What's new

Understanding "ARC", What It Really Is All About

Gadfly

Crusader
I recently posted this on another thread, and KnightVision suggested that I begin a separate thread since the subject is unique and I feel, just as KV does, that discussion of this would have value for many. Here it is with slight changes:


There is no inherent "meaning" or "value" or "correct use" in the "symbol" of ARC. That is something that people who "study" or read about ARC ASSUME, INFER and breathe INTO the notion. It doesn't exist there on its own. People who assume and infer that are glaring wonderful examples of how Scientology does what it does to believers.

It kills me how so many people ASSUME such a thing. Assuming that there is some inherent "goodness" or "meaning" in the concept of ARC. There is NOT (other than what YOU read into it). But, it isn't actually there at all. NOT AT ALL.

ARC = Understanding (LRH definition)

It can be ANY understanding. Please duplicate THAT fact. Simply, one mocks up AFFINITY, sends out some communication along the lines of some set of agreements (i.e. reality) to FORM an understanding in the receiver. The content of all of that can include ANYTHING. The concept is entirely value-neutral.

ARC operates everywhere, at all times, as a simple mechanical rule. It has no "goodness" or "badness", like a gun - it is HOW it is used. Yes, it can be interesting to examine various groups and behaviors with an understanding of how this thing known as ARC functions.

When you observe how children are taught strict fundamentalist Islam in Madrasas in Pakistan, you are observing ARC in action. There is much "love", "validation" and "likingness" aimed at young children (students). Affinity is the glue that holds anything together. The communication is relentless, as the kids sit rocking reading the Muslim texts, and the reality is formed by the agreement that is built up by incessant contact with the same type ideas and beliefs. The understanding? Well, it is what it is depending on WHAT is agreed with.

The concept of ARC is entirely amoral. It has NO slant, other than what the starry-eyed newbie Scientologist reads into it.

The notions of ARC resulting in SOME type of understanding can easily be applied to the world of advertising and PR, and whether those who practice in these fields know it in these terms, they USE "ARC" to manipulate and control the behavior of their target audiences. Madison Avenue techniques involve an endless intention and practice to develop communications, while often trumping up "affinity", that involve attitudes, ideas and beliefs that they want you to AGREE with (thus creating a "reality"), so that your UNDERSTANDING results in you handing over your hard earned dollars. Scientology, has also used it in THAT same exact way since Hubbard began the subject.

Take the notion of "hard sell". The reg sits there with his or her pack of relevant LRH issues. The reg smiles at you. The reg jokes with you about your kids. The reg really builds up that AFFINITY. You like and enjoy how it feels! Now that the comm line is GREASED with affinity (artificial or real, it doesn't matter), then the reg pulls out the "content" of Communication. "The fight is long and hard", "you are a big being", "dragons on the Bridge", "making an OT", and on and on and on, feeding you with an endless stream of "data". The purpose of all of that, of course, is simply to get you to Understand within a certain framework, so as to get whatever it is that they want from you. You come to AGREE with the various ideas, you BUY INTO the set of agreements and go along with the "realities". Understand, any reality is arbitrary. It is a mock up. There is nothing inherently right or wrong, of any value, in ANY mock up. So, you come to "understand" the "hard fight", "the heavy odds against all Scientology", "the evil nature of the world out there", "the wonders of the Scientology Bridge", and when you finally come around to UNDERSTANDING all of that, then BANG, the reg can get you to separate yourself from your hard earned dollars.

Any person who uses ARC on you desires for you to understand reality in a certain slanted manner. There is no other reason. Why? So that he or she can get whatever it is that he or she wants from you (that can be anything; sex, money, drugs, rock and roll, etc). Having ANY concern at all for whatever any other person agrees with is a FLAW of EGO. From a strict Buddhist or Taoist viewpoint, it is an additive. It is entirely artificial. Caring about what other people accept as true? To the degree that you would USE ARC as a gimmick to get them to change their agreements in alignment with your own? How horribly provincial. How so very 21st century! It is just another tool in the arsenal of modern materialistic competetive Man.

I can supply an endless stream of examples, from any aspect of life. Scientology or not. People "subconsciously" know how to use and abuse ARC, whether they were ever trained in it or not.

The purpose and use of ARC, even in Scientology, is to CREATE some sort of "understanding" in another person along some lines that YOU desire. Watching how the Church, since the early 1970s, and previously through reading what Hubbard did and how, has "applied" the concept of ARC made it clear and obvious to me how it was and remains LARGELY a TOOL of MANIPULATION.

