Name Calling and Labeling

 

name-calling

One thing that I have observed over the years is that name-calling and affixing derogatory labels to people usually exacerbates any perceived shortcomings in the target.  It is in the nature of people to defend themselves when under personal attack.  When it comes to using labels and name-calling to make nothing of the target, oft times the target reinforces the behavior labeled in an effort to somehow vindicate himself.

Name-calling seems to be an ingrained habit with some.  Folks might take some form of temporary satisfaction by considering themselves greater than those whom they condemn by shouting condemnatory labels. But, in the long run they are not really lessening the target nor are they increasing their own stature by doing so.  To the contrary, they wind up lessening their own integrity by defining themselves in the context of their chosen nemesis.  That fact alone makes them the effect of and thus less than their perceived enemies.

A valued teacher of mine once said ‘when you point your finger at someone, look to where your other three fingers are pointing.’

finger

308 responses to “Name Calling and Labeling

  1. Needing to be RIGHT. Defending ones intellectual PRIDE. Its pretty obvious what is going on and the fact that they resort to name calling is a pretty poor display of whatever GIFTS of intellect and spiritual advancement they are purported to possess. Doesn’t make them bad, just displays how far some posters have to go.

    • Rose, listen to this: “Palos y piedras pueden romper mis huesos pero las palabras nunca me harán daño.” It means: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” in Spanish. :)

  2. Name calling totally destroys any value of discussions. That is why I enforce the following policy on my blog. Because of this I have learnt an enormous amount in a relatively short time.

    http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/

    .

    • Oh but you do name calling in private! hehehe.. no one can see your dark side that way…I have experienced that side of you!

    • Elizabeth Hamre has been banned from Vinaire’s Blog for continually being in violation of the Discussion Policy, just as it is stated on the blog.

    • name calling has its place… that is the reason it was invented and being used daily by billions, it is part of language -communication.. expression how we feel. And it is used because it has stimulative effects which have addictive nature and that is craved needed by every being on this planet.

      • Brian the Sermonater

        Underneath our reactions Elizabeth is a wealth of wisdom.

        The need to defend, the need to be right, has been a big challenge in my life. I have only in the last few years have seen through that aspect of mind.

        Those who are critical of us, are in a great position, to be our best teachers, when we can handle the heat.

        And boy howdy! Is it ever hot in a skull that works to always defend and deflect criticism.

        It is great opportunity for the seeker of truth to be criticized. And the best opportunity is when that criticism is unjustified.

        When emotions surge up within us to crush and make less of, or eat the liver of a person, that is the time to command the mind and emotions to be still.

        In that stillness become aware of the seed thoughts and energies that feed the reaction.

        First, don’t let condemning words come out of the mouth our keyboard. When that is controlled the next thing to do is be still and aware of the inner thoughts.

        You see, the reactions are so loud that the being can’t cognize the more subtle reasons for the outburst.

        After years of this practice, the mind does not take things so personally anymore. It’s easy to be wrong and it’s easy to be right.

        Maybe LRH should have said, “you can be wrong”

        Being wrong has been thoroughly third partied.

        It’s wonderful being wrong with the right attitude. Ask any spouse whose partner has mastered this powerful practice.

        • To Brian the tasters choice! I am glad you are doing well.
          guess what preacher… when the person goes into session the only reason for that session because that person KNOWS that the self is being wrong. you did not know that did you? Oh you never has a session… good for you…you are a perfection already so no improvement was or is needed.
          But I am just what I am..So you don’t like my emotions, my reality, how I comment, what I eat for breakfast you don’t like the way I write, you don’t like nothing about me… you would not like my wrinkled face either or my gray hair…Ok.. so sue me.. write to your congressman. have me deported, have me branded and deported. :)

          • Brian the Self Righteous

            But I do like you Elizabeth. I actually consider you quite a brave women who has confronted a lot of mind. And I also honor your strength of seeking.

            I am simply being audacious and sharing with you parts of my own growth.

            I do understand I am evaluating. And I take the consequences of my acts calmly without fighting. You have every right to tell me to take a hike.

            I’ll take the heat and judgement for giving advise not asked for, which is like bypassing the junior in charge etc.

            Yet underneath, my motive, I am sharing a gem. Something I work on every day: humility

            Humility was like kryptonite to Ron. And the lack thereof is evidenced from time to time in his products: people

            • Brian the almost highly trained auditor

              And, I have been in many an auditing session myself and auditing others. Certainly not as much as you or others.

              I used to be asked to leave course and audit difficult cases. Frank Geltman fron the Geltman Mission thought I was such a good auditor that he was going to pay for me to get trained. He was going to put me up in LA, pay for the Briefing Course, then come back to NY and be a staff auditor.

            • Brian: beloved food item! if that is what you want.. learning experience through stimulation. Ask for it.. I am game! You want me to make you look like on idiot.. hehehe.. by all means.. By the way the word ”idiot ” is my very favorite word and I don’t give it out just to any one. You have to earn that. [there is a wonderful story behind the understanding of that word” .So tread lightly! :)

              • The Sermonater has spoken!! He now retreats. As opposed to becoming a treat! Ha ha :-)

                • Brian… you no fun… you not attacking any more… You are not pointing ! My day is ruined! Oh here she comes my beloved Sanifar on amber tabby.. she has come into my space 5 months back and was badly abused. How she changed, how absolutely wonder full she is. she talks, uses different sounds to express her pleasures or displeasures.. she dislikes rain and she lets me know when her paws become wet and oh that is not right! :)

          • Brian the almost highly trained auditor

            And, I have been in many an auditing session myself and auditing others. Certainly not as much as you or others.

            I used to be asked to leave course and audit difficult cases. Frank Geltman fron the Geltman Mission thought I was such a good auditor that he was going to pay for me to get trained. He was going to put me up in LA, pay for the Briefing Course, then come back to NY and be a staff auditor.

            • Now Brian that is truly great.. than having the understanding how auditing goes, what it takes and what are the reasons one goes into session. you can see that by now I have realized that nothing I ever believed is was the way I thought it was. and that was simply fine because I went back to sessions thousands of times ; taking the beliefs I though were really and have them replaced. One think no one can accuse me of not being , cant handle being wrong. By now, I just don’t put up with it. that is all, since I don’t have to.

              • Brian the Mind Excavator

                I love being wrong. It is so rich with knowledge to the eternally curious.

                Being right is easy, it validates that which is already known to a degree.

                Being comfortably wrong is not so easy: but liberating! Revealing new and fresh ways of perceiving.

                Being wrong comfortably, is a very healing way of feeling right.

                • To Brian the main course on my next feast!
                  ” love being wrong. It is so rich with knowledge to the eternally curious.

                  Being right is easy, it validates that which is already known to a degree.” Brian stop digging up my universe… you are stilling my findings! Yes, I have been digging now for 41 years! I am the only one know how wrong I have been.. # years back I have found on Item I knew it existed but it was so deeply buried I could not locate it no matter how I approached the subject. I have worked on this alone hopping that I can somehow name it.. put a label on it.. see how it works. Nothing but nothing could bring this thing to surface. One evening I asked the auditing question and the lightning bolt exploded I was hit by the understanding what I could not confront, simply because I was not ready to face such. I have cried, sobbed for on hour and on and off for 3 days and taken me about 20 hours in session to clean out to confront the wrong beliefs up. This incident was very strong because it has happened 2600 years back when I come to this planet.. Yes.. we are on a learning path.. and I don’t believe in coincidences…we met for reason..you have something I need to learn from and you have a need too. Next time I will tell you the story on Idiot.

                  • Thank you for sharing that Elizabeth. Yes we can learn from each other for sure.

                    Someone once said,”if you learn how to listen, everyone is the guru.”

                    So true so true. Sometimes my cat shows me amazing truths. I am constantly becoming a better person through my relation to my wife.

                    Waiting in line at a store, taking a shower, walking ………………Everything, absolutely everything has secrets to reveal. Because we truly live in magicland.

