What's new

The Mayo Challenge

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Scientolgy PRs have been attempting to disown Incident 2 of OT 3 for decades. It's an embarrassment. That's why paid cult apologist Gordon Melton came up with the "metaphor" angle for use on the "wogs."

The problem is that, per Scientology tech, literal exact "time, place, form, and event" (as described in your handwritten LRH materials) is what duplicates the "4th Dynamic engram" and as-ises the "charge."

Metaphors don't as-is.

Neither does bullshit by the way.

But I don't expect you to give up trying.

What else can you - and your associate - do? :eyeroll:

Like, whoa mon, who's his associate?
 

justsayin'

Patron with Honors
OK. Probably a pm

The last post to this forum was to me.

I was bored and saw 'Who's Online'. Julie and David's box both said 'replying to thread'. I waited around reading posts over different threads. Nothing....replied to some threads and checked back. Nothing....hrrrmmmmph. I made a prompting announcement of double post to come....Nothing. That's when I got his reply. It was funny, but sad because other posters' jeers were the response to my announced anticipation. So, from now on I mind my own business. As far as anyone knows... :yes:

i did notice that. try not to let it get to you. some people have nothing better to do than be rude. and his last reponse on your comment was pretty cute. :)
 
:hysterical:

Really, Mark Baker, I ask this sincerely, do you actually attach the label of "Scientologist" to yourself?

I still use the appellation of 'freezone scientologist' or 'independent scientologist' when asked by curious strangers. I find that it helps to encourage people in differentiating between the Co$ Cult of LRH and the actual subject of scientology as a proposed spiritual technology.

I left the church because it is an abusive cult. I have few disagreements with the fundamentals of the actual subject. The disagreements I have with the subject lie in the unnecessary complexities which LRH introduced over time.

More accurately I'm a Taoist Buddhist NeoPlatonist who uses scientology spiritual technology in pursuit of my objectives. The use of scientology came late on the chain. I found it to be useful in pursuing my primary goals and can honestly recommend many of its practices to others.

Explaining all that when I am asked, however, takes rather an extensive discussion. Most people want something simple they can work with, not a history of philosophy & comparative religions. I'm too prone to lengthy explanations as it is. Ask any of my friends. Or look up some of my posts. :)


Mark A. Baker
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I still use the appellation of 'freezone scientologist' or 'independent scientologist' when asked by curious strangers. I find that it helps to encourage people in differentiating between the Co$ Cult of LRH and the actual subject of scientology as a proposed spiritual technology.

I left the church because it is an abusive cult. I have few disagreements with the fundamentals of the actual subject. The disagreements I have with the subject lie in the unnecessary complexities which LRH introduced over time.

More accurately I'm a Taoist Buddhist NeoPlatonist who uses scientology spiritual technology in pursuit of my objectives. The use of scientology came late on the chain. I found it to be useful in pursuing my primary goals and can honestly recommend many of its practices to others.

Explaining all that when I am asked, however, takes rather an extensive discussion. Most people want something simple they can work with, not a history of philosophy & comparative religions. I'm too prone to lengthy explanations as it is. Ask any of my friends. Or look up some of my posts. :)

Mark A. Baker

Thank-you.

What do you consider to be the "fundamentals"?

Is there a date that acts as a general cut-off like 1954, or something like that?

To me, the introduction of KSW was a GROSS additive and unnecessary complexity that brought about considerable distortion to the subject. That sets a line of demarcation in 1965.

I see that even earlier, the introduction of ANY idea that states "this is the only workable system", "we are on a mission to salvage this sector", and things like "Scientology betters conditions", as unequivocal CLAIMS without ANY support or verifiable proof, really confused whatever basic value it might have free of these things. Hubbard's grandstanding and tendency to simply MAKE CLAIMS (with no supporting evidence other than his assertions) often acted to ward off any truly intelligent person with a scientific bent.

So I am curious. Since there is SO MUCH "data" (thousands of pages of Green Volumes, 7 or more volumes AND the Management Series), thousands of hours of tapes, and thousands of pages of "self-help data", in as briefly as possible, but without lacking some detail, what are the FUNDAMENTALS and what are the COMPLEXITIES? Do you consider all or most of the organizational data as unnecessary? Do you primarily concern yourself with the Red Volumes, and the data that has to do with "helping a person"?

