Wins versus workable

[Boojuum]

After reading Dexter's recent posting of an ecstatic auditee's win, I've come to realize something. It's a win.

Here goes: When you're in Scientology and you have a win, the win validates and adds credence to Scientology, never to external causes. When, for example, someone says that they applied the ethics conditions and their stats went up, it firms up their belief in the conditions and the truth of LRH's methods.

When you're in the cos and something good happens, it's almost always attributed to the tech. If you get hit by a truck, you were motivating off an overt, if you inherit a million bucks, you handled some whole track consideration.

Nowadays, I'm in the non magical solution business. I don't mind magic but if I need something to eat, I go to a store and buy food. Trying to mock up food on the table hasn't worked too well for me.

I've heard of and experienced miracles under the trapping of the cos. They were great, but they didn't happen all the time. If you listen to an OT share wins, he or she might talk about one or two or a handful of times when they experienced "OT Phenomena". That's great. But what about the thousands and thousands of times when they didn't experience OT Phenomena?

Wins such as "I heard the phone ring and I just knew it was you." Okay. that's a nice win. But what about the thousands of other times when you called and I didn't know it was you.

As long as you're holding onto the belief that the tech works 100% of the time, always, always, always, you'll never look beyond the curtain to see what else is out there.

I'm sure this topic has been beat to death at other places on the ESMB but I'm too lazy to dig around for those earlier threads right now.

I had a win. When I disregarded the insistent advice of senior cos staff, my life became much better. Notice that the "tech" doesn't allow for that, ever.

I remember when I first got into the cos, I was making very good money. One of the senior scios on staff pulled me aside to enlighten me on some "heavy" stuff LRH said about money. My income lines were trashed for the next eight years. I shudder to think of why was I accepting as gospel the advice from someone who was making 15$ a week.

Dexter's auditee was gushing with enthusiasm after her session. She handled all sorts of stuff going back zillions of years and I really, honestly, hope she handled it. But seeing that she was in the real estate business and was upset about roller coastering, I had to think that that was the business of real estate. If you don't want to roller coaster on money, get a different job. What happens to her when she doesn't sell anything for a few months? What additional overts will she have to unburden? What auditing will she demand in order to turn her income levels around? What's going on in her life? If her marriage is messed up, does she need auditing to fix it?

My question is: Is her solution to all problems, to get more auditing?

Getting help when you need it is great. But having to turn to the cos to resolve all issues IS a problem.

Too bad that LRH didn't say something like, "The theta universe helps them who help themselves." or "Give the org and your auditor a break, fix it yourself."

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

For the record!

After reading Dexter's recent posting of an ecstatic auditee's win, I've come to realize something. ...snip...

As I recall, the "win" was simply from reading something Dex had written on his "blog" (or web page, or somewhere) and there was no contact with Dex whatsoever as your post would lead one to believe.

Boojum, just pointing out that an otherwise excellent post is sullied and diminished by the initial, inaccurate opening.

EP

 

[FinallyMe]

Boojum, do you have those same questions for me, since I had a recent VERY MAJOR life changing realization after listening to a Joel Osteen program? Would you analyze whether my win was really from listening to something Joel said, and question whether I would wait for another of his sermons to deal with some other problem I may have?

Of what import is the trigger for the realization? Do I feel better, or not - THAT's the question, and only I can answer it.

 

[Free Being Me]

Boojum, do you have those same questions for me, since I had a recent VERY MAJOR life changing realization after listening to a Joel Osteen program? Would you analyze whether my win was really from listening to something Joel said, and question whether I would wait for another of his sermons to deal with some other problem I may have?

Of what import is the trigger for the realization? Do I feel better, or not - THAT's the question, and only I can answer it.

FM, I'm glad a sermon gave you a major life changing realization. I congratulate your fortune and happiness, sincerely hoping positive insight continues in your life.