                    Stuck in traffic = practice unconditional patience and happiness.
                    Sick with the flu = practice not being a body
                    Over concerned about the future = practice unconditional being

                    All experience is a stepping stool to increased wisdom and joy with the hopeful and enthusiastic attitude of the devoted, receptive and willing student.

                    And then there is the Master, the liberated teacher, whose freedom and influence transcends all space and time.

                    Communing with such a one is an incomparable experience.

                    I know people have buttons on teachers, and a lot of those buttons have merit.

                    But there are those freed supreme ones, whose only desire for existing, is to nuture joy and freedom in all life.

                    To a large degree, it is one of my purposes to bring these beings into prominence in the west.

                    Silently, from secret mountain caves, and in the busy metropolis, far above the normal haunts of men, these overseers of societal evolution send out a radiant call to the receptive soul.

                    I wish everyone here an experience with one of these sages.

                    Our native state ability is to broadcast and receive thought vibrations.
                    Ask to meet such a one in the silence of your own heart. Become quiet in a quiet place and broadcast with love. Love is the strongest broadcast. It is how we can consciously communicate with our departed loved ones.

                    And now for the story of the idiot! Take it away Elizabeth

                    • Brian… thanks…
                      My favorite word was ”idiot” I called every one on idiot and mostly self.. no matter what I would say”’i am such on idiot”
                      About 20 years back I became aware of this hobbit and I decided to investigate this concept.. I started out “” what is on idiot” than who are who is why etc etc.. I really extended the questions and than I realised there is a much deeper root to this concept.
                      I went into session and earlier similar..
                      The basic was: there was a kingdom who was ruled by a very wise king who has realised that long as he was the king.. he could never find out the truth from people because to please or want something from him people will lie to him order to manipulate for gains… He had on idea.
                      He have heard of a recluse who lived far away and this man was known for his wisdom but also for his fun loving nature who on market days went to village and danced sang for fun and food but quietly he listened to people given advise when he was asked.
                      The king sent for the man and when the man arrived the two had a quiet long talk..
                      Position was invented: a Jester or on Idiot to the court… a man dressed in colorful clothing and he sang , jumped, and danced made provoking jokes, and faces.. he could look very stupid with open mouth dribbling saliva.
                      The king himself made fun of his new idiot there was always lots of laughter around him and people liked his gentle ways.. his good nature and the idiot was every where he could listen and no one paid any attention to the presence of a Idiot.
                      But in private the king and the idiot were equal terms, the Idiot was the adviser and not long he quietly run the country since the king finally could do what he really wanted to do but could not because the lack of time.. …
                      The cognition was… being on idiot was a cover up for me.. no one ever suspected who I was… and that was a very safe valance to have..
                      I really had to dig deeply to clear the counter intentions away and to finally allow my self knowing and acknowledge that I do know.
                      The second part of the cog was… no one can play on idiot who has on ego.

                    • Brian The Graduated

                      It is great that you have braved the solidness of the mind with looking within. Many great realizations to be had no doubt.

                      But………….. (here is the part wherein I evaluate), Hubbard’s tendency to a very great degree, was limited to the mind, like Freud.

                      He instructed his students in the Freudian tech of searching out chains of associated past events to attempt an understanding of the present. Whether those associated chains were real or unreal is not the point of my post.

                      It is my educated opinion that this can become a trap itself when one is dealing with higher levels of consciousness.

                      Always looking into the past as a means of solving suffering and the human condition can create a sort of spiritual neurotic.

                      There comes a time on the path, that the mind becomes not just an impediment but THE impediment.

                      Ron did not go any further than a spiritual form of Freudian therapy. This can be useful for beginners.

                      But using beginner techniques on advanced states of being can cause the mind to become more and more and more.

                      But this will only make sense when a person studies other paths.

                      Unfortunately the ego and narcissism of Hubbard, implanted into his followers, an arrogant judgement, that his tech is the final and only best technique. All other paths being a throw back to the Neanderthal mindset of unlettered rubes.

                      The mind must become dissolved back to it’s source. Constantly looking into the mind will keep the mind solid as a rock.

                      Don’t get me wrong, there are great realizations to be had in Ron’s Freudian therapy when the auditing deals with real knowable things, but at some point we must move on to more advanced procedures.

                      Spiritual growth can be stunted by being stuck in Ron’s Freudian approach.

                      But the barrier to some, is the well trained false knowledge of the arrogantly assumed elitism crowning only Scientology as being workable.

                      Ron was missing some spiritual basics and definitely clueless to advanced levels of being and procedures to attain those states.

                    • you haven’t a clue..

                    • Well hey howdy, Brian the Seeker.
                      Good to talk at cha. Was enjoying your comment.

                      I found most of your admitted evaluations of Freudian and Hubbard self examination as possibilities, even perhaps, probabilities. I certainly cannot speak for all, or even very many. I have met with a few hundred ‘Clears/OTs’ and had long conversations with fewer than 100. Gotten to know quite well, probably no more than a score.

                      There are a few things I’ve noticed about most of them. Most, not all. They appear, on the surface, quite energetic and A to B in their activities. They seem to be quite accepting of my defects, eccentricities, imperfections. I have displayed many outpoints in my life. Most I have met were very perceptive, quick to understand what you are saying. Not just superficially. By and large, they were warm hearted and truly liked people.

                      MOST, not ALL.

                      I have never met anyone who had no visible aberrations, by mine or most anyone’s evaluation. Little obsessions, repressions, fixed opinions. Several seem to have a habit of following very poor business models and try to “make them go right”. It would be much wiser to run a good business and “make it” run excellently. A few do this.

                      But the main purpose of this comment is to address the entire idea of looking back into the ‘mind’ to resolve traits considered less than ideal.

                      These are not disagreements with you, but additional info.

                      I have mentioned often that looking back has it’s hazards. Oracle has stated that mocking up the past can keep it in mock up. (paraphrase, please correct me) Solidifying the mind is a known hazard. Others have implied that a system that leads one down a particular path can produce one who has been led, one who has had the cognitions that they were ‘supposed’ to get. That carries obvious dangers. Many self generated auditing cognitions are aberrated. I once had a ‘win’ when I ‘realized’ that all wild animals were dangerous and should be avoided. There is some truth to it, but it can and often does become a new fixed opinion to replace the last one that you just spent hours (and $s) to resolve. (Important technical point)

                      Maybe my case is an exception, or maybe I was just lucky. Maybe I’m headed for disaster. I have been examining my past for quite some time. By my estimation, I have been quite successful. I have seen and resolved a great deal of confusion. I am very happy and additional abilities are starting to pop up occasionally. I love people and I love life.

                      I have some ideas about why this is. I did TR-0 when I was 12 to the point where I felt I could do it indefinitely. Had a lot of realizations then and with later TRs. I read and read the Tao and other eastern and western philosophies and religions. I never caught on that Ron was perfect and had it all. I had some whole track recall when I was 13. My father was a Standard Dianetics (forerunner to NED) auditor.

                      I have discovered a near endless patience which seems to reduce by-passed charge, eliminate the effects of auditor errors, and removes counter-effort. I can love and ‘be’ the auditor and work with him as one.

                      I have realized that the MEST bank is continually being mocked up and discarded and mocked up again. That any chain can be released or erased and then re-created unless the underlying decisions, opinions, considerations,etc. are seen and understood. And that later incidents confirmed and solidified this opinion and some of these need to be looked at after the original postulate in order to fully resolve it.

                      Examining my past is not the goal. Being fully in PT is the goal. I always do real life objective activities after looking back. Go to a mall and look, do worthwhile MEST work, talk to and interact with people, help people, write to you guys. Examining my past is not my only work, but is my primary work, AS OF RIGHT NOW. This will not always be so. IT IS NOT EVERYONE’S PATH.

                      I believe that eventually a full examination of one’s past is a necessary PART of advancement and enlightenment. It is working well for me, now, and I will do many other things when the time is right.

                      Oh, by the way, I have not been particularly bothered by other’s bank, whether other people or other entities, beings. I have recognized facsimiles as being not my own from time to time. I just smiled and said “Ah ha.” This is a proven problem for many. Running enforced/denied communication whole track helps with this. I have solo’d the grades more than once.