Why do people feel a bit slimy around MLM groups, various over-the-top New Age groups, even folks like Tony Robbins. First, because the AFFINITY is so contrived. We all love each other. We all want the best for each other. We all want the "best lifestyle possible" for each other. The AFFINITY greases the machinery. I have experimented with this many times. I just mock up affinity for somebody, and IMMEDIATELY my comm and comments are more readily accepted. Of course, if you pay attention, notice what the other person "agrees with" (their reality), and gear the content of the communication along those lines while gently adding in what you WANT them to AGREE with, well it is a wonderful "tool".

But, don't mistake WHAT this tool actually is.

ALL understandings are arbitrary, relative, and biased in SOME WAY. There is no "correct", "good" or right "understanding". Put a Scientologist, a Muslim fanatic, an electro-shock therapist, a sociologist and a born-again Christian in the same room. The "understanding" of each is VERY different. There is no inherent value or meaning in the term "understanding". There are as many understandings as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth. There is no value in the concept of "understanding". People commonly make THAT mistake. Whenever there is any "understanding", there is WHAT is understood. The WHAT and HOW anything is understood is FAR more important, especially in understanding the behavior of people, than the fact of any purported "understanding".

UNDERSTANDING! Oooohhhh! We all want "understanding". Give me that "top-notch" UNDERSTANDING. Lay it on me! What the fuck does the word even mean? Really? Honestly? In the end it means something VERY different to each person who makes the mistake of thinking about such concepts for more than a few seconds. LRH tricks you, as do MANY others, into adopting a conceptual system of meaning, that forever traps you from the exact moment you accept it.

There are ONLY, for me, "understandings" that most closely align with accurate observations of the related topic. The only affinity I need to "understand" ANYTHING, is my own willingness to be in the SAME SPACE as SOMETHING (true meaning of the term affinity), so that I can be there and observe what is going on.

Because ARC so much depends on "communication", usually through WORDS, it is largely a semantic artifice.

But make NO mistakes about it. It IS a TOOL used to control and manipulate the UNDERSTANDING of others. When I see any person mocking up oodles of artificial affinity, like the Jehovah's Witness ringing my doorbell, or the pretty gal trying to get me to take a personality test at some Scientology location, I see someone trying to SELL ME SOMETHING. They are "being nice" to grease the lines of communication, so that I might "agree" with whatever it is they want me to agree with, finally, so that I come to the UNDERSTANDING he or she desires of me.

Like so much of Hubbard's "data", it is applied in such a contrived manner. Just as he wrote it. Just as he intended it.

YUCK! :no:

I find the concept of ARC useful, as a tool used to observe how various people and groups develop their own unique "understandings" about life and reality. Always realizing that these "understandings" are for the most part horribly slanted, biased, loaded with fixed ideas, and fundamentally arbitrary. When and if you get to an "understanding" that has abandoned and relinquished all bias, fixed ideas, beliefs and opinions, well it is no longer actually an "understanding". Or, at least so far from what exist in the heads of most human beings.

There is NO correct, valid, right "understanding", because any "understanding" exists in the temporary mind, based largely on some incomplete conceptual framework, of a temporary human being, on a temporary planet in a temporary universe.

The only valid way to "understand" anything is to get out and OBSERVE. That BYPASSES any need for communication in words. Also, words are loaded and VERY tricky, and are NOT the things they describe or talk about. Another reason Hubbard never described the useful aspects of General Semantics, is probably because it helps strengthen a person AGAINST the manipulative use of ARC (which Hubbard depended upon).

If you want to explore this thing known as Affinity, just go out, mock it up HARD, and aim it at everybody, equally, with no aspect of how YOU can or will use it to change somebody else's mind in some manner. Just go out and channel the inherent LOVE of the Universe, and aim it abundantly at all creation.

:bighug: :bighug: :biglove::rose::handinhand::love8::love8::grouphug::heartflower::dance2::hug:

But, drop the "bringing about understanding in others" aspect of it all. ARC uses "affinity" as a way to improve manipulation and control by greasing the line of communication. As with so many aspects of Scientology, it is often horribly contrived and phony. Affinity, as practiced by Scientology and many Scientologists, exists and is inserted into the mix ONLY to shape and direct your "understanding" along some desired path. While involved in the group I was never comfortable doing such things, although looking around I saw MANY others who had absolutely no problem with it at all.

There can be "higher" and more inclusive applications of "affinity", but you will rarely find them in Scientology. The use of "affinity" in Scientology is largely a "tool". LRH talks about "bringing understanding to the people's of Earth". What he ACTUALLY means is tricking and convincing other people to accept, adopt and believe the Scientology paradigm, through the use of ARC. "Bringing understanding to the people's of the Earth" should be examined from a viewpoint of "levels of abstraction". And, WHAT "understanding"? That slogan of Hubbard's is loaded, as it tricks you into READING INTO IT your own wonderful notions about what it means. But really, it doesn't mean anything. Not outside of what I described above.