I always viewed Scientology as more of a New Age type subject, and while related to spiritual ideas, it was more geared towards helping people live happier, and more successful lives. Lots of it has NOTHING to do with spirituality, and has lots to do with goals, admin scales, purposes, making things happen in the world, etc. I see it like I do so many other New Age subjects. What is involved are some isolated aspects of spiritual data, but taken and used to HELP a human being satisfy desires in the world. That is FAR different from Buddha's approach which was/is to extinguish the desires entirely. I really can't see Buddha getting on the stage with Tony Robbins (or L. Ron Hubbard), and telling us all how to "win the game of life" by providing us with ways and techniques to "flourish and prosper".

Buddha - all desire results in pain and suffering

Following a path to free self of all desire, is a "spiritual path".

Using various ideas that are rooted in spiritual subjects, as a way to satisfy human desires, is NOT a "spiritual path". Most New Age subjects involve THAT. There are just so MANY New Age books that teach visualization, affirmations, contacting ones "Higher Self", path of least resistance, and much more primarily as a way to achieve happiness, wealth, love, health and success. Much of Scientology takes the same approach. Become free of death, BUT enjoy them desires along the way! Whose kidding who?

I would say, take all of THAT out and away from Scientology, and maybe what is left MIGHT provide a spiritual path.

As I see it it will be VERY hard for anyone anything less than VERY well familairized with ALL of Scientology data to shift through it all and separate the fundamentals from the endless complexities.

I find that in its current form, it is almost impossible to do so. That is not to say that someone couldn't.

I have thought quite a bit over the years about WHAT parts of the basic Scn data could be used along a path similar to the aims of Buddhism. Much would have to go. More would go than would stay. It would be unrecognizable as what almost anyone would call or relate to as "Scientology".

+++++++++++
 
Last edited:
Thank-you.

What do you consider to be the "fundamentals"?

Start with ARCU, the Auditor's Code & the Code of Honor. Discard any additives which are inconsistent with them as stated. Internally inconsistent items discard those items which violate individual's integrity or maintaining a high level of ARCU.

This is about spiritual insight & awareness. Anything which restricts integrity or compassion is innately counter-productive.


... To me, the introduction of KSW was a GROSS additive and unnecessary complexity that brought about considerable distortion to the subject. That sets a line of demarcation in 1965. ...

I agree. The absolute best I could possibly say about 'KSW' is that it is badly written. It can be argued around, but doing so is torturous. Unfortunately, I do agree with LRH in one thing about it: it means what it says. Better to take it for what it is and discard it.


Mark A. Baker
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Start with ARCU, the Auditor's Code & the Code of Honor. Discard any additives which are inconsistent with them as stated. Internally inconsistent items discard those items which violate individual's integrity or maintaining a high level of ARCU.

This is about spiritual insight & awareness. Anything which restricts integrity or compassion is innately counter-productive.

:thumbsup: Except one point - A isn't love. ARCU does not equal love, either. What's your views on that, Mark? Love is so much more powerful than ARCU.

I agree. The absolute best I could possibly say about 'KSW' is that it is badly written. It can be argued around, but doing so is torturous. Unfortunately, I do agree with LRH in one thing about it: it means what it says. Better to take it for what it is and discard it.

If all Indies and FZers throw away KSW and Tech Degrades, positive change is truly possible. Your views?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Start with ARCU, the Auditor's Code & the Code of Honor.
Mark A. Baker

Do you think that is okay to harm another in a just cause? (Code of Honor)

I didn't say, protect yourself in self-defense, but instead, in the NAME of some CAUSE, is it quite all right to hurt another as LRH suggests in the Code of Honor? NEVER BE AFRAID TO HURT ANOTHER IN A JUST CAUSE.

If I paraphrased it incorrectly, please post the exact statement.

Remembering that different people at different times entertain FAR different "causes" that each imagines to be "just". Muslim terrorists. 15th century Christians of the Spanish Inquisition. Chinese communists. Nazi Germans. Members of each group VERY MUCH believed that his or her cause was "just", and that the the rampant harm caused to to others was well justified. Of course, in retrospect, the harm was NEVER justified. I daresay that it can NEVER be justified.

An example or two if yes?

Thank-you.

Or should this line be removed? That line sure is at odds with certain eastern mandates to never kill or harm any living thing. It surely does open the door for abuse by ANY fanatic (who always pretends to be other than a fanatic, and often truly imagines oneself NOT to be a fanatic). Of course, fanatics, like vampires, have an aversion to MIRRORS!

