*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Ant,
I guess it was David who asked the question regarding
Dustin W. Carr.
Thanks anyway for answering erroneously to me (Robin).
Best regards
Robin
-----
David,
I can not find any discrepancy in what you wrote, in relation to my
own opinions so far. Perhaps every now and then bits being incongruent
but certainly not contradicting.
I suspect that the basic problem here is that Dennis took the
issue of Axiom 31 into a direction of morality and codes of
conduct. (Which biases the discussion.)
This, in my opinion, is like mixing up apples and pears.
One can not logically prove that Axiom 31 contradicts e.g. a moral
code since those things are of a different nature.
If one wants to prove Hubbard wrong or wants to point out that
he contradicts himself there are far better examples in his works.
(I've no interest to do that; I see no use in it. On the other hand
if you have followed my writings you most likely have realized that
I'm not a determined advocate of Ron Hubbard.)
A Scientological Axiom stands beyond considerations about
good or bad or other internal aspects valid in a MEST world.
(Perhaps a Dianetics Axiom might be more "down to earth".)
If one makes the futile attempt to use it in order to make right wrong
and vice versa, he has not understood the axiom very well. Or he
deliberately misuses it to deceive those who do not yet understand the
axiom.
The discussion can either be about Axioms (which is rather philosophical)
or it is about moral, justice, a.s.o. which are rather worldly
subjects. (Certainly the border lines are not sharp.)
We really should not mix that up.
I guess the best I can offer you, as an "evidence" for the above and the
original post is this:
a) I have made clear that I rather feel drawn to Hubbard's Axiom 31 version
than the crippled one of Dennis. And I have conclusively explained my
reasons
why.
b) I state that I'm not a mass-murder, terrorist, pervert, child molester,
a.s.o.
Now, how does that go together?
Ok, you can of course say that most criminals would make such claims.
I sure would have a hard time to argue against such a comment.
But you as well would stand on very thin ice with such a statement.
(I could sue you for slander :-)
Certainly it's a society's duty - if it wants to prosper and flourish -
to protect itself from madness and terrorism. That's why societies have
a legal system, an executive system and should have facilities for the
not so sane members.
That is the area of rules, codes, commandments, constitutions, a.s.o.
The realm of an axiom - in my understanding - is beyond that.
There was only one thing in your comment which I would disagree with to
some
degree:
Because a person is basically good or innately good, or good by nature,
unless damaged or aberrated: Someone did something wrong to the person
first, that caused him to go mad, to go insane.
A child would never do anything bad, unless the parent did something bad
or
wrong to the child first by commission or omission.
All destructive acts (in this context) is a symptom of insanity, or
psychosis, or madness. The extreme form of this is terrorism.
We are all only as good as we have been bred and brought up.
I hope I'm not evaluative in an inappropriate way when I assume that much
of what you say above has autobiographic character. Correct me if I'm
wrong. But already on earlier occasions you shared very openly details
of your case.
Now, from what you say above one could deduct that you deny
goodness in yourself as an adult. A goodness which you once had, before
you were handled wrong by a parent. Where did the goodness go to?
I do not see that the sole reason for all aberations can be localized
in childhood. E.g. what about those solders which come home traumatized
from war and go mad?
From what I've seen in auditing and life so far I can not confirm all
of your assumptions.
As long as you succeed along the path you take according to your
assumptions
and opinions it's perfectly well. Only re-consider as soon as you slow down
(_before_ you grind to a halt).
In fact there is so much more to say about all this. Books. Many.
But that would not be efficient because I would only rephrase what had
been already written and there is nothing to say which is not already
inside any being but - for the time being - not accessible.
All success in your endeavor of digging out the good in you
Robin
-----
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:00:04 +0100, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send TROM mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Replay B59 and B59A (The Resolution of Mind list)
2. Re: Axiom 31 - (Re: TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 12)
(The Resolution of Mind list)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:12:02 +0100
From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TROM1] Replay B59 and B59A
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Dear Robin,
I don't know who wrote Dustin was other than that he was a frequent
contributor to Trom Internet list. He did seem quite an intelligent
bloke.I have wondered what happened to him and many of the other
contributors to Trom and other lists that I've run.
All best wishes,
Ant.
Antony A Phillips
<mailto:[email protected]>
www.antology.info
On 05-11-2016 13:15, The Resolution of Mind list wrote:
Ant,
Who was Dustin?
I am curious to know, because every comment of his that I have read,
has always been of very high theta qcalibre.
As is the last comment in this repost.
Is he still around?
David
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 04:01:23 -0500
From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TROM1] Axiom 31 - (Re: TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 12)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Robin,
I intersperse...............
************
Hi David,
you wrote:
My first question to them would be:
What if someone broke into your house, killed your husband and
children, stole all your money, then raped you, and broke your arms,
then dragged you outside and tied you up to the street light post
and
burned your house down.
Would you consider that bad or good?
My answer to your question would be:
In the opinion of that victim(s) the deed would be considered as bad.