                      I hope this explains my view that the problems you expressed CAN and DO exist, but they don’t HAVE TO exist. That there is much to be gained by cleaning the slate. It is a part of the whole picture.
                      Thanks, Mark

                    • Brian, the Man said;
                      “Don’t get me wrong, there are great realizations to be had in Ron’s Freudian therapy when the auditing deals with real knowable things, but at some point we must move on to more advanced procedures.”

                      We both agree on this point. Our only difference is in the quantity. You believe perhaps a few hundred incidents should be examined and I think more like a few hundred thousand. The problems can be worked out with solidifying the ‘mind’. I believe wins and accomplishments are the most aberrative since they have little or no mass attached to them. They cannot be viewed as a facsimile. They base the strongest of fixed opinions.
                      Mark

                    • Mark.. when the person is so stuck in concepts as Brian and solidly wedged into what ever aberration he holds so dear and valuable.. with those in place he views everything around him through those filthy filters. Cant recognised anything.. And we can talk till blue in the face eve that wont help [out of breath] he will not believe anything we say ..simply he cant. To him there is no other reality -beliefs-considerations beside his.. and unfortunately for him because he is so solid he will no change. But you know this already.

                    • But Erzsebet,
                      I have grown to like Brian the Calorie Source. He is intelligent and communicative, makes his own decisions, cares about people.

                      Maybe we could tie him down, beat his ankles and bring him around to our way of thinking.
                      Or perhaps we could try civil discourse and an exchange of demonstrable data. Research specific points and exchange our findings.

                      Nah, that’ll never work. Sorry Brian, bring out the hammers.
                      Mark

                    • Mark… I would not call somebody intelligent because has the ability to compile material and than sort them out and put them out. LRH was great at it.. but he put there something unique and new. Brian just repeats what he read and hears. Not one cognition was so far presented by him. nothing unique.. nothing new. I don’t fall for words any more. Brian would not recognise a sage even if one would be sitting on his chest.

                    • Erzsebet:
                      You said: ” I would not call somebody intelligent because has the ability to compile material and than sort them out and put them out.”

                      The ability to ‘sort them out’ is one of the primary basis for intelligence.
                      Mark

                    • Mark.. yes 100% right you are, thanks for point it out… idiot I am, but that is human ability… there is more. I have seen robots doing the same.

                    • Mark…. intelligent? I am sort of thinking what is intelligent in reality? You think about that one too!

                    • Great points Mark. We see eye to eye. My opinion is to peope constantly solo auditing for decades after decades. That will not bring liberation. IMO of course.

                      And Elisabeth, get that fire going. I’m very tasty with a litte salt and pepper. :-)

                • Chee Chalker

                  Brian
                  I love your insights! And your PATIENCE. It appears not everyone is ready that Hubbard was human and therefore prone to error.
                  I hope you don’t mind, I am going to write some of your thoughts onto paper and put it on the refrigerator for my kids to see.

                  • That is very sweet of you Chee. I am honored. Good Parents: the real answer to a crazy world. Thank you so much.

        • Brian the Sermonator said;
          “When emotions surge up within us to crush and make less of, or eat the liver of a person, that is the time to command the mind and emotions to be still.
          In that stillness become aware of the seed thoughts and energies that feed the reaction.”
          Your a wise man. Brian the Wise. Too bad the noisy reply distracted from it. It was worth building on. Because analyzing what is causing ones outburst or denigrating comments is key to growth. Even if its impatience (ego), that is a thread worth pulling.

          • R C.. ear the liver bit.. is just a humgarian saying.. on every day expression used all the time! no big thing .. Words.expression are there to paint the paper with… Brian is not wise… knowing words how to put the in good order do not mean wisdom. So here goes the ”judgement” the one who writes I will eat your liver” bad person. that is Elizabeth= nasty, what Brian said is wise-valuable…
            Words are not where the value is..

            • Erzsebet.
              I never cared much for liver. I prefer the backstrap. (Southern slang for tenderloin.) Much better.
              Mark

              • Mark… I don’t like liver my self but yes..tenderloin well I am with you on that! To throw in sentences like I will eat your liver.. well hehehe sure brings on the reaction.. heavy judgement. outrage.. indignation.. I am better than you.hehehe.. it wakes up the crowd. But one can only do that when reactions– putting down don’t matter any more.. reading posting from others becomes gage to measure where one is.

            • Actually Elizabeth, the liver bit was a recall in your session. That is what you said previously. You stated that in some previous incarnation you would have eaten my liver, then roasted my flesh to golden brown.

              That is what you said.

              You never mentioned that “eating people’s livers” was a quaint folksie Hungarian idiom.

              I just want to be clear. Clarity over agreement.

              • Clarity would be nice. Keeping the blog from being flooded with trash talk would also be nice. The pearls that are offered are quickly buried. I may lack patience or focus, or maybe its something else.

              • I had more than one recall being a cannibal.. and top of that human bodies used to be harvested canned and eaten by aliens.. Hungarians have many different expression ” I was so angry at him I could have eaten that bastard.” If you don’t behave rip your liver out and feed it to the dogs, If you ever do that again I cut your heart out and feed it to the dogs, … I told him if even looks toward her direction I will cut his balls off and stuff it into his mouth”. He new not to do it because I have promised him I will eat his liver if he do it but the bastard did not believe me and still did it! And you know what he did? He bought a bottle of read vine and he had the nerve to say… this will go with the Liver! I forgive him.. the vine was good and ant way his liver not fit to be eaten not even for the dogs.

                • Brian the Yogi

                  All I can do is thank you also Elizabeth. Here is a big fat hug!!

                  May all beings be free and happy!

                  Lead us from the unreal to the real
                  Lead us from darkness to light
                  Lead us from ignorance to wisdom
                  And lead us from death to immortality

                  • Brian the Occluded: thanks for the hug. interesting: when the one who hugs get the experience first…yes? “Lead us from the unreal to the real” Oh.. and what is real? what the eyes see? or what we believe in? ”Lead us from darkness to light”’ Which one is better, and if one only out of the two : than why? why one needs significances as those? judgement :pure undiluted judgement.. I bet you fear the darkness and feel comfortable when the sunrays hit the side of the planet where your body is located! “Lead us from ignorance to wisdom”” wow.. more judging to do! Lets sort out this huge mass: lets make two piles and label them as ignorance and wisdom. And after that lets implant those ignorant bastards and after the implanted wisdom they too can be like us.. equal in every way and they to can walks the path of enlightenment and we will never be restimulated ever again and we don’t have to confront those who are different from us.. Yes lets eliminate ignorance! UHG… Brian the stupido..

                    • Brian the Concerned

                      Elizabeth, you have single handedly demonstrated the title to this post:

                      Name Calling and Labeling. Thank you.

                      Elizabeth does not illustrate the majority of you who are solo auditing. I get that.

                      But what she does illustrate is something I think most of you recognize.

                      I am not going to evaluate any further as I have already done so.

                      I know OTs who have died of cancer. I believe there is a danger to one’s mental health to attempt to use techniques that Hubbard used that did not even free him.

                      He was solo auditing till the end. And in the end he was still being haunted by external forces of his own imagination: BTs

                      We arrived in Scientology with the dream of leaving the body and being freed from it. And in the end, the final solo process puts your attention completely on the body.

                      If the man who devised Scientology was delusional at the end of his life, how in God’s name do you think constantly looking in the mind and body will somehow be different for you?

                      Just re read this post and think deeply about it.

                    • Thank you for showing the way.. now I have the Path to fallow. I am most grateful, this is what I was waiting for! Best to you!.

                    • Yes Brian you are right I do seem 100% loony.. But where I stand looking back where you are at that is irrational. It is normal to attack what is not understood and you are doing just that. End of conversation.

                    • Brian the destroyer: I got from you what I deserve: I walked into the trap you set for me and with open eyes and innocently. We were playing with words and to you that was the trap to draw me out and say what ever I wanted. You made it safe for me than you closed the trap you used what I say to pint out what wrong with me and with auditing and LRH and scientologists and OT’s. You are a low life.. suppressive person. A vampire. But you are recognised and you no longer are affective!

