ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Ethics

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by jennifer, Sep 22, 2007.

View Users: View Users
  1. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    You are not practicing moderation. You are still throwing tantrums.

    And you still haven't commented on what I wrote.

    Just look. :)

    .
     
  2. The Oracle

    The Oracle Gold Meritorious Patron

    It does! Further, when I consider we are ALL inmates, it more or less keeps me on equal terms with others, and others on equal terms with me. I don't consider myself below neither above others, and likewise.

    If I wasn't somewhat handicapped I could do a lot more. I know I am not up to full potential, but far beyond where I started in this life. I give myself credit for working at it, improving my condition.

    I'm not one of those people that "just can't wait to get off the planet".

    I really like it here and I like the people too.

    I see there is some black magick to work out of. But once you get through these spells they are more or less vaccinated against in the future. So I figure I am getting a splendid education in magick and black magick.

    I just love the whole game.

    I did Mary Freeman's ethics program, it was a blast!

    This was my success story:

    My journal 2006

    At first glance in this society, as we see a church under every rock, propped against every tree, lighted crosses in the night from hyways, and temples as far as one can see, one is convinced the HOLY MAN had a few more tricks up his sleeve, than the illusionist.

    Is it possible to love in spite of all, or is that illusion in itself?

    It's not true for me.

    Did the HOLY MAN win this game because he did more good with his illusion? Or did he convince an entire species the only way to join the HOLY ONES upstairs, is to totally unmock oneself (death, and THEN heaven). And what promises were fulfilled? Is there a "holy crowd" in heaven? Or that, illusion too?

    "People are "Created" by the "Supreme Being".

    "The "Supreme Being" is the ONLY CREATOR"!

    "God is not YOU, You are not God, Heaven is not here it's over there, you'll have it when you die, (if you obey) ,and have no way to report back".

    "You are a mere Child of God. Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor ( no matter what they do to you and if you can't you are unholy too!) We are all "Gods children", and you can't harm a child of God (so don't fight back).."

    Give them unattainable goals!

    This is the work of the "HOLY MAN".

    The greatest illusionist amoungst us.

    I surrender my applause, well deserved, to the HOLY MAN for his tricks.

    But, this enchantment, is done for me.

    The spell is broken here.

    I concede to the Holy Man for making the greatest magic, and the few extra tricks up his sleeve.

    I only deny the Holy Man, is holier than me.


    The Illusioness


    :witch2:
     
  3. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Personal attacks always mean you've lost the argument. I don't know what you're smoking Vinaire, but you've lost a good deal of my respect.
     
  4. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    That's a really great Success Story hey!

    I had my best laugh of the week so far.
     
  5. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    I'm not sure how the cut and paste quote button works so I'm doing it all manually.


    " What does it mean to be basically good? It means that original postulates made are survival postulates. "

    One's original postulates cannot be anythjing other than "survival" postulates since the very concept of survival derived from the persistence of these original postulates. That is what survival is.


    " What does it mean to be basically powerful? It means that one has the potential to as-is anything."

    Power is evident not in an ability to destroy or unmock, but in an ability to create and have continuing in a high level of existence. A lesson Davey still needs to learn too.


    " Ethical behavior is rational behavior, which is in harmony with the postulates and considerations one is operating on. "

    Only true if you are here referring to the original creative postulates for the given cycle of action. If you are operating on later reactive postulates, postulates which are an effort to solve some problem, then you have departed from ethical bahaviour considerably.


    " Departure from ethical behavior takes place as that harmony is destroyed."

    A tautology.


    " Restoration of ethical behavior requires a recognition of points of departures from ethical or rational behavior ........"

    and a return to the original creative postulates for that cycle of action.



    "One does it by first....."

    unfixing any stuck points one has fixated one's attention on, and then


    "..... getting oriented properly in the present time (formula for Confusion), then locating one's original postulates and considerations from which the departure took place (formula for Treason)......."

    uuuhh......with the Confusdion step one is locating oneself in space, in Treason one is recovering one's abandoned state of existence. So, that word ""departure"" in your para above - what departure and from what are you referring to??


    "....and then looking at the current postulates and considerations one is operating on (formula for enemy)...."

    Would be a tad nearer the mark to say << looking at the current identity one is operating on >>


    ".....and then comparing them (formula for Doubt) to become aware of how the departures and lack of harmony came about."

    Hmmmmmm.


    "One does not start a life-time as a "blank slate" on which anything can be written."

