Free Scientologists

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:41 pm

Re: AGREEMENT

Amy wrote:Thanks for your response Theo. I do think I mainly agree with you and Grundy. I have no doubt that it is DM and people robotically following his orders that are the destructive, suppressive ones against Scientology.

It just upsets me that I know other Scientologists observe this in greater or lesser degrees, and do nothing about it because they can still go on course and get a good session, or learn a great piece of tech from course.

From what I understand, DM HAS altered tech, and a lot of it. I have seen policies being applied and interpreted in ways I feel is absolutely not LRH's intentions.

What I was trying to say with the whole "gun" example, is that Scientology is as good as it is applied. If someone takes Scientology and applies it destructively, that Scientology right there is not good. It's really straight out of KSW. If we don't do something about DM, soon enough, we won't be able to just walk into an org and get good standard tech. That's all I'm saying. The fact that it's "just DM and the goverment" like you said, is not enough to ignore the misapplications, the off-policy, the destructive use of the tech.

I don't think I explained myself well before, but do you get what I'm trying to say now?


I am with YOU Amy!! Fullyheartedly. I have no hatred for DM. I have just KRC for Scientology. I don't care about my neck anymore though I have 2 kids and a wife to take care of. But I feel I had a world too, I had a group and they all duck and lurk. I am with you AMY and maybe this Anonymous group has more guts than any of us and move ahead and get some effect on DM and his dictatorship. Whatever process works now.

But I am trying to communicate with some people and say OK listen to some guys who have another viewpoint about Scientology. Anyway, that's another discussion.

Back to DM and the government. I don't know where each one of you guys are. But right now that you are reading this, feel my wavelength, yes that's the word, Chief, I am a wavelength (actually I have, emit a certain wavelength but let's say I am wavelength so that I can make it more tangible for both of us). Can you feel my wavelength? There is no hatred in it, it's light but it's strong even though not as strong now as it used to be. But in cases and upon spotting the right charge it gets a peak and there it is again. Lighter but still stronger, able to penetrate any matter, permeate things and substances, travel over distances and oceans and arrive and be felt equally strong. Yes, you hit some charge there for me. And I KNOW you can do a good job on that. Getting DM exposed to Scientologists. It will take 2 things:

1) 50% intelligence and
2) 50% force

Those 2 combined can bring him down. The force I think you have. There has been some Anonymous protests all around the world. Maybe you were part of that. I don't know, I don't care. But that was Force. Sheer force right into the teeth of DM. That's why I am here. Because someone has the guts to do something about him.

But let me, with all due respect, put some more intelligence into this. The way to pull something down is to start undoing it's stable datum. Like the pilar holding it. Standard Tech is a stable datum for Scientology. Unfortunately these days the stable datum for Scientology is DM and Tom Cruise. Everybody knows Scientology by Tom Cruise though they never, never had their "wavelenghts adjusted in any session", never studied anything, nothing ever made sense to them, nobody talked to their reality so that they dig something out of it. Everybody was robotic to them: Don't speak bad about Scientology because....blah,blah,blah. The guy doesn't know anything about Scientology. Just the word makes him think of bad things, people associate it with the Nazi, the Holocaust etc. Come on people, GET REAL, talk real to those people if you have any kind of knowledge in your craniums and any IQ to use, if you know any good old Scientology and you can use to make a person understand something in this mess. Tom Cruise is not a good spokesman because he obviously is an actor and acting is not like real life. It's fake and he is fake and people can sense that. Spirits sense little things like that. You have to use the words in such a way as to fascinate people, be able to make them right without pretense, find something you admire about them and tell them in no flattery but honestly that you really admire that. Being a spokesman is not acting. It's tough, it's Public Relations, you are playing kick boxing also if needed. And then you bring your temper down, dust off you jacket and be polite again to those who have been polite with you. But the nasty guy you knocked him out. I have done 6 TV shows here in Greece. Since then no other show was done about Scientology. End of cycle. I feel good about it because there was all this kindergarden stuff, like Scientology does this and that to people and then I went there and I said Scientology has been taken over by the American government and it's going to be the Religion of Globalization, what are you talking about here? Which Scientology are we talking about? No more shows! I let the cat out of the bag badly. The people would learn the truth and all the soap opera stuff about Scientology would be less thrilling to them. I had served a better dish for them. You see, I used some intelligence and I used some truth. It was not all black or white. Scientology was not innocent but the governments were not innocent either. Actually, they had been in bed together!! People were calling left and right to the TV stations.

Just calling the whole of Scientology a nut case isn't too intelligent and permit me to say not accurate and true. Yes, we've all been through the shit but we know that if we had the guts to end that suppressive right there it would be OK. Maybe we didn't trust we could lead that organization, I don't know. Maybe we needed a leader even a suppressive one. I did all I could but was shot down (pretty nice dramatization, right?) Well, I failed I said.

But you know why I failed? Because there were no people to stand up and fight with me. All cowards caring for their f...ing neck. They knew what I was telling them was right. I had proof. I had made sure I picked one thing and pushed it over in front of their faces. Yea, an HCOB that DM doesn't apply about translations. Well, where is the HCOB cancelling that? Aha, there is none? How come we don't apply it then? I was the director of Translations Unit in Europe. I was the one who supposedly knew what he was doing. Still no HCOB was ever showed to me. And I yelled and shouted and the whole building could hear me shouting where is that HCOB? So, I said the hell with you, I now know. You probably have signed another contract. And then went to bake bread for my Captain. And was chit chatting with people about the HCOB in the basements of the base together with RPFers. Never went on the RPF though. And they were telling me you know what "you are right, but the way you bring this up..." And I was laughing and telling them "hey, this is it. Read your KSW and find your MUs". I was like that. I didn't give a damn after a while about anyone there because I knew they were robots. Nothing more, broken pieces in the war working for the enemy, thinking they were working for Scientology and its goals. They were actually working to save their asses, not their souls.

I am no fanatic, I am fun person. But when it comes to this f...ing planet and all the bs we are undergoing my only f...ng hope had been Scientology to handle the Hell out of it. And that went to pieces.
I had dreams. No Bushes or Trees. No wars, a better world. A better educated youth. A more understanding world. A common language. I hope I don't sound like the Invasion guys with what's her name, the Australian actress, Tom's ex-wife. You've seen that film? I think she did that for Scientology. Those mutated ones sound like Scientologists of a DM cut and version, though. I am not from that flock. I am a wild cat who can only follow freakily Reason. Yes. Reason and Aesthetics. Those two. And I found Reason and Aesthetics in the LRH version of Scientology whatever the rest of the world says.


To come back to the subject (if I remember it well). You know Freezoners, Scientologists (supposedly for some and actually for me) have a lot of intelligence and knowledge. They know more things about life than any average person on Earth. But just because they paid some money to learn them doesn't mean they learned them really. That must be the Why. Now that I am looking at this again.

Yes, they actually superficially went through those things. Just paid dome good money for them. They didn't leave their lives behind, their beloved ones, they didn't sacrifice things, they didn't cry in an SO bed far away from their countries. They didn't experience toughness and poverty and degradation nor did they experience the new vistas of knowledge given to them while reading a lecture of LRH in some alley of Complex in the midst of a cool summer in LA while waiting to go for watch. They were in bed every night to go to work the next day.

So their resposibility is quite low at this moment. Their confront is low. Especially confront of Evil. What they don't have is Force. They just hate force and force has to do with ethics. Responsibility has to do with force. You cannot just know things and do nothing about them.

This is why I said in an earlier post that I could even go with the Anonymous guys here in Athens and protest as a Freezoner against the off policies of DM and the ones behind him.

So, the intelligence to be used would be to shake DM as a stable datum. But not just make a mockery of him because this has the contrary effect. But use Reason and prove his crimes. I care about people who have died or were hurt in Scientology. But there have been many more who were hurt on their beliefs and betrayed big time. Those people, who is going to give them some right? Maybe it's you and me.

I don't know what to say. I am just with YOU on that but it must include some protest having a basis on Standard Tech. Scientology is not to spy on the world. Others spy and we know very well who do this. Even right now my country, Greece, faces a big issue with a neighbouring country, we call it Skopje, but everybody knows it as Macedonia. And they want to be called Macedonia after the old Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great. But we also have for years now a region in Greece called Macedonia which was part of the old Macedonian empire and we have a problem with that name. And what does the American government do? They are pushing us to accept some similar name for Skopje. Like New Macedonia or something. They just don't care about anything. It's devide and conquer. The third party law as explained by LRH. They use it to devide people and countries and rule over the world. And they f...ing took over Scientology too. The copyrights of Scientology do not belong to RTC. I bet you know that, right? You are aware of that. They belong to CST an organization no Scientologist knows, who have 3 lawyers on their org board who are not Scientologists. Created by a Meade Emory who was Deputy Commissioner of the IRS when Mary Sue Hubbard was put in jail. And this guy according to Internet writings and papers created the CST (Church of Spiritual Technology) who license (!!!) RTC with the copyrights. Blah.... What's that? How more ugly can it get?

I am with You Amy all the way. But some physical contact and effect has to be made and the only ones who managed to do this are the Anonymous guys. I hate to be Synonymous with them. OK, they sound pretty OK now that I am talking to a couple of them. But I don't want to bring down Scientology. I want to bring it up to its rightful place and let it do its job peacefully. But in this Universe you can never have peace. Especially when you act as a virgin in the middle of a military camp. Oh, boy... you've had it. So, there is where you have to use force and intelligence. "Me a virgin, oh, no, no, no. Where did you hear this. I've slept with several men and lately I don't feel too well, I vomit and have some strange stains on my skin..." Everybody would leave you alone.

Maybe all I am saying is kind of known and a little too much. But you touched a chord in me. I would stood up against DM and actually did as much as I could. But there was hardly anybody next to me. So I fell. Now, if there is a chance to do something I am with you. But all here on Earth becomes so complicated, even judgment and justice. And people have different viewpoints and they see just part of the picture and they say well they now know the whole thing. And they go ahead and hang the other guys. And there goes this planet.