                  • B… by the way who is doing the leading? And ”death” what dies? Who and what becomes immortal? I don’t believe slogans like yours has lead any one to any place.

                  • To Brian the friend and unbeliever; Crossing-Over.

                    I can’t recall, have no idea of the topic this session was about, but the end realization transported me from the solidity: from this Universe into the Spiritual Universe.

                    Suddenly I have found myself bodiless [of course] beside an old boulder which was bathed in light. I perceived the boulder in holographic:
                    I could see the smallest deeps on its surface, every molecule of the boulder was visible to me inside and outside to the tiniest detail and seen ancients moss covering too lovingly draped itself over the boulder: like lovers holding each other in embrace for eons. the boulder was alive-living existing forever changing!

                    My attention was on the stone and I realized that the boulder represented had a significance, great meaning which was: life itself as I have known that till now and the boulders solidity which was on illusion represented the physical universe and from out of that universe, the MEST, I just have walked out.

                    Looking back into the distance where I have emerged from was darkness and that darkness was lifeless and held no life, it was void of life-force and it had a name: death.

                    My attention was drawn away from the ‘’past’ and I become aware of void, void which had no beginning and no end, and was empty, totally empty since I seen nothing and sensed nothing as I experienced that vacuum.

                    Than my attention was pulled toward on energy to my right and there was shimmering mist, mist which contained all the colours of crushed diamond dust which I call life-force, creative energy and that energy was dipped -infused in the mystery of opaque which was the future itself, the yet to be..

                    And I was pulled by this incredible phenomenon: I was mesmerized: this mist was so incredibly alive, it rolled, moved within in its own boundaries I have realized there was someone within in but I did not know who was that entity and I felt tremendous affinity emanated from the mist: It was drawing me to melt into, to become one.

                    But I also I realized that I needed to step into that void and experience and truly understand its meaning and that was my next step; My cognition was: the void I have created have become what is by as-ising the MEST Universe. By understanding that I turned my attention away from the mist and I moved forward the void and as I did, I felt no fear since I have left fear far behind me in the dark, in the past.

                    In that moment as I let go stepped -floated into the void that step taken by me again had a significance: regaining trust in self and the same moment I have given up the last uncertainties.

                    As I flowed in to the void unafraid and as I experienced with that I acknowledged that great void that empty state in totality where I was nothing nobody yet aware in the fullest sense.
                    Than the mist moved in surrounded me folded me up in its invisible arms and I have heard music, a most beautiful music, it was a waltz to which the soul can only ascend.

                    As the music and brilliant yet opaque formless mist held me we dance over and we filled that void with life-force, we swirled, flowed and floated in space of our own endlessness creation.

                    To the total harmony of the universe which was the music as we continued our dance as we flowed: happiness, the joy infused the universe than slowly the mist dissipated: I existed I was that void, yet not empty.

                    As the music melted away and so were the surrounding significances and suddenly over the starless translucent dark blue velvet space an intense brilliant shimmering rainbow appeared and held the universe suspended.

                    I knew I was home.

                    PS: when I reconnected to the body: tears were rolling down a sobs heaved the chest, and I have realized, had a cognition about what is my role, my future in the universe, the yet to come..

                    • Beautiful, Elizabeth.

                    • Maurice.. dear friend.. fellow adventure…I salute you!

                    • Metaphysical experiences as a value:

                      To some, in the world of spirituality, psychic power and metapysical experiences are the criterion for “being advanced”

                      Decency, kindness, humility, respect are not elevated to their rightful position as milestones of spirituality.

                      The words of the Upanishads torn apart by Elizabeth. Even though the man she worships, Ron, honored these words.

                      There is a school that teaches spiritual psychology, they call it spiritual bypass when a person is only focused on high metaphysical experiences and avoids basic human values.

                      Zooming around the universe, leaving the body etc, but lacking basic human values of decency and respect.

                      To a degree, Scientology has produced this sort of mindset. 

                      Power and metaphysical experiences over decency. Power and exteriorization as proof of spiritual advancement.

                      I’ll take a garden variety wog, who respects others, over an exterior “big thetan” any day.

                      The dangers of solo auditing are numorous. Not the least of which is a distorted world view littered with misplaced values as a result of power being the goal: Ron’s legacy at work.

                      Go over to Tony’s site, yesterdays blog, and listen to Hubbard’s great grandson talk of the terror his family faced from Hubbard.

                      Spiritual powers are no sign of spiritual advancement. Humility is. But not in Ron’s world view. And not in many of his products: people.

                    • Brian…. you can judge any way you like. I cant go into verbal battle since I do not have available English to use. You have won.. what ever you have won that is your reality. and if meant to you so much I am delighted that I was able to supplied what made you feel better, superior, more valued, above me, and very important. Those who believe in the LRH’s technology will fallow that path and you cant do anything about it. can label me crazy, sick in the head, illogical, stupid, anything you like to them those who believe and for me those labels don’t mean a thing. Nothing what you say affects what I know. Nice sunny day go for a long walk.. enjoy your superiority.. Oh.. what is superiority? EGO inflated self importance…which is solid to the core.

                    • Brian the Holier than Thou: “Decency, kindness, humility, respect are not elevated to their rightful position as milestones of spirituality.”

                      Your not-so-subtle invalidations of Elizabeth as well as all the no-holds-barred inval of her that you’ve done show that you don’t practice what you preach in the quote above. And the fact that you would include both the inval and the preaching in the same post show clearly that you yourself are lacking in the spiritual awareness you preach about.

                    • Part of my reality what gurus are and good for.
                      Role of the teacher and the guru: to show the way!
                      To show the way to what?
                      I am not conceited big-headed arrogant=ego enough to assume that I know the requirements and desires, having the debt of understanding of others to lead them to whatever is their goal -call in this Universe.
                      I can assume that I know but assumptions do not mean correct understanding of those needs and therefore giving what is really needed and wanted.
                      Role of on teacher: consist of judging-refereeing and being incessantly judged every word every movement, activities is judged-measured.. Compared and to what ? I wonder: but never less it is continually related to something.
                      The role: valance; identity of on teacher guru is a put on personality and nothing more.. that role contains philosophies: attitudes, values, viewpoints, way of life. There is not much fun taking that role, but of course that role contains assumed values-importance: for being better, knowing more than others do, the belief that one is the leader…hehehe..
                      That belief alone that the guru- that self knows the way… have the ability and his are the real belief: the true shit which works is the most arrogant conceited egotistical narcissistic self-observed belief one can be implanted with in this Universe: trap of huge proportion!

                    • not likely I will visit tony’s site, to listen to you here preaching is waste of time why would I want to waste more when I can be just simply me and enjoy being exterior of evil intentions you spread about so heavily. :)

                    • B….'”‘To some, in the world of spirituality, psychic power and metapysical experiences are the criterion for “being advanced” …. NO BRIAN …. NOT ADVENCED AT ALL: JUST HAVING DIFFERENT REALITY… THAT IS ALL.. That reality is not better than any other beliefs but different and some individuals:. persons. spirits, humans, theta, what ever: entities, infinites prefer to live with such a reality that is their choice.

                    • Brian… when you are ready for taking responsibility for the people, for the outcome when fallowing your advise than you will be ready to lead. But not until than. I have not heard anything new from you, which would be unique original from you but things which have been said repeated countless times.: and the human race is still where it is.. When I write in my blog, I DO AMPHASISE over and over.. this is my reality, my truth… and it is only my reality I can write about. It takes great responsibility to make others believe in anything since we cant possibly know how that information will affect their universe.

                    • For you information I never liked LRH… not even when I was in the church… where you get some of your beliefs and who whispers those lies into your ears is beyond my understanding…

        • Comment of the year.

          IMHO.

