What's new

Scientology and the Left Hand Path

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yep, that's the way it goes. :whistling:

It should be noted that I did not post on the thread that boldly featured my name (In defense of Fluffy) yet FreetoShine did so quite promptly.

So it's obviously a self fulfilling prophecy and depends on what one is trying to discuss- the contributor or the subject matter of the forum.
 

Power Change

Patron Meritorious
Oh, you still believe that garbage and think of critical ex members as SPs? I sure don't.

Thank you for believing in me, but I like being an SP. So, I stand by the label.
Being an SP means I am a 'sane person' for fleeing the cult and all it's mindset.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Well...Fluffy and I and many others live on what is commonly called the "Left Coast". Regarding the use of ones "Left Hand" well, I think that is a personal issue commonly known as "dressage" and I don't have any interest in hearing about it.

Overall though, I am very happy to see a die hard Hubbard fan like Fluffy (and she and I have gone a few rounds over the years) actually looking and willing to discuss things realistically. There is always hope!

Hi, Ladybird.

I think Hubbard got pretty deeply into magic. There're cites and references regarding him, Jack Parsons, and OTO. They sure don't tell people that when they're in the cult, do they? I never heard of the moonchild stuff til I got on a.r.s. and then I was surprised. I remember Hubbard saying on his tapes that he met shamans and so on, but IIRC, he did not admit to being in with Jack Parsons. Is that correct? My guess is that he would have thought it would scare people away and piss them off. Occultism is a bugbear for many since the US and Europe still have a largely Judao-Christian population. I think that must be where his son, Ron DeWolf, got that stuff from about the soul cracking. I sometimes wonder if the OTIII stuff is inspired by that.

Judging by that one quote I found, LRH was not in with Crowley, however, he may have sought to emulate him. He wouldn't have had to hang out with Crowley to try to be like Crowley. I don't know. Sounds like Crowley didn't like Hubbard and didn't think Hubbard or Parsons knew what they were doing.

I think that (the practice of) affirmations (Hubbard didn't invent that technique or concept though his affirmations as documented by Gerry Armstrong are Hubbard's own) may be somewhat similar to some of the principles underlying auditing. There are some elements of the practice of magic that are somewhat similar to Scn- mocking up, postulating, etc.

I don't see harm in that. Or, rather, I would say it depends on what one DOES with the magical practice. If one uses it to try to hurt someone, then that's bad. If someone envisions, uses affirmations, etc, about flower gardens and butterflies, then it's not bad. It would still be magic, either way.

There is something about occultism that raises the hackles on people's necks in general, though. Maybe it's felt to be too problematic, even if one is trying to create all sunshine and flowers and happiness. I do know that I recently read a book that had essays on different types of occultism and people who'd been into it, and with only one exception, every other person in the book struck me as having a LOT of problems. Something about it didn't feel right.

And maybe that's why some people worry about things like left hand paths and occultism. I do not believe in Satan or devils. I think that humans perpetrate more than enough evil without any supernatural being assisting or urging them in this. I think that's where evil comes from- a twisting of something good by a human being or human beings. I feel occultism may be inherently problematic and may mess a person up, but I think that choice should be there and that even when it goes wrong, it's not that one's soul will be taken by some devil or demon, but that it may just be too likely to introvert and confuse a person emotionally and spiritually. This may be enough to suggest that people not mess with it (occultism). Like I said, one doesn't need to believe in devils. The evil people do on their own is more than bad enough.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Thank you for believing in me, but I like being an SP. So, I stand by the label.
Being an SP means I am a 'sane person' for fleeing the cult and all it's mindset.


I try not to use that label. Sometimes around the house with John, I sometimes do, but even then- it's rare. When I think of an "SP", I think of someone like Pol Pot, Ted Bundy, someone like that.

My husband used to be a prison guard. When we were on staff and engaged, pretty party line as we were then, I said to him "I bet a lot of the prisoners were SPs, huh." This being a Scn conversation, he answered me in Scn'ese. He said "oh, no, I think most were "PTS"."