If the leaders of any group where sane enough, and unprejudiced enough and had more integrity the world would be a better place. If they said that they didn't know something when they didn't, that would be very brave and honest on their part. But everybody plays it know best and they go ahead and give the order: "Hang them". And the guy(s) who really needs to be hanged (of course they couldn't reach him because they would be shot dead right there by his guards) is laughing behind the scenes watching the persecution. That's the history of this planet. War amongst the innocent and the real evil ones keeping the score. If there were brave leaders of groups there would be more justice in the world. And a much better judgement on this planet. And a more peaceful planet.

Amy, I can go on and on and on. I know one thing. You made me give out a lot of charge tonight. I am bleeding on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and futher up the dynamics for some years now. I am a wounded animal hiding in some place in Athens. But I can get up if there are enough of my flock around. After all that's the beauty of the beast. And I believe that mostly thetans in young bodies can do something about it. Because those who have older bodies somehow are deeper into the implanting effects I guess. So, here I am. Fill me in if there is any good news. I read that Mike Rinder (ex-CO OSA) is out of the Sea Org!!! And then Ronnie Miscavige and his niece. Is she on this forum?

Thanks for raising my tone level. I really thank you. I feel it's going to be a better night for me.
Bye now.
ARC (No emoticon to express my state of being right now, but it would be something close to serenity of beingness, almost OK? Up there, around games and postulates. Goodnight)
Theo Sismanides
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:55 pm

The Chief wrote:
theo wrote:Hi Clear and thanks.


I like you. You defend your spiritualism on an intellectual level and explain how you think. I can appreciate that, if not understand it.

Chief you are tough and strong. Your words are wise and grounded.
I exhausted myself with some answer to Amy so I want to be fresh to give them a second reading and answer to you.

All I can say to you just for mere communication and exchange of ideas, no enforcement of ideas, just on an intellectual plane, exchange of thoughts to be looked at without enforcment, fanaticism or bs in them, is
that I am a... wavelength. That's as close as I can describe who I am according to physics which I happily read you are studying.

Since I don't have any sound knowledge of physics, but some basic stuff, that's a way I can describe me. Wavelength and a very fine one. Sometimes I get more coarse but lately I feel lighter. That's a definition of a spirit though a more accurate definition of a pure spirit says a spirit has no mass, no wavelength, no space or time. Pretty light concept, isn't it? Conceive of a static. No mass, no wavelength, no space, no time. But it's capable of considerations and thus comes life.

Anyway. I will talk to you in the morning (hell, I also have work), maybe tomorrow night better, since this conversation is rather interesting and if you are Chief you may do something with that guy DM after all and the Anonymous group, ha,ha. Oh, this guy DM. That's your target. He has committed a lot of crimes against Scientology and people. The transvesti Scientology he has created has nothing to do with my group and philosophy.

So long for now and have a goodnight.
Theo
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:30 pm

The Chief wrote:
theo wrote:Hi Clear and thanks.


I like you. You defend your spiritualism on an intellectual level and explain how you think. I can appreciate that, if not understand it.


Thanks. You see Understanding is composed of some elements. Actually 3. Believe it or not it's 3 elements composing Understanding. You can try it in life. I don't like mysteries but they are good to attract attention. But it's also a very bad game against one to just say something (supposedly important) and then not really explain the "secret". So, I go ahead and say these 3 components. They are reality (or agreement), communication (which we all know) and then affinity (which is close relation in space). They form a triangle just because when you increase or decrease one of those components (one angle) the other two increase or decrease equally. Without agreement (when one is unreal) there is no communication possible and then no affinity. The other person doesn't want to have much contact with a weirdo. When there is no communication of course you can understand what's happening with one's reality and affinity. Advertisers know that well so they communicate constantly. Communication is so important and vital but it has to be given with reality and affinity. Affinity is when you want to be close to someone. It's expressed in emotions, there is minus affinity or misemotions like hatred or fear which are low on the scale and there are higher emotions like "let's get the suckers", enthusiasm etc.

I can go on but I am just saying that Undestanding comes in when one is Real to the other guy, keeps in good Communication like acknowledges the other person on what he says, he answers his comm and questions, listens to the other guy instead of just talking by himself and then he maintains some high affinity tone like strong interest (which is also good manners) and such stuff. Some people might say this is known and rote but in order to drive a car you need to do known and rote actions. Why not in life? You see, I don't want to be "original" in driving a car. I just want to drive safely. That's a peculiarity of mine. I could come together with anyone and be on the safe side because I can Understand them, really not fakely.

Well, what I meant to say is that as a civilization and as intelligent beings capable of understanding the world around us, our actual presence is pretty much miniscule. When people mention the end of the world in terms of global warming, they really don't mean the end of the Earth itself. The Earth periodically waxes and wanes through cycles whereupon it becomes more or less hospitable to life. The amount of damage we have done to the Earth so far is miniscule compared to some of the cataclysms visited upon it in the past. By comparison to ourselves, Earth itself is an extremely durable thing. It survived planetary scale impacts in the thirty gigaton range. It survived solar events that generated more energy than our entire civilization will for the next thousand years.

What people are afraid of is the destruction of towns and cities and the driving of homo sapiens back into the existance we knew before the emergence of technology. There were periods where the polar ice caps did not exist at all. Given time, Earth will recover from our presence, but it will be long after we have departed.

The truth is we overstate our importance to this pale blue dot. We are but a passing fad upon its surface, a tiny mammalian species that escaped from the food chain. That might make us feel very small, but ultimately it doesn't. We're as important as anything else, even the Earth itself. Just not more, and not less..


I agree with you on most of the above except on one thing. Man is different than other mammals in that he has used his mind instead of growing longer teeth or claws etc. The mind. A fascinating tool for Man. You have to admit that Man has used that tool to discover theories that work and develop technologies that have change the way we live. 15 years ago we didn't have cell phones and now everybody does and everybody can communicate with anyone anywhere. Thousands of other inventions and Man is now facing a big problem of polution on Earth. That species has an impact on the Planet no other species ever had. That should make us wonder.

Why is it that Man is so more capable? Most people say because of his Mind, which is correct but on close examination let's see.... Of course it's not an easy thing to prove much on this. But I have tried a bit and I had an idea the other day. I wanted to use an analogy so that it is more easy to grasp and maybe this would lead me somewhere. The only good analogy that I have found that can be Real to people of today is the one between a Man and a Computer. Maybe it's stupid and naive but for me it works.

So a computer is broken down to hardware and software. There is an analogy between that and the components of Man. Man also has a hardware and a software. The hardware thing is the body including the brain which obviously is hardware. You take it out and the toy doesn't work. Like a hard disk or a mother board. I don't know exactly what the analogy would be. But the brain is definitely hardware.

The software like the one that Bill Gates gave us (thanks to Bill we have Windows and we can now communicate on a common platform, brilliant basic idea made someone a millionaire just because it's so basic and was missing), so the software in Man is the Mind. That's not really tangible but a rather intangible thing, more like programs that are entered and upon which Man "runs". If you don't believe me, you have a George Bush program for the planet, you have a David Miscavige program for "Scientology" which is entered and people run on it. You have an IRS program that has to be followed to the letter, you have school program, you have programs, programs, programs, created by the programmers of the world. You set their mind by entering programs for them. Their mind runs on those programs.

And you have someone whose computer runs on Windows and he can't read Linux. Two totally different programs (platforms, I think is the correct word). So Linux is Unreal and cannot be read much less understood by the computer which uses Windows. The same happens with the mind. As with languages, for example. If I started speaking Greek to you here...

"Γειά σου Chief, τι κάνεις;"

You wouldn't feel that comfortable because your Mind (your "installed" software programs) couldn't analyse it and interpret it. But all I said in Greek was "Hi Chief? How are you?" Now you get it because the language I used is actually the one your mind operates best on. Why? Because it can analyse all of its symbols and has been trained to think that way at a very high speed actually by now. I see my 7 year old son and he is struggling with language. A matter of familiarity actually for the mind. So, the mind is the composite of software (all of the programs and languages utilized in a computer so that it can analyze data). And that's the mind not the brain. In Man the mind is thought. Thoughts and conclusions and computations and symbols and all such stuff that a mind can run on. It also contains pictures of experience or imaginary nature. It can put together data, analyze data and draw new conclusions.

I hope you can understand this up to now and it makes some sense to you. Maybe it doesn't as an analogy but that's OK. I will be glad to hear something on that though, as I am trying to develop some way to make it better understood as to what Man is made of.

But what is most interesting is there is a 3rd element for a computer to run and per the analogy for Man to "run".

What is this 3rd element? I have asked a couple of people and I got different answers. Someone said electricity which is correct but we can place that in the analogy more to part of the hardware installation rather than a 3rd element. You know what's the 3rd element? Someone said "your wife", ha,ha and he was partly right. Because the 3rd element is a User. Without a user no computer runs. Of course you can have robots but we are not talking about robots here. We talk about Man and computers and who runs them? So a User is essential for a computer to run. And in Man my friend per the analogy there is a User who just (knows or doesn't know) which "buttons" to press or which program to open and how to go about the "computer" called Man. Don't take it literally Man is NO WAY a Computer. But there is a someone there who most of the times is not even acknowledged for the good work he does in keeping the system running. I know of no hardware or software able to run by themselves. So there again an animated thing comes into the equation as the User. I tell you with all this automaticity around, Man becomes "not so important anymore" but a trained eye on closer inspection always finds Man behind the scene. There you have it. Who is the User in the composite called Man? It definitely should be something animated because I no Anima (=psyche in latin) does something this writing will be unfinished since no fingers will be moving to the right keys to write the words and the letter is going to end like..................................................................................................................... or even nothing















until an Anima wakes up and says "Hey, what the hell, I am going to finish it up, type, type, type, think, say what you want, you may one day get somewhere with this, type, type away".