I think that people familiar with the concept of ARC can "understand" what I am describing above. I suspect that the above essay might be able to be used to help some take a step further away from the entrapment of Scientology. As always, copy and paste, send it and post it wherever you'd like.

Mystic Disclaimer: The tulpa/apparition known as L. Ron (LIPS) Hubbard never actually existed. He was an empty vessel, animated solely by dark forces. He was never "alive". So, any discussions of him, the organization he created, or the subject he was involved in are meaningless.
 
Last edited:

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
Just a further note to ARC, it works best if you have a good looking person beaming affinity, works for selling drugs, cars or global warming. You dont usually get ugly regges in orgs either.

Maybe if Elwrong had had a face lift the planet would be an SO prison by now, woops, I meant to say clear.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
No Shared Reality Required!

And, the basic lie is that affinity requires a shared reality.

Zinj

Bingo! I learned THAT many years ago when I mocked up my own drills along the lines of "love" and "affinity".

Drill #1: Go to a crowded place. Aim a flow of immense "love" at each person walking by. Envision each person as filled with brilliant yellow-white loving energy. Do it for as long as you like.

Drill #2: Get the idea of a mother's love. Notice how it is entirely an OUTFLOW, with no concern for enjoyment of self. Get the idea of a mother's love as "nurturing, wishing the best in another, intending nothing but total happiness in another". Close you eyes and fill yourself with this feeling and energy. Envision this energy expanding past the limits of your body and mind. Let it explode outwards in all directions. DO THE DRILL. Don't "think about" doing the drill! Experience and intellect are two very different things, and "thinking about" something is NOT EVER the same as doing and gaining the requisite experience. YOU can actually mock this up at will, and quite easily, but you will never LEARN THAT if you just "think about it". The intellect has "some" value, but is only a small part of the picture when it comes to the mind of any person. Many fail to realize that. Sometimes, seemingly forever!

Drill #3: Stand by a traffic corner. Whenever a car slows down or stops, surround the car and all of the occupants with this "feeling of well-wishing described in Drill #2". Do this for quite a while. And then stop. And then ask yourself WHY you haven't been doing this all along?

There are MANY more possible exercises. NONE require a shared agreement, other than that the "others" are on planet Earth with you. And all involve the knowing, intentional mocking up of AFFINITY.

Doing the same with "admiration" also can be valuable, but it is a few steps lower than "unconditional love".

Get this, the concept of "unconditional love" doesn't exist in Scientology. It does exist in some religions and in MANY New Age philosophies. It means loving, fully and without limits, and with absolutely NO concern for what you may or may not "get back" in any way. It transcends the personal human ego. It is entirely an OUTFLOW. With no concern in any way about "inflow". It has nothing to do with "me". It is a BIG idea! This idea is non-existent in Scientology. It aligns with the notion of the "Love of the Father" or the "love of Jesus" in Christianity.

Any time you actually go out and PRACTICE unconditional love, you are chipping away at some aspect of the personal ego.

In Scientology the notion of "affinity" is always tied into what you are going to GET BACK, as some sort of inflow. Money, help, participation, and especially assisted survival. The notion of the dynamics, and exchanging between the dynamics within the context of "survival" is rammed down your throat in Scn. It has value, on some level, BUT it operates FAR BELOW the unconditional affinity I described above. You don't need some "bridge" to get to the high realms of spiritual serenity. Just go out and honestly do the drills I gave above, for a week or two. You may well be amazed at the "results". And it won't cost you a penny!

Affinity doesn't have to be limited and restricted as some utilitarian tool that "greases the lines of communication", but it functions that way in Scientology (to the detriment of many).
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Bingo! I learned THAT many years ago when I mocked up my own drills along the lines of "love" and "affinity".
(...)
Any time you actually go out and PRACTICE unconditional love, you are chipping away at some aspect of the personal ego.
(...)

I agree with some of what you write, but I think you are infatuated with the idea of “love” and making much mystery about it with your statement …

[Unconditional love] means loving, fully and without limits, and with absolutely NO concern for what you may or may not "get back" in any way. It transcends the personal human ego. It is entirely an OUTFLOW. With no concern in any way about "inflow". It has nothing to do with "me". It is a BIG idea!

IN my experience and observation, love as in a mother’s love, or “unconditional love,” is not the superpowerful wowee-zowee zap-pow active emotional “outflow” that you describe with your drills. Personally I think that’s something else entirely – I don’t have a name for it, but I do think it’s an expression of EGO as in, “look at me and how powerfully and purely I can LOVE!!”

Real love can be quiet and passive, doesn’t impose itself, often -- perhaps most often -- goes unnoticed and unremarked.