I do not think of most people as SPs or sociopaths or psychopaths or whatever. When I meet someone who's messed up, mean, whatever, I do not automatically assign that or any label to them.

And in case it's germane- I'm a declared SP by the church of Scientology, too.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
It should be noted that I did not post on the thread that boldly featured my name (In defense of Fluffy) yet FreetoShine did so quite promptly.

So it's obviously a self fulfilling prophecy and depends on what one is trying to discuss- the contributor or the subject matter of the forum.

And that's got what to do with what? :confused2:

I just liked PC's analysis of how threads can be mired down in a barrage of posts about how you are being attacked, other critics blah blah when really they start with you casually defending some piece of tech and being called on it.
That's all I'm going to say.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
And that's got what to do with what? :confused2:

I just liked PC's analysis of how threads can be mired down in a barrage of posts about how you are being attacked, other critics blah blah when really they start with you casually defending some piece of tech and being called on it.
That's all I'm going to say.

Well, we all have our opinions about things Scientological. We all have a right to our own opinions. We should not seek to "call (people) on it" but to discuss and/or debate our points of disagreement (or agreement as the case may be) on this, a message board. No one needs to be disciplined or chided or deprogrammed or changed or preached at or "called on" anything. This is a message board wherein things are discussed. There is no one point of view that is allowed per the rules of conduct.
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thank you for leaving the personalizations out of your posts and asking me about Scientology.

It is really refreshing to talk to someone about issues, like, say, the RPF, or what does one think of Xenu or why did Hubbard lie about his war record or why do they do that drill where ashtrays are yelled at.

Oh wait...it didn't happen. Well, I remain hopeful.

If you're up for discussing Scn or Dn or Hubbard or the Freezone or CofS, then so'm I.

I need some clairifying. You want Power Change to leave personalizations out of his posts, and stick to asking you about Scientology, or Dn, or Hubbard, or FZ, Yet earlier in this thread you say " I've never given Caroline's comments much credence, She's conspiracy minded and not always rational". So, is it that it's OK to minimize a poster and make uncomplimentary remarks about them when they do not post here? Or is it that some people can say what they wish, but others cannot? Please inform me as to what the customs are for this board, and to whom they do or do not apply.
tia
CHLNG
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I was unaware that Caroline was or is a contributor to ESMB or that I was involved in any exchanges of posts with her in any way, shape or form.
 

asagai

Patron Meritorious
Opposites attract...hate is the just love that has missed its way.

This is a left-hand path concept. It is one of Hubbard's magical misconceptions about the dualistic nature of the universe. This is why left-hand path magicians usually collapse into their own false conflicts, because they are stuck on one side of the illusion.

If you examine your statement above, you would also have to draw the conclusion that "love is just hate that has missed its way" :roflmao: Both dichotmous statements are nonsense!

Hubbrd's life, from his magical experiments onwards, was one of left-hand path enforcement of will, ego, desire, victory. So, of course, he failed and died alone and insane. :bigcry: He failed because his left-hand path stuck him on one side of the dualistic illusion.

Any scientologist who fixates on "being at cause", "making it go right", enforcing his will, etc is doomed to a similar failure.

That's the point about the left-hand path. It has nothing really to do with the popular view of "black magic". That's not exactly the point, except that it is called "black" magic for a reason to do with this false left-hand path concept of dualism. No the point is that left-hand practices, like scientology, are doomed to failure because they tend to stick the practitioner into one false "side" of the false dichotomy.

So a scientologist is doomed to become a failed intention-projector, a failed "OT". Because Hubbard's implanted left-hand path goal of "OT" is an unattainable, false one.

Just look at the fate of most scientologists and you will see it.

I was unaware that Caroline was or is a contributor to ESMB or that I was involved in any exchanges of posts with her in any way, shape or form.

