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.



Keeping Scientology Working and OTIII Evaluations

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by lionheart, Jul 29, 2009.

View Users: View Users
  1. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    Certainly! your point here is correct, and I won't make a counter-point.

    Certainty is not an absolute, that would be the trap. To pretend to "Know it all", no potential to evolution, would be so boring anyway.

    The problem with those lunatics/fanatics you talk about is they cannot see and acknowledge the certainy in others. Thus no tolerance and acceptance of others - maybe this is the madness this place, Earth, is full of?

    I like your point about "certainty in one's own ability to do something effectively". It's relative to what one is doing when one is doing it. I was talking about the kind of certainty you have when you look at this screen now, or when you touch your keyboard when typing your post. We can be certain about that, no?
     
  2. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    I have read that. And so I was connecting it to this thread to connect it with our OTIII discussion. I wrote earlier on that OTIII can be found in the Factors and in DMSMH, remember? so - we could demonstrate that easily following it up from here and wrap it all up. (and no -it's not only about engrams and circuits, the whole concept is in there)

    But maybe this thread is already dead, I don't know. If all was said and it's boring and you have no more questions, we can drop it, no problem.
     
  3. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    See Mayo's comments re "clear". BTW, the fact that it can be considered another release point does not invalidate the state itself. It does to an extent undermine the hyperbolic remarks made about the state. However, the language used to promote "ot" often clashed with these same hyperbolic remarks about "clear". Such inconsistency adds to the confusion about the states experienced by many.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  4. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    There are lots of people here with first hand experience with OT III, who still do not fully understand the mechanism of OT III.

    What really happens on OT III according to you? Why does that procedure of auditing entities work?

    .
     
  5. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    What are Mayo's comments regarding clear?

    .
     
  6. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    I agree that the "flat earth" argument has fallen flat here. :whistling:

    .
     
  7. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    I wish it was so simple.

    To answer your question I put in bold letters - they can influence the being the same way as when you hit one note on a piano all the harmonics of the note struck will make vibrate some other strings. You can mute the string you plucked, the other strings will still vibrate. And make sound or noise.
     
  8. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Google is your friend. :)


    Mark A. Baker
     
  9. NeXTep

    NeXTep Patron with Honors

    Yes Vinaire, I agree.

    It is also my impression that Hubbard used absolutes to define some kind of gradient. A clear per Hubbard would be an enlightened being and thus there would be no need for OT levels, yet there are 8 levels beyond "enlightement". :duh:

    IMHO there is much more in the subconscious mind than ever will be addressed by Scientology procedures.

    As far as I can see the law of resonance comes into play here. As long as you have some issues that resonate with those entities you will have them around. Once solved they have nothing to resonate with you and they inevitably leave. Same applies with your human peers of course.
     
  10. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader


    Certainty of things relating to "common shared reality" (MEST) can always be used as a judge for "sanity". There is some of that, and people exist on a scale of how well he or she can see what is there, how it is there, and notice how others relate to it. There is something about objectivity inherent in the common shared playing field (maybe it exists as a result of mutually agreed upon considerations, and maybe it doesn't).

    Then there is how well IDEAS and CONCEPTS about the shared universe of MEST accurately define, describe, and relate to the things they purport to "define, describe, and relate to". The writings of general semantics covers that well. Hubbard never covered THAT, and his Data Series policies are a twisting and distortion of legitimate theories of general semantics. I am guessing that Hubbard did NOT want members examining the nature of concepts and ideas, or questioning how such concepts and ideas relate to the things they purport to define and explain.

    Then there is the layer where nuttiness takes a firm hold. When one gets into ideas about things no other person can ever experience on the same level as you (thought, imagination, concentration, attention, and all things subjective).

    I do think that there could be a "science" about this realm, because there are similarities from person to person, even if the content of subjectivity differs. But, too often, what exists instead is some set of ideas about this realm that turns into an enforced belief system (just look at most religions, Scientology included).

    But, I was being extreme in my response to you before. While I don't "believe" it, I do have the opinion, based on extensive study and even more extensive personal experiences rooted primarily in applying meditation techniques, that I am fundamentally of the nature of "spirit". I understand the ideas of the Axioms, and they also resonate for me, BUT I need more direct experience to decide whether that really describes the way it is. Until I can actually master the realm of considerations, creating and destroying them at will, and am well able to create "illusions" at will as a result, that others can perceive, well it will have to remain in the realm of "possible" for me (my "hidden standard"). In other words, while the Axioms sound nice, they still, for me, remain primarily a "theory". Of course, within the strict belief system known as Scientology, they MUST be accepted as FACTS of the nature of all realities. That is why they are labeled "axioms".