“Unconditional love” is simply love without “conditions” – that is, loving others without requiring that they first meet certain conditions (that you've imposed) in order to deserve your "love." (By “conditions” I mean such as: tell me I’m right, be a good boy, do the dishes, join my club, hate the slummers, get your stats up, don’t hang out with that crowd, get “A’s” in school, go to church with me, don’t say the F word, etc. etc.).

Can true "love" be anything other than unconditional? I think not.

But people have been writing about and arguing about the true meaning of "love" for a very long time -- whadda i know.

Here’s wikipedia’s take on unconditional love. A comment at the end regarding the work of Alister Crawley is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_love
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
I agree with some of what you write, but I think you are infatuated with the idea of “love” and making much mystery about it with your statement …



IN my experience and observation, love as in a mother’s love, or “unconditional love,” is not the superpowerful wowee-zowee zap-pow active emotional “outflow” that you describe with your drills. Personally I think that’s something else entirely – I don’t have a name for it, but I do think it’s an expression of EGO as in, “look at me and how powerfully and purely I can LOVE!!”

Real love can be quiet and passive, doesn’t impose itself, often -- perhaps most often -- goes unnoticed and unremarked.

“Unconditional love” is simply love without “conditions” – that is, loving others without requiring that they first meet certain conditions (that you've imposed) in order to deserve your "love." (By “conditions” I mean such as: tell me I’m right, be a good boy, do the dishes, join my club, hate the slummers, get your stats up, don’t hang out with that crowd, get “A’s” in school, go to church with me, don’t say the F word, etc. etc.).

Can true "love" be anything other than unconditional? I think not.

But people have been writing about and arguing about the true meaning of "love" for a very long time -- whadda i know.

Here’s wikipedia’s take on unconditional love. A comment at the end regarding the work of Alister Crawley is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_love

If we are love in this place then the extent to which we exist as ourselves, that we are conscious of ourselves, determines how we love. We always exist as love but that operation, in practice, can and does change.

Crawley was right, my opinion. He describes the basic game, with no bodies or responsiblity except existence as an individuated viewpoint. That is why the game was created in the first place. Here that attitude runs into moral objections.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
IN my experience and observation, love as in a mother’s love, or “unconditional love,” is not the superpowerful wowee-zowee zap-pow active emotional “outflow” that you describe with your drills. Personally I think that’s something else entirely – I don’t have a name for it, but I do think it’s an expression of EGO as in, “look at me and how powerfully and purely I can LOVE!!”

Well sure, there can be that aspect of it, to and for some. I do not mean it that way. For me, there is no component of personal emotion in what I am describing. People along some spiritual path often develop a "spiritual ego" - "look at me, see how little ego I have", "see how unattached I am to everything", or "I am so cool being so unidentified with all that is". It happens. It can be observed.

Real love can be quiet and passive, doesn’t impose itself, often -- perhaps most often -- goes unnoticed and unremarked.

How could unconditional love ever impose itself, unless it was some caricature of itself? I can guarantee that when I "practice" unconditional love, I am NOT waving some sign about it, or asking for any type of attention. Desiring attention is to desire an INFLOW. What I am describing is entirely an OUTFLOW, with no concern for any sort of inflow. How did I not make that clear?

“Unconditional love” is simply love without “conditions” – that is, loving others without requiring that they first meet certain conditions (that you've imposed) in order to deserve your "love." (By “conditions” I mean such as: tell me I’m right, be a good boy, do the dishes, join my club, hate the slummers, get your stats up, don’t hang out with that crowd, get “A’s” in school, go to church with me, don’t say the F word, etc. etc.).

I didn't impose ANY conditions. Where did I say such a thing? Point it out to me, please. In Scientology, yes there most certainly ARE conditions required for the affinity to develop, and that comes in along the line of agreement, but nowhere in my discussion of "unconditional love" did I insinuate any such thing. I agree completely, that “Unconditional love” is simply love without "conditions".

Yes, in Scientology, affinity goes up, or in other words one approaches "love", because somebody meets some condition by AGREEING with you in some way on some topic. On the plane of personal ego, there are ALWAYS conditions and requirements for affinity to display itself.


Can true "love" be anything other than unconditional? I think not.

That is a value judgment or personal evaluation, along whatever lines you define "true love". And, I agree for the most part.

But people have been writing about and arguing about the true meaning of "love" for a very long time -- whadda i know.

I think, from what you said, that you know a great deal! But also, there may be some very powerful aspect to "love", that few appreciate, understand, accept or acknowledge.

Affinity is defined, by Hubbard, as "willingness to exist in the same place as", or "degree of likingness". I can think with that. Obviously, the less affinity one has for something, the less willing one is to be or remain in that place. Distance between things REDUCES as affinity increases. Distance increases as affinity decreases. Apparently, if affinity is pushed to the limit, one can possibly get to a point where distance disappears, all separation vanishes, and one pervades or "is one" with "the other". Thus, the "mystical experience". But, to get to that point, one needs to address any and all reasons why one would choose to stay apart, away from, or distanced from whatever it is. Most of those reasons arise from the ego. Same old same old.

