethics Tech", you can bash him for "Admin Tech". But bash him on what has been REALLY WRITTEN/DONE/SAID, not some invented nonsense like "Per Hubbard earth is flat if we believe so".

My point here is that Hubbard chose to use the word 'reality' in quite a devious way. To make scientologists accept belief, opinion and hearsay (his own) as the literal truth.

That's not devious. That's called religion. Every religion is traceable to some work/person which then is not questionable anymore by religious standards but has to be "accepted as the truth".

I think that information would be quite a shock to a lot of scientologists.. Something they need to know!

LRH's info on reality would be a shock for Scientologists? Oh, sure.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

That is exactly the problem with you, SchwimmelPuckel. You start some wild accusations about Hubbard based on twisted statements AND THEN DON'T ENGAGE IN AN HONEST DISCUSSION about them. You prefer to stick to the twisted facts because you like "Hubbard Bashing" for no other purpose than Hubbard bashing.

Yay! Hubbard bashing is fun! - I do pepper it with some DM bashing too occasionally!

I have nothing against Hubbard bashing. You can bash him for his "Ethics Tech", you can bash him for "Admin Tech". But bash him on what has been REALLY WRITTEN/DONE/SAID, not some invented nonsense like "Per Hubbard earth is flat if we believe so".

Well I didn't say that.. What I did say was that the was general agreement in humanity that the Earth was flat once.. And then I reminded you that Hubbard said that agreement creates reality.. Obvious conclusion is that the Earth really was flat when the agreemnet was in effect... Or..

That's not devious. That's called religion. Every religion is traceable to some work/person which then is not questionable anymore by religious standards but has to be "accepted as the truth".

So you don't think Hubbard manipulated you with the words and definitions?

I don't think I get what you mean in the last sentence. I don't care about religious holyness.. I question everything as I see fit.

LRH's info on reality would be a shock for Scientologists? Oh, sure.

It sure would.. If he said that reality was 'solid' and not impressable by OT powers.

I even think that the 'datum' that agreement creates reality is in the axioms. (Didn't look for it just now.)

 

[knn]

Well I didn't say that.. What I did say was that the was general agreement in humanity that the Earth was flat once.. And then I reminded you that Hubbard said that agreement creates reality..

Yes, and that agreement ALREADY CREATED the MEST universe and its round planets within it. Thus any other agreement ("The planet is flat") is a LIE or NOT-ISNESS.

 

[uniquemand]

Or an alter-isness.

 

[Panda Termint]

Schwimmey, You've obviously been designated a "Who". Good for you!

 

[uniquemand]

It's the hat, Panda. That "thing" on top is actually Xenu trying to get out, he's been imprisoned inside Schwimmy's hat.

 

[michaelangelo]

It's the hat, Panda. That "thing" on top is actually Xenu trying to get out, he's been imprisoned inside Schwimmy's hat.

Looks more like a dick wiggling about (dick head?). Not calling you a dick head though.

 

[uniquemand]

Xenu often disguises himself as a penus, these days. The old man with a cane thing has gone by the by.

 

[michaelangelo]

Xenu often disguises himself as a penus, these days. The old man with a cane thing has gone by the by.

LOL.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Xenu often disguises himself as a penus, these days.

Well, if it looks like a duck, comes like a duck. . . .

Paul

 

[KnightVision]

Xenu often disguises himself as a penus, these days. The old man with a cane thing has gone by the by.

Well, if it looks like a duck, comes like a duck. . . .

Paul

Sounds like Hubbard's reality to me...

 

[KnightVision]

Yes, and that agreement ALREADY CREATED the MEST universe and its round planets within it. Thus any other agreement ("The planet is flat") is a LIE or NOT-ISNESS.

And here is a perfect example of Lcon's 'how reality is created' bullshit.

Until it can be shown that 'agreements' create physical reality 'mest' then this LconH offering has absolutely zero 'hard fact' status.