$cientologies organized abuses do demand attention so questioning it's workability, practicality and validity is natural. Since many Ex's here have lived it's ($ci) shortcomings (myself included) such close inspection is warranted.

Ever go to a major retailers web site looking for an item you need? Say, a space heater for the back room of your house for example, at Target? Wouldn't you read the spec's and customer reviews for that heater, comparing it with other heaters? Looking for an actual purchasers input of whether the heater works efficiently as advertised is just common sense. Let's say you go buy this heater, take it home, plug it in and it doesn't heat the room adequately. I don't know about you but I would post a comment saying it's not effective as advertised, it doesn't heat the area per the product specs, contrary to positive customer posts.

My objection to the SS in question is that it was posted with a link selling $ci services in the signature. A testimonial based on a $ci oriented paper of a product being advertising for purchase. Having bought the product previously, I objected to it's being advertised, as it's a flawed product. The SS was not a debate or discussion, it's advertising. Being Anti-$ci on this matter, I don't agree with false advertising and posted my derision.

Now, you having a good, positive outcome from Joel Osteen is a direct statement from you, given freely. I see no link to buy copies of his programming or books. No advertisement link that enriches you monetarily, just an insight that helped you. I see no need to be critical of you for what made you happy, even if I don't believe in t.v. ministries. The entire difference is you're happiness isn't being used to sell me your source of betterment as an advertising campaign contrary to my experience.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I had a win. When I disregarded the insistent advice of senior cos staff, my life became much better. Notice that the "tech" doesn't allow for that, ever.

I see this as YOUR misconception. The tech does allow for this. In fact, based on the fundamental principles of scientology, it practically REQUIRES it.

As you suggest, the Co$ certainly did not accept disregarding the advice of seniors as a legitimate practice. At least, not unless you could prove they were an "sp" by current church think.

Nor did Hubbard allow that disregarding his advice, desires, or "command intention" could ever result in an acceptable outcome for anyone. Historically he appears to have reacted to such things as if it were in some fashion an invalidation of HIM personally. Hubbard was much less concerned about invalidating other church exec's, especially provided he could spin it as "making himself right", or alternately it proved useful in "taking down" some individual perceived as a potential threat to his own exulted state.

However, the tech as written, if not as practiced within the church, contains a much more permissive and liberating body of data.

Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

Historically he appears to have reacted to such things as if it were in some fashion an invalidation of HIM personally.

It was. Ron claimed to the godhood of 'Source'; infallible, unquestionable and beyond your comprehension, despite his frequent disingenuous 'I'm only a man...' disclaimers. They were never intended to be taken seriously.

We shall now question why He was such a pompous buffoon.

However, the tech as written, if not as practiced within the church, contains a much more permissive and liberating body of data.

Mark A. Baker

Only if you deliberately *ignore* much of the 'Tech' as 'written' (and taped.)

As you do. Deliberately.

Zinj

 

[degraded being]

As I recall, the "win" was simply from reading something Dex had written on his "blog" (or web page, or somewhere) and there was no contact with Dex whatsoever as your post would lead one to believe.

Boojum, just pointing out that an otherwise excellent post is sullied and diminished by the initial, inaccurate opening.

EP

Wasn't the "win" brought about by reading an essay by Dex.
And wasn't that an essay about scientology tech??

The terrible thing is that Dex should have crossed out his name and written L Ron Hubbard as the author. There can be only one Source.

 

[degraded being]

Boojum, do you have those same questions for me, since I had a recent VERY MAJOR life changing realization after listening to a Joel Osteen program? Would you analyze whether my win was really from listening to something Joel said, and question whether I would wait for another of his sermons to deal with some other problem I may have?

Of what import is the trigger for the realization? Do I feel better, or not - THAT's the question, and only I can answer it.

The import is that people want to analyse how scientology, created by LRH is used to enslave people. Can you understand that?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It was. Ron claimed to the godhood of 'Source'; infallible, unquestionable and beyond your comprehension, despite his frequent disingenuous 'I'm only a man...' disclaimers. They were never intended to be taken seriously....