One must break down and through any experiences or reactions to NOT be willing to comfortably be in any place, and to not simply "like" everything, if one is to ever experience "unconditional love" (instead of simply thinking about it as an idea). And, here I don't mean to be the recipient of the unconditional love of someone else, which of course, is possible as an experience, but to create and send out "unconditional love", just as you describe it, without restrictions or conditons.

And, ARC has little or nothing to do with "love", on any level, or in any form, as applied within the framework of Scientology.

As always, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:

Mystic

Crusader
The Hubbard apparition (tulpa) was not programmed by its conjurers with the capacity to experience Love. This "ARC" spew from its flapping lips...in fact he/it even mentions this in one of its spew lectures, the using of the term "affinity" instead of "love". So-called "ARC" does NOT equate to "understanding". Sheesh. What a fkn implant.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The Hubbard apparition (tulpa) was not programmed by its conjurers with the capacity to experience Love. This "ARC" spew from its flapping lips...in fact he/it even mentions this in one of its spew lectures, the using of the term "affinity" instead of "love". So-called "ARC" does NOT equate to "understanding". Sheesh. What a fkn implant.

I agree, except for the part about LRH being programmed by conjurers (I just have no way to verify THAT)!!!!!! :omg: :omg: :omg:

But, the use of ARC very much can be used as a way to bring about, manipulate and "conjure" UNDERSTANDINGS in others! :nervous:

And it is very possible, easy, and even useful to examine people, groups and behavior within a framework of ARC. But there is no doubt that the "R", the reality (agreement) factor is the KEY to the mechanism. That involves the realm of considerations and postulates, and it is THERE that all conjuring takes place. Communication is the avenue along which the content of the "agreement" flows, and affinity enables it to flow faster and smoother.

Anyone with the slightest bit of sense can look around and observe MANY examples of ARC in use, as a simple unconscious mechanism involved in almost all human interactions.

For example, when any person doesn't like another for any real or imagined reason, then that person is more apt to "keep a distance", NOT communicate, and thereby stay "out of agreement". Of course, why do people have to agree about everything? THAT is a weird fixed idea in itself! Agreement is oversold as something of value.

But, agreement does matter in all aspects of SURVIVAL. You won't long stay at a job, keep a husband or wife, maintain friendly relations with your neighbors, and thousands of other things, unless you maintain some level of agreement with that which you are involved. There is a part of the explanation of ARC that DOES closely correlate to people and how they interact. It occurs "naturally". You won't make this aspect of life go away by denying it or failing to understand it. A big problem with Scientology (and Hubbard) is that it takes "naturally occurring" mechanims of life, and examines them with an AIM to CONTROL, manuipulate and form the attitudes, beliefs and opinions of others. The PR Series just takes it a bit further, having the purpose to mold the beliefs of others along some desired pathway.

This all makes perfect sense to the card-carrying Scio, to "use" the "tech" to control and manipulate others, because he or she has bought into the The Three Basic Scientology Beliefs. These beliefs justify everything else that the (manipulative) Scientologist does in the name of "forwarding the religion".

The Three Scientology Beliefs:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Bingo! I learned THAT many years ago when I mocked up my own drills along the lines of "love" and "affinity".

Drill #1: Go to a crowded place. Aim a flow of immense "love" at each person walking by. Envision each person as filled with brilliant yellow-white loving energy. Do it for as long as you like.

Drill #2: Get the idea of a mother's love. Notice how it is entirely an OUTFLOW, with no concern for enjoyment of self. Get the idea of a mother's love as "nurturing, wishing the best in another, intending nothing but total happiness in another". Close you eyes and fill yourself with this feeling and energy. Envision this energy expanding past the limits of your body and mind. Let it explode outwards in all directions. DO THE DRILL. Don't "think about" doing the drill! Experience and intellect are two very different things, and "thinking about" something is NOT EVER the same as doing and gaining the requisite experience. YOU can actually mock this up at will, and quite easily, but you will never LEARN THAT if you just "think about it". The intellect has "some" value, but is only a small part of the picture when it comes to the mind of any person. Many fail to realize that. Sometimes, seemingly forever!

Drill #3: Stand by a traffic corner. Whenever a car slows down or stops, surround the car and all of the occupants with this "feeling of well-wishing described in Drill #2". Do this for quite a while. And then stop. And then ask yourself WHY you haven't been doing this all along?

There are MANY more possible exercises. NONE require a shared agreement, other than that the "others" are on planet Earth with you. And all involve the knowing, intentional mocking up of AFFINITY.

