uncover
Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes
Yes, the watching of the movie was occuring in present time.
Yes
As long as the previously recorded movie isn´t brought into present time, you won´t be able to watch it. The same is with an engram, got it ?
Anyone ever experience an engram?
- Thread starter Hazmat
- Start date
As long as the previously recorded movie isn´t brought into present time, you won´t be able to watch it. The same is with an engram, got it ?
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Nope, that's what I meant. I would agree that Hubbard's definition of an "engram" included specifications which are contentious if not flatly wrong (the "exactness" of the recording, in this case), but that the term he used nonetheless referred to painful experiences that led to distortions in both cognition and emotional reactions (the referent).
That's why, when a person comes and wants to discuss their "engrams", regardless of my difficulties with their choice of terminology, I understand what they are talking about, and so I talk about that, rather than my difficulties with their terminology.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Yes, I've got it. You seem to be talking about whether the person is currently accessing a file (which they have with them in the present, or couldn't access).
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
When did I ever say my "vantage is superior"?? Wow! Discussing things with you is simply impossible. You think you know "the truth" about Scientology, the Reactive Mind and "engrams" and no discussion of the real definitions of these things that absolutely contradict your beliefs will be tolerated by you.
And then you accuse others of "assuming their vantage is superior".
You refuse to admit that your redefinitions of Hubbard's concepts don't match Hubbard's definitions - which are, factually, the only valid definitions for Hubbard's concepts.
Then you build your elaborate thesis on your incorrect definitions.
Then you attack all who attempt to correct your bad definitions of Hubbard's concepts.
And you think you are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.
No, there is no discussion possible here. I was right the first time.
Forget I ever responded to any of your comments. That was my error.
Bill
uniquemand
Unbeliever
When did I ever say my "vantage is superior"?? Wow! Discussing things with you is simply impossible. You think you know "the truth" about Scientology, the Reactive Mind and "engrams" and no discussion of the real definitions of these things that absolutely contradict your beliefs will be tolerated by you.
And then you accuse others of "assuming their vantage is superior".
You refuse to admit that your redefinitions of Hubbard's concepts don't match Hubbard's definitions - which are, factually, the only valid definitions for Hubbard's concepts.
Then you build your elaborate thesis on your incorrect definitions.
Then you attack all who attempt to correct your bad definitions of Hubbard's concepts.
And you think you are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.
No, there is no discussion possible here. I was right the first time.
Forget I ever responded to any of your comments. That was my error.
Bill
No worries, Bill. I guess your laughing icons weren't intended as mockery. I was responding to the content for a while, but after a while, responded to the way you were communicating, as well. You're right, I think, that it's an error for us to try to talk in this medium.
Free Being Me
Crusader
You answered your own question.
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Yep, quite true . . . and such is the key to that pernicious trap laid for mankind by Xenu. What a clever bugger he was to hide such a series of memories so they could only be released in gradients by an Auditor controlling the mind of a PC. Such wickedness!!
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Yes, your selective quotations are answered by your selected answers.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Lol! I think I'm experiencing an engram with you guys right now!
uncover
Gold Meritorious Patron
Last edited:
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Okay: a lock, then.
uncover
Gold Meritorious Patron
Do you just obtain a lock, or (re-)experience a restimulated lock ?
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I think in Hubbard's lingo, a lock is always something that is a restimulation of other charge sufficient to impact the person in the present, creating another analytical attenuation. I don't really remember, though. It's been about ten years since I cracked one of his books.
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Oh dear . . . please tell me you are not using the hypno-cans in some sort of therapy session?
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I could, but I don't. No, what I was referring to here is the original poster's desire to talk about people's experiences with engrams.
I do not accept dianetics/scientology clients for dianetics/scientology services.
I do offer metapsychology facilitation for people who have experienced trauma and desire to be free of its baggage. http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=245
La La Lou Lou
Crusader
Lets forget jargon. Humans experience shit sometimes and going over that gives us relief. It's not something Hubbard invented.
Where dianetics disappears into invention and dodgy stuff is in past lives. Even if they are real it would be this life time that needs to be addressed, regardless of them only being 'locks' or 'secondaries'.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I don't see the problem. I do think Book One can help people. I don't use it.
I also think that LSD can help people. I don't administer it.BTW, that's a great smiley.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Agreed.
Free Being Me
Crusader
I don't see the problem. I do think Book One can help people. I don't use it.
BTW, that's a great smiley.
Recommending something you won't on use your own clients is rather telling.
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