+++++++++
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Do you think that is okay to harm another in a just cause? (Code of Honor)

I didn't say, protect yourself in self-defense, but instead, in the NAME of some CAUSE, is it quite all right to hurt another as LRH suggests in the Code of Honor? NEVER BE AFRAID TO HURT ANOTHER IN A JUST CAUSE.

If I paraphrased it incorrectly, please post the exact statement.

Remembering that different people at different times entertain FAR different "causes" that each imagines to be "just". Muslim terrorists. 15th century Christians of the Spanish Inquisition. Chinese communists. Nazi Germans. Members of each group VERY MUCH believed that his or her cause was "just", and that the the rampant harm caused to to others was well justified. Of course, in retrospect, the harm was NEVER justified. I daresay that it can NEVER be justified.

An example or two if yes?

Thank-you.

Or should this line be removed? That line sure is at odds with certain eastern mandates to never kill or harm any living thing. It surely does open the doot for abuse by ANY fanatic (who always pretend to be other than a fanatic).

+++++++++

:thumbsup: Good one, Gadfly. Mark, seriously, what do you thinK?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
:thumbsup: Except one point - A isn't love. ARCU does not equal love, either. What's your views on that, Mark? Love is so much more powerful than ARCU.

If all Indies and FZers throw away KSW and Tech Degrades, positive change is truly possible. Your views?

Mark knows that Affinity is not "love" or "liking". We have discussed this at length before. Affinity is ONLY the "willingness to be in the same space or near something else", whether that something else involves events, situations, people or data. One need not "like" something to have "affinity" with it. That is false data, a confusion on the idea, and introduces errors. If one likes something, then in reverse, yes, a person will often want to be NEAR the source of the pleasure, but that is ONLY a "special case".

I see that ARC and U are related. Not necessarily like many Scios think they are, but they ARE related.

The concept of Love is effectively non-existant in the subject of Scientology. I have never seen Mark mention anything about the power or spiritual value of "love". He may have some idea about it, but I have never seen him discuss it. I doubt he has the view that "love" is greater than ARC and U. Mark, correct me if I am wrong. That doesn't negate the value that repairing ARC breaks can have. Or, that ARC and U are a convenient way of grasping how any person comes to "understand" anything (regardless whether that understanding is good, bad, poor, accurate, exagerrated, biased, shallow, superficial, or some other distortion of "truth").

ARC and U have NOTHING inherently to do with "truth", though they can in special situations. In other words, a person can agree with any stupid notion, and thus have a very "stupid" understanding. The ARC and U ideas are kinda like a computer - garbage in gets you garbage out. The same with ARC and U. Enter into the formula misleading communications that lead towards an eventual agreement with nonsense, and the resulting understanding is going to be some version of STUPID. The previous sentence well describes how a great deal of organized Scientology functions under the leadership of David Miscreant.

It can work the other way too. Enter into the formula sincere communications that lead towards an eventual agreement with facts and observable actualities, and the resulting understanding is going to be some version of legitimacy.

ARC and U have no meaning until the variables of A, C, R and U are "filled in".

++++++++
 
Last edited:
:thumbsup: Except one point - A isn't love. ARCU does not equal love, either. What's your views on that, Mark? Love is so much more powerful than ARCU.

No affinity isn't love. Affinity is the degree of liking. ARCU exists at the 'bottom' as well as the 'top'. The point of affinity is to recognize the degree to which there is some measure of willingness to be present as an adjunct to sharing and communicating and thereby understanding. As with many models, it is a useful tool whether or not it is strictly speaking tool. Use of a tool does not require belief in it. In fact, too much belief spoils the skill in use.

Love is entirely different.


If all Indies and FZers throw away KSW and Tech Degrades, positive change is truly possible. Your views?

Positive change is present.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:
Do you think that is okay to harm another in a just cause? (Code of Honor) ...

I regard it as a violation of personal integrity. As such it is to be discarded as inconsistent with an individual's integrity.

However, most humans wouldn't agree with me.

As a recent examples the vast majority of u.s. citizens favored killing thousands of iraqi citizens if it meant being rid of Saddam Hussein as a political obstacle, not that he posed any actual national security threat. Many argue for a similar course in terms of expelling Muammar al-Gaddafi as his presence is also deemed undesirable, if not life threatening. Similarly the beautiful old city of Dresden was completely destroyed as a result of allied bombing in ww ii. Nor can we forget the historic threat posed by the citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.