    I never suggested that we did. A lifetime is, however, a cycle of action. One begins it in a condition of non-existence.


    "One actually enters a new life-time carrying with him his postulates and considerations from his previous lifetime. He is, obviously, disoriented in the beginning. So, one actually enters a new lifetime usually in a condition of Confusion."

    I don't think so. I have audited numerous people through the period of birth, from prior to after, and they have all been pretty sussed about what they were doing. one chooses one's parents, one is aware of mother's emotions and attitudes towards one, etc. they are not confused at all from what I've seen. They certainly know where they are and what they are doing.

    This does not mean they are not aberrated - far from it. Hell I can tell you my own event then - as a thetan I wanted to pee and desperately needed a body so I could do it. I chose this one. LOL


    "A new baby works on moving through the conditions naturally, and does a good job of it unless interfered with. He manages to orient himself with respect to the new body and a new environment. His entire focus is on making the body grow and making it operational. He is able to recall the controls to the body how they should be, and then gets busy putting in those controls one by one."

    Yes. Sure doesn't sound like a fella in confusion.


    "It is incorrect to think that a child's beingness is determined by his environment."

    His this LT name is, his family and his position and role in that family, what is needed and wanted from him by his parents and siblings, his orientation in the enironment he is in - all of these are detrermined by his environment.

    Sure, he has his own unique character etc that he brings with him, that is not disputed.


    "The child is very self-determined unless his self-determinism is heavily interfered with. He is dealing with the situations he encounters the same way as adults do. He uses whatever resources he has to cope with them. It is natural and simple."

    All true, as modified by his own aberrations.


    "I think that the essay above contains too many additives."

    OK. You're probably right on that.
     
  6. magnissimus

    magnissimus New Member

    A homily.

    An acceptable neruter already exists. Consider:
    "If one can't admit one put it there then one will never see..."
    If you dislike 'one put' try 'to putting'. Roll it around the tongue.
    It even sounds like English.
    The three genders we use are male, female and neuter.
    'Child' for example, is neuter. (Check a good English dictionary.)
    A child in womb (without any clever-dick divination by devices) is referred to as 'it'.
    *When's it due?", we (neuter plural) ask.
    When it's born, we exclaim "It's a boy/giirl" and shift to he/she and him/her.
    The last of these, of course, breaks the natural and holy order of men before
    women. of boys before girls, of husband before wife - but not females before
    males, as the subservience is built in - the order called 'alphabetic'.
     
  7. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I only care of sorting out misunderstanding. Did I misunderstand your original statement,

    That is one of the goddamdest things I have ever read.

    When I first responded to it, I thought it was Alanzo who wrote it. I admit I was mistaken there.

    PS: By the way your avatar looks very angry.

    .
     
  8. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I can see that ETHICS is a very charged area.

    .
     
  9. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Of course, my experience is mine. Statements like "You are heavily connected to a group that still venerates a technology I find unworkable and ethics is part of the unworkability," are presumptive only, and indicate a heavy bias.

    I am open to discussing the tech opposed to your presumptions. Are you open to discussing the tech?

    .
     
  10. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    "Inimical".

    Ooooo. Good word.

    Did that word come out of that turban you're wearing?
     
  11. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    All righty then. And here we have it.

    You don't evaluate it with the rest of the data. You simply deep six it, or hide it away from the rest.

    A lot of Scientologists do that. They place it in a "bin", usually with the assumption that it makes sense on some higher level, but they are just not aware enough right now to understand LRH.

    That suspension of evaluation, that suspension of understanding that what LRH just said there was actually false, or even insane, leads to their own suspension, and to getting stuck, in Scientology.
     
  12. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Dear Leon,

    Thank you for this discussion.

    Now anybody can see why man is basically good.


    Create and destroy are both AS-ISNESS. Any cycle of action that is started, must also be completed, else you have a pile-up of unfinished cycles of action. That is piling up of KARMA. Destroy or unmock is incorrectly confused with NOT-ISNESS. That is as far from truth as one can be. You destroy or unmock a cycle of action totally only by completing it in all respects.


    Of course. One must look from the baseline to get the panoramic view.


    From the viewpoint of BRAHMAN, all life is a tautology.


    One does that by destroying ALTER-ISNESS, or survival, of that cycle of action. In other words, by completing that cycle of action..


    Any ALTER_ISNESS (survival) would introduce departure from the original position. The ideal scene would be the ability to create and destroy with equal facility. That is the secret to abundance.