So it is ok to insult her motives and rationality because she is not on ESMB? :confused2: Sorry Fluff, but like a moth to a flame, you've got yourself stuck on one side of Hubbard's dichotomy and so have to "oppose" his "opposers".
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
HE'S REFERRING TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT CAROLINE LETKEMAN'S WRITINGS.

Yes, I know that and I knew that when I posted my response and I stand by what I said. I was not involved in a discussion with her. She doesn't post here. I was talking about her and her writings. I wasn't jumping on some contributor whose posts I was replying to and writing ad homs about that person.

You'll also notice that I've never said (or thought) that it's ad hominem for people to write the critical- usually quite negative and highly personalized- posts about Hubbard and DM...see what I mean?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
This is a left-hand path concept. It is one of Hubbard's magical misconceptions about the dualistic nature of the universe. This is why left-hand path magicians usually collapse into their own false conflicts, because they are stuck on one side of the illusion.

If you examine your statement above, you would also have to draw the conclusion that "love is just hate that has missed its way" :roflmao: Both dichotmous statements are nonsense!"

Of course it's nonsense. It was a joke. I was making a joke. I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious since it's one of the stupidest most inane things a person could say about love and hate.

Hubbrd's life, from his magical experiments onwards, was one of left-hand path enforcement of will, ego, desire, victory. So, of course, he failed and died alone and insane. :bigcry: He failed because his left-hand path stuck him on one side of the dualistic illusion.

Any scientologist who fixates on "being at cause", "making it go right", enforcing his will, etc is doomed to a similar failure.

That's the point about the left-hand path. It has nothing really to do with the popular view of "black magic". That's not exactly the point, except that it is called "black" magic for a reason to do with this false left-hand path concept of dualism. No the point is that left-hand practices, like scientology, are doomed to failure because they tend to stick the practitioner into one false "side" of the false dichotomy.

So a scientologist is doomed to become a failed intention-projector, a failed "OT". Because Hubbard's implanted left-hand path goal of "OT" is an unattainable, false one.

Just look at the fate of most scientologists and you will see it.

You seem to be lecturing me here. Is this an intervention?



So it is ok to insult her motives and rationality because she is not on ESMB? :confused2: Sorry Fluff, but like a moth to a flame, you've got yourself stuck on one side of Hubbard's dichotomy and so have to "oppose" his "opposers.

I don't like her stuff. I think it's crap. There are a lot of authors, internet and otherwise whose stuff I don't like and I say so. Rest assured, if any of those people come talk to me on the forum, my replies will be confined to post content.

I also don't like DM and talk about him here freqently, as well. By your logic, I'd not be able to do that, either, since, by your logic, it's the same thing as slamming someone to whom one is speaking. You might want to try reading the rules of conduct.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Good post asagai.

No, actually, it's not. First he doesn't get my facetiousness- that was off target right there. That was so off base as to be actually funny.

Then this other stuff.

Posting about a person's well known site or books is not the same as replying to a forum contributor's posts with ad hominems. Were that the case, we could not discuss Hubbard or David Miscavige the way almost all of us have done here.

In the (highly unlikely) event that Caroline ever writes me a post and it's polite, I assure you, I will only be taking up post content and not personalizing the issue. In the meantime, I am free to say that she, like a number of other public figures and authors, is someone whose materials I do not care for and which I think are flawed.
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
I was unaware that Caroline was or is a contributor to ESMB or that I was involved in any exchanges of posts with her in any way, shape or form.

This reply has nothing to do with what I wrote. Please touch some walls and read the message that I wrote again. Then try to make a coherent reply.
This inability to duplicate a simple query has me baffled.
I'll try again:
Earlier on this thread ( The left Hand Path) you wrote " I've never given Caroline's comments much credence. She's conspiracy minded and not always rational".
I go on to ask *if it's ok to (insult) someone who does not post here, or is it just ok for some and not for others*.( paraphrased)
Then I get the above answer from you.
I never said nor implied that you were involved in any way with exchanges of posts with her. I said that she doesn't post here. IOW, she has no opportunity to "set the record straight" as far as your insult to her is concerned.
So what are the customs here? Who is sanctioned to cut up another, and who is not so sanctioned? I don't wanna make any mistakes.