... I didn't say, protect yourself in self-defense, but instead, in the NAME of some CAUSE, is it quite all right to hurt another as LRH suggests in the Code of Honor? NEVER BE AFRAID TO HURT ANOTHER IN A JUST CAUSE.

A distinction without a difference for many. Do you remember the Red Scare & Cold War? Or the many example of forced conversions, political reeducations, & exile sent to siberia or the equivalent in history. Never forget that the major monotheistic religious traditions became 'mainstream' by killing their way to the top, even if their grip has slipped a bit of late.



Keep in mind, G. I was never SO. I never bought the LRH = Fearless Leader manure. I never agreed to create a cult. I have never been an 'adherent' or 'disciple' of L. Ron Hubbard. I have never accepted the 'spiritual authority' of any other person as rightfully supplanting my own judgement. I found the tech to be of use to me for my own purposes and in aid of my friends. I fully support its voluntary and informed use by competent individuals to assist themselves & others in achieving increased spiritual awareness & insight. That was & remains the full extent of my support for the subject of scientology.

To that end I left my involvement with the church 30 years ago after a period of engagement spanning approximately two years. This departure came as a result of the having developed a certainty that the Church of Scientology did not intend to live up to its published commitments and to be honest & ethical in service to its membership, staff, or the citizens of the world.


Mark A. Baker
 
... The concept of Love is effectively non-existant in the subject of Scientology. I have never seen Mark mention anything about the power or spiritual value of "love". He may have some idea about it, but I have never seen him discuss it. ...

I prefer the Buddhist emphasis on the value of compassion. Too me it makes much more sense. Love is not only a difficult emotion, but a very complicated word. Moreover, love all too easily leads to personal bias which promotes injustice & unethical conduct.

Compassion towards all sentient beings is more likely to produce an intelligent and helpful response intending the benefit of all.


Mark A. Baker
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I regard it as a violation of personal integrity. As such it is to be discarded as inconsistent with an individual's integrity.

However, most humans wouldn't agree with me.

As a recent examples the vast majority of u.s. citizens favored killing thousands of iraqi citizens if it meant being rid of Saddam Hussein as a political obstacle, not that he posed any actual national security threat. Many argue for a similar course in terms of expelling Muammar al-Gaddafi as his presence is also deemed undesirable, if not life threatening. Similarly the beautiful old city of Dresden was completely destroyed as a result of allied bombing in ww ii. Nor can we forget the historic threat posed by the citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

A distinction without a difference for many. Do you remember the Red Scare & Cold War? Or the many example of forced conversions, political reeducations, & exile sent to siberia or the equivalent in history. Never forget that the major monotheistic religious traditions became 'mainstream' by killing their way to the top, even if their grip has slipped a bit of late.

Keep in mind, G. I was never SO. I never bought the LRH = Fearless Leader manure. I never agreed to create a cult. I have never been an 'adherent' or 'disciple' of L. Ron Hubbard. I have never accepted the 'spiritual authority' of any other person as rightfully supplanting my own judgement. I found the tech to be of use to me for my own purposes and in aid of my friends. I fully support its voluntary and informed use by competent individuals to assist themselves & others in achieving increased spiritual awareness & insight. That was & remains the full extent of my support for the subject of scientology.

To that end I left my involvement with the church 30 years ago after a period of engagement spanning approximately two years. This departure came as a result of the having developed a certainty that the Church of Scientology did not intend to live up to its published commitments and to be honest & ethical in service to its membership, staff, or the citizens of the world.

Mark A. Baker

Mark, I agree with YOU completely:

I regard it as a violation of personal integrity. As such it is to be discarded as inconsistent with an individual's integrity.

I never cared for the attitudes and views of a majority of the "rest of the humans", and I sure NEVER based my own views on what others believe or feel. Just because harm HAS BEEN done to so many others in the name of some "just cause" does in no way make it "okay" in my mind (ref: your examples). There is no lack of possible examples of the brutality of Man against Man in the "name" of some "cause". And, of course, deception and misrepresentation by the powers that be was/is common. :bigcry:

Your approach regarding Scientology passes my criteria with flying colors (not that you give a shit - you shouldn't). But, you probably already knew that based on many earlier discussions, and many previous exchanges.