          😊

      • name calling, or argument by epithet, sits in the fallacious argument category for a reason. It doesn’t add any value/information to what’s being said. Labeling someone(attempting to marginalize them/their viewpoint) rather than disputing what they say weakens the argument of the person doing the labeling. For example, if I chose to just call you an asshole as opposed to explaining why name calling is harmful to the argument process nothing would be accomplished and quite frankly, I’d look like the asshole.

    • Vinaire, beyond name calling there is the “SP Declare”. Around the time “Rosemary’s Baby” was a popular movie in the theater, I read a book called “The Satanic Bible” by Anton Szandor Lavey (now deceased) who was the President of the Church of Satan of San Francisco, California. I lived in New Jersey at the time and his church a letter to ask some questions about his beliefs. I was a minor at the time, and before I could even receive a newsletter from that church, for which I had to sign document to get, because they wanted to know how old I was and needed my parents permission (signature) to send me. The legal thing to do. BUT…..the Church of Scientology has delcared that group a Suppressive Group. If the Church of Scientology had followed the same policy the Church of Satan did, they might not have many of the problems they face today. Because the Church of Scientology of New York invited me out of school, out of my house, and into New York City (across a state border) . They pushed the “you have to go clear now” button on me as I was a newbie and practically ran there to go clear. This without my parents or the school’s consent. I was signed onto services, in writing that I paid for and started, travelling without an adult with me to New York City to do, before someone at the church finally told me (after I was on course for 2 days already full time during the day and had spent 2 days prior with the regges and staft) that a minor could not be on course without an adult. That is a felony. How come a “Suppressive Group” cared how old I was and the Church of Scientology did not? That’s the way I got started Scientology. I say this laughing “They apparently *resolved* the issue with me”. :)

  3. Marty, I just read the entry in Wikipedia on you. I hope they update it by adding some detail of the ongoing litigation in Texas.

    • Vinaire, they sort off have by adding this last year:
      Documentary Scientologists at War

      A one-hour feature on Mark Rathbun titled Scientologists at War directed by Joseph Martin and produced by Danielle Clark and Michael Simkin was broadcast on June 17, 2013, on British Channel Four.[29] The program was part of Channel 4′s First Cut series, which features the work of up-and-coming talent in documentary film making. [30]

      The feature, a rare insider view of the Church of Scientology, investigated the pressure tactics used by the “Squirrel Busters” affiliated to the organization to discredit and silence members who leave the church. It highlighted the story of Mark Rathbun, his role in Scientology, his fall out with Scientology leader David Miscavige, his attempts to further the cause of an independent Scientology movement, his confrontations with the “Squirrel Busters” and the repurcussions on his family life.

  4. “To the contrary, they wind up lessening their own integrity by defining themselves in the context of their chosen nemesis.”

    I like that definition.

    As for the three fingers, I have a problem with that, primarily because I have seen this exact statement used so often to shut people up. A good principle, yes, but in practice? Ultimately one’s own accusations may help one understand what is there to transcend in one’s self.

  5. A member of any high school debate team would tell you that name calling is not considered a valid tool for engaging in intellectual arguments.

  6. You got me.. or I have gotten by me. But it is the fact. Thank you for the reminder, good of you to say so!
    But here is a but, why appraisal telling some one how wonderful.. how great they are, is better thing to do? By appraisal when we do that to others we help them to keep that valance intact-solid..
    I am just thinking….going over the concepts if I say” you are dirty dishrag, you are coming from the family long line of dirty dishrags!!” Yes , I put you down and with that I put myself at the same spot because I know the value what dirty dishrags means..So yes, I am not better that what I say.. yes I am degrading both of us but most of all self.
    When I appraise you to the height of Himalayas and Say ” You are brilliant, you have everything I ever wanted and your sense of humor …….”‘ With this yes, I Ensure that good side will stay intact.. since this good side stimulates me the ”good way”, and the dirty dish rag behavior of your brings out my Hell Cat nature and I don’t like being one because you love me less and no one likes me than or want me to be around!..
    OH.. so I must behave fallow the rules and regulations in order to be accepted at all times by the group.
    Wear the same uniform of behaviour be nice.. be polite and most of all don’t spit on the floor..Never show the true feelings, never let others see the displeasure I feel, never let others see my rotten bad nasty side, that hell cat.. don’t let Attila roar ecause that is not safe!!
    But be nice at all times agreeable collect good points from others by agreement : yes she is one hell of a nice person! That means I be safe inside the group!
    I love to watch the gathering of those dark steel gray-blue thunder clouds the rambling sound from within that the splitting of energy of blinding power slashing across the above expanse of natures wild side… Thrills me to no end.. makes my heart pound and I too feel electrified by such a display of power. and I I know I am part of!
    I am a gardener, big time, My rose garden can be seen in the facebook.. but that was in Seattle.. now I have different one here in BC but equally beautiful since flower gardens are all beautiful. The garden hold not only flowers trees, and flowering bushes but home to birds, Fairies, and Gnomes, and Little People…and those Free Souls who roam freely they to rest here time to time..
    The beauty of Nature thrills me to no end.. and to this Nature what is Nature the thunder and lightning equally belongs..part of…
    It is I who has to take responsibility for my communication..

  7. Guilty, and I admit it. Not GOP guilty but it is a failing for sure. Will attempt to correct and thanks for the reminder it is childish and no standard to follow. :-)

    • Childish?? not standard? very standard.. billions use it daily. It is part of the language and each person uses employs words accordingly how they feel.. what they believe in.. how they want to express their communication. Words do the best how we used them string them together as pearls and these pearls no matter how they look like do conway our realities.
      I admit that can not be duplicated no matter what we say.. but with word we can create, we can draw pictures expressing joy–sorrow, we can use words as a paint brush and the face of the computer is the canvas where we cant pain the very picture of Heaven and HELL.. how we see that!
      Words were created to stimulate and they do because each word is sitting on a mound of energy mass.. SO in reality not the words doing the stimulation when we reading them but the energy the very vibration what we experience is doing the stimulations.
      We are gods and we now throw words around for affects as we have done long time back when we were throwing thunderbolts. :)

  8. Luis Agostini

    So GLAD this attention to this was given and posted by Marty!!

    It is being. to me, a beautiful experience to see a soul growing in wisdom and in freedom and with the well earned power to share that wisdom to others and help others grow.

    Giving souls permanent negative labels is, to me, quite an evil deed as its intent is to dim a soul with a false beingness so it feels worthless and flawed and, moreover, weakens a soul from recognizing and owning up to the accusation.

    The best way I have found to handle a soul that is misbehaving is to indicate that IT IS BEING (whatever beingness I am assigning to it). That allows the soul the space to examine it as I am separating the beigness I am assigning from the soul. A soul, to me, has no beingness.

    Identifyihg/labeling, when a soul buys into it, collapses the space needed to examine as it immerses the soul in that beingness. It severely deteriorates its awareness of itself as separate from anything else.

    I also object to the benevolent labeling one does to oneself and to another by the act of identifying with a beingness and labeling oneself as such.

    The quest for “me-ness”, for the discovery of who one really is and the “feeling of soulness’ it brings, is best attained by removing oneself from all of the “me-s” one is labeling oneself as or identifying with, or with the viewpoints one is holding as one’s own or attempting to defend or protect.

    I try to exercise towards that separateness that I am well aware it is my duty to nourish by not assigning a :unseparating” label to myself and others.

    I do it, as I mentioned by the use of “you are being….” and by “the viewpoint I am assuming is….”, “the viewpoint that is being true to me now….” That gives me the space to control, evolve or discard them and gives others the space to do the same.

    Regards,
    Luis

    • I wonder where the idea has come from that the soul misbehaves ? Who put the first judgement out who has established the rule and enforced the laws
      OH the control must be used on those frisky souls who dare to be different, dare to express their reality in the different manner than holy-holy!
      Lets rewight the dictionary, and all the stimulative words must be left out and guess what: than you would have empty pages!
      You talk of manners, you wont even acknowledge the communication which is addressed to you if you believe that communication is bellow your level of your holy!

      • HI Elizabeth.

        I am perceiving that you resent my my apparent “I am holy” conduct. I believe you are seeing me as coming from “I am superior to you all ” position.