    People want to hang on to things they feel they cannot create in abundance (fixed attention). They don’t want to complete a cycle of action, because they think they cannot bring that cycle into existence once again. So, they get burdened with KARMA.


    Sure. An identity is a continuing postulate TO BE.


    LOL!


    Part of handling confusion would be obtaining a new body as an interface to the physical universe (it is like obtaining a new terminal to log on to ESMB), but the being is disoriented after losing his anchor points associated with the previous body.


    It would all depend on the entry point you are looking at. Maybe he had already handled the initial confusion by the time you got hold of him. A person may not remember his confusion after it is handled (like a dream).


    Of course, he is not, because he has handled it. Please don’t underestimate the power of a thetan. He doesn’t always require an ethics officer to help him handle his conditions.


    Those seem to be relative to his second and third dynamic, and not first dynamic. One assumes such identities throughout one’s life. One is simply playing the game on one’s own determinism.


    Of course.

    .
     
  13. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I always evaluate it with the rest of the data.

    .
     
  14. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    You seem to believe that spirituality in human beings is cultural, rather than personal. You seem to be saying, over and over, that if you were not taught the right ideas since you were a child, born into the right culture, then you will never be able to understand "spiritual truth".

    That is the height of ethno-centrism - a very human trait and not divine at all.

    What about the idea that spirituality is personal, Vinaire?

    The idea that you have an innate or essential relationship with the Divine, and that each culture simply puts their names and labels on it?

    Think of this, what if the concept of "God" in the semitic religions was the same as "Bramhin" in the Vedic ones TO THE PEOPLE WHO PERSONALLY CONTEMPLATED IT?

    What if Bramhin were accessible to everyone, no matter their cultural upbringing? And God, too, even to Hindus? What if "God" and "Brahmin" became the same thing at a certain level of contemplation?
    In other words, what if God and Bramhin actually existed to each and every one of us?

    I think you have a very large Vedic Ego that is stopping you from seeing all aspects of God.

    And Bramhin.

    What do you think of that?
     
  15. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    “Personal” and “cultural” are all additives. Anything taught is also an additive.

    Spirituality is simply the potential to create knowingness on its own determinism. One is that regardless of personality or culture.

    The “Semitic God” is an external entity. Its reference point is the physical universe. The Semitic God does not exist without the physical universe also taken into consideration, as I understand it.

    BRAHMAN is an abstract concept. It is contrasted against a cycle of action. The physical universe is simply a gigantic cycle of action. It is probably part of a bigger cycle of action, which is then part of a still bigger cycle of action, ad infinitum.

    But BRAHMAN is totally independent of the physical universe, or any cycle of action. It stands apart. It cannot be described in terms of any creation or cycle of action.

    The Semitic viewpoint looks in terms of having “an innate or essential relationship with the Divine.”

    The Vedic viewpoint is the viewpoint of the Divine.

    That is what I think.

    .
     
  16. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Of course I'm biased. So are you. Viewpoints are biased by definition. But it is helpful to be able to shift viewpoints to see the other side. It seems you will not, because of concern about slipping off the safe point you've found. It gets aggravating therefore to try to talk with you.
     
  17. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Goddamdest means confounding in my lexicon. I don't know if there is a dictionary definition for it.

    My avatar is serious. There is a very serious thread underway.
     
  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I saw that.

    .
     
  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I just go by what makes sense to me. I am willing to discuss opposing viewpoints.

    .
     
  20. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    OK. My last response to this post (post #30) didn't go over too well. So let me give it another try.

    This post is basically talking about a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. This the definition of hypocrisy.

    This post basically concludes that one should not preach morality unless one is a perfectly moral person, and since there are no perfectly moral persons, nobody should preach morality.

    (By the way, if you know of a living person who is perfectly moral , do let me know. And nobody should quibble about what "perfect" and "moral" means.)

    Can anybody name the outpoint here?

    The post then goes into a harangue against Hubbard, as to how out-ethics and criminal he was, and asks how dare he came up with those ethics conditions. In other words, in the eyes of this poster, the ethics conditions are inherently flawed simply because Hubbard was flawed.

    Can anybody name the outpoint here?

    Then this person is recommending Hubbard's "flawed" tech to handle Hubbard.

    Can anybody name the outpoint here?

    This person the psychoanalyzes Hubbard who has been dead for some time. I wonder what the goal of this person is in lashing out at a dead person and psychoanalyzing him.

    Can anybody name the outpoint here?

    .