I have awe and love for a universe that has nothing for me despite itself. I don't expect it to. That's the difference between myself and a theist. I have enough care and devotion and attention for myself and all that is around me to not need it from another source. When I do something for a fellow human being it's out of my care for them, not out of a need to uphold standards of morality.

When I don't, it's because I didn't feel it important enough to me. That makes me both honest and selfish, I know. :) I never claimed to be an athiest saint.



Sorry Chief. A selfish person cannot be that honest. You are honest, though, in that you are selfish. I can admit that. As for atheist saints, ha,ha that was a good one. Look I am not picking on you. You are honest in that you say you are selfish. But why pretend to be a sel fish? when you can be any fish around? I am not joking now. I am just trying to tell you that the real You, man, is not just sel fish. You have much more connection to the world than they have persuaded you you have. You are not a selfish thing. You are You. And only you can say and find out actually how much of You is part of Life or how much of Life is part of You.
Selfishes are made for people to stay in their little shells and not go to the party and have fun there with otherselvesfishes. At least we can have a selfish party, man. That's more fun. All I am saying seriously now and without picking up on any selfishes because I know how lonely it can get, I am one of them most of the time now, is that selfishes are made up by hiding the basics of life to them. No one is so stupid as to want to ignore the right rules of the game and keep on losing. But look at Mankind. It's pathetic today and it's history is somehow full of struggles. Too few men have accomplished things worth speaking of, compare to the billions who have lived on Earth. All those people were not that selfish, they care for others out of an inner f...ing peculiar idea they had to do something about it. Ethics is inherent to Man. Go kill a Scientologist right now. No, you are not going to do it. Why? Because you care for him to keep on with his life even if a Scientologist. That's ethics. Ethics is survival not only of Self and Selfishes but of ALL Life.

By the way I am not a saint either. OK. And I am not a theist. I am a theo. All these -ism things make me uncomfortable. I should clarify the suffix -ism I guess.


The problem is I don't see that knowledge. I am studying towards a Ph.D in physics and the knowledge I gather from that pursuit is intrusively and even aggressively checked for flaws. People base their entire careers upon single, miniscule assumptions about our world and write hundreds of pages and dedicate years of their lives to that discovery. Science as a subject is aggressively peer reviewed to the point of obsessiveness and every new discovery is caught upon by skeptic after skeptic after skeptic. Even concepts such as relativity and even Newton's basic mechanics were torn into, concepts that we know well and can even prove basically today.

Therein lies the problem. It is fine to believe something, even healthy in some cases. Humans are by nature an inquisitive species and even an excitable one. It's nice to think that there is always that next discovery or that there's something even slightly spooky about the world. However none of these beliefs, no matter how heartfelt they may be hold up to external evidence.


See I told you I don't know much of physics. That's true. But on the other hand I don't need to read every skeptic's thesis to understand that some things appear to be true just because we agree and say so and not because the skeptic has written 1.000 pages to persuade us on the contrary. I mean how would the skeptic explain to us that while the Earth is running around itself and the within this Universe at a certain (probably rather high speed, maybe you happen to know and it would be interesting to know that) we right now, right here aren't moving at all unless an earthquake happens... So, we come to what we call a Stable Datum in Scientology and no teacher ever will teach you that because it's so basic that it escapes the eye. A Stable Datum is one that is not necessarily true but is selected and used. And since it's important to write it exactly by the book so I don't misinterpret it (don't be mad, I just don't feel up to describing it as Hubbard does) here it is, from the book Problems of Work:

beginning of quote.
We have in Scientology a certain doctrine about confusion. It is called the Doctrine of the Stable Datum.
If you saw a great many pieces of paper whirling about a room they would look confused until you picked out one piece of paper to be the piece of paper by which everything else was in motion. In other words, a confusing motion can be understood by conceiving one thing to be motionless.
In a stream of traffic all would be confusion unless you were to conceive one car to be motionless in relation to the other cars and so to see others in relation to the one.
The switchboard operator receiving ten calls at once solves the confusion by labelling, correctly or incorrectly, one call as the first call to receive her attention. The confusion of ten calls all at once becomes less confusing the moment she singles out one call to be answered.
The shop foreman confronted by three emergencies and an accident needs only to elect his FIRST target of attention to start the cycle of bringing about order again.
Until one selects ONE datum, ONE factor, ONE particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The ONE thing selected and used becomes the STABLE DATUM for the remainder.
Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from ONE DATUM.
That is its STABLE DATUM. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.
Now, in teaching a young aspirant to use a machine, he failed to grasp your directions, if he did, because he lacked a stable datum. ONE FACT had to be brought home to him first.
Grasping that, he could grasp others. One is stupid, then, or confused in any confusing situation until he has fully grasped ONE FACT or one item.
Confusions, no matter how big and formidable they may seem, are composed of data or factors or particles. They have pieces. Grasp one piece and locate it thoroughly. Then see how the others function in relation to it and you have steadied the confusion and, relating other
things to what you have grasped, you will soon have mastered the confusion in its entirety.
In teaching a boy to run a machine, don’t throw a torrent of data at him and then point out his errors; that’s confusion to him, that makes him respond stupidly. Find some entrance point to his confusion, ONE DATUM. Tell him, “This is a machine.” It may be that all the directions were flung at someone who had no real certainty, no real order of existence. “This is
a machine,” you say. Then make him sure of it. Make him feel it, fiddle with it, push at it.
“This is a machine,” tell him. And you’d be surprised how long it may take but you’d be surprised as well how his certainty increases.
Out of all the complexities he must learn to operate it, he must know ONE DATUM first. It is not even important WHICH datum he first learns well beyond that it is better to teach him a SIMPLE BASIC DATUM. You can show him what it does, you can explain to him the final product, you can tell him why HE has been selected to run this machine. BUT you
MUST make one basic datum clear to him or else he will be lost in confusion" end of quote


So sceptics never bothered to teach people stable data so that's why you get so confused with them and reading them. They may be brilliant but until someone comes in and finds the stable data ther is going to be confusion. And when you shake former stable data and you don't put in new ones what you get is confusion. And may be, permit me to say from an general knowledge that I have, this is the situation of modern physics. Too many data and no stable data any more. Nobody is pushing hard any stable data except the ones we know and experience like "which Earth is moving, bro? I am standing on it still? What are you talking about?" And modern physics becomes a subject for the skeptics not the layman, which shouldn't be the case, because that poor fellow too could learn something more and something useful and improve his life faster than technology improves the pockets of multinational companies. He could also maybe use fiber optics or I don't know what else from physics and do something with it. But that ain't the case. And they do something even worse. They make the subject look like something so immense and incomprehensible that make it look like the whole meaning of life might be in it. A complete mystery for Man. But I bet they cannot give us a definition of space or time laid out in comprehensible terms even for them. See, so basic things that we live in and by everyday and noone around has been taught a decent, understandable definition at school.

So, all this thought resulting in a big confusion can be put in order when you find your stable datum with them and say: "Oh, they even have not organized their subject and have no stable data any more and the old stable data have been invalidated by new ones which aren't really picked up as stable data either because they are so complicated themselves that we just come back to the law of gravity which surely is a stable datum and that's as far as we can get."



I see what you're saying to an extent. I'm going to leave the rest of what you've said because what you're saying is personal beliefs and I am not going to say anything in that regard. My own are vastly different and no good would come of a clash from them. I merely ask you to consider this.

I saw my cousin the other day, and she brought her two year old son with her. Lovely lad. Inquisitive and playful and communicative and everything he wanted to be. He would wander around playing with things and he almost cried when a porcelain duck fell over.

On the other side of the room was my little 13 year old yorkshire terrier. He is clearly the inferior mentally of the two, and yet what did he do? He wandered around, being inquisitive and playful and communicative and everything he wanted to be. He even got a little nervous when the 2 year old fell over.

Spiritually they were both happy, and curious, and they both wanted to know each other. They communicated. Yet in so many theisms and spiritualities, only one of them is important. It's not my dog.

I see human "soul" behaviour in my dog every day. He loves his family. He gets excited when we come home. He has every emotion we have from happiness to sadness to despair. He comforts us when we're ill, he comes to us when he is. He gets afraid, he gets elated. He is, as a spiritual being, completely and utterly human. As far as I can tell, the only thing he has different from me is a different body and a different level of intellectualism.

Now, what you might say here is "proof of past lives." However I think differently. My dog is no more intelligent than any other dog. He's as smart and as loving and as caring and as selfish as any other animal. Animals both lower and higher than him show the same behaviour. You can scale this behaviour not with "soul" but intelligence. The more intelligent a creature, the more its behaviour resonates with our own.

Where do you identify a soul? Where is its ending point? Is it just some other dimension where singularities prod through into our three dimensional universe? Does it gift us with intelligence? Is that the spark of life? If so, why doesn't it manifest in other creatures? Why can't my dog mentally match me? Why does he get confused by the simplest of tasks? Why does every single atom in the entire universe not have this singularity of life persence within it? How far down the line do you have to go before you say "Okay, no more soul here?" Is it sub human? Is it post human? Is it mammalian? Did dinosaurs have souls? Do plants? Do algae? Do QUARKS??

Or perhaps what we identify as the soul is simply the manifestation of a lack of understanding (maintained to this day) of how we work as creatures and as a species. When "red stuff staying in" was the complexity of human biology. Where we didn't understand brain chemistry or function. There are still some mysteries that must be solved about the human body and out but they can be solved through mundane, physical means.