        And you are so right i am giving that impression!!!!!!

        First of all, I STRONGLY apologize for not addressing communications, did not even know I had them (I have not checked my last comment comments on Marty’s previous write, and I do not subscribe to being notified and I will check them right after this).

        My lack of action definitely opens up the door to anyone communicating to me, that I want to be only cause and that I am quite arrogant and ego controlled.

        What I realize I needed to do was to communicate the following:

        I see this blog from the viewpoint of an opportunity for me to grow, to see what unwanted by me condition gets turned on in me in my interaction with it so I can stop resisting its presence or its discovery and get rid of it.
        Also, what I should recognize in myself, through criticisms towards me that cause me pain, and criticism that others get that I should examine to see if they are present in my universe and evolve or discard.

        This blog is being to me a quite wonderful “auditing session”.

        When I wrote my last comment on a previous write, what appeared in my universe, that needed goodbye, was the desire in me to accomplish valuableness and presence, to be acknowledged for writing a viewpoint that may be considered valuable or would create an effect and elicit comments.

        I then decided to not seek to see whether it had responses, not to follow the dictates of the ego that still resides in me. I have learned that recognizing and disobeying ego dictates lessens the power it has been having over me in an area to the point of ultimate disappearance from my world. The same works with insecurities, which to me, have their own dictates.

        Please understand that the following of my path, the going with the dictates of my heart, of my intuition, no matter how upsetting it may be to another, is what I follow, as in the long run it is extremely beneficial to my continuous goal to be as much a soul as possible, and I can always own up and communicate and explain to those I cause an upset.

        I do recognize that the common upset it causes is that I am being selfish and arrogant and “holier than thou”, but I am willing to accept as I know that I am none of those.

        So, in the short run it can cause bad effects like what I did by not responding, but in the long run, in my experience, it always has been causing very good effects to all involved as the intent and the result is for me to be being more soul like, more heart driven in my conduct.

        Now, this viewpoints I am assuming could be very wrong and could be ego driven, but the only I will find out is my letting them be known and having the willingness to examine criticisms like yours..

        My cellphone notified me yesterday of Marty’s new writing and my heart dictated that I make a comment, except this time I purposefully waited only a day to see if comments were made.

        I felt I was no longer being dominated by the compulsion to find out and so you will never get from me a delayed response to any communication you and I will have and I sincerely hope we do!

        Your comment has “forced me” to be more transparent and so I am very grateful.

        I am also very glad you brought up the point about the soul misbehaving as I had a cognition after I wrote it.

        Up to now I preferred when someone was being cruel to another, to say “you are being mean”.

        I realized yesterday that a better method is saying you are doing things which are mean. Placing attention on the action, is being to me, much more effective that assigning a beingness, even though is temporary.

        I am really sorry I came across so awfully conceited. I am strongly wishing that you allow me to show that I do walk my talk, especially as to doing the best I can to avoid being ego controlled and being heart driven.

        Regards,
        Luis

        • Luis….Hello to you… Apologies are not needed yet much appreciated.
          Well. You have come to the right place where the EGO will be trampled on.
          Yes, blogging can bring powerful changes into the persons Universe if changes the person wants and looking for.
          If on the other hand want to post show off how fantastic-grand knowledgeable you are….hehehe…you still will get the same load of stimulation.. We are good at judging in fact we can’t communicate without. The Ego will holler!
          I been blogging for 3 years.. and Luis I have been hit many times, and hit hard at first was not easy to take and handle the stimulations from evaluation and invalidation and had many Sessions [solo] on the ARCB’s which those have caused.
          But of course cognitions were pouring in…
          I fought back, kicked, yelled, thrown temper tantrum, growled and definitely grace serenity was not expressed in any of my comments.[ and never will be!]
          Yes, blogging can be a session.. since when exchanging communication with others we experience a different Universe with this I mean: the energy-mass we experience can be very restimulative .
          By now I solely post looking for stimulations-ideas –concepts- which I had not seen before in order to have a session on them because I know each of these stimulative concepts of course have on earlier similar someplace and they are in fact concepts of misunderstandings=ARCB’s of some kind and can be confronted as-ised and new reality will be.
          Luis….” I realized yesterday that a better method is saying you are doing things which are mean. Placing attention on the action, is being to me, much more effective that assigning a beingness, even though is temporary.”’
          Good for you to realize the above.. very good..
          Luis I have no idea who you are where you are what beingness you are in. what is you valance at this moment here on this Planet but I am sure this is a reunion of friends since I am curtain that we know each other from other places- other times..
          There are no strangers in this universe since the word ‘’stranger’’ is a concept with the use of that concept we ‘’deny’’ knowing.
          Looking forward to hear from you… Best Elizabeth
          PS: DO KEEP IT IN MIND: MORE AUDITING THE PERSON HAD AND BECAUSE HAS BLOWN LOTS OF MASS THAT PERSON CAN BE STIMULATED EASIER BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS “”MORE AWARE” NOW! Free-er to experience! it is very good sign!

          • Luis Agostini

            HI Elizabeth.

            Great to know we are on “same pages” in many areas especially this one:

            PS: DO KEEP IT IN MIND: MORE AUDITING THE PERSON HAD AND BECAUSE HAS BLOWN LOTS OF MASS THAT PERSON CAN BE STIMULATED EASIER BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS “”MORE AWARE” NOW! Free-er to experience! it is very good sign! .”

            Although I do not “audit” myself in the way that I believe you do as I do not use Scientology tools or techniques, the important point you make here, from my viewpoint, is that self awareness about the contents of and what is going on in one’s universe, coupled with the willingness and ability to see and experience it without resistance so one can handle them, as one wants, is both a blessing and a pain.

            Although a blessed blessing one goes past the pain :)

            Regards,
            Luis

    • Thank you, Luis for this:
      “Giving souls permanent negative labels is, to me, quite an evil deed as its intent is to dim a soul with a false beingness so it feels worthless and flawed and, moreover, weakens a soul from recognizing and owning up to the accusation”.

      Wow, that is exactly what happened to me, as over the years I had quite a few labels attached to me, with the final one being most destructive in so many ways.

      It took me years to separate myself from that label. A label breaks down one’s differentiation of the various aspects of oneself, along with giving one a generality which can create a tremendous ARC Break with oneself; if one does not discern the differences between the label, and who you really are.

      Your post is very poignant and very beautiful. You are right; labels collapse the space making it difficult to recover, rendering one unable to handle what might be a justified criticism. it gets lost in the generality of the beingness of the label. I have had it occur with “good” labels, too.

      This is such a win for me. You have my undying gratitude for your keen insight, that you have been willing to share here. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

      • HI Lady Min!

        It feels so good to me what you write!!

        After I wrote it, I realized that when you grant beingness to the soul in each one of us, when you address people as souls, you allow growing and greatness and strength and freedom and independence and beauty to be present in everyone.

        When you address people as beingnesses or seek for people to assign themselves beingnesses you don’t get the same.

        Regards,
        Luis

        • Hi Lady Min.

          One more thing…

          This comment by you blew my mind:
          “I have had it occur with “good” labels, too.
          Your awareness is awesome!

          I have to believe… no, I am quite, quite sure, that your “labeling” experience has given you the awareness and the strength to NEVER fall in that trap again, and to NEVER again give anyone the power to have you become a label.

          Beautiful you are!

          Regards,
          Luis

          • Thank you Luis, for the wonderful acknowledgement!

            You completely deserve the song Monte has dedicated to you below.

            This thread has created such an abundance of love and new awarenesses for me, and I can only reiterate my thanks for your thoughts and good wishes. You are right, I don’t plan to ever fall into the trap, (actually the abyss), of going into agreement with a labe again!

            I am now very careful of even thinking about a label for others, much less verbalizing them.

            The healing continues . . .

            • To Luis!!! Keep it in mind that LABELS INDICATES VALANCES… Exmp: you dirty old dog, you are on angel, you are a bastard, love of my life1 every one of these labels-valances contain a large amount of other consideration..hinting tat hat the person behaves in the manner of.

