CLASSES OF ORGS
Author: Ed
Posted: Mon Dec 18 2000 04:39 pm
Class B Org
"We are B Org.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile."
Purpose: We only want to improve the quality of life.
Class C Org
"We are C Org.
You are out-Ethics.
Write up your overts."
Purpose: To get Ethics in on the planet.
Any comments?
Author: Ed Rhett
Posted: Wed Dec 20 2000 05:38 pm
There is supposed to be a sign hanging above the gates of Hell, and it is supposed to read: "All hope abandon, ye who enter here".
But I think it reads "Write up your overts".
I believe I have just handled the confusion formula. Apparently, the formulas do work, even if the people who call themselves ethics officers only manage to screw them up.
Author: mike
Posted: Wed Dec 20 2000 10:17 pm
Hi Ed,
Yes, the formulas do work.
Congratulations on doing one without an "ethics officer"
Mike
mike@fza.org
Author: TOM
Posted: Thur Dec 21 2000 08:45 am
What is the answer, by the way to "find out who you are?" To hear some people think, you would think that you are supposed to "realize how utterly terrible you are". Besides :find out" implies that you have an identity over which you have no choice.The Enemy formula would work better if it were known what the cognition should be on this. If we are to derive that, since Ron didn't seem to tell us, I would say that it would be THE COGNITION THAT WORKS IN GETTING THE PERSON UP TO THE NEXT CONDITION. Most likely, "I am the one who chooses who I am" or something like that. A nazi could work his way up on that one.
Another real important thing,
SINCE "BE" IS MORE IMPORTANT THATN DO OR HAVE(Fundamentals of thought/88008), THEN BE(CASE GAIN STATISTICS) ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN DO OR HAVE STATISTICS.(ISN'T "HAVE" THE END OF A CYCLE OF ACTION.) RELYING ONLY ON HAVE STATISITCS IS MEST UNIVERSE THINK AS WELL AS BEING "BIG BANKER, ROCKEFELLER "THINK. IT IS AN OVERT AND BLUNT INVALIDATION OF BEINGNESS AND CASE GAIN TO SAY THAT BE STATISTICS DON'T COUNT, OR TO SAY THAT YOU MUST GET MONEY TO PROVE THAT YOU GOT CASE GAIN.(I had an ethics officer one time tell me that if I couldn't get money for the next course that I was obviously below enemy. I would reveal who the homosexual chicken plucker was if not for my anonymoty.I shouldn't call him that, but what the heck, he's an SP and fair game in my book.). IT'S AN OVERT AND LOTS OF REG'S ARE GUILTY OF INVALIDATING BE STATISTICS, TO THE POINT OF BEING WELL BELOW TREASON.
That's a fact Jack.
Author: Tom
Posted: Thur Dec 21 2000 08:51 am
Actually, there is REAL havingness, and that is a real statistic, because TO HAVE A THING YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE IT. But that isn't the same as "possessions as agreed upon by federal law and backed by armed forces. Like Ron's "last will and testiment" is backed by federal law, but we still, as spiritual beings have Scientology. Or you can have the whole world, but on paper and by agreements only be entitled to 2 square feet of space. The mistake is when someone uses those agreements as evidence of what you have and what your condition is. It would be like running a havingness process and then saying, "WHAT? YOU CAN'T HAVE THE BUILDING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, YOU CAN BARELY "AFFORD" SHOES, YA FREAKING MORON."
Author: mike
Posted: Thur Dec 21 2000 08:33 pm
Hi Tom,
Good points above. On the conditions -- check out the handling of a BT on NOTs. Compare that to the conditions. I got some insight from that.
One thing I disagree with in your post, and understand I may be reading more into it than is there, is the fixation on the xchurch. It is time to move beyond that. This is the FreeZone, we are beyond the wrongly stat oriented orgs. Sure there may be charge there for you, as there is for many of us. But the idea is to move beyond that.
Not that I'm saying don't discuss it, we should! Just don't confuse what we are doing with what they are doing. I'm sure we have all had bad episodes with HCO or GO personnel. I was threatened with a gun by the GO and that was when I was in HCO!
If you are doing the conditions, do them in a new unit of time -- with your current reality, not one out of the past.
ARC,
Mike
mike@fza.org
Author: Tom
Posted: Sat Dec 23 2000 07:56 pm
I know what you mean about BT handling and the conditions.
As for "moving on", isn't there a liability formula, like "find out who your friends are."
Is "the whole church" the current enemy, or are some of those in it still frieds. I think that they are. And I also think that there is an EFFECTIVE blow to the real enemy to be made.
I feel that I do have a third dynamic which is currently wrapped up in the church. Never abandon a comrad in need, something like that, right?
Author: Tom
Posted: Sat Dec 23 2000 07:58 pm
The biggest blow that comes to mind is to dissemiante truth. Like how truth shattered the Watergate scene. Not that I know anything about that.
Author: Bob Carson
Posted: Wed Mar 07 2001 11:41 am
Tom:
Isn't that "Find out who you really are"?
If you have attention on this. you could word clear it; if absolutely necessary, do a clay table on the Ethics Conditions. Hold off on doing this as a formula until you find an area where you are in treason or confusion (this is not to suggest that you have any) and do the formulas there.
My best wishes,
Bob
Author: Ed Rhett
Posted: Wed Mar 07 2001 05:53 pm
Tom,
The biggest blow would be to disseminate effective technology. "Truth" is too broad a generalization.
The biggest blow to the SPs who are wrecking the church would be to disseminate workable, Scientology technology.
Author: Ed Rhett
Posted: Wed Mar 07 2001 06:16 pm
Tom,
I think SPs use ethics conditions to invalidate people. They assign wrong conditions, just to create an out-list condition.
How do you find out who you really are? First, I would clear off any misemotion or evaluation or invalidation. (Fly ruds on the ethics session, or earlier similar ethics sessions).
Then I would go to source and ask myself "Who did I decide to be?" .....................no, wait
First I would ask myself, "is this my condition, or is somebody else assigning me their condition?"
Then I would ask myself, "Who did I decide to be?" and I would ask myself "Am I really being that person, am I really doing what I decided to do. Do I have an honest agreement with the people around me about who I am and what I am supposed to be doing?"
You see, David Miscavage could never pass that test. David Miscavage will never make it above confusion. Actually, his first dynamic condition is probably power, he knows exactly what he is doing. But it is his third dynamic condition that is in treason. You could call this lack of integrity along the dynamics.
But Tom, before you do the ethics conditions, you probably should fly ruds. And don't let some asshole assign you his condition, or just some invalidative condition at random. Learn to differentiate conditions from service facs.
Author: rockslam
Posted: Sat Mar 10 2001 03:58 pm
One could actually say that all of the Bridge is designed to get a person out of Enemy, with OT VIII being "Truth Revealed". I think that the lower conditions can only be effectively addressed by processing and ACTION- not simply writing up a formulae. I also think that the lower conditions are invalidative, or minimally evaluative, unless one applies them to himself. A good question might be, "has anyone told you you were in a lower condition when you were not?" or just running the protest/inval buttons on "Concerning ethics conditions, has anything been ..."
The upper conditions don't strike me as processing actions, except where one is writing up O/W's as part of a danger formula, or perhaps a locational during the non-existence formula.
kgb
|