You have different potentials in Theta (spirit). Of course I wouldn't attempt here to explain and prove anything. A spirit is basically a unit of space and energy production. What we now see as a world is the result of a whole lotta things. But because it's composed of Matter and Energy it just doesn't mean a thing. The point is who is the User my friend to that program called Life. If you think we have all been conceived by mud, well it's your life go ahead and be a believer. There is no proof to it though. But if you observe the world and start doing so you will soon discover that behind any animated matter, no matter how small or big, there is a something that you cannot really put your finger on. When you look closer you will be able to sense it. Because even a dog can sense it and want to be close to it and just not prefer to have just matter around. That's Theta. A dog prefers theta than just matter and it has its reasons. Man is closer to Theta than to Matter because the Unseen User is Theta himself, invisible but definitely aware that he is aware. This is the awareness of awareness unit. Crazy stuff, Chief. Welcome to the spooky world of ghosts and spirits and may the Gods keep you safe tonight. I am joking....
Goodnight now. It's been a tough round.
Theo
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

anonycat

Clear

Posts: 56

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:42 am

Location: Germany

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:11 pm

Wellcome Theo :D

I am an Anonymous too and I find your posts very interesting. Sadly I cannot contribute much to the discussion because english is not my native-language, but I enjoy the reading.

Please have a look to this two excellent youtube-videos to show what Anonymous is about.

This one is made by an Anonymous member:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0WCLKzDFpI

This one from an independent source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0WCLKzDFpI

To answer your accusation that Anonymous hides their faces, don´t tell their names, here is my humble explanation:

The internet provides a new form of socialitation with other human beings. There are two possible ways to communicate on the internet. One, you can use a "name" (real or a fake one). Second, all users have the same name (often "anonymous").

What happens f.e. on a forum with option no. 1 when identifable users use names ? Everyone has an ego, after a time some users, who spend more time on this forum become "leaders", they can imposition their thoughts , their rules over other users, some users will get angry, will be hurt, feel discriminated, etc ---> lots of drama like in a real life group.

What happens with option no. 2 on a forum ? Everyone has the same name, nobody can build up an ego, only ideas and conversation matter, there are no leaders because they cannot be identified/grow, noone is discriminated because of his thougts/feelings, bad ideas are quickly dismissed by the hive, good ones are easily accepted.

This is Anonymous. We as human beings from all over the world, from different culturual/religious/political/ethical/racial/... background, different ages and gender have CONSCIUOSLY renounced our egos. We care for the victims and for the Scientologists of the Church of Scientology lead by Miscavige.

Alle Anonymous members are equal. No single Anonymous will and wants to be a celebrated leader or a hero in this fight. But we all together with the other critics are.

Anonymous is in my eyes like the people voices. Voices have no name.

Human ego has generated a lot of trouble in the past. David Miscavige is a fine example of a self-important ego. Many groups have failed their goals because of their human egos.
<<

anonfemme

EPFer

Posts: 29

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:32 pm

Most of the posts are tl;dr.

Now, since you are telling me to look for myself and not listen to others, a thing which I practice, here I am, listening and talking with you and I can hear anything which I might not know about Anonymous. Although I feel (maybe I am wrong) that it's just a hate movement against Scientology as a whole not seeing anything good in Scientology and want to close it down.


This is not true for me. I only know several other anons on a personal basis, we are all successful professionals who believe in free speech and protecting ourselves and our children against threats, including human rights abuses perpetrated by the co$. We are typically happy, fun loving people who spend time with our families and have great, happy lives. I don't hate anyone.

I want to first start by saying that like most others, I am not against scientologists as people, and I am not really interested in what people believe, it is a personal journey and up to individuals to choose.

I am, however against the corporate greed, lies, criminal activities, and cult behaviour displayed by the CO$. Human rights abuses, disconnection policy and Fair game policies, as well as media control, excessive litigation and false recognition as a religion (and therefore tax free status) are my issues with the co$.

Thanks. No I haven't. But I haven't seen any faces of any Anon. Nor have I heard any names. My name is Theo Sismanides, I am Greek, living in Athens and to be honest, I don't like anonymity, since I feel the person has something to hide, or is afraid of something.


You're entitled to your opinions. I personally don't like being stalked, harassed, publically defamed and having my life torn apart with lies and corruption by a neo-nazi mafia organisation (OSA) which currently exists within the current co$. That is the reason for my anonymity. I can't speak for anyone else.

I have a family and livelihood to protect, and absolutely nothing to hide, no crimes (actually i got parking tickets on several occasions, perhaps that is a crime in Scientology? I don't know). Unfortunately Scientology has made it very difficult for people to speak out with full disclosure because of their fair game policy.

I don't personally like the masks either, but they attract attention, allow anonymity and that's positive because it allows concerned people to speak out about this dangerous cult.

So, correct me if I am wrong. Do anything you want with Scientology but understand that especially Anonymity can't do anything against such a name as Scientology because Scientology means knowing how to know. What does Anonymity mean? You see, I can be mean when I want and is needed. You guys need to understand that if you enter into this you will face people who want to protect Scientology even if they have been persecuted by its current Management


Why does it have to mean anything? Why does it have to be defined by how the co$ defines what something is. The anonymous movement is working, it doesn't need to be defined and transparent and accountable by way of putting names to faces, it just works.

Many people have had similar experiences. So, who was looking at his body from a distance from above? There are many people who died and "returned", see lights, tunnels etc. I don't need to believe in such stories since I have had my own experiences through auditing and certainly I know who I am and what I am made of.


Nothing in Scientology is new. Astral travel, lucid dreaming, etc have existed in theory for many hundreds (if not thousands) of years prior to L.Ron Hubbard.

Seeing lights and near death experience has been proven to be nothing more than the brain producing a chemical called Ketamine in large quantities during (or close to) death. This results in the "white light" phenomena.

The reactive mind (aka subconcious) mind was theorised by Freud long before L.Ron Hubbard stole it and repackaged it.

1. The conscious mind includes everything that we are aware of. This is the aspect of our mental processing that we can think and talk about rationally. A part of this includes our memory, which is not always part of consciousness but can be retrieved easily at any time and brought into our awareness. Freud called this ordinary memory the preconscious.

2. The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict. According to Freud, the unconscious continues to influence our behavior and experience, even though we are unaware of these underlying influences.


Your truth is your truth, and like you, we have a right to express our truth and our opinions. I for one will not stop protesting against the co$ until it stops its abuses and dangerous cult/mafia activities.
Last edited by anonfemme on Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Much love. xx
Image
<<

Spork

Clear

Posts: 113

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:29 am

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:37 pm

Question for Theo

Hi Theo,

This is a two-part question that might require a thoughtful and lengthy reply if you feel so inclined.

(a) What do you consider to be the three most powerful or compelling objections to Scientology doctrines you now hold? That's to say, in your opinion which three of your Scientological views are the most susceptible to criticism and why?

(b) How do you propose to answer those objections, not only to your personal satisfaction, but to persuade a (hypothetical) neutral outside observer who is trying to decide him/herself whether to accept those three views or to reject them on the basis of the objections you present?

Spork
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:35 pm

anonycat wrote:Wellcome Theo :D

I am an Anonymous too and I find your posts very interesting. Sadly I cannot contribute much to the discussion because english is not my native-language, but I enjoy the reading.

Please have a look to this two excellent youtube-videos to show what Anonymous is about.

This one is made by an Anonymous member:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0WCLKzDFpI

This one from an independent source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0WCLKzDFpI

To answer your accusation that Anonymous hides their faces, don´t tell their names, here is my humble explanation:

The internet provides a new form of socialitation with other human beings. There are two possible ways to communicate on the internet. One, you can use a "name" (real or a fake one). Second, all users have the same name (often "anonymous").

What happens f.e. on a forum with option no. 1 when identifable users use names ? Everyone has an ego, after a time some users, who spend more time on this forum become "leaders", they can imposition their thoughts , their rules over other users, some users will get angry, will be hurt, feel discriminated, etc ---> lots of drama like in a real life group.

What happens with option no. 2 on a forum ? Everyone has the same name, nobody can build up an ego, only ideas and conversation matter, there are no leaders because they cannot be identified/grow, noone is discriminated because of his thougts/feelings, bad ideas are quickly dismissed by the hive, good ones are easily accepted.

This is Anonymous. We as human beings from all over the world, from different culturual/religious/political/ethical/racial/... background, different ages and gender have CONSCIUOSLY renounced our egos. We care for the victims and for the Scientologists of the Church of Scientology lead by Miscavige.

Alle Anonymous members are equal. No single Anonymous will and wants to be a celebrated leader or a hero in this fight. But we all together with the other critics are.

Anonymous is in my eyes like the people voices. Voices have no name.

Human ego has generated a lot of trouble in the past. David Miscavige is a fine example of a self-important ego. Many groups have failed their goals because of their human egos.


Anonycat, thank you. I get it. By the way your english is pretty good, so don't hesitate to contribute to this discussion. It is very important to me and maybe to others so we can exchange data and ideas.

Well, after your explanation I can agree. Voices have no names.

Now without intending to offend anyone I can also say, a spirit has no name. Only through having a body a spirit then gets an identity and can thus be traced down by our known agencies, or start having problems similar to those you are saying, with groups, group "leaders" etc.

I have no problem with you guys. Actually I find it smart to hide one's identity. But this planet is not paradise so there is a lot of evil around. And anonymity can breed many more things than you can imagine. But since there is suppression in the world sometimes it's better to use anonymity. It takes judgement and some control for things to not go out of control.

On a one to one basis you sound friendly. What I am afraid of is when masses get together. That wouldn't happen just with Anonymous but with any group of people who have no worthwhile leadership putting there some decent policy to guide them correctly through life. Masses tend to err since there is no higher thought in masses. The thought that exists is the average of all the members' minds and allow me to say that is quite low. So, a higher thought, a higher spirit is needed anywhere to make anything wothwhile move on this planet, which is by the way a prison planet. IF you people feel free you should start looking into the history past and recent of this planet and find out what has been going on for eons. The Matrix is just a pale shadow of what's the truth on this planet and the universe. Scientology is not science fiction. It gives one the opportunity to experience for himself things never before known to Man.
What do you think happens when a slave is given the key for this chains? Some will come and say what the f..k are you talking about? What key, what chains, which slaves? And yea right, Scientology does all this. Right. Well in my and many other cases of people this has happened. So, we don't want someone to interfere if they are against Scientology as a whole. If you want Scientology cleaned up, OK, we are with you and we can help each other. But if you feel Scientology is a scam anyway just because some bullies got together and started changing things supported by the american government, well that's no differentiating and insanity comes in. Man doesn't know how to think. He thinks he knows it all and needs no one to guide him through life. After all most people came here to live this life and die. Just die without even trying to touch death and understand death and see beyond death. They think they are just flesh and cannot do anything about it. So their life is threatened constantly and they are blackmailed and they identify themselves to a body, which is perishable. The truly Anonymous guy is the Spirit. Boy, does he wear masks and gives himself made up names life after life. So, the suppressives on the planet don't really want to have such anonymous guys going around, they want them identified every second of their life. They want them in shackles. Not wandering around free. This is why Scientology get a bad name from both outside and inside now. It makes the guy regain his anonymity again. No identity really, no possibility to be identified or controlled by a body society.

The fact that Miscavige has declared hundreds, maybe thousands of loyal Scientologists instead of declaring the actual SPs on this planet like Bush (Sn. or Jr. doesn't matter) and other political leaders and bankers of international banks who suppress the peoples of the world doesn't make Scientology as a philosophy guilty. It does make that very man guilty of crimes. To declare kids and their parents and have them disconnect, to order abortions in the Sea Org for young couples and leaving them childless from the age of 18 or so, ARE crimes. In Dianetics it is written that the doctor who orders an abortion should have his diploma withdrawn. So must a leader who orders that. So, I am with you on those issues. Now, if you want to know more about Scientology OK we can talk about it. But the real version of it not that transvesti version you see today utilizing Tom Cruise for PR. And a bad PR it is. Poor fellow if only he knew who he is working for.

I just wanted to get in comm with you to point out that Scientology has helped people. Miscavige and those behind him are the real targets. They want to turn Scientology into a mechanism of controlling people's minds in the 21st century. Since many religions have lost a lot of their interesting technology when they had some and they are daily losing people to new movements, religions etc. Scientology is their best chance to once again control the masses big time.

So if Anonymous can do something to that direction not just destroy the whole of Scientology (a thing which I know cannot be done anyway) but expose the suppressives (a thing which I know can be done if one acts with Reason), I will be with you guys. I liked Amy's post about Miscavige. Quite sane attitude. Someone should do something about it. Not just sit there and stare at Miscavige destroying everything. What Amy says is courageous. It takes guts to do it. I am willing to help on that. But on condition that the differentiation between the Miscavige type of Scientology and the L. Ron Hubbard Scientology is made. Sounds very stupid for some but it is very true for me. I don't have to be liked here. I have fought for my religion. Maybe there is a chance that some people can get it and help me out. Even if they are anonymous.
Thanks
Theo Sismanides
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:20 pm

This is not true for me. I only know several other anons on a personal basis, we are all successful professionals who believe in free speech and protecting ourselves and our children against threats, including humarights abuses perpetrated by the co$. We are typically happy, fun loving people who spend time with our families and have great, happy lives. I don't hate anyone.


Anonfemme,

OK. I understand you. As I said many times in this forum Scientology is run by Suppressive people. Instead of chasing and harassing those who suppress the world which they don't confront to do or have secret agreements with them, they chase and harass people like you. So I respect your anonymity. However, you should make the differentiation between a transvesti Scientology and the actual Scientology before the 80's.


I want to first start by saying that like most others, I am not against scientologists as people, and I am not really interested in what people believe, it is a personal journey and up to individuals to choose.

I am, however against the corporate greed, lies, criminal activities, and cult behaviour displayed by the CO$. Human rights abuses, disconnection policy and Fair game policies, as well as media control, excessive litigation and false recognition as a religion (and therefore tax free status) are my issues with the co$.


So, as I said, yes they act crazy. I know that. Have in mind what I told you though. And the tax free status is a gift of the american government who bought Scientology for their own purposes.

You're entitled to your opinions. I personally don't like being stalked, harassed, publically defamed and having my life torn apart with lies and corruption by a neo-nazi mafia organisation (OSA) which currently exists within the current co$. That is the reason for my anonymity. I can't speak for anyone else.

I have a family and livelihood to protect, and absolutely nothing to hide, no crimes (actually i got parking tickets on several occasions, perhaps that is a crime in Scientology? I don't know). Unfortunately Scientology has made it very difficult for people to speak out with full disclosure because of their fair game policy.


Understood. I have been declared a Suppressive Person because I insisted on some policy of L. Ron Hubbard (!!!) LOL. So, I know they are fakes and crooks. I am not afraid of them. Take off your mask all you want. Nothing will happen to you. I didn't have any fair game against me because I know things and can use them against them: Enforced abortions on people, illegal employement of aliens with no work permit in Denmark, and also falsification of official employment payrolls. And more. So, why should I be afraid? You shouldn't either. You have a right to say what you want and protest as much as you want. But remember, it's not Scientology you are protesting against. It's a fake system now.

I don't personally like the masks either, but they attract attention, allow anonymity and that's positive because it allows concerned people to speak out about this dangerous cult.


Personally I don't trust masks. I like faces better. But if they are needed OK. I don't mind.

Why does it have to mean anything? Why does it have to be defined by how the co$ defines what something is. The anonymous movement is working, it doesn't need to be defined and transparent and accountable by way of putting names to faces, it just works.


OK let me admit, I was reactive when I said this. But until Anonymous come forth and say they understand the difference between the Miscavige type of Scientology and actual Scientology and admit also that maybe it's Miscavige who causes the troubles and want to work together with ex Scientologists who want Scientology to be cleaned up, I am afraid I am facing a group (not individuals) who just can't see behind their masks. That may sound untrue for you but just because a tooth aches you don't just cut off the head. And I am afraid Anonymous whatever the motives are is heading for the head of Scientology. Of course if this is true they ain't going to succeed because they actually intervene with a religion that has a lot to give to Mankind (much more than Anonymous has to give by far) so they are going to fail because there is a lot of survival value in Scientology. You see, we can see differences. Not all of us, but a lot of us. When you cannot see white from black or even grey from black you are entitled to a big mistake. Now if we get down to shades of black, white and grey oh boy, we can forget about that. Homo sapiens doesn't know of infinite logic. So Scientology is not a movement to separate families. It is used like that by frantic people who are not applying Scientology really.


Nothing in Scientology is new. Astral travel, lucid dreaming, etc have existed in theory for many hundreds (if not thousands) of years prior to L.Ron Hubbard.


Seeing lights and near death experience has been proven to be nothing more than the brain producing a chemical called Ketamine in large quantities during (or close to) death. This results in the "white light" phenomena.


I am sorry. I have quite another background on that. And yes L. Ron Hubbard summated a lot of data and theories to form Scientology and give it a workable form. That's known.

The reactive mind (aka subconcious) mind was theorised by Freud long before L.Ron Hubbard stole it and repackaged it.

1. The conscious mind includes everything that we are aware of. This is the aspect of our mental processing that we can think and talk about rationally. A part of this includes our memory, which is not always part of consciousness but can be retrieved easily at any time and brought into our awareness. Freud called this ordinary memory the preconscious.

2. The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict. According to Freud, the unconscious continues to influence our behavior and experience, even though we are unaware of these underlying influences.


Thanks, I didn't know that he stated it like this. Pretty good. Do you agree with Freud?

Your truth is your truth, and like you, we have a right to express our truth and our opinions. I for one will not stop protesting against the co$ until it stops its abuses and dangerous cult/mafia activities.


I am not here to apologize for the co$ or however you want to call it. Haven't you understood anything of what I have said? Please don't connect me with the CofS. I have been disconnected in any case. If you want to continue this... discussion, please see my viewpoint and let me know that you understood it. Then maybe you are not going to waste your time telling me about protesting or not protesting against the CofS. I just don't care about them. I care about Scientology.
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

anonfemme

EPFer

Posts: 29

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:49 pm

Haven't you understood anything of what I have said? Please don't connect me with the CofS. I have been disconnected in any case. If you want to continue this... discussion, please see my viewpoint and let me know that you understood it. Then maybe you are not going to waste your time telling me about protesting or not protesting against the CofS. I just don't care about them. I care about Scientology.


To be honest I didn't read everything you said, was a bit long :wink:

If you are pleasant and not offensive, I don't have a problem with anything you say or believe. It is good that you've been able to persue your beliefs in Scientology outside of the corrupt structure of the co$, that in itself is a victory of its own.

I also realise that most people (in particular rank and file members) in the co$ are living good, honest lives with the belief that they are truly doing the right thing. I am sure most do not have any grasp of the upper and /or corruption within the co$.


Of course if this is true they ain't going to succeed because they actually intervene with a religion that has a lot to give to Mankind (much more than Anonymous has to give by far) so they are going to fail because there is a lot of survival value in Scientology.


I think you're underestimating anonymous. Some might be in it for the fun at this point but the exposure that they have garnered is bringing many new people to the cause. Whether or not it exists in its current form in the future I don't know, but I don't think it is going away.

Nobody at the top of the co$ is doing anything good for mankind. They might think they are, but it is corrupt to the very core. If anything, they are stopping the good Scientologists from doing anything wortwhile for their case.

If you are speaking about narconon and all of the other front groups, data suggests that none of these groups has anywhere near industry standard results of rehabilitation, and in fact it is quite obvious that these organisations are nothing but front organisations designed to recruit more into the co$.
Much love. xx
Image
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Question for Theo

Spork wrote:Hi Theo,

This is a two-part question that might require a thoughtful and lengthy reply if you feel so inclined.

(a) What do you consider to be the three most powerful or compelling objections to Scientology doctrines you now hold? That's to say, in your opinion which three of your Scientological views are the most susceptible to criticism and why?


Hi Spork,

First of all are we talking about doctrines or are we also talking about policy? Because there is policy e.g. to make a lot of money on condition that the organizations produce and deliver good services. And they call Scientology a money making organization.

On doctrines one I can immediately think of is that of the existence of a spirit.

Then would be the cosmotheory of Scientology about other civilizations and other things which are higher up (upper data) and if we are talking about a new person I wouldn't discuss those so openly. But a lot of criticism comes from there.

So, money making organization, "what spirit (?) it's just the brain who does things for Man" and then the cosmotheory of Scientology which though is a personal matter and to be experienced on a personal basis.

There are other policies as well as that of disconnection but I don't have to say anything about that since it's being abused under the current management who are not really applying Scientology.

(b) How do you propose to answer those objections, not only to your personal satisfaction, but to persuade a (hypothetical) neutral outside observer who is trying to decide him/herself whether to accept those three views or to reject them on the basis of the objections you present?


Look I am not in the mood of persuading anybody right now. Sorry. I wrote quite some things in my previous writings that one might want to read and consider. My interest is to clean up Scientology from the Suppressives that have taken over its Management. On this line we can discuss as much as you want. But to persuade anybody on why those points which are heavily criticized shouldn't because it's not like that or it is like that, I am not in any mood of doing. If you have specific questions go ahead, feel free to ask me.
Thanks a lot
Theo

Spork
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

gogogadget

Clear

Posts: 116

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:13 pm

Post Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:39 pm

The way I understand Anonymous' policy is that as a decentralized group, Anonymous has little or nothing to say about the internal theology of Scientology, rather it is concerned with the CHURCH'S often extra-legal, ahem, irregularities.

This strictly the case of a civic group commenting on the behavior of another civic group in the civic space. The internal politics or theological debates of the church can only be dealt with by the internal constituency, UNLESS those policies become destructive against the legal, societal rights of a member, in which case it becomes the problem of the larger society.

Whether or not Scientology as a doctrine helps people is irrelevant. If I choose to subscribe to that doctrine as a competent actor, I assume any risks of the association. But don't throw your garbage in my yard, and don't seek to hinder the competent actor who wishes to end association with the doctrine. That's what Anonymous is asking.
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:10 am

To be honest I didn't read everything you said, was a bit long :wink:

If you are pleasant and not offensive, I don't have a problem with anything you say or believe. It is good that you've been able to persue your beliefs in Scientology outside of the corrupt structure of the co$, that in itself is a victory of its own.


Thanks. I am not offensive usually. I am only offensive when I am offended. I can be good and pleasant most of the times because people in general try to be polite and good. They try. So I am pleasant with them. :D :D


I also realise that most people (in particular rank and file members) in the co$ are living good, honest lives with the belief that they are truly doing the right thing. I am sure most do not have any grasp of the upper and /or corruption within the co$.


The problem with the rank anf file Scientologists is that they tend to be more social even when there is evil around. They just don't see or right now their stable datum has become Int Management instead of Standard Tech. This is the problem. They tend to believe now rather than observe and make their own conclusion. This happens in ALL groups when suppressives enter in the leadership of groups. They can hide the truth from the masses and lead them where they want. Scientology is no different unfortunately. However, many Scientologists have had the guts to leave and stand up and say what they saw. That is a victory in itself as you said. But most tend to think they are OK and everything is OK although they feel a bit weird. That is called ethics and it takes some training and it takes some certainty for one to be able to stand on his own two feet.


I think you're underestimating anonymous. Some might be in it for the fun at this point but the exposure that they have garnered is bringing many new people to the cause. Whether or not it exists in its current form in the future I don't know, but I don't think it is going away.


I don't think I am underestimating anyone. I wish you have on impact on that corrupt management and I believe you can. That would be a gift to all Scientology and is a very worthwhile cause. What I said you cannot have an impact on is Scientology as a whole, as a philosophy. That's what I said. And it looks like Anonymous do not want to close down Scientology which is good.

Nobody at the top of the co$ is doing anything good for mankind. They might think they are, but it is corrupt to the very core. If anything, they are stopping the good Scientologists from doing anything wortwhile for their case.
That is true and a big word. I hope as I said that Anonymous will help the good Scientologists to keep their religion. That's worthwhile. You will have much more support when you do this.

If you are speaking about narconon and all of the other front groups, data suggests that none of these groups has anywhere near industry standard results of rehabilitation, and in fact it is quite obvious that these organisations are nothing but front organisations designed to recruit more into the co$.


I am not sure about that "data suggests". Which is the data? And where does it come from? I am sorry this is not supported by facts. Just the Learning Courses in Scientology can have more impact on one's education and ability to understand than the whole school system. As to Narconon I don't know what they are doing these days. It might be correct what you said but it's unsubstanciated.

The point is are Anonymous willing to help Scientologists regain their religion and oust the corrupt Management? That's a hard task. If that's the case I am with you.
Thanks
Theo
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

The Chief

Clear

Posts: 98

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:53 pm

Post Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:27 pm

theo wrote:Thanks.


You're welcome. Sorry for the first section being cut out so to speak but in my thought, you may have slightly overcomplicated the basics of cognitive ability and underestimated just how complicated our definition of understanding is. While it would be wonderful to define all human understanding in a geometrical triumverite I wouldn't be so quick to describe it so. You have forgotten a fourth basic one, one fundamental even to basic physics: perspective.

Perspective is hugely important in the context of any observation, discussion or even religious inference. I'd love to go on about this, but I will instead take the easy way out and refer you to several physical effects to this end, reliant on relativity and perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect - the Doppler Effect, the audible change in wavelength and frequency relative to the observer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle - the Uncertainty Principle, a manifest example of the ability for an observation to alter or render uncertain the characteristics of a situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity - Special Relativity, proposed by Einstein which institutes physical constants such as mass altering as an object approaches light speed.

To my view you have a Scientologist view on the nature of communication. All three of your concepts are ones of concordance which is certainly a very Scientologist ordained view. One view, one voice, and the True Way and the Bridge. However to take a simplistic view in nature, the interference pattern of two electromagnetic or longitudinal waves imposing upon once another is called constructive interference. This effect can also impose a condition called resonance, which is the possibly destructive driven vibration of particles within a substance at their natural frequency.

All of this means that while in theory a perfectly understood medium of communication MIGHT be in some way effective, in other ways it can be very destructive. There is usually an opposing viewpoint, however wrong it might be. This in itself could be natural consequence of existing in this universe, and remains even at the most basic level, in the form of anti-matter (ref: http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html). However suggesting that basic animal behaviour is governed by the existance of anti-matter is more of a stretch than I am willing to make :p Correlation is not causality.


I agree with you on most of the above except on one thing. Man is different than other mammals in that he has used his mind instead of growing longer teeth or claws etc. The mind. A fascinating tool for Man. You have to admit that Man has used that tool to discover theories that work and develop technologies that have change the way we live. 15 years ago we didn't have cell phones and now everybody does and everybody can communicate with anyone anywhere. Thousands of other inventions and Man is now facing a big problem of polution on Earth. That species has an impact on the Planet no other species ever had. That should make us wonder.


No other species has ever had the technology we have. It is our technology that in some way alters this planet. However by comparison ot say the thirty to fifty gigaton event that destroyed the dinosaurs our impact has been relatively minor. Once climate change wipes out our civilisation as it will unless we change it, the Earth will return to planetary equilibrium within a couple of hundred thousand years or so. Nothing spectacular in a planetary lifecycle, I assure you.

The only good analogy that I have found that can be Real to people of today is the one between a Man and a Computer. Maybe it's stupid and naive but for me it works.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this analogy. In only the broadest of contexts are we anything like a computer. We are certainly vastly more complicated and far more fragile than a computer. I'm not sure i like the idea of being inherantly compared to a man made construct that was made in the way it was due to the inherant lack of an ability to program a human psyche into a computer. I believe it's very much a simplification of a very complicated and extremely worthwhile research effort. Most importantly though is the one key thing that seperates us from computers.

We exist to reproduce. They don't.

And you have someone whose computer runs on Windows and he can't read Linux. Two totally different programs (platforms, I think is the correct word). So Linux is Unreal and cannot be read much less understood by the computer which uses Windows. The same happens with the mind. As with languages, for example. If I started speaking Greek to you here...


Language is a natural construct that humans have complicated through vocal structures. If I could see you, I would have other ways of understanding your meaning, for example body language and tone. I can tell when someone's being nice to me. I can still communicate with you so long as I rely on other means than the verbal method of communication we call speaking.

Basically if I were looking at you, unless you deliberately tried to mislead me (something again inherantly human, animals aren't anything but honest except for their survival) I would know more or less your intentions.

Don't take it literally Man is NO WAY a Computer. But there is a someone there who most of the times is not even acknowledged for the good work he does in keeping the system running.


To continue the analogy though, the best programs are obvious and easy to use. To extend it further, clearly we are successful.

So why doesn't this information avail itself freely? A dog is afterall on some level aware that it is a dog. It is capable of making tactical and self preserving decisions. So why would a spirit not avail itself? Why would it need to complicate itself by existing in another being? Where is the need for this animation? Evolution provides a need through natural selection, but something merely existing for the sake of it does not need such an idea.

So why would these things wait so long for sentient life?

Sorry Chief. A selfish person cannot be that honest. You are honest, though, in that you are selfish. I can admit that. As for atheist saints, ha,ha that was a good one. Look I am not picking on you. You are honest in that you say you are selfish. But why pretend to be a sel fish? when you can be any fish around? I am not joking now. I am just trying to tell you that the real You, man, is not just sel fish. You have much more connection to the world than they have persuaded you you have. You are not a selfish thing. You are You. And only you can say and find out actually how much of You is part of Life or how much of Life is part of You.