CHLNG
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yes, Challenge, that was a point made via sarcasm. It was quite coherent and I've explained it in detail since.

The rules of conduct pertain to discussions between people on the forum, just as all rules of conduct on all forums do.

Do you have a problem with the personalized and negative commentary made about DM and LRH? Because I'm telling you right now, I sure don't. They don't break the rules of conduct and they don't because those comments made about DM and Hubbard (Well, he's dead anyway but you get my point) aren't being made in response to posts on ESMB by DM or by Hubbard.

Should DM ever be craaazy 'nuff to come here and post (wouldn't that be an absolute riot if he did?) other contributors would be expected to either converse with him politely or not at all. But as a public figure under discussion- nuh uh.

And I'm not sure what this touching walls stuff is all about. It's neither here nor there.
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yes, Challenge, that was a point made via sarcasm. It was quite coherent and I've explained it in detail since.

The rules of conduct pertain to discussions between people on the forum, just as all rules of conduct on all forums do.

Do you have a problem with the personalized and negative commentary made about DM and LRH? Because I'm telling you right now, I sure don't. They don't break the rules of conduct and they don't because those comments made about DM and Hubbard (Well, he's dead anyway but you get my point) aren't being made in response to posts on ESMB by DM or by Hubbard.

Should DM ever be craaazy 'nuff to come here and post (wouldn't that be an absolute riot if he did?) other contributors would be expected to either converse with him politely or not at all. But as a public figure under discussion- nuh uh.

And I'm not sure what this touching walls stuff is all about. It's neither here nor there.

L Ron Hubbard was the Founder of Dn and COS amongst all the other claims to fame about him. He was decidedly a 'public figure'. David Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of the COS and is a 'public figure'. Caroline Letkeman is a private lady who lives in Chilliwack, B.C., has a website and is highly critical of COS. If you can't differentiate between those who are 'public' and those who are 'private', then continue insulting others. As you say, rules of conduct are for people posting on the forum. If they aren't on this forum, then they are "fair game". That sure as hell isn't anything new for Caroline Letkeman. She's been fair gamed for years.


CHLNG
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
L Ron Hubbard was the Founder of Dn and COS amongst all the other claims to fame about him. He was decidedly a 'public figure'. David Miscavige is the Chairman of the Board of the COS and is a 'public figure'. Caroline Letkeman is a private lady who lives in Chilliwack, B.C., has a website and is highly critical of COS. If you can't differentiate between those who are 'public' and those who are 'private', then continue insulting others. As you say, rules of conduct are for people posting on the forum. If they aren't on this forum, then they are "fair game". That sure as hell isn't anything new for Caroline Letkeman. She's been fair gamed for years.


CHLNG

Challenge, I've not fair gamed Caroline. Posting one comment about an opinion of another critic does not constitute fair gaming. To fair game anyone, I'd have to actually do something immoral or illegal to them IRL the way the cult does. I've only made one comment about not liking her stuff (or her, either for that matter) and why. As comments go, it was fairly mild. Anyway, if you're so concerned about people being fair gamed and treated badly, then why have you targeted me on this forum repeatedly? Most of those comments you posted were written before I posted the one comment about Caroline's writings and yours were...well, anyone can find them and read them.

Can it be that only certain people are allowed to hold and certain opinions? And that said opinions are ok to hold about some people and not others? Perhaps you should write a list as to what I am required to think, do and say. When you do so, please include who died and made you king.

Here is the passage from the forum rules:

1. Treat others with respect.
You are to respect every other user on the board despite any personal, religious and political differences. The following will not be tolerated:
Personal insults
Ad hominems
Threats or promotion of violence



As I said, if Caroline were to post here and I were (very unlikely) to post any reply or commentary to her, I assure you, the above rule would be applied by yrs truly.
 
Top