************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Thanks for your reply Paul.
I have also read the book more than once. I cannot use it as a solo process. But it has a lot of good other data in it besides the process. I would like to find a good twin to run it co audit style. >From what I can tell, it would certainly get rid of a lot of mass from the >case, and like you say: I would classify it as a guide to being a good preclear, ready to make the best of one's approach to start on the trek to going Clear in Scn and probably most paths. You also must always remember that Hubbard's ability as a writer is second to none. He was also a science fiction writer, so his imagination was also second and none and his imagination gets woven into facts from time to time at least. Maybe more often that we can imagine. He was a top notch notch yarn spinner and sales person. Imagination is also cheap. David > , > > I posted this quote because you mentioned the book, "Handbook for > Preclears". I thought it would be good to have LRH's take about his > own book. Other than the reference made to the book, I also thought > the viewpoint about what one is in the small (narrow context) context > that LRH talks about is a good and valid statement of what we can all > consider about ourselves and in a small context about what we can > become in a larger context. Imagination is limitless. That > statement is a good invitation for one to expand their imagination to > the limits in creating their conclusions from what was said. > > Having read the book, cover to cover, it certainly is not a guide for > getting all the way out. I would classify it as a guide to being a > good preclear, ready to make the best of one's approach to start on > the trek to going Clear in Scn and probably most paths. > > I don't disagree with anything that you have said. Each of us has > our own specific events of experience that only we will encounter and > therefore only will we have data, our own data which we have gathered > and then conclusions thereupon if we so desire. Nothing wrong with > any of that. > > Paul/Level 5 in progress > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 20:38:56 -0400 > > From: "David M. Pelly" <[email protected]> > > To: TROM List <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [TROM1] To David and all > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > > > > > Thanks Paul, > > > > But.... > > > > > > > > That sounds like a good sales pitch. > > > > If we were tied down with cotton lint, I think most of us would be > > free. > > > > Even LRH himself, did not resolve his case. > > > > Talk is cheap. > > > > Let me put things into perspective: > > > > > > > > In my 15 yrs in this business I have only met one person who, to > > the best of my knowledge, ( that means getting to know the person > > in cyber space and not in person) I would give a good pass mark > > to, in Scientology. > > > > Say a 7 or 7.5 out of 10. > > > > I would give a small number a barely pass mark. > > > > Say between 5 and 5.5, and a few a 6. > > > > All the rest I give a flunk. > > > > I would offer some credit that scn probably brought the rest of > > them up from a "0" or a "1" to a "3" or "4" out of "10". > > > > And now they are improved from a 0 to a 4 they think they are homo > > novus, or homo illuminous. > > > > Such success is relative. > > > > > > > > > > > > This does not mean that I do not appreciate the work Hubbard did, > > but things have to be put in perspective and you have call a spade > > a spade. > > > > It saved my life when nothing else would. > > > > To use an analogy I feel like I have been pulled out from a stormy > > sea and being bashed against the rocks and am now lying on a dry > > beach. > > > > But I am still not any where as near as able as I know I should be. > > > > For the most part, Scientology helps but does not work. It takes a > > lot more data to make it work. > > > > > > Like Hubbard said in Dianetics, he blazed a trail though the > > jungle. (That is a far cry from a bridge or a road.) (And things > > were not a heck of a lot better after he retired.) > > > > Scientology can cure some forms of insanity but far from all. > > > > The main disease or form of insanity that scientology cannot cure > > is the asshole disease. > > > >> From my evaluation of the products of scientology, I have met, > >> the large majority are still assholes and have a very poor sense > >> of right and wrong. > > > > > > Though the process of evaluation I am certain enough that they were > > assholes before they got into scientology and that is why they got > > into scientology and they are still assholes after they got out of > > scientology. > > > > So something is definitely wrong. To cure the asshole disease you > > have to go sources like the bible and other books of comparable > > magnitude. It cures a lot of other problems too. > > > > The true worth of a person is not determined by his valence or his > > behavior on good roads and good weather or if he can blow a lot of > > hot air and talk a good line. > > > > > > > > The true worth of a person (in this case a person means a > > scientologist) is determined --- > > > > - by his ability to know right from wrong? > > > > > > -how he conducts himself during conflict and disagreement? > > > > -by his mental stability? > > > > -by how he stands up on long and extended miles of bad road and bad > > weather? > > > > -in times of adversity; is he an asset or a liability? > > > > -by how well and thorough he did his scientology and how well he > > has completed the cycle of learning. > > > > The vast majority of scientologists I have met are only intelligent > > enough to argue to defend their ignorance, stupidity, their > > insanity, their overts, their false and limiting operating data, > > their case and their right to be that way. > > > > > > I look at the bridge this way: > > > > It is similar to defining definitions, if you can't define the word > > in your own words, you flunk. > > > > If you can't build a better bridge, of your own design and your own > > words, you flunk. > > > > To all people who think standard scientology tech and standard > > processing, and standard TROM , is the only way and must not be > > changed because it is gospel, ( absolute truth) is not in > > accordance with the Hubbard scale of human evaluation. (That is a > > very workable chart or datum.) > > > > Such state of mind, for two points, is on the order of "not > > wanting change" and "not thinking" . > > > > "Not wanting change" and "not thinking" are near or at 0.5. > > > > The third point on this issue is not having the right data and not > > completing the cycle of learning. ( i.e. Not having done their > > homework. ) > > > > > > In contrast to: > > > > Tone level 4 column "M" is "Search for different viewpoints, in > > order to broaden reality, changes reality", column "T" is "high > > concept of truth" and all the other qualities of tone level 4, > > across the chart. > > > > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