    Also, I have experimented a great deal with "magic" and visualization techniques, both of which are largely based on the idea that "what one creates in and from the silent place within can be encouraged to manifest in the world out there". While I am not "certain", I have had too many successes to have anything but an opinion aiming strongly in the positive direction.

    The problem with most people is that they are incapable of separating their egos from their belief system. Or, they are incapable of imagining to what a great degree others can conceive of things differently. The magnitude of variation in what any thinking mind can conceive is tremendous. But, people get stuck in their little paradigms of reality, take it to be the ONLY one, and happily think everyone else would be better off viewing things just as they do. So go the fundamentalist Christians, extreme Muslims, and the rote garden-variety Scientologists. "Yep, it HELPED me, so it MUST help everybody else - OR ELSE". These people are so "nice", and "concerned" for everybody else, as long as you "get better" within their tight, restrictive little paradigm of betterment. "I have the truth, it helped ME, and it will help you too - and I will stream-roller over you to help you understand, to accept what I say, so that you too can BE FREE & HAPPY!" Fanatics. Imbeciles. Small-minded dolts who believe themselves to be quite otherwise. They ALL make me shudder!

    The problem with all fanatics and small-minded "believers" is that they fail to fully grasp the wonder of this quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet:

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
    Than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy"


    Note: I would have would have qualified the word "philosophy" with the adjectives "meager, limited and extremely finite".

    On top of that, IF each person is fundamentally the sole CREATIVE source of all reality for him or herself, well, the variables involved in subjectivity rapidly expand beyond examination. Again, I don't "believe" that, but it resonates stronger than other ideas for me at the moment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  11. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron


    With only a few exceptions, the people I have spoken with over the past 40 years believe they are spirit in essence. Many believe in angels and other assistive spirits. Beliefs were given the light of day through casual conversation, with no insistence or arm twisting on my part.

    I suppose this could be the comm formula at work. What emanates at cause ends up at effect. So... Someone else's MMV. :thumbsup:
     
  12. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yet Another CC Spoiler

    :yes:
     
  13. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor


    I used to think so. However, given the ways that humans routinely engage themselves on this planet and the underlying ideas which they use to justify and support their actions, I no longer do. Many a "sane by dint of common reality" individual is actually quite manifestly insane in terms of the fixations & obsessions that he manifests in daily life. He can be "good with mest" and still be "all messed up".


    Mark A. Baker
     
  14. He finally stopped lying to himself

    anyone who believes in Hubbard's state of Clear is a

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Just like data can be false, knowledge can be false too.

    And so can certainty be false.

    So, what is wrong with saying, "Knowledge is certainty and not just data?"

    .
     
  16. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    Christianity believes body is part of man, and soul is a part of man as well. The idea is not thought out very clearly.

    Hinduism believes that man is atman (a spiritual being) and body is just a temporary abode. But, then, a Hindu also knows that body needs care and if it goes hungry and sick one can get fixated on the body. It then takes a lot of effort to free oneself from that fixation.

    Idea of being a body maybe more prevalent in the Western world, and that is not the majority fo people in the world.

    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  17. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    Let me put it this way...

    God says he IS spirit. Jesus said he IS (also)"The one and only" God.
    He claimed to be the voice of the burning bush.
    The bible says "Jesus is the expressed image of God"

    God is spirit - I am created in his image "spirit"
    Jesus is the expressed image of God - this body is the expressed image of me.. it is NOT me, but an expression.

    Yes, I have been all over the world and found these common ideas of people being a body but also thinking there is something more and believing astral bodies (planets) have affect over them.
     
  18. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    Like you say - it's a guess. There are observable phenomena in the physical universe one can observe, make conclusions about, and act. And even then one will have to organize the concepts, adopt a system, to predict other phenomena and Science is no different in this.

    Then there are less observable phenomena and some are beyond words. One can observe them, elaborate a system, convey your system to others so they can observe too. And hopefully make their own opinions or use them on their path. The whole subject of Philosophy or Psychology is no different in this.