              • Luis Agostini

                Hi Elizabeth.

                I agree, labels are only destructive when one becomes the label or attaches oneself to a label, and is, therefore, limited by, or trapped in it, or controlled by it.

                Assuming a label consciously does no harm. Labels are pretty useful when they empower a soul.

                The awareness, that in my view, is needed, is to keep a separateness between one, as a soul, and, as you wisely state, the label and the considerations it contains.

                And to know that one has the choice between assuming and not assuming that label when it is presented to one.

                I love assuming the label, when it is offered to me to assume, that I am a noble soul, but I am very well aware that there are times when I am not being one, and so, when I “misbehave” I don’t blind myself to my misbehavior by holding on to the “noble soulness” label.

                Additionally, I do not allow the “noble soul” labeling someone may assign to me to blind me to seeing a motive whose intent is to “weaken me” to influence a conduct.

                Keeping a soul or oneself, as a soul, from being immersed in a label to the point of not being able to see anything else but the considerations which accompany that label is a very healthy deed.

                Lady Min is a beautiful example of it and I am admiring her tremendously for her transparency and presence of heart.

                Regards,
                Luis

                • Luis…. there you go “Lady Min is a beautiful example of it and I am admiring her tremendously for her transparency and presence of heart.”
                  Admiration solidifies…. you have given her universe to remain as is a reason to be.. Admiration acts like glue sticks the theta to that energy mass
                  Admiration creates valances.

                  • Luis Agostini

                    Hi Elizabeth.

                    In my view you are too much into mechanics, you are empowering them too much.

                    As if a soul could not help, but be the effect of its universe and the flows it receives.

                    Regards,
                    Luis

                    • Luis care to explain what do you mean by your understanding of mechanics? How I have been locked into it? Thanks

                    • Luis on the other hand don’t bother to explain how you see my reality. I am not interested in any ones opinion who do not understand what is auditing about and what it can do. thank you for your communication.

              • Elizabeth, you are right! A label can have a whole personality, or valence, that is part of “the package” of the label. The problem with labels is that if one agrees to part of “the package”, one has the possibilty of adopting the entire picture, or personality, that goes along with it.

                How many people are now dramatizing being a “Suppressive Person” because they looked at themselves and agreed they might have done something bad, and then decided that “Yes, maybe I am a suppressive person!”, and then adopted the whole personality?

                One of LRH’s observations that I consider to be incredibly brilliant, is the discovery of the Introspection or introversion process that a person or spiritual being can go through, after being given a wrong indication. He wrote a lot of material about the effects of this on the mind and personality. It is my opinion that a label that is not quite right has the possibility of doing this for or to a person. Hence, my present reluctance to put labels on others, since the beginning of this commentary here on this subject.

                One of the reasons this thread is blowing so much charge for me, is that the various labels that were put upon me caused a lot of introspection and self-doubt, trying to figure out “Am I really that bad?” The good news is that after a period of time, I figured out what I thought was good about myself, and also understood what I wanted to correct and then set about correcting the unwanted behavior. But, there were some very dark places that I got into before I figured it out.

                Thank you, Elizabeth, for your linking of labels with the valence or personality package that goes along with it. It gave me a lot of food for thought!

                • Lady M…. Thank you for sharing space with me.. Valances the package like SP can only become affective if there is a earlier similar incident and by now I know that all dramatization including having hangnail is t dramatization from other earlier experiences. Every kind of beigness is a valance and as we agreed: every valance is a package. Look at the concept ” being blessed” ugh! instantly one gets a picture of blessing how it looks like who is doing it to whom than why , how that was done. ugh.. It is very difficult to erase [only can happen bit by bit in sessions] the idea of me doing this or that, or someone has done it to me. One has to erase the concepts all the reasons one has believed that that I am, self.. me…because those are the labels we as Spiritual are connecting to the MEST U. the experience is not the person.

                • I’m so loving reading all this goings on while I was busy elsewhere.
                  You said: “But, there were some very dark places that I got into before I figured it out.”
                  Yah I know exactly what you mean by that. I’m just relieved we all somehow will come out OK. I know that with all my heart :)

      • Lady Min…”Wow, that is exactly what happened to me, as over the years I had quite a few labels attached to me, with the final one being most destructive in so many ways.

        “It took me years to separate myself from that label. A label breaks down one’s differentiation of the various aspects of oneself, along with giving one a generality which can create a tremendous ARC Break with oneself; if one does not discern the differences between the label, and who you really are.”

        For you Lady Min…

        • Monte, Thank you so much for this. I have played this three or four times and I can’t quit crying tears of joy each time i hear it. I did not realize how deep the pain was from the past labels, I have had numerous realizations that I wish I could detail here, but unfortunately I have work cycles to do. One of the major ones was what a miracle my love really is, because when I am in that state I have accomplished miracles for others and also for myself. Many years ago I attested to a state called “Pure Love” at the Flag Land Base, after quite some time in session attempting to identify what it was I had achieved. Your post (song) above and your post about agape below put into words a lot of what that state is. I think your song has rehabilitated it. I thank you from the essence of my soul that is me, (this is hard to describe) for your wonderful gift. I am passing it along to others who also need healing from past labels.

          What a wonderful blog this is!

          • Lady Min, I have come to believe that in one’s journey through space and time; space being the backdrop for matter and time being the backdrop for thought, that there is nothing random. This belief is 180 degrees from what I used to believe.

            I was not looking for this song. It just ‘happened.’ And the instant it ‘happened’ I knew that it was for you. Just like I knew the song I gifted to Louis and then the one I gave to The Oracle were to go to them. The individuals that you pass this song along to are, I believe, not random recipients. Receiving this particular song at this particular time is in their “script” so to speak.

            In form we are separated, in Mind we are connected and in Spirit, we are One.

            Lady Min, thank you so much for sharing what you have in your reply. What you have shared is a reflection of this trust (a growing trust) I’m beginning to place in my “inner voice” which is not at ‘voice’ at all…my apologies, I am unable to articulate this ???

            Much Love and All the Best to you Lady Min ~ Monte

            • Luis Agostini

              Thanks for allowing me to understand you a lot more!

              I am becoming more and more certain that the feeling of “blessedness” that you discuss in your other e-mail to Lady Min comes about when you are operating from the heart, when “soulness” is being achieved in what one is doing, when you are allowing your “inner voice” to dictate your actions.

              And so now I know that you do nurture your “so blessed”.

              Regards,
              Luis

            • Monty, I could go on for thousands of words, ideas I would like to share with you re: your comments. One of them is, is that the “inner voice” you speak of, is really you as a spiritual being, receiving communications from other spiritual beings, with whom you are connected on a very direct level. Of course, that is my opinion and I don’t want to evaluate what this is for you, but this is my reality on what is happening with that, which was reinforced by your selection of that song for me. So manty times that I haven’t done what my inner voice tells me to do; I find out later that the perception of that inner voice was absolutely correct, and I am usually very remorseful that I didn’t listen to “it”. i believe that spiritual beings have the ability to give and receive communications and perceptions directly, without mechanical means, and that “inner voice” is the speaker for the antenna that picks this stuff up, out of the “ether”. How else would you have instantly known that song was perfect for me?

              I so much loved that you told me the story here, of how you knew that song was the right one for me; it made it all the more meaningful. The effects from hearing that song are still on-going on a daily and hourly basls. The realizations that I am having about it, is having a very magical effect on my ability to help others. I am learning that I love people very dearly, and that this love makes it easy for me to help them accomplish miracles in their lives. For me, it is a demonstration of L. Ron Hubbards Axiom #24. TOTAL ARC (Affinity, Reality, Communication) WOULD BRING ABOUT THE VANISHMENT OF ALL MECHANICAL CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE. –From The Creation of Human Ability, 1971 edition.
              Time and space didn’t exist when you knew that song was right for me, and I beleive that you are a very highly developed spiritual being with a lot of love, otherwise you would not have cared enough to make sure I got it.