It's just a belief, and one that has been so thoroughly shoved up the As* of Scilons that they can't even think straight.

Where is this 'truth' evident by simple demonstration?????

NOWHERE.

Oh but, I can't wait to see the 'believers' who'll likely want to come a huffin' and a puffin' with philoso-babble... twisting, diverting, attempting to hold on tight to their little hubbo-teddy-bear '''''''stable datums'''''''....

 

[knn]

And here is a perfect example of Lcon's 'how reality is created' bullshit.
Until it can be shown that 'agreements' create physical reality 'mest' then this LconH offering has absolutely zero 'hard fact' status.

It's just a belief, and one that has been so thoroughly shoved up the As* of Scilons that they can't even think straight.

Where is this 'truth' evident by simple demonstration?????

NOWHERE.

Until you can show me that GOD created the universe Christianity is also bullsh*t. No, it's not. It's religion.

 

[scooter]

'Reality', the word and concept.. Hubbard worked really hard to up-end the logic of that.

Scientology is "Knowing how to know!" And "What is true for you is true for you!"

And we have the 'ARC' triangle.. Where 'R' stands for reality...

What flavor of reality then?

Real reality? - Or what you believe is reality? - Or a belief that you, as a good scientologist, has decided is knowledge?

Hey.. Maybe I'm just rambling.. But this boggles my mind!

Reality! - Hubbard lectured that reality is created by agreement.. Allright.. There was a time when 'everybody' believed (or knew!), that the Earth was flat. There was agreement that the world was flat!

Well.. I'm inclined to think the Earth was round just the same.. Even as, pr Hubbard's doctrine, 4 billion flatearthers can't be wrong.

However, that the world was flat was peoples 'reality'!

That's the flavor of 'reality' we're talking about in scientology. It is by dint also the flavor of 'knowledge'!

Scientology is knowing how to know!

Am I creating an ARC break? - Is it a break in 'reality'?

Pffth!

Just thought I'd bump the original as it got such a rabid reaction - nice one, Schwimmy.

How dare you show up the contradictions in a Scientology "basic" like that!

And do it so flippantly!

 

[KnightVision]

Until you can show me that GOD created the universe Christianity is also bullsh*t. No, it's not. It's religion.

Now, now... let's not start pushing the bubble of association just because our bullshit has been exposed. It happens to the best of us.

Just because a Christian believes that God created the universe doesn't mean that they know it to be true. People can believe anything they want, but when they attempt to state an unproven belief as fact... then it is bullshit.

The bullshit principle goes like this:

1. A good bullshitter works hard to convince someone that a belief is a fact, i.e. that bullshit is a fact to live one's life upon.

2. If successful, a new bullshit-e is born.

3. The new bullshit-e then works hard to further convince himself that his new found bullshit IS, MUST BE true... contrary to his direct observations that don't support his new belief.

4. If successful, a new self convinced bullshitter is born.

5. The new good bullshitter works hard to convince someone else that...

6. And so it goes.

The problem isn't the beliefs one holds, rather it is the attempt to convince oneself or others that the belief is 'hard fact' when it's NOT.

Believe whatever makes happy.

State it as a FACT... and suddenly one will have created more problems than their belief can overcome...

TO BE OR NOT TO BE A BULLSHITTER... That is The Question.

 

[knn]

Just because a Christian believes that God created the universe doesn't mean that they know it to be true. People can believe anything they want, but when they attempt to state an unproven belief as fact... then it is bullshit.

You are mixing belief (psychological) with belief (religious).

Unfortunately in the English language this 1 word ("believe") describes differerent things: The casual "I believe it will rain today" and the religious "I believe God created the universe" (religious fact).

Sometimes the double meaning becomes clear: When someone tells you to "Compare different Beliefs" then you know it's about religion and not about chemistry. If chemists compare what they believe it's called "Compare different Theories" or "Hypotheses" or similar.

The double meaning also applies to words like "Faith" and "Doubt".

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life" not "I have a theory that no one comes to the Father but through me."