Confession, pretended Confession, incomplete Confession, how to set things right, refusing to set things right, wanting to degrade others through Confessions, others wanting to be degraded through confessing, etc.
Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind Copyright 1997 by Koos Nolst Trenite
RI-541i 'Correct and Joyful Confessional Procedure - Part I' of 20 Apr 1996 RI-542i 'Correct and Joyful Confessional Procedure - Part II' of 2 May 1996 RI-545i 'Correct and Joyful Confessional Procedure - Part III' of 20 May 96 RI-568i 'Correct and Joyful Confessional Procedure - Part IV' of 14 June 97 http://AmbassadorForMankind.org/ri-bulletins/ri-568i.htm
> > > I get my overts off in session. Always have. And once "gone" I don't > > > need to think of them again. They aren't there to weight me down. This principle - > > > by the way - is the very principle that the Catholics have attempted to apply > > > in confession.
> > > > Hubbard realized, very craftily, > > > > that this leaves one feeling very naked and defenseless, and depicts them as > > > > being "wrong"--while depicting Hubbard and the church as being "right"
> > > How about both being "right"? As that isn't even part of it for me - once gone > > > no attention is left on the SUBJECT.
> > > I am not then worried about someone "finding out". The misdeed is just not > > > there to worry about. And I don't give a crap if someone "knows".
> [Leonardo Serni writes:] > > That, I feel, is a major difference between this 'session' of yours > > and the Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; a real Catholic > > does not only attempt to get rid of his burden, s/he should also do > > everything possible to atone.
> Leonardo, you have struck on one of the basic "prior confusions" about > Scientology. They take no responsibility for their transgressions. They > audit to forget about it, then thumb their noses at those whom they may have > hurt.
> Scientologists are in defiance to Karma. Of course Karma never asked for > their approval. Karma will of course, and obviously is, as we speak, > "handling" COS.
> ---David Alexander
> [Leonardo Serni writes:]
> > Of course, in the case of an offense to God, the atonement does not > > (directly) involve the material world. Yet, should a Catholic wrong > > anyone, his|her confessor will advise s/he to make amendments. Else > > the pardon cannot be granted; just as, to sin, it is not sufficient > > to do wrong, but awareness and will are also required.
> > It appears to me that Scientology(tm) is more handy, in that - from > > your report - it does not appear to need the two key conditions for > > Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; redress, and resolution > > (implying: resolution not to repeat the misdeed).
> > As far as your (admittedly scant) report goes, there's nothing that > > hints to a resolution not to fall back in the same errors; not even > > an attempt to redress. You blandly 'erase' not the mistake, but its > > memory, and blithely walk on.
> > Comfortable as it indeed seems, Catholics would object that you get > > rid not of your sins, but of your conscience. I feel such a thought > > somewhat disturbing.
Leonardo Serni <L.Se...@agora.stm.it> writes: >I am not familiar with the 'pound', but I think that the time needed >to obtain this 30 pounds difference should also be stated.
Approximately half a kilo, 2.2 LBs = Kilo (2200 LBs = 1 Ton =^= 1 metric Tonne), England and many English speaking countries; France etc also still refer to an exact half kilo as a pound. I can't for the life of me remember whether the word is "poids" or "livre".
|~/ |~/ ~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~ P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Zane <z_tho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >t...@ibexbsc.com.xenu.antispam (Ted) wrote: >>He can't comment on the "tech" because he can no more understand it
>I guess that's the conclusion we're left with. I'm sure the lurkers >note that scientologists _always_ refuse to dicsuss their wonderfull >"tech" in an open forum. Maybe they sort of realize how worthless and >utterly indefensible it really is.
In order to discuss something, you have to understand it. In order to understand it you have to think about it. In order to think about it, you have to avoid "verbal tech", and the "Ethics Officer" who will be more than happy to make you word-clear every word in Dianetics until you agree to not think about it.
I could write up a hypothesis, theory, and several tests that high-school kids could do during class to test "mental mass".