              I passed that song along to another whom I love, who was in a very bad state, and his life is now changing because he says he understands that I really do love him, and that because of this, knowing that he is loved by at least one other person in the world, he is willing to go on with his life. He has been thinking about suicide because he felt alone and isolated. (These were his words to me, yesterday.) Now he feels happy and looking forward to getting on with his life and solving his own problems. Listening to that song put him on the road to finally understanding that I really do love and care about him.

              Also, in terms of being blessed, I would like for you to look at the book entitled MAGIC, By Rhonda Byrne. It is a sequel to THE SECRET, which she also wrote. For me, it is a study of gratitude, and counting your blessings, and what that practice will do for a person who engages in it. I have been studying this subject of gratitude, from other authors also, and it is quite fascinating. It definitely has had magnificent effects for me, and who knows, maybe that is what enabled me to encouunter you and Luis and Elizabeth on this blog, as I have been mostly inactive on it for quite some time. I used to be a regular commenter, but sort of dropped out, I am so glad something compelled me to look at Marty’s wonderful post about name-calling an labels that day just a few days ago. I thank him also, for broaching this subject, as it has definitely been a game changer to explore this subject.

              The pain and anquish from the name-calling and labels and the subsequent loss of friends and disconnection has largely dissipated. One of the other realizations that I had from your song is that it really is a MIRACLE, that my basic love for humanity and ability and wilingness to want to help others survived the labels and the name-calling, and the pain, and the anguish, and the isolation, and the self-doubt, the grief, the apathy, the attendant self-abnegation, and all the rest of it. My loving is a MIRACLE!!!! It is a miracle that it survived, and that I still want to use it to help others to have miracles in their lives, and that I actively do this now on a daily basis, with or without concern whether they notice what I am doing. However, in the last few days I have been noticed and thanked for some of what I have been doing, and the increase in the awareness in others that I am having positive effects in their lives I believe comes from the effects of the song that you so lovingly gave to me. My higher awareness seems to have resulted in a higher awareness of others around me.

              All of the above reinforces my belief that we are all basically good, and that the effects of the most painful and harmful and evil deeds of others can be washed away; so that we can return to our higher abilities and our best selves, and that regardless of what happens to a person, whether self-induced or not, we can return to a state of full love and ability, wanting to use that to make a better world. It is my belief that spiritual beings can accomplish this, erasing away the pain and the lies.

              HAPPY MOTHERS DAY TO ALL THE MOTHERS OUT THERE.
              IF YOU ARE DISCONNECTED FROM YOUR CHILDREN, JUST KNOW YOU ARE NOT REALLY DISCONNECTED, AND IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEY COME BACK TO YOU. DISCONNECTION IS A LIE, FOR HOW COULD A SON OR DAUGHTER EVER TRULY BE DISCONNECTED FROM HIS OR HER’S MOTHER.
              LOVE IS THE TRUTH
              DISCONNECTION IS THE LIE.

              I found a card around Valentine’s Day that I gave to my son, that said,
              “THE ONLY CURE FOR LOVE IS MORE LOVE”. For you mothers out there that are disconnected, just love them even more, and the ties that bind will bring them home. The love will help disintegrate the lies.

              Thank you Marty and Mosey for this blog, as it gave me the courage to do what I had to do to get my son back, and the moral support of so many others here who encouraged me me to go on when all looked black. I want those mothers who are still grieving to understand it is not hopeless, they can and do come back to you; just don’t lose heart, or lose your love. YOUR LOVE REALLY IS A MIRACLE, AND SOMEDAY THEY WILL KNOW THAT.

              • I almost forgot:

                HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY, MOSEY!

                Enjoy one of the greatest blessings in life, a child to love and nurture. I got the idea, on Facebook, how much you are enjoying your son!

              • Hallelujah! Lady Min Hallelujah!

                Hallelujah: Two Hebrew words put together. “Hallel” means to praise, to boast in, to shine forth, to be worthy of praise, and to be commended. “Jah” is a shortened term of “Jehovah,” which means the Self-Existent and Eternal One.

                IMHO, whether SELF happens as Lady Min, Monte, Luis, Marty or trillions upon trillions of other seeming individualities, SELF is never anything but SELF.

                Lady Min, I believe that at the base of all suffering, hate, fear, despair, pain, conflict and so on, is a belief in separation. I see the concept of separation as being a mechanical perspective/display of existence. When a ‘person’ no longer sees objects as being separate; when experience occurs absent of any labels…does the ‘person’ cease to exist? I don’t think so. ‘Person’ is SELF happening. However, SELF happening as a ‘person’ that recognizes that there is no such thing as separation; recognizing that it is SELF happening, has a very different kind of ‘person’ experience (an experience absent of suffering, hate, conflict, etc.,) than the ‘person’ who holds a belief of separation. And certainly no label originating from the belief system of separation that is assigned to a ‘person’ that recognizes that itself is SELF happening and all seemingly ‘other’ selves are SELF happening, would have any capacity whatsoever to affect the ‘person.’

                I am enormously grateful to you Lady Min for such a generous sharing of your self and your experiences that has prompted a great deal of self-exploration on this end. For so, so long I have been a seeker searching outside of myself in one experience after another for that elusive “missing piece of the puzzle” that, when found, would instantly flip the switch on to my Self-Knowing. Being a seeker, though, depends on a belief that I lack that which I am seeking and the ‘that’ which I am seeking is never in the present moment but is always just around the corner in the future, thereby, that which is sought is never found. I am no longer a seeker for I recognize that there is no such thing as “outside of myself” (that’s a dream) and that ‘I’ have never been anything but complete (it was the labels/beliefs that made incompleteness appear as a reality). However, that being said, I do not know that completeness I speak of, thus, I am now an explorer/observer/contemplator and no longer a seeker.

                Speaking of gratitude, I will definitely have a look at the book MAGIC that you suggested. Like you say, “gratitude is fascinating” and I would add that it runs much ‘deeper’ and has ramifications that are more far than we would ever think to imagine. What does the word gratitude point to? That is what I’m wondering and the instant I wonder the exploring begins.

                Lady Min, here is a video re gratitude that was once a blog post of Marty’s. It’s one that I never tire of experiencing. Enjoy!

                Also…as I read what you shared there was another song (an old song) that I began to hear the melody to along with the words “the miracle of love.” I’ve been silently humming it all morning. The “inner voice” has many different ways that it uses to get my attention. :) Finally I go to youtube and I’m not surprised to find the song. It’s by the Eurythmics. Here it is:

                About miracles….something you might find of interest:

                http://courseinmiracles.com/urtext/chapters-1-thru-10/ch-1-introduction-to-miracles/miracle-principles-1-14.html

                Much Love ~ Monte

                • Monte, Your reply to Lady Min is more beautiful then I have words for. May you forever enjoy what you so selfishly have given.

                  • Another whoops “what you so selfishlessly (is that a word?) have given but I bet you knew I meant that anyway. Remember that song with the line “Talking to you is just like talking to me…”? Or maybe I made that up – can’t find it on goggle :(

          • Lady MIn, you wrote….”What a wonderful blog this is!”

            Monte: I completely concur Lady Min!! I am so blessed!! ‘Blessed’ now that’s a label I’m looking forward to exploring. :) And then there’s the song….

            • Luis Agostini

              Hi.

              Please know, so that I don’t provide the idea that I am ignoring a communication to me, in case it is made, that I have finished a 2 month and 2 week project today that kept me at home and allowed me to take breaks to be visiting the Internet and this blog.

              I am traveling to be with my son who lives in Philadelphia and then doing some Caribbean traveling and my Internet / blog visiting is ending for a while.

              It was a very enjoyable and wisdom providing experience for me!!

              I am very glad I connected with Monte , Elizabeth and Lady Min

              Regards,
              Luis

              • Luis, have a wonderful trip to be with you son, and of course, there is nothing like the Caribbean! Thank you so much for your sharing and caring, with me, and all of us! We look forward to hearing from you again, when you have the situation to do so! For me, the miracles are continuing every day; I am so happy I found this thread, and I am so much happier in my life for having participated here. The past pain is melting away, and the future looks bright and shiny!

    • Louis, the term “Agape” comes to mