Greetings!
Author: misiunas
Posted: Fri Nov 24 2000 07:57 pm
Welcome to the new FZA Forum.
I am still in the process of determining what type of message archives we will be keeping, so any comments along these lines are welcome. Everyone loves to have their messages kept in perpetuity, but realistically, most messages can be safely discarded after some pre-arranged particular period, otherwise we will all suffer from 'archive' overload - lots of messages that no one will care to take the time to read.
The exact process of determining which messages should be kept and which should be discarded is still being worked out - so please provide any comments that you may have along these lines.
Once option: a 'moderator' can be assigned the responsibility of determining what messages should be archived.
Another option: automatic message pruning after, for example, 35 main topic messages.
There are lots of options, so speak up if this concerns you.
Author: paul matulef
Posted: Sat Nov 25 2000 02:41 am
I personally like the idea of keeping everything,
but pragmatically, I agree there is no reason to do so. Many of the threads are just filled with inane rambling, swearing (I contributed to some of that) or other such nonsense.
What I would like to keep would be those threads that contain valuable technical discussions, or discussions that relate to individuals actual experience or true history of the "church".
I also would think that many of the threads that contained what might be considered "natter" to be highly valuable and often cathartic to the individuals involved. It may not be necessary to keep all of it, but it may be valuable to others who are thinking about leaving the church.
I personally was delighted to find how many others have had similar bizarre or difficult situations within Scientology.
Author: misiunas
Posted: Sat Nov 25 2000 04:44 pm
Excellent points.
We all get something different out of reading the same thread. Extracting the 'real' data from threads will require a very objective approach. The results will not please everyone, but the nice thing about thoughts, purposes and experiences is that they can be recreated very easily. This is one of the reasons that I favor the approach of not keeping all messages forever.
I am keeping you in mind for the title "Archive Moderator" :-)
Maybe a monthly (or weekly) 'best of' postings could be saved to a special area. Lots of options to consider...
Author: Grailer
Posted: Sun Nov 26 2000 05:47 am
Well I know for certain I was most happy to have place to "natter" for a while but I am kind of over that and much more interested in the pragmaticity of what works, what evolves the subject. In other words I am looking for what is right about the subject and workable and I saw a lot posted here over the last few years.
Author: Grailer
Posted: Sun Nov 26 2000 06:35 am
Well perhaps I can do a little better than that last post. This is just a bit about what LRH actually did. He took the five parts of the subject Philosophy and expanded them in a workable manner. Something like this:
1. ONTOLOGY: The study of Being, Beingness, The Static, Route To Infinity, Exteriorization etc.
2. ETHICS: Divided into the individuals own values and the Moral Code of the Society.
3. AESTHETICS: It's wave length, function and importance. The Spirit of Play.
4. EPISTOMOLOGY: Knowing how to know. The Eval. Tech. The Conditions. The chart of Attitudes and it's buttons, Concept Processing, Black and White Processing.
5. LOGIC: An infinity valued logic system, The various axioms, logics, mechanics of particle physics, the factors.
It would take a book to do this right. My point is simply that the whole subject can be divided up and understood in this light, i.e. as a part of a known subject matter Philosophy. And Philosophy itself falls under a single heading: i.e. The Love Of Wisdom or Prajanaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) or if you will, the Wisdom To Know The Difference. And does this become the Certainity of Knowingness that is ones own Beingness?
Sure, why not?
There are many ways to divide thing up so that they make sence. Lots of good ways to look at them.
Author: blork
Posted: Sun Nov 26 2000 05:36 pm
So why in sam hill did Ron not
simplify the overall philosophy?
To write some simple books clarifying
an overview of the "scientology"
philosophy?
To me it still looks like it was delibereately
made as complex as possible. He made the assumption (or deliberately set it up) to assume
that people would have to study step by step endless volumes to get the gist of what he was getting at.
For example, he wrote "history of man" but did
not go back to update his overall view of the universe later in a simple to see and understand form.
He certainly had time to write 10 (or whatever) new science fiction books, but didn't just come up with a simple explanation and set up the "bridge" as a massive reging process where
people where kept in the dark and spoon fed just what the person needed to know to feel motivated to pay for the next step.
Author: FreeBeing
Posted: Sun Nov 26 2000 06:21 pm
Blork,
I think that if the basics are understood well the rest will be suficiently comprehencible. Some things cannot be distilled or they will not have suficent detail to be able to think with the data when a non textbook situation rears its ugly face.
Anyway, thats my opinion.
Sincerely,
FreeBeing
Author: Tom
Posted: Sun Nov 26 2000 06:28 pm
All of my messages are dispensable. I have learned a lot through communicating and listening. I've learned enough that my old posts were just steps toward new more informed view points.
I would however save the important standards which have wondered in from other sites(like the McDonald papers and other relevant information) that is posted elsewhere, as a back up to secure it's survival. These documents are too valuable to be dependant on one or two web site.
The entire historical section of the German freezone site fits this discription, as a historical background of the Freezone is important orientation, and was for me a step towards really understanding the as isness of a problem, namely the political manipulations and power struggles in the church which oppose the basic humanitarian goals of Scientology.
Author: spongie
Posted: Mon Nov 27 2000 01:58 am
I love ruminating. But Ron was on an ever forward path of research. Sometimes he went back on his steps and put things in order, like, what were the most workable processes of the last year, or so. This eventually ended up with the Bridge. However much of his early research data was bypassed, to be found only in the tapes or R&Ds.
People in the Church have a difficulty to apply eval to the Tech, due to religious respects or false interpretation of the Technical Degrades, that made every datum as important as every other.
So the freezone has the advantage of being able to go at Ron's work, and really categorize it like proposed earlier on the thread. This will give rise to new insights, and could add some new levels to the Bridge and give better knowledge of livingness to Scientologists.
Spongie, the Mad Cow
Author: Tom
Posted: Mon Nov 27 2000 04:06 am
"Expendable" I mean. Dixie cups are dispensable. My posts are expendable. There are tape "dispensers", so I don't think that I have an MU. Just a Sloidian Frip.
Author: John
Posted: Mon Nov 27 2000 05:05 am
Grailer,
The bottom line of those words is that they can't be described in words. The mystics search a higher plane which can't be understood in definitive terms. The mind of deduction and reason does not look into the mind realization. Realization usually occurs spontaneously and without provocation. Similarly the experience of truth is not something which can be "attained." after all, what are you trying to get? I have given up to the realization that there is nothing I can do to change the fact that I can't stop change. Although it makes many people feel better to believe that they can control change by differentiating their lives with things like auditing, that change is only superficial. If you brainwash yourself enough you will begin to believe that you can manipulate the fabric of reality in your favor, Ron did. In my experience there is nothing which can overcome destiny. The universe was here long before me, and I can't even begin to understand it. In fact my destruction was determined before I was born. Accept your fate, find peace. Life is shorter than you think.
Author: Grailer
Posted: Mon Nov 27 2000 05:38 am
New insights, bridges, processes all the above are doable by being able to think with the data. And if per chance one can deploy other subject matters in the form of comperable magnitude well the field becomes very rich indeed. It a form of the "mirror like wisdom" werein the reflections are known to exist within one own mind. As such when the fix is perceived to be "again and again look within thine own mind" for the pictures, concepts etc that set this stuff in motion, you know if it should happen to get to that point and you find yourself below aesthetics on the tone scale, you do see certain possibilities in rearranging data. And it is very good to have a Free Zone and an internet where data is available as well as the many different viewpoints to view it from. Datum's unlike dixie cups do actually tend to become much more solid as they are considered and agreed upon. Concepts, well these are always problamatic in their duality and its best to just process them. The dixie cups, well technically speaking they are degradable, like datums of equal value, they have a distinct tendency toward a lower state.
Author: John
Posted: Tues Nov 28 2000 04:42 am
Apparently nothing has permanence. All things are subject to entropy, that is all appearances vanish with time. The human intellect itself degrades due to biological and environmental factors. So if you are saying that permanence exists I would dub that as supernatural. But who believes in the supernatural? Evidently it does not exist, evidently.
Author: misiunas
Posted: Tues Nov 28 2000 02:38 pm
Thanks for all the responses. I am glad to see that being stuck in the past is not a popular idea. When it comes time to sort through the old posts I will only keep those that I feel are the most helpful to future visitors. If you have special requests, please be sure to note them here.
One of the things that will definately be removed are those posts that contain long passages of copywritten material posted with no other purpose than one of reproduction. The Forum is for discussion. Creating risk is a game best left to the critics.
As always, your feedback is encouraged.
Paul
Author: RKN
Posted: Wed Nov 29 2000 12:57 am
Of course you must be the judge, but you're obviously talking about the fileclerk's posts.
Personally I thought they were very valuable for getting an idea of what the Philadelphia Doctorate Course was all about. Some people would like to explore it in greater depth by buying the course, so they could be seen as an advertisement for it, and if the clams had any sense they would reprint the posts in a cheap booklet.
True religions post their so-called sacred scriptures on the WWW. Only the clam church likes to keep them secret in order to deceive people as to their true nature and make up their minds for them, or mystify them to get the suckers in. Who would want to become a member of the clam church if he thought it would end up with him believing in Xenu and his body thetans etc? I'm not having a shot at the so-called church by saying this. Joe Harrington's article in the thread "OT Confidentiality" had something useful to say about this But sometimes clams need better understanding too, and this can best be gained from open discussion, I think. I'm certainly not saying all of Scientology is a fraud.
Author: Tom
Posted: Sun Dec 03 2000 05:26 pm
Yea, the fileclerks posts were great for someone who never got to see the PDCs. Creative processing is hidden behind the high cost of the tapes.
Author: lflewover
Posted: Tues Dec 05 2000 02:04 am
But the transcripts are available on the web.
Author: Tom
Posted: Tues Dec 05 2000 02:54 pm
Where
Author: RKN
Posted: Wed Dec 06 2000 07:41 pm
Nobody would be stupid enough to tell you because they wouldn't be there long. But I can confirm that the PDC was on the web yesterday, but the beloved tsherch or whatever you call it is onto them and has already partly closed them down.
Author: Paul Matulef
Posted: Wed Dec 06 2000 09:27 pm
How else will anyone find out about something
if somebody doesn't tell you?
The "cat and mouse" game with the church only
makes people curious or skeptical and will eventually lead to all the information being
freely available anyhow.
The church is built on creating interest by keeping the data secret. This is one of the
church's "games". Well, LRH promoted the idea of games, and if the church wants to play them, then there will continue to be a wealth of people
willing to play.
Maybe if the church would just be straightforward, honest, and work for the true interest and integrity of mankind, then we could just get onto
a bigger and better game.
Author: tech fairy
Posted: Fri Dec 08 2000 08:29 pm
Tom
If you are REAL good and leave on open link to a Hotmail or yahoo or other annonimous email account available maybe the good tech fairy would bring you your very own copy of the PDCs. for Christmas.
Author: Tom
Posted: Sun Dec 10 2000 11:48 pm
biofeed@hotmail.com
I believe in the tech fairy
Author: Daxiou
Posted: Tues Dec 12 2000 03:26 am
Wecome back Paul. (What names did you use when/if you ever stoped by here--if you don't mind me asking) There was a bit of talk about you here and there the whole time you were gone. Drop me a line sometime will you?
Take care Mike, all the best!
The place changed quite a bit with your comeback
Author: Professor Crumbcake
Posted: Tues Dec 12 2000 05:12 am
It has changed. Dax is now working for Osa.
Author: Daxiou
Posted: Tues Dec 12 2000 03:00 pm
Prof. Crumbcake, there is no way I can prove to you that I am not working for Osa or anything else. Who says I am not?
Author: wordman
Posted: Sat Dec 23 2000 08:42 am
Hello to all of you. I miss having contact with all my fellow staff members from STL 73-76 and those SCN's from L.A. in the 80's. Please email if you are unhindered and free to do so.
To everyone else, if you would like to receive a copy of the poem I wrote during and after the Religious Freedom Crusade in L.A., please email me. You will enjoy it.
I finished a 3 year staff contract and have never regretted what I learned. It was fabulous. I am sorry that the orgs didn't work the way they should have. Guess I will find out more about that as I read all the viewpoints on this site.
Thanks for being here and communicating!
Author: misiunas
Posted: Sat Dec 23 2000 04:04 pm
Daxiou, hello again. Mike is still around and thank God for his efforts in keeping this site alive. I've listed his name on the 'About' page on the new site as one of the people to be acknowledged - for good reason.
I've been waiting for the right opportunity to 'come clean' on my identity usage, so thanks for providing it. I've posted here, on alt.clearing.technology and alt.religion.scientology using various names for various purposes. I think I've just about reached an ep on identities although there is one that I may use again for what I have in mind. Here's a list:
HairyKrishna
Public Relations, Church of Scienotology
Omen
Chance-llor
Koos auditor, I forget the exact name I used on that one.
A few other minor identities, which are so minor that I've lost their meaning. :-)
As you can see, I'm pretty flexible. :-)
Professor Crumbcake: It doesn't matter if everyone on this Forum is OSA. There is nothing to fear if you have no fears. I'd welcome the devil him/her self on this Forum. That's the nice thing about spiritual freedom, no one is excluded and everyone is welcome.
wordman: Welcome, and please do post your poem on a separate thread for all of us to read. I'd also like to read a report of your experience on the Religious Freedom Crusade.
Paul
Author: DeVille
Posted: Sun Dec 24 2000 01:39 am
I like identities and I use a lot
Jean D'Étroit de Ville
|