Spoken like the True Believer that you are, Z.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

I see this as YOUR misconception. The tech does allow for this. In fact, based on the fundamental principles of scientology, it practically REQUIRES it.

As you suggest, the Co$ certainly did not accept disregarding the advice of seniors as a legitimate practice. At least, not unless you could prove they were an "sp" by current church think.

Nor did Hubbard allow that disregarding his advice, desires, or "command intention" could ever result in an acceptable outcome for anyone. Historically he appears to have reacted to such things as if it were in some fashion an invalidation of HIM personally. Hubbard was much less concerned about invalidating other church exec's, especially provided he could spin it as "making himself right", or alternately it proved useful in "taking down" some individual perceived as a potential threat to his own exulted state.

However, the tech as written, if not as practiced within the church, contains a much more permissive and liberating body of data.

Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

Spoken like the True Believer that you are, Z.


Mark A. Baker

Thank you for your willingness to demonstrate the use of logical fallacies in pursuance of sophistry yet again

Zinj

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I see this as YOUR misconception. The tech does allow for this. In fact, based on the fundamental principles of scientology, it practically REQUIRES it.

Yes, that is what you see.

Your dreams are vivid!

But, you might wanna try a different angle on your advertising-- nobody around here seems to want to join your CoS (Church of Slumberology).

 

[Sindy]

I see this as YOUR misconception. The tech does allow for this. In fact, based on the fundamental principles of scientology, it practically REQUIRES it.

As you suggest, the Co$ certainly did not accept disregarding the advice of seniors as a legitimate practice. At least, not unless you could prove they were an "sp" by current church think.

Nor did Hubbard allow that disregarding his advice, desires, or "command intention" could ever result in an acceptable outcome for anyone. Historically he appears to have reacted to such things as if it were in some fashion an invalidation of HIM personally. Hubbard was much less concerned about invalidating other church exec's, especially provided he could spin it as "making himself right", or alternately it proved useful in "taking down" some individual perceived as a potential threat to his own exulted state.

However, the tech as written, if not as practiced within the church, contains a much more permissive and liberating body of data.

Mark A. Baker

How are the words (symbols in ink) on a piece of paper more liberating than what truly happens in actual practice? I have a hard time living in idea land only. The "idea" of Scientology is a fun nostalgic head game, if ya want to play around with it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

How are the words (symbols in ink) on a piece of paper more liberating than what truly happens in actual practice?

The ONLY practice that ever matters is what YOU do with a subject. That is as true in physics or mathematics as it is in scientology.

The subject matter of scientology is communicated through the materials with the emphasis placed on assuming personal responsibility for the subject in your own understanding, not acquiescence to "higher authority". It's all right there in the fundamentals.

The church operates differently as it was intentionally structured hierarchically. Further, it has been controlled through the agency of the Sea Org since Hubbard first created that unit as his principle means of continuing domination.

When you choose to accept abusive & invalidative church interpretations & practices as "standard" then you share agreement & responsibility for that interpretation and how it is implemented.

Put simply. It ain't about what "they" did to "you" or to "others". It's about what you decided for yourself. Both the church & Hubbard are irrelevant. All they ever did was suggest options. You made your own choices.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

The only real question here is why *you* are so obsessed with the word 'scientology'. It's not what Ron sold; it's not what Ron 'discovered' or 'revealed'. Whatever it is that you call 'Scientology' may be something perfectly wonderful. But, it's not Scientology®.

You might as well try to tell us about the wonders of using shit to polish our shoes while you dip into the Shinola®.

OK, I admit, I'm irritated tonight for reasons having nothing to do with Mark's insistence on rehabilitating a label that deserves no such rehabilitation.

I'm done with him and his blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Zinj

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm done with him and his blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Zinj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGnfKnfY6EM


Mark A. Baker

 

[Hatshepsut]

Th
OK, I admit, I'm irritated tonight for reasons having nothing to do with Mark's insistence on rehabilitating a label that deserves no such rehabilitation.

Zinj

Reminds me of going to Mass with my family this Christmas Eve. The priest started to read off the lineage of Christ! It was looooooong. The actual list of names, about 100 or so, which brought the DNA culminating in the body of Christ. The ancient Hebrews thought this was very important to archive the historical fact that Jesus was of the line of David and Abraham.

The parishioners in the pews were Roman Catholics. They were not Fundamentalist Christians or Amish and were highly unaccustomed to having their attention dragged onto gene pools to the extent that it was occurring in front of their eyes. The youth started to eyeball each other and laugh almost audibly while nudging the individuals next to them. Their look was one of "Do we believe this stuff is infallibly accurate? Is it important at all. We always read 'around' that Old Testament tribal stuff. Who cares.:confused2: It's just an awkward part of the Bible and not one of the parts that holds our creed togther. Besides, it makes us look like those 'other' folks who indulge in ancestor worship."

My point is that we all seem to 'select' which parts of our faith are credible and which parts are embarrassing us...after the fact of much passing time.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

The ONLY practice that ever matters is what YOU do with a subject. That is as true in physics or mathematics as it is in scientology. The subject matter of scientology is communicated through the materials with the emphasis placed on assuming personal responsibility for the subject in your own understanding, not acquiescence to "higher authority". It's all right there in the fundamentals. The church operates differently as it was intentionally structured hierarchically. Further, it has been controlled through the agency of the Sea Org since Hubbard first created that unit as his principle means of continuing domination. When you choose to accept abusive & invalidative church interpretations & practices as "standard" then you share agreement & responsibility for that interpretation and how it is implemented.Put simply. It ain't about what "they" did to "you" or to "others". It's about what you decided for yourself. Both the church & Hubbard are irrelevant. All they ever did was suggest options. You made your own choices. Mark A. Baker

The consistently recurring joke of most of your posts is that, according to you, even L. Ron Hubbard did not understand and apply Scientology correctly.

Only you do.

In your tortured logic, that fixes everything.

When you get this joke you can write a Success Story.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The consistently recurring joke of most of your posts is that, according to you, even L. Ron Hubbard did not understand and apply Scientology correctly.

It's not nearly as funny as that you believe LRH was logically consistent, perfectly informed, and emotionally stable in all that he did.



Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

It was. Ron claimed to the godhood of 'Source'; infallible, unquestionable and beyond your comprehension, despite his frequent disingenuous 'I'm only a man...' disclaimers. They were never intended to be taken seriously.

We shall now question why He was such a pompous buffoon.



Only if you deliberately *ignore* much of the 'Tech' as 'written' (and taped.)

As you do. Deliberately.

Zinj

You're being too nice.

That type of *ignoring* is more bluntly described as just plain lying.

In Baker's case, I'll qualify it, by saying that his lying occurs mainly on the topic of Scientology.

I've no doubt that Baker's Scientology-PR-damage-control posts confuse some people, especially newbie lurkers recently out of $cientology, or considering leaving.

He's been doing it for years, but sometimes the slick weaselly PR mask slips. Below is from an old discussion that was recently mentioned on another thread:

A. Wasn't aware you are an LRH policy purist.

B. Nothing says: only provide them an answer that they want to hear. That's an SO/registrar/critic addition & arbitrary. The FZ doesn't operate on that basis.

C. You just don't like the answers you do receive. What can I say except "sux 2 b u".

Mark A. Baker

Wow Mark! This new improved Mark Baker is really so much more helpful than that other faux elite intelligentsia guy.

I think the upgraded, attacking, ethics slamming, arrogant, juvenile taunting guy is so much better at showing the product of the FZ!

What do they call foot bullets in the FZ anyways?

This is my summation of Baker, and what he does on ESMB, for some time ago:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=107390&postcount=55