Doing the same with "admiration" also can be valuable, but it is a few steps lower than "unconditional love".

Get this, the concept of "unconditional love" doesn't exist in Scientology. It does exist in some religions and in MANY New Age philosophies. It means loving, fully and without limits, and with absolutely NO concern for what you may or may not "get back" in any way. It transcends the personal human ego. It is entirely an OUTFLOW. With no concern in any way about "inflow". It has nothing to do with "me". It is a BIG idea! This idea is non-existent in Scientology. It aligns with the notion of the "Love of the Father" or the "love of Jesus" in Christianity.

Any time you actually go out and PRACTICE unconditional love, you are chipping away at some aspect of the personal ego.

In Scientology the notion of "affinity" is always tied into what you are going to GET BACK, as some sort of inflow. Money, help, participation, and especially assisted survival. The notion of the dynamics, and exchanging between the dynamics within the context of "survival" is rammed down your throat in Scn. It has value, on some level, BUT it operates FAR BELOW the unconditional affinity I described above. You don't need some "bridge" to get to the high realms of spiritual serenity. Just go out and honestly do the drills I gave above, for a week or two. You may well be amazed at the "results". And it won't cost you a penny!

Affinity doesn't have to be limited and restricted as some utilitarian tool that "greases the lines of communication", but it functions that way in Scientology (to the detriment of many).


Your drill recommendations are excellent. They are unlimited. Can be done a little or a lot without any concern for overrun or over-restimulation.

I would note that the basis of "case" as it is perceived in scientology is self-interest, self-concern, self-importance, and so on. It is all about self. Being "keyed-out" or Clear in a practical sense is simply no more concern over self or own survival.

With the above in mind, it is no longer so important to do "your" bridge, handle "your" case, "your" auditing, protect "your" property, have "your" voice heard, etc. Drop the self-interests and the "case" dissolves.

So you get audited, address and handle "your" difficulties, and you feel GREAT! No attention on anything that bothered you before. The reg has to warn you against "your" next level keying in. If you buy into that, you now have a new self-interest.

You see, without the self-interest, there is nothing much more to sell.

I have been wanting to say the above and your post, GF, is an excellent intro. :wink2:
 

Veda

Sponsor
A few background items.

Note (after #6) "Sat, Chit, Ananda" (Being [Communication], Thought [Reality], Bliss [Affinity]). Comments on left side are from Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' ('The Factors'), elaboration on right side is from another: http://www.tarotica.com/naples.html

Excerpts from 'The Book of Thoth' by Aleister Crowley. "Therefore you can have an infinite number of gods..."

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself..." : http://www.etarot.info/naples-arrangement

From Crowley 'Little Essays Towards Truth', re 'Love'. "Let us consider the 'feelings' of a molecule of Hydrogen in the presence of one of Oxygen or one of Chlorine.": http://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/love.html
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Your drill recommendations are excellent. They are unlimited. Can be done a little or a lot without any concern for overrun or over-restimulation.

I would note that the basis of "case" as it is perceived in scientology is self-interest, self-concern, self-importance, and so on. It is all about self. Being "keyed-out" or Clear in a practical sense is simply no more concern over self or own survival.

With the above in mind, it is no longer so important to do "your" bridge, handle "your" case, "your" auditing, protect "your" property, have "your" voice heard, etc. Drop the self-interests and the "case" dissolves.

So you get audited, address and handle "your" difficulties, and you feel GREAT! No attention on anything that bothered you before. The reg has to warn you against "your" next level keying in. If you buy into that, you now have a new self-interest.

You see, without the self-interest, there is nothing much more to sell.

I have been wanting to say the above and your post, GF, is an excellent intro. :wink2:

Great points!

I have tried to explain this before. The attention and fixation on survival is the PRIMARY flaw of Scientology as a "spiritual path".

As a "self-help" subject without all the trappings of "Road to Total (Spiritual) Freedom", it is okay.

All survival is ego directed. The entire subject of ethics in Scn is related to the survival of something! A great deal of Scientology causes you to immerse yourself further into "the trap", because it gets you fighting for MORE SURVIVAL along some line.

Self-interest vanishes when the ego vanished.

WHAM. WOW! Huge cognition here! I have consistently stated here, and in other places, that what I enjoyed about Scientology was being "exterior", "blown out of my head" and "keyed-out". THAT is about the ONLY thing I ever liked about it. One musn't underestimate the intensity and immensity of the experence I am talking about here. True total lose of any sense of self. Total unconditionaed awareness. Sparkling like a diamond!

I never always kept that firmly in mind.

But THAT is what you describe. I had no attention on self, no attention on making anything happen anywhere, no concern for the survival of anything, I just loved it!!!!!