The perpetrator(s) will hold the conflicting opinion that it was good.
(If otherwise they certainly would not have done that.)
D> To constructively or meaningfully or sanely evaluate this matter, this
datum, I posit that it is necessary to establish several stable datums:
1. There is a right way and wrong way to do almost everything.
2. The value of a datum is determined by how many problems it solves and
how well it solves and for how long it solves them.
3. In order to survive or persist, everything needs system, order and
control. The better the system, order and control the better the thing
survives.
4. The basic nature of man is to survive/ to know.
And I would add; to improve, to ascend.
Life wants more life.
Life prefers good, life prefers happiness, sanity, joy, contentment,
satisfaction and things that are positive.
To not do that is to descend to insanity, to pain, to failure, to
destruction.
Insanity is the inability to discern right from wrong. The inability to
perceive differences: A=A=A=A.
(I would expand that: The inability to honestly and correctly perceive
differences: A=A=A=A.)
To see wrong where there is right. To make right wrong. To make wrong
right. To argue that right is wrong and wrong is right. To pervert
right.
Poor judgement. Perverted judgement.
Lack of common sense. To be condescending. A persistent desire to commit
destructive acts.
*Common sense* is a basic ability to perceive
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception>, understand
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous>, and judge
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis> things that is shared by
("common
to") nearly all people and can reasonably
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason> be expected of nearly all people
without need for debate.
Everyone has a duty to have and use common sense. Breach of this duty can
give rise to legal action and have the perpetrator institutionalized to
protect public safety.
5. The truth is nothing more or less than the right answer to solve any
problem.
Therefore the saying: Only the truth will set you free from the bondage
of
your problems.
Seek the truth in all thing and the truth will set you free.
And it's many other variants.
6. The truth is not determined by authority, beliefs, opinions, by
political correctness or by who wins an argument.
The truth is not affected by such nonsense.
The truth is the truth.
The truth is determined by universal law.
Failure is feedback from the universe that something was not in alignment
with universal law.
Now to respond to your statement:
Quoting you: The perpetrator(s) will hold the conflicting opinion that it
was good.
(If otherwise, they certainly would not have done that.)
The perpetrator would have a perverted or insane (or aberrated)
definition or viewpoint on what is good and bad, and what is right and
wrong.
This aberrated perspective and behavior is caused someone forcing the
individual to accept (by overwhelm) something that was wrong as right, or
and, something that was right as wrong.
This is known as a psychotic break down, resulting in psychosis and many
other variants of mental illness or mental disorders.
This is usually done by parents during childhood, but it could be done by
someone else in adulthood. This occurs often in relationships, as well as
workplaces.
Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so
impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
The perpetrator thinks that it is (not necessarily right, but necessary)
to
commit destructive acts, to inflict harm, pain and suffering and death,
because his flows for constructive acts have been blocked, causing him to
go mad, to go insane.
Because a person is basically good or innately good, or good by nature,
unless damaged or aberrated: Someone did something wrong to the person
first, that caused him to go mad, to go insane.
A child would never do anything bad, unless the parent did something bad
or
wrong to the child first by commission or omission.
All destructive acts (in this context) is a symptom of insanity, or
psychosis, or madness. The extreme form of this is terrorism.
We are all only as good as we have been bred and brought up.
To explain this completely would take more time and space than is
practical
at this time and in this venue.
It takes a book or even many books.
Best regards,
David
You see it's a matter of consideration or opinion.
Do not forget: Opinions can be manipulated (in ways that are beneficial
and ways that are not. There is a fundamental right to have an opinion.
I would give preference to a society where the members have learned to
act according to their opinions with their own volition and
responsibility
toward deeply felt inner convictions. I would give such a society
preference
in comparison to a society which has to be held in check by a bunch of
rules
which require the threat of force-application in order to get compliance
from the subjects.
Opinions and considerations are subject to change over time.
(A criminal may repent later.)
No law, moral code, code of ethics, creed, constitution, what so ever
would have saved that family.
Your example is very interesting and well chosen.
Because it describes one of those rare occasions where you deal
with mad-man (e.g. sadists. There game could be to inflict a maximum of
pain.)
In such a case it would not have saved that family from being wiped out
(physically) even if they had put up the complementary postulate.
The only options which I'm aware of in such a case are:
a) Occupying the viewpoint of masochists (leads to their physical demise
but they may still enjoy it).
b) Overwhelming the attackers in the course of self-defense (often not
possible).
c) Bringing a barrier between them and the attackers (can be distance,
time, a wall, ...)
[Remark: From a higher viewpoint you have to assign at least a part
of the responsibility to the victims. Doing otherwise is to invalidate
the spiritual being in a most aberrative way.]
Axiom 31 b.t.w. does not contradict the core believe:
"That Man is basically good."
It is perfectly in line with Axiom 31. Please note: they _believe_
(It is their conviction).
Sooner or later you may come to a similar conclusion.
Regards
Robin
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20161106/d57a3de6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
End of TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 15
*************************************
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