-- .sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/ ^L "[scientology] is less evil than the Aum cult, and thus to the extent it keeps people out of some even worse cult, that is a positive feature of scientology." H. Keith Henson in <hkhensonEHE7oz....@netcom.com>
finger -l ja...@dimensional.com for my PGP public key block.
>Tiger: >> Hubbard says mental image pictures (sorry, I had thought it was >> "engrams") have changed body mass by as much as 30 pounds >> ACTUALLY >> MEASURED ON SCALES.
>bc: >>Physically speaking, the only way "mental mass" could affect body >>weight is if the actual *mass* of the mind changes.
>Careful, bc, you're intimating that the brain size of Scientologists >decreases due to processing. That's not nice.
>Wonderful: >: You are correct. The mass of the "mind" would have to change for >: this to be true.
>bc: >: How does this occur through >: Scientology?
>Wonderful:
>: As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to >: take it up here - but that IS what happens.
>Note the repeated vehement assertion made by wonderful. Note that >Scientologists cannot be bothered to explain themselves. Hubbard >had the same condescending attitude.
>Nice ARC break, Russ.
And the logic doesn't even follow--"as this *IS* what the whole subject is about" implies that one is going to discuss it--since otherwise, what is the point of even making the statement?
Ah, the tech (bs) inaction. Once again. Like a breath of fresh sewage.
>: If you are *really* interested, get the book, "Understanding the E- >: Meter". Excellent - yet still pretty simple - explanation there.
Also,
>: you could read "Scientology 8-8008", and "Scientology 8-80".
>Well, Russ, I happen to have "E-Meter Essentials" right here. In >Section B "Theory", Hubbard states:
>"The meter tells you what the pc's mind is doing when the pc is made >to think of something."
>[this is an assertion.]
>"The meter registers before the bc becomes concious of the datum.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>It is therefore a "preconcious" meter. The meter passes a tiny current >through the pc's body."
>[Sentence 1 is another assertion. Sentence 2 is a conclusion based >on the assertion of sentence 1. Sentence 3 is a fact that can be >verified.]
I *sincerely* hope that Sentence 1 up there was a typo...
>"This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits >and machinery. When the pc thinks of something, these mental items >shift and this registers on the meter."
>[Sentence 1 is an assertion. Sentence 2 is an assertion. So far, >Hubbard has said nothing to support his assertions. Question for >wonderful: Does Hubbard EVER present the data that validates his >assertions? Where is it?]
>---
>Is it any "wonder" that scientologists evaluate data? Prolonged >exposure to Hubbard's repeated assertions and anti-critical >"processing" has stripped them of their ability to ask "but, why?" >Throughout the Gradient, Scientology selects for those that are >not critical thinkers, since critical thinkers eventually wise up >and walk away early on.
>It's real for wonderful, so it must be real. It must be wonderful >to not be bothered by details like experimental methodology and >data.
pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote: >Well, Russ, I happen to have "E-Meter Essentials" right here. In >Section B "Theory", Hubbard states: >"The meter tells you what the pc's mind is doing when the pc is made to >think of something." [...] >"The meter registers before the bc becomes concious of the datum. It is >therefore a "preconcious" meter. The meter passes a tiny current >through the pc's body." [...] >"This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and >machinery. When the pc thinks of something, these mental items shift >and this registers on the meter."
If I understood correctly, this E-Meter is a device that will run a tiny current in a human body and measure its impedence. If this is indeed the case, I have to point out that the human body is made of muscles and blood vessels (among the other things) which will alter their impedence in response to a wide range of stimuli.
Unless such readings are taken with the patient in a friendly, calm environment, possibly under light sedation, they're prone to errors caused by emotional responses to information causing blood pressure shift and variations in muscle tension.
A common ohmmeter can be used to prove this and is mostly harmless. By strapping the electrodes on the back of the hands of the patient and making him/her hear a sudden crash or scream, a resistance drop of more than 300% can be measured.