Selfish isn't a charged word. It's just a focus upon yourself. I could very easily go out there and change as many lives as I could, but I don't. This is because I am not a completely selfless person. I could be, but I'm not. Perhaps that makes me less human than I'd like to be, but i don't really think so.

That's what I mean when I say selfish. I do less for others than I theoretically could. Largely because if I am completely selfless, I won't be able to continue being so for long. It's not in my interests. Being honest has no degradation on being selfish :)

Ethics is inherent to Man. Go kill a Scientologist right now. No, you are not going to do it. Why? Because you care for him to keep on with his life even if a Scientologist. That's ethics. Ethics is survival not only of Self and Selfishes but of ALL Life.


Ethics is a word that Scientology has corrupted to form into a kind of guilt trip. You seem to stray quite a long way from the party line (which is a very good thing btw) so perhaps you have a different meaning. I do dislike Scientology taking words that have clearly defined meanings and pulling a kind of Orwellian doublespeak on them though.

By the way I am not a saint either. OK. And I am not a theist. I am a theo. All these -ism things make me uncomfortable. I should clarify the suffix -ism I guess.


Theism is the belief in a deiety. Polytheistic means multiple gods. Monotheistic means a single god. Nothing more.


But on the other hand I don't need to read every skeptic's thesis to understand that some things appear to be true just because we agree and say so and not because the skeptic has written 1.000 pages to persuade us on the contrary. I mean how would the skeptic explain to us that while the Earth is running around itself and the within this Universe at a certain (probably rather high speed, maybe you happen to know and it would be interesting to know that) we right now, right here aren't moving at all unless an earthquake happens...


Newton's Laws of Motion describe this perfectly. I'll summarise them.

1. The rest state of any given particle is preserved until a net force acts upon it.
2. The force upon a given particle is the product of its physical mass multiplied by its rate of change in velocity or acceleration.
3. Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction.

The actual wording of these laws is much more complicated and a sum of vector quantities but what it basically means is that at the moment, your relative rest state is some 15,000 kilometers per hour, whizzing around the sun. The ONLY time you feel a force is when your relative position changes and you accelerate relative to your rest state. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion) These are rough approximations of the true relativistic and quantum mechanical force derivations but accurate on a macroscopic scale.

All Hubbard was describing is a "point of reference". It's nothing special. Honest. He complicated the shit out of it, but other than that, it's a fairly normal concept. Nothing spiritual. Nothing special. Certainly nothing unique to Scientology. A constantly changing frame of reference is integral to orientation in the physical world, infact obtaining one exactly is almost impossible (Uncertainly Principle) since the very act of obtaining one makes other quantities unmeasurable :)

So, all this thought resulting in a big confusion can be put in order when you find your stable datum with them and say: "Oh, they even have not organized their subject and have no stable data any more and the old stable data have been invalidated by new ones which aren't really picked up as stable data either because they are so complicated themselves that we just come back to the law of gravity which surely is a stable datum and that's as far as we can get."


Herein lies the problem. The Law of Gravity isn't actually one. It's approximate to within a certain degree and does NOT function as stated on the quantum mechanical level. It also loses a colossal amount of force to somewhere, more than it should which leads to this derivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) which is about a hundred times more complicated than any philosophical branch I have ever attempted to understand. I will explain certain elements of its derivation if you want and provide non-wikipedia proofs, but the truth is I can't even come close to understanding it. It's beyond me, for now.

In terms of belief I am probably putting more on the line than you are :p What I think and believe in, can be disproven.

You have different potentials in Theta (spirit). Of course I wouldn't attempt here to explain and prove anything. A spirit is basically a unit of space and energy production. What we now see as a world is the result of a whole lotta things. But because it's composed of Matter and Energy it just doesn't mean a thing. The point is who is the User my friend to that program called Life. If you think we have all been conceived by mud, well it's your life go ahead and be a believer. There is no proof to it though. But if you observe the world and start doing so you will soon discover that behind any animated matter, no matter how small or big, there is a something that you cannot really put your finger on.


All matter is animated though. That's the problem this idea faces. The only state where matter is not animated that I know of for certain is at absolute zero, which in the context of thermodynamics is an impossible circumstance.
<<

Justin Chaos

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:40 pm

Location: Behind you

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:27 am

Hey...that was an interesting read.

Just a quick input...there's nothing original in Scientology, whatever you find good in it it's been stolen from different Bits and pieces of Psychology, ancient cultures and other stuff.

LRH was no scientist, Scientology has no access to any technology, nothing whatsoever, in fact...Scientology is the opposite to Science.

The main reason why they want to consider Psychiatry the enemy is because Scientology is, indeed, plain glibberish nonsense taken from different aspects of different disciplines all put together by a Sci-Fi writer and any psychologist or Psychiatrist consulted on this will tell that you need help if you believe in that.

Scientology works???

Not more than the Mayan Calendar, Human Design, Hypnosis or any other Self-help new age discipline for desperate people feeling lonely.

People wants to believe in something because they're afraid of many things, and it's not difficult to convince any lost soul about anything...just tell them what they wanna hear, or something funky and exciting to light up their boredom a bit.

So no, Scientology is a scam regardless of LRH or DM, if people want to believe in it...so be it, I don't care.

Which pisses me off is the church status and tax exception, after I get rid of that they can carry on as much as they want 'til OT15, or to the total freedom I don't care.
<<

gogogadget

Clear

Posts: 116

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:13 pm

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:38 pm

Have there been any noted scientists that were scientologists? Or have any significant, universally recognized discoveries come out of the scientology community?

Have any scientology based discoveries benefitted the entirety of humanity, regardless of any person's membership in the church?
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:57 pm

gogogadget wrote:Have there been any noted scientists that were scientologists? Or have any significant, universally recognized discoveries come out of the scientology community?

Have any scientology based discoveries benefitted the entirety of humanity, regardless of any person's membership in the church?


Thanks gogogadget. I don't know of that. Possibly not. However Scientology as a philosophy has concentrated more on the subject of humanities and not on technology as in scientific technology.


The subject of humanities (philosophy, literature and such) is way behind as compared to science. There is definitely an imbalance between the two. Scientology has concentrated on philosophical principles and has thrown a "new" factor in a materialistic world. That of the spirit.

Since anything non material is considered mumbo jumbo in a world which only understands of force as in Atomic Bombs, you can safely say that Scientology has not produced any Scientists. However, science when it's not driven by ethics can result in Nagasakis. And that's the result of the world we live in. So, I can also safely answer to you that any Scientology that is worth it's truths and principles will produce educated and ethical Scientists. Of course, I will repeat myself by saying that the current Scientology is not in the hands of Scientologists, probably you've read that already. So Scientology can also produce robots. A tool can be used either way. It's upon Man to decide which way it'll be used.


It's going to take some time for such a... concept of the existence of spirit (sounds strange that I have to write it like this) to sink in. I believe that once Man starts thinking as a Spirit primarily, without any intervention and black propaganda by the Merchants of Chaos who just want Man to obsessively focus on his material side (otherwise they are going to have a hell of a time and they don't want that), new sciences are going to pop up, which are going to consider Man as a integral part of the world and not just a cog in the wheel. And Our World (as we experience right now with our planet) also an integral part of Man whose healthy condition is indispensable. Until then I am afraid there is going to be a battle here on Earth. You can hear the bombings already going on around, didn't yea?

You see, a civilized world, forum etc. is one where it's members use communication and skills that only a spirit understands and appreciates. In others words some intellectuality. The more Man proceeds to Matter the more coarse he/she is. The arts of humanities (any arts not just Scientology) will help improve this for Mankind. That's some contribution also to a blind science. Don't you think?
Thanks
Theo
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
<<

Justin Chaos

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:40 pm

Location: Behind you

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:16 pm

theo wrote:
However Scientology as a philosophy has concentrated more on the subject of humanities and not on technology as in scientific technology.

That's not what LRH said

theo wrote:The subject of humanities (philosophy, literature and such) is way behind as compared to science. There is definitely an imbalance between the two. Scientology has concentrated on philosophical principles and has thrown a "new" factor in a materialistic world. That of the spirit.

Being greek I assume you are aware that this is nothing new at all.
theo wrote:Since anything non material is considered mumbo jumbo in a world which only understands of force as in Atomic Bombs,
Says who?
theo wrote:you can safely say that Scientology has not produced any Scientists.
We agree on that, 100%
theo wrote:However, science when it's not driven by ethics can result in Nagasakis. And that's the result of the world we live in. So, I can also safely answer to you that any Scientology that is worth it's truths and principles will produce educated and ethical Scientists.
I beg to differ
theo wrote:It's going to take some time for such a... concept of the existence of spirit (sounds strange that I have to write it like this) to sink in. I believe that once Man starts thinking as a Spirit primarily, without any intervention and black propaganda by the Merchants of Chaos who just want Man to obsessively focus on his material side (otherwise they are going to have a hell of a time and they don't want that), new sciences are going to pop up, which are going to consider Man as a integral part of the world and not just a cog in the wheel.
If the Man can afford it...of course, that's understood?
theo wrote:The more Man proceeds to Matter the more coarse he/she is. The arts of humanities (any arts not just Scientology) will help improve this for Mankind. That's some contribution also to a blind science. Don't you think?
Thanks
Theo

OK so...SC is an art now, didn't know that, however real art it's been improving the man's spirit since the beggining of time.
<<

gogogadget

Clear

Posts: 116

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:13 pm

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:32 pm

There's something disturbing to me in your language, theo. There is a yearning for a more perfect world, one which you already have defined despite there not being a historical ascendent we can point to and know it works.

You have a nostalgia for the future, and sorry to say, some people (not you, obviously) have in the past dreamt of a program for a perfect world, then attempted to implement it. It rarely turns out okay, because dreamers rarely leave room for the contingencies that create nightmares.