    How good you are to question a system, analyse it, grasp it and let it go, so you own the system and the system doesn't own you - is up to you. As to Hubbard, his concern was the perennity of his system unaltered. You might find however in his work references where he insists you question his ideas, examine where they come from, how they match or not Natural Laws. It's tough, I know, and he was also a good salesman.

    The nuttiness begins when one tries to enforce a belief system - or even an actual truth - on another. Prior to that there is an inability to see in and grant truth to another.

    In order to understand Scientology they better be accepted as "evident truth". That goes for any system Man dreamt up. You examine them, accept what parallels your view on life, then when you got understanding you reject them utterly. Then you can see what's left, how does that fit previus or other paradigms you had. That's a personal path and how you go about it is up to you.


    The problem with most people is they will try to enforce their frame on others. They want to enforce this frame because that's how they win and how they prevent losses.

    I admit I'm somewhat uncomfortable reading this and your previous post - What is it you say about "fundamentalist Christians, extreme Muslims, and the rote garden-variety Scientologists." ? - it's maybe part of my personal make-up but already since my childhood I was genuinely interested in discovering how and what people think, their views on Life, Cultures, Ethnics, ... - and what I love discovering is the differences.

    And I love to meet them, talk with all of them, get immersed in their culture (that includes Music and Women). Exemples abound. Lately a friend had trouble with his Construction workers. He was proposed some products that seemed overpriced and asked for advice. I took him to a shop held by an Arab. The guy listened, explained clearly what game the other workers were playing on my friend. Then he made a proposition stating his price, stating openly what money he gets out of it. An integrist Muslin and somewhere along the line, not as a sales pitch, he dropped in "... and anyway I say it as it is, my Religion prohibits me from being dishonest". As my friend had also another problem, not tied in with his products, he gave a call to some other Arab, saying "I have a friend here that needs your help, I want you to welcome him as a friend from my childhood".

    Years ago I fell in love with African Music after hearing some African Musicians playing Jazz. I went looking for musicians from Mali (I love that music!) Congo, or South Africa. I didn't want an intellectual approach, I wanted to "get in" their culture, feel the motion-e-motion, become part of it. A Congolese band was looking for a Jazz guitarist. I joined in, we became brothers, and there I was playing all nights long in a district said to be the most violent and dangerous one. And I was safe, discovered wonderfull people, shared and had fun.

    By the way - I did study green on white too, on my own. I did use data from the OEC and FEBC to help guys to set up successfull businesses that were running like a clock. Playing with this African band, on the road and living with them I had to drop it all. If you want to uncreate/deprogram all your Scn admin tech, go and play with a Congolese Band.

    Several years ago a friend (singer) and I wanted to throw in a party for our friends. I met in a cafe a Maroccean guy, we talked, he was a great cook having worked for 17 years in Italy in a fine restaurant. He could make meals from Senegal to Marocco, European or South America ones. We had that party. 150 people in a room. It's said Arabs and African guys don't go along well, and even fight, and there I had Arabs preparing delicious meals, and when the African band started to play afterwards, people were dancing on the tables.

    This is to say - when meeting those and other people, who am I to question their beliefs, they culture, their views on Life? I'm there to learn. And even when meeitng those integrists, fanatics you talk about, I meet wonderfull people with respect to who I am. And I give them full respect for who they are.

    Threaten any nation, ethnical group or people who share beliefs with enough force so their identity might be unmocked and they have the right to stand up and fight for it. And they will. Push enough force on the Western civilisation, the Scientific Atheists, which is also a belief, and you'll get the same reaction. Finally all would fight against each other as if they fight a Mr X. Intolerance has deep roots probably connected to some deep territorial instinct. But I live in the Western Culure, that same civilisation whose production is depleting Nature of its ressources, destroys the ecosystem - so saying my belief, or the belief of the Society I live in, is better than the belief of others, and of other Cultures, would place me on a very shaky ground.

    There is a lot to discover in beliefs of others. My daughter took her Religion classes with her friends, her choice. She studied this way Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Moral thinking.




    I do have MY philosophy. If we talked about it you might find out it's not Scientology. But I don't share it much as it's MY philosophy. Everyone has his own philosophy, and then there might be a collective Philosophy.

    What I like when I have a walk with my dog is finding an Old Man, sit next to him, and discover what his view on Life is. It's often infinite.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    I like that.

    .
     
  20. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    The primary difference between lower and upper levels of Scientology apperas to be:

    (a) At lower levels one is going for erasure.

    (b) At upper levels one is going for separation.

    .