Such tests have been used on sleeping mothers in noisy environments to show that the resistance graph smooths out in a few minutes, but displays sudden peaks and drops in response to a baby's cry even if the cry was pitched far below the noise level of the environment.
To test the behaviour of 'mental masses and pictures' one should do everything to ensure that muscles and blood vessels aren't altering the readings: as I said above, low light, quiet voices and possibly light sedation (*).
Leonardo
(*) There is another way, which I am not in any way implying is the real reason E-Meters readings eventually smooth out, if indeed they do. If a person is strongly stressed the body eventually ceases its attempts to adapt. This I believe is called 'refractary period' (it has nothing to do with male's lack of response to erotic stimuli in the aftermath of the orgasm), and has been studied by I. Pavlov and his staff in the years from 1894 to 1935. Studies on humans have in later years showed that refractary state is a sign of impending CNS troubles and is commonly caused by lack of sleep, over-exertion and torture.
wbarw...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote: >>>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes. >>Mental mass? What is mental mass wonderfool? >>Where do you get the information from which to make such a definitive >>statement? >From Hubbard. A ridge is inactive until it is stimulated. >It then becomes active and as it activates, it mocks up mass. >After it's work is done, the mass disappears as the ridge no longer is in >immediate stimulation. BTs work the same way.
Let me get this straight: we have a subject under stress, and his/her body weight experiences a sudden increase, followed by a drop, during a period of less than five seconds (or twice the sampling rate for an electronic weight measurement device)?
If such is the case, the most likely cause is a muscle spasm of which I have given a brief description in a previous post. It can be easily checked by anyone by standing on a scale by pulling the belly in then out, or abruptly contracting the abdominal muscles. The weight shift, caused by mass being moved up then down, varies vastly from person to person due to body mass, geometry and muscle orientation. Usually, it should be around 4 kilograms, i.e. a 75-kg person might weight 77, 75 and 73 kilograms, then 75 again, in a matter of 6-8 seconds.
In some subjects this exercise can also cause a slight pressure drop, so I'd advise against doing this early in the morning.
>Ron repeatedly makes little claims such that if a person really learned >all at once to handle matter prefectly as a thetan, he could blow the >entire solar system up by releasing energy.
A human body mass would actually result in an explosion of around 250 megatons of power, enough to lay waste an area big as Northern Italy, and pollute the whole Europe, but it is unlikely it would have effect on a planet's orbit or a whole solar system.
The Sun's annihilating matter at a rate of around 5,000,000,000 human bodies per second, if I remember correctly (and I'm not sure), and it would be just enough to raise our planet's temperature by some 500 C.
Unless such thetan actually blowed the Sun up, of course.
>He can't comment on the "tech" because he can no more understand it >than a computer "understands" the programs it runs. Instructions in >programs cause things to happen, but a computer can't tell the >difference between a General Ledger program and Quake; and it doesn't >care, because computers just aren't aware.
Yeah! I played an challenging level on General Ledger last week, where the Evil IRS monster reared up and totally cleaned out all the Transient Accounts! It wuz AwEsOmE, dudez! :-)
pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote: >[Sentence 1 is an assertion. Sentence 2 is an assertion. So far, >Hubbard has said nothing to support his assertions. Question for >wonderful: Does Hubbard EVER present the data that validates his >assertions? Where is it?]
Unbelievers! Have you not yet scoped out the book of case studies? Did you not *see* the wonders set forth in Dianetics Today? Unscientific is just putting it mildly. Amazingly enough, (according to WonderRuss) it 'just works' and seems to require no explanation and no research or scientific application at all.
>Watch for "$cientology 98!" Wonder if it'll have as many segmentation >errors and General Program Failures as "$cientology 95?" Will they >fix the memory leaks? Doubt it.
Woof! I'm hanging out for Scientology MM, that epochal year 2000, where we will (apparently) be clear and be crawling with Body Thetans, prepped up for the lengthy path to OT24 (because we'll all be clear) and shelling out a global $3,000,000,000,000,000 (three quadrillion dollars) to get over the bridge and be totally free!
