Bea Kiddo
Crusader
The next one will be something from my past life. Give me some time to scrounge around for one.
.
Thats my dad!!! WOW!!! Cool!!!
The next one will be something from my past life. Give me some time to scrounge around for one.
.
I think that one of the lower ethics conditions should be:
Find out who you are not.
.
I always understood Treason and Enemy conditions as follows:
CONDITION OF TREASON: FIND OUT THAT YOU ARE.
This applies to finding out one's assigned beingness/role in the group which the person was in treason to. This is what one should be ideally in that group but was not.
CONDITION OF ENEMY: FIND OUT WHO YOU REALLY ARE.
This applies to finding out the beingness/role one has actually assumed with respect to the group.
One then has the opportunity to compare these two beingnesses when one moves up to the DOUBT condition.
These are third dynamic conditions in an organization.
.
You are SOOO brilliant!
What a beautiful mind!
This is what you do on the CofS OT8, a NOTS correction to find out who you were not.
But anyone could start with this and blow huge amounts of case!
I guess you could start it as a process: "Tell me who you are not" ?
Vinny, I just love it! This makes perfect sense for an ethics sort out!
Well, I have had many disagreements with people on this one: Find out who you really are.
See, every time I was so low I had to cycle through that one, I found out who I really was , was some kind of dramatizing idiot. Then I had to look at my products as a dramatizing idiot. Then I had to decide if it was really helping me to be a dramatizing idiot. Because that is exactly what I was being as a who.
Then I got mixed up with the Sea Org and started reading all these theetie wheetie write ups: "Who I really am is a nice thetan....." "Who I really am is basically good..." Oh really? Then why are you checking yourself out in the mirror in enemy condition hmmmm....?
No matter what I said I could get no one to agree with my way of doing that condition.
Then in the Freezone I ran into the "ethics experts" ...same thing.
That is why Vinny's idea of finding out who you are not sounds good therapy to me.
If people can't even confront who they are, it may be easier for them to confront who they are not.
Any (but ANY) self invalidation in a person, no matter what, is a direct indicator of out-ethics on the first dynamic. This can be a subtle as an unspoken belief that “one day when I am OT I’ll be OK”.
Preaching ethics that is not practised is like how religious persons can preach against using prostitutes & then get caught out for using them. Its like that conservative politician in the USA who preached against homosexuals but was found being promiscuous in a gay meeting place. People protesting too much about whatever immorality even like Hubbard protested alot about immorality can many times be found hiding their own immorality. Having read about the true life of Hubbard he was very unethical & yet prescribed ethics conditions for others that he himself did not appear to practice. Hubbard had an obsession with crimes, the crimes of other people never his own crimes. Looking for overts & finding these can be a relief for a person in a confessional setting but if ever such overts told in the strictest confidence can be used against a person for whatever reason of vindictive revenge then this is a worst betrayal of help & persons doing this should be barred from hearing any further condessions. If the overts of Hubbard had been properly cleared & handled instead of having treated him like a god then maybe he could have been helped. Hubbard had a detached concept of ethics that what he prescribed was for others & not for him having believed in his own grand illusion that he could have done as he wilt in accordance with Aleister Crowley theory.
This is armchair psychoanalysis in some ways. If one is mostly crazy, it does not imply that one can never have lucid moments.
I find enough lucidity in LRH writings to consider him a genius. The moments of lucidity should not be confused with non-lucid moments. I am sure you can see that this applies to you too. So, what is preached should be evaluated for outpoints in the context of that subject, and not by who said it.
Each one of us is unethical when we are in the throes of our reactive mind. But each one of us is highly ethical when we are keyed out. Ethics is rationality. It is limited by the data one is operating on, and it is corrupted by the outpoints in one's thinking. The outpoints in one's thinking multiply as one's reactive mind is restimulated.
We should grant beingness to Hubbard's analytical prowess, but we should reject his thinking influenced by his reactive mind.
And it is your own sense of ethics which helps you make the above differentiation.
.
That is one of the goddamdest things I have ever read.
Welcome to the Vinaire universe.
Should be "Vinaire's universe."
What happened to your writing prowess? Looks like you got somewhat restimulated here.
That is one of the goddamdest things I have ever read.
This is armchair psychoanalysis in some ways. If one is mostly crazy, it does not imply that one can never have lucid moments.
I find enough lucidity in LRH writings to consider him a genius. The moments of lucidity should not be confused with non-lucid moments. I am sure you can see that this applies to you too. So, what is preached should be evaluated for outpoints in the context of that subject, and not by who said it.
Each one of us is unethical when we are in the throes of our reactive mind. But each one of us is highly ethical when we are keyed out. Ethics is rationality. It is limited by the data one is operating on, and it is corrupted by the outpoints in one's thinking. The outpoints in one's thinking multiply as one's reactive mind is restimulated.
We should grant beingness to Hubbard's analytical prowess, but we should reject his thinking influenced by his reactive mind.
And it is your own sense of ethics which helps you make the above differentiation.
.
OHHHHHHHHKAYYYYYYYYYYY - Out of sheer curiosity then, Vin, what is the percentage of LRH material you would consider correct? And what percentage is faulty, due to his reactive mind, then?
It would depend entirely on one's interpretation.
I would recommend fully understanding the Axioms & Logics from a Vedic viewpoint, and then taking it from there.
I would say over 95% of Scientologists and ex-Scientologists in the West do not understand Scientology Axiom # 1, and, therefore, their understanding of rest of the Scientology is very suspect.
.
I am talking about YOUR interpretation.
Remember, she's a sec checker, Vinaire!
You can not run. You can not hide.
Spill.