++++++++
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I prefer the Buddhist emphasis on the value of compassion. Too me it makes much more sense. Love is not only a difficult emotion, but a very complicated word. Moreover, love all too easily leads to personal bias which promotes injustice & unethical conduct.

Compassion towards all sentient beings is more likely to produce an intelligent and helpful response intending the benefit of all.

Mark A. Baker

I define "compassion" as "love made manifest".

Metaphorically, love could be conceived as the carrier wave of compassion. Love would be viewed as the intention and understanding that underlies, enables and perpetuates compassion.

When I say "love" it has NOTHING to do with "desire", "sensation", "pleasure" or "satisfaction". It transcends the whole pain/pleasure dichotomy thing, as far as self/ego are concerned, as far as Hubbard defned such things, and may transcend the Tone Scale completely, as it shares NO concern with "personal survival" in any form. It involves ONLY the "higher love". It involves NO component of inflow or any desire for inflow. It is an outflow of understanding, caring, granting of beingness, and unconditional well-wishing for the recipient. As if you took the pure unadulterated non-selfish love of your son or daughter, and extrapolated it to all creation. There is a component of the Buddhist notion that to be human is to suffer, the recognition of that, and empathy with and for all in that human/suffering condition.

It involves an outpouring - like the "grace" of God.

That is how I view it. Those are my understandings. Those are my self-created subjective "realities". That is how I choose to mock it all up.

In the end, really, it is not a matter of how you "understand it all to be", but simply how you choose to CREATE and MOCK UP it all up.

++++++++++++++
 
Last edited:

Magoo

Gold Meritorious Patron
I define "compassion" as "love made manifest".

Metaphorically, love could be conceived as the carrier wave of compassion. Love would be viewed as the intention and understanding that underlies, enables and perpetuates compassion.

When I say "love" it has NOTHING to do with "desire", "sensation", "pleasure" or "satisfaction". It transcends the whole pain/pleasure thing, as far as self/ego are concerned, and may transcend the Tone Scale completely, as it shares NO concern with "personal survival" in any form. It involves ONLY the "higher love". It involves NO component of inflow or any desire for inflow. It is an outflow of understanding, caring, granting of beingness, and unconditional well-wishing for the recipient. As if you took the pure unadulterated non-selfish love of your son or daughter, and extrapolated it to all creation. There is a component of the Buddhist notion that to be human is to suffer, the recognition of that, and empathy with and for all in that human/suffering condition.

It involves an outpouring - like the "grace" of God.

That is how I view it. Those are my understandings. Those are my self-created subjective "realities". That is how I choose to mock it all up.

++++++++++++++

I love that, Gadfly----truly, I do, :thankyou:

Tory/Magoo
 
... ARC and U have NOTHING inherently to do with "truth", though they can in special situations. In other words, a person can agree with any stupid notion, and thus have a very "stupid" understanding. The ARC and U ideas are kinda like a computer - garbage in gets you garbage out. The same with ARC and U. Enter into the formula misleading communications that lead towards an eventual agreement with nonsense, and the resulting understanding is going to be some version of STUPID. The previous sentence well describes how a great deal of organized Scientology functions under the leadership of David Miscreant.

It can work the other way too. Enter into the formula sincere communications that lead towards an eventual agreement with facts and observable actualities, and the resulting understanding is going to be some version of legitimacy.

ARC and U have no meaning until the variables of A, C, R and U are "filled in".

++++++++

Yes, and if the goal is to communicate with the person who has the 'stupid' understanding, then you have to share the 'reality' of his 'stupid' understanding. That doesn't mean you must agree with it in the sense of taking it as true and making it become your own 'reality'. You merely acknowledge that that is HIS understanding, 'stupid' or not. Because, if you fail to understand HIS reality then there is no way you are actually going to understand that which he is attempting to communicate to you, or conversely be able to successfully communicate with him in turn.



I define "compassion" as "love made manifest". ...

I understand that is how you view 'compassion'. I do not share that view of it myself.

Hence, whereas I understand your 'reality' on compassion, it does not serve as my own. Nonetheless we are able to communicate about it, since we understand the 'reality' of each others individual contexts. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
I think "Survival Rd" out of the contest of CofS was very good Rd, very helpful tyo people who did it. sound objectives processing could change your life for the better!
 
Top