Yearning for universal justice and tranquility is of course noble, but none of us have the sort of divine, extra-temporal perspective to make sense of how to make that happen. Hegel tried. Marx tried. The academics who have propped up the Bush administration have tried. But no one has succeeded. How do we know? Because we still live in this imperfect world.


We don't know what a perfect world would be. Philosophy has tried to define that for thousands of years, and more than one Analytic philosopher has quietly suggested that project won't pan out. Other philosophers have argued that if we reached that goal, we would lose our uniquely human awareness.

As the world becomes more complex, our understanding of the present becomes shallower and shallower, and whereas the medieval mind could predict some sort of consistency and make rational choices over a long periods (thanks to a theocentric society where very little changed), in the present our ability to analyze and project strategies over time is dismally foreshortened as well.

Each of us simultaneously exist in multiple societies and cultures. The only cohesive thing you can say about our present society is that it is hypercomplex. There are no platonic threads ("Ethics", dialectical materialism, YHWH, etc.) that can lead us collectively out of our condition.

And that's why I'm not sure how Scientology could produce a skilled scientist, since its claims belong to a pre-scientific, pre-complex and pre-modern time. LRH made claims that cannot be reproduced, about events that never happened, can not be shown to ever have happened or be happening now, and cannot be reliably said to happen in the future. Why LRH should receive the benefit of doubt and not, say, Mormonism or Buddhism, or any other faith isn't really that clear. Seems you can choose randomly and get the same benefit.

Anyway, you're obviously a passionate and thoughful man, and I hope you have found a way to live happily. Thanks for listening to my rant.
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:41 pm

Ultimate order can be just as evil as unlimate chaos ....

Interesting that a Star Trek Voyager episode (Deathwish) and a fantasy novel series (SerpantWar Saga, Conclave of Shadows) explained this to me....
<<

theo

EPFer

Posts: 26

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:04 am

Location: ATHENS, GREECE

Post Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Justin Chaos wrote:
theo wrote:
However Scientology as a philosophy has concentrated more on the subject of humanities and not on technology as in scientific technology.

That's not what LRH said


Justin (I'd rather omit the Chaos, sorry, I tend to be optimistic in life).

Now that you've calmed down a bit I can write to you though this comm was not referring to you. Anyway, since I tend to communicate with people rather than not communicate I will tell you a couple of things though I perceive quite some antagonism on your communication. However that may be, I will ask you a couple of things since it seems you know a lot.

How do you know that's not what LRH said? Have you read any LRH? How much? Were you a Scientologist or attending anyway some course or read a book or something? How do you know?

I mean you don't need to be a Scientologist to say what you are saying but you have to give me some reference or something where what you are saying can easily be understood. Just saying: "No, it isn't a computer what you are facing Theo", just doesn't convince me, man.... So, wrong way to say it and please next time you utter some of this antagonistic type of flow, incomplete type of know best answers, be a bit cautious of the basics of exchange of ideas and be more real to people providing some reference for what you are saying or some evident proof about it. See, I used to be a lawyer and I know a few things about proving and disproving statements and allegations. There is some basic stuff that has to be kept in so that one can be believed by someone who is not just believing of course whatever he/she hears. Do you want to be listened to by others or just heard? I bet you want to be listened to. So, respect those basics, please.

theo wrote:The subject of humanities (philosophy, literature and such) is way behind as compared to science. There is definitely an imbalance between the two. Scientology has concentrated on philosophical principles and has thrown a "new" factor in a materialistic world. That of the spirit.


Being greek I assume you are aware that this is nothing new at all.


Exactly the opposite. Greece right now is so low that it cannot even protect around the world a name of a region of it called Macedonia. A neighbouring country claims to be Macedonia and has intentions to re-create the old Macedonian country. But part of that Macedonia belongs to Greece for years now. And despite all of our philosophy and it's teachings which are classical now, we cannot really do even that. So Greece is going down the chute. Once Macedonia was bowing to that philosophy of Greece and even Alexander the Great had as his master Aristotle, a Greek philosopher. However, Justin, time passes and civilizations pass away with it. No, Greece these days is not what you think. They don't even give a damn about spirits. They need Euros now. No philosophy, nothing exists on this burren land for philosophers and philosophy. Greece is stuck on a win. The win of that big civilization back then. They were at the top of the world. They had everything, the whole world at their feet. That cannot be forgotten easily. But now they cannot see that things have changed. Go ask how many Greeks believe in the existence of a spirit. And probablly (I haven't read much since school days) in Ancient Greece that idea was a given.

So, there IS something new here. And that is reinstating that idea. That of the Existence of a Spirit. And I am not talking about Vodka here. I live in this same world as you do. I watch TV, watch or listen to the news, read magazines with news from all around the world. Been over more than 15 States in the U.S. and in Europe in 3-4 countries. I have seen modern societies and nowhere is different than here. No society lives with the idea of "hey, we are spiritual beings, what the f..k are we doing here, working our as...s off, for those guys, let's go have a beer and let's go discuss opening our business. The hell with them. We are immortal after all, ha,ha". Well, go say this and you end up with the cake on your face. Ha,ha. I know what you are thinking. You wanna through a cake on my face, ha,ha. You see, the lighter and less serious you become (the more, that is, you are yourself, nothing less serious and lighter than the Spirit, remember in its pure form it has no mass, wavelength, or even space or time. Boy, that's light) the less you care for those cakes. And the more solid (=serious=solid=serious=solid, like solid citizen) someone becomes, the more one tends to obey the laws of the material Universe, and probably tends to have cakes falling on his face all the time. But a spirit...pfff...: "... so what, it was a cake,... mmmmm, tastes good, yummy!!!"


theo wrote:Since anything non material is considered mumbo jumbo in a world which only understands of force as in Atomic Bombs,


Says who?


Says the Germans and Japanese who ended the war immediately right after Nagasaki. Weren't they part of the world? And a strong part of it at that time? They were fighting the Americans, right? The only guys who were up to fighting against the Americans.

theo wrote:you can safely say that Scientology has not produced any Scientists.


We agree on that, 100%


Hey, Man, something we agree upon. Justin 1 point. Theo nada (0).

theo wrote:However, science when it's not driven by ethics can result in Nagasakis. And that's the result of the world we live in. So, I can also safely answer to you that any Scientology that is worth it's truths and principles will produce educated and ethical Scientists.


I beg to differ




I like your laconic (brief) answers but since you tend to disagree with anything I say, please be as polite as to provide some explanation. Basic stuff, as I said. But I will remember that, hmmm: "I beg to differ". Sounds good, Man, very convincing.

theo wrote:It's going to take some time for such a... concept of the existence of spirit (sounds strange that I have to write it like this) to sink in. I believe that once Man starts thinking as a Spirit primarily, without any intervention and black propaganda by the Merchants of Chaos who just want Man to obsessively focus on his material side (otherwise they are going to have a hell of a time and they don't want that), new sciences are going to pop up, which are going to consider Man as a integral part of the world and not just a cog in the wheel.


If the Man can afford it...of course, that's understood?


No, sorry, it's not understood what you mean "if Man can afford it". Please explain.

theo wrote:The more Man proceeds to Matter the more coarse he/she is. The arts of humanities (any arts not just Scientology) will help improve this for Mankind. That's some contribution also to a blind science. Don't you think?
Thanks
Theo


OK so...SC is an art now, didn't know that, however real art it's been improving the man's spirit since the beggining of time.


Well, I bet you are not a native English speaker or you would know that "art" in plural means the liberal arts (literature, music... philosophy, etc.) as distinguished from the sciences. Webster's New World College Dictionary.

So "Art" in "the arts" doesn't just mean music or drawing but also means philosophy. Now since maybe I gave you 2 misunderstood words I will clear up for you also the word "humanities": the branches of learning concerned with human thought and relations, as distinguished from the sciences; esp., literature, philosophy, history, etc. Webster's New World College Dictionary.

So there might be some things that you might not know Justin. You see, I am now 47 years old in this lifetime. I had 2 certificates in 2 foreign languages, I was certified and (supposedly) able to teach those 2 languages. And still when I started clearing words I understood how much we are missing since language has its complexities. I can understand that school doesn't teach anyone how to clear up words and how to be able to enrich one's vocabulary not in a robotic, academic way but as a master of language. And a master of language one should be. After all symbols (words are symbols in case you haven't noticed, they are symbols for things and certainly they aren't the things they symbolize, the word "cat" is not the animal "cat") are too low as a means of communication for a spirit. Now, add to this the fact that spiritual beings are not properly educated in language and the use of it, but are given words to memorize and if they don't know them "oh boy, YOU don't know that!!! Oh, what a shame, what a crime!!!"

"You didn't know that "arts" means that and that, oh Justin, you... you... which school did you attend? Hmmm, ah, OK. Well..." Well, I hope you are getting me. It's all bs, Justin. Because it's not your fault. You live in a system that never intended to really educate you and me in the first place. They wanted to train us to be their servants, in the best of cases.

So, I hope we get to know each other a bit better. Remember I am a declared SP by the Church. I am against it's Management. Yes, you can say anything about them. But for LRH my friend, before you say anything you should have some personal viewpoint about. And right now, through me, you are getting some, even indirect, personal viewpoint. I wish you had the wish to get a direct look yourself. But that's not going to happen because you (or others, I don't know) have put insurmountable obstacles in your way. My advice. In your life, listen to yourself and your instinct no matter what the others have to say around you. But listen to yourself. Not just put him aside everytime some voice comes up and whispers to you "BS, Justin, the guy is nuts". Well, maybe it was the first guy really who did listen to you. You know that. "How can that be?" You ask yourself. Well, life is full of surprises Justin. And I think you've done some good things to deserve a better cycle of communication, at least.

Thanks
Theo
P.S. And remember. The voice inside. On the last two lines, it'll go "blahhhhhhhhh". Just skip it, Man. Just put it to the side, well, and see something positive about all this. bye now
THEO SISMANIDES, EX-SO
PreviousNext

Return to Pro Scientology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software