I remember coming out of sessions, totally lost as a viewpoint of self. I loved it. The regges, recruiters, and course supervsiors would all be bugging me, but I learned early to ignore them, and to say, "THIS is what it is all about!" "I am THERE". "Get away from me with all your little, small, ego-centered games, interests and concerns." (the last sentnese I would think, as obviously one cannot "say" that in that way to them)

Damn, I am actually line-charging here. THANK-YOU TED!!!!! If there were any examiner nearby I would have a floating TA! Oh, fuck me! This is good stuff! :happydance: :happydance: :happydance:

I have made the point before, and your comments give me an opportunity to just say it again. A legitimate spiritual path dissolves the ego. That may be my own fixed idea, or bias, BUT I think it correlates well to actualities in this realm. I think that Buddha and Jesus would agree. Of course, as always, I could be wrong. As you correctly point out, the entire slant of Scientology, with auditing to get rid of case, and also ethics, involves self-interest, self-concern, and self-importance. It is all about "self". What is THAT? The personal ego. When one dissolves and abandons the personal ego then so vanish self-interest, self-concern, and self-importance.

In the words of Lao Tzu:

What is meant by saying that the greatest trouble is the strong sense of individual self that people carry around in all circumstances?

People are beset with great trouble because they define their lives so narrowly.

If they forsake their narrow sense of self and live wholly, then what can they call trouble?


It is that experience, being completely blown out of my head, and ONLY THAT, which kept me attracted to Scientology far longer than I ever should have been. As so many others, I initially confused and falsely identified LRH and Scientology data with the wonderful states I was enjoying. But, that was a long time ago!:whistling:
 
Last edited:

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think, from what you said, that you know a great deal! But also, there may be some very powerful aspect to "love", that few appreciate, understand, accept or acknowledge.

If you say so. On the other hand, "love" may be more appreciated, understood, accepted, and widely acknowledged than you might think. The word "love" is used to describe several different phenomena -- is that because all those phenomena have a common denominator? (other than being a function of our human capacities, I mean)

Or is it because we just haven't got the words in our language? to distinguish/describe the nuances and differences between simple affection expressed toward neighbors and friends; the intensity of romantic love/desire/obsession we feel toward a sexual mate; unselfish and altruistic actions expressed toward strangers in need; love as in I LOVE this coat, I LOVE this restaurant! or I LOVED that movie!; love as in I love my job, I love my life; theological love as in God/Jesus loves me even though I'm a terrible sinner; and so forth.

There is "power" in all those forms of "love" -- power that inspires people to push themselves to their limits, to sacrifice, to put forth their very best effort, and yes the power to manipulate and control, to exploit, is fed by ALL those forms of "love."

Affinity is defined, by Hubbard, as "willingness to exist in the same place as", or "degree of likingness". I can think with that. Obviously, the less affinity one has for something, the less willing one is to be or remain in that place.

Hubbard took common English language words and redefined them to suit himself, appearing at times to describe various phenomena that he claimed had not been previously described, that were "new" discoveries about the human condition, human emotions, human reactions.

In deconstructing "scientology" I have found it very useful to look up the English language definitions and their roots of those words Hubbard coopted. In doing so, the word "postulate" for example is for all practical purposes synonymous with "belief", or "faith" although scientologists insist that scientology is "different," that no "faith" is required in scientology.

For the word "affinity" it appears to me that Hubbard used it because its most generic definition, "a natural attraction," was not in common use, and it has also the specialized scientific meaning having to do with chemistry and physics which carries with it the "altitude" of a scientific term.

Distance between things REDUCES as affinity increases. Distance increases as affinity decreases. Apparently, if affinity is pushed to the limit, one can possibly get to a point where distance disappears, all separation vanishes, and one pervades or "is one" with "the other". Thus, the "mystical experience".

What you describe is pretty much what happens in the physical/ chemical bonding process that results in an isotope or molecule-- particles or elements or other molecules become "one" of a different sort, pretty much permanently joined.

But although the idea of "we/it are all ONE" is often used as a summation of the popular notion of a "mystical experience," my own personal glimpse or revelation of what lies beyond the limits of HUMAN cognizance or experience was nothing like that -- perhaps it's different for each of us? the concept of "ARC" or even "love" doesn't touch it.

But, to get to that point, one needs to address any and all reasons why one would choose to stay apart, away from, or distanced from whatever it is. Most of those reasons arise from the ego. Same old same old.

While I believe it takes all kinds to make a world, and am pretty much a live/let live person in my daily life, I can think of all kinds of very, very good reasons why, as a human being, one would choose to stay apart, away from, or distanced from various persons, creatures, activities, and experiences here on this earth.

One must break down and through any experiences or reactions to NOT be willing to comfortably be in any place, and to not simply "like" everything, if one is to ever experience "unconditional love" (instead of simply thinking about it as an idea).

Do you believe that any human being has ever actually done that?

And, here I don't mean to be the recipient of the unconditional love of someone else, which of course, is possible as an experience, but to create and send out "unconditional love", ...

This is where my idea of "love" in its purist, unconditional sense, differs from yours; and this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. "Create" and "send out" and "outflow" (as in the drills you proposed -- not that the drills might not be an interesting exercise) and "inflow" (or any kind of flow) all imply ACTION, imply that you are CAUSEing something.

My idea of "love" in its purist, unconditional sense, is that it is passive, that it is not an activity, but rather a state -- a stillness, if you will.

From that stillness a wide variety and intensity of actions might grow. Or not. Even actions that some might interpret as "destructive".

But these thoughts are no more than my own peculiar views, partly arising from one of the things I find most offensive about "scientology": the idea that one must always be DOING something.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Great points!

I have tried to explain this before. The attention and fixation on survival is the PRIMARY flaw of Scientology as a "spiritual path".

As a "self-help" subject without all the trappings of "Road to Total (Spiritual) Freedom", it is okay.

All survival is ego directed. The entire subject of ethics in Scn is related to the survival of something! A great deal of Scientology causes you to immerse yourself further into "the trap", because it gets you fighting for MORE SURVIVAL along some line.

Self-interest vanishes when the ego vanished.

WHAM. WOW! Huge cognition here! I have consistently stated here, and in other places, that what I enjoyed about Scientology was being "exterior", "blown out of my head" and "keyed-out". THAT is about the ONLY thing I ever liked about it. One musn't underestimate the intensity and immensity of the experence I am talking about here. True total lose of any sense of self. Total unconditionaed awareness. Sparkling like a diamond!

I never always kept that firmly in mind.

But THAT is what you describe. I had no attention on self, no attention on making anything happen anywhere, no concern for the survival of anything, I just loved it!!!!!

I remember coming out of sessions, totally lost as a viewpoint of self. I loved it. The regges, recruiters, and course supervsiors would all be bugging me, but I learned early to ignore them, and to say, "THIS is what it is all about!" "I am THERE". "Get away from me with all your little, small, ego-centered games, interests and concerns." (the last sentnese I would think, as obviously one cannot "say" that in that way to them)

Damn, I am actually line-charging here. THANK-YOU TED!!!!! If there were any examiner nearby I would have a floating TA! Oh, fuck me! This is good stuff! :happydance: :happydance: :happydance:

I have made the point before, and your comments give me an opportunity to just say it again. A legitimate spiritual path dissolves the ego. That may be my own fixed idea, or bias, BUT I think it correlates well to actualities in this realm. I think that Buddha and Jesus would agree. Of course, as always, I could be wrong. As you correctly point out, the entire slant of Scientology, with auditing to get rid of case, and also ethics, involves self-interest, self-concern, and self-importance. It is all about "self". What is THAT? The personal ego. When one dissolves and abandons the personal ego then so vanish self-interest, self-concern, and self-importance.

In the words of Lao Tzu:

What is meant by saying that the greatest trouble is the strong sense of individual self that people carry around in all circumstances?

People are beset with great trouble because they define their lives so narrowly.

If they forsake their narrow sense of self and live wholly, then what can they call trouble?


It is that experience, being completely blown out of my head, and ONLY THAT, which kept me attracted to Scientology far longer than I ever should have been. As so many others, I initially confused and falsely identified LRH and Scientology data with the wonderful states I was enjoying. But, that was a long time ago!:whistling:


Thank you for communication and appreciation!

Now that gives me a self-interest -- yikes! Communication and appreciation, that's what keeps me going!

Oh, well. I am not into TOTAL abandonment of self! :dieslaughing:

To the above list I forgot some important items: "your" post, "your" stats, "your" condition, "your" responsibility, "your" Os & Ws.

There. That should keep a person introverted and spinning in the squirrel cage for quite a while. :hamster:
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
The traditional (King James) Bible uses the word "charity" (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 13). We know what it is to feel charitable towards someone; it's to generally wish them well and take a generous attitude towards any faults they may have. At the very least I think it's a good start.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
The addicted-to-cognition implant is quite a trap, eh?

Wow -- you just put into words something that's been rolling around in the back of my mind for ages and ages! thanks for the great cognition, mystic! :coolwink:
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
:thumbsup: Yes, it is! :clap:

Without any ego, there is nothing left to have any "cognition". :omg:

Of course, Scientology NEVER acts to vanquish the ego.

Well Ken Keyes (author of the Living Love books) used to say the aim of his teachings was to retire the ego through lack of work, not to vanquish it. I think he may have been right.

It's like having a guard dog that's always barking; it gets on your nerves after a while, but that doesn't mean you'll never need a guard dog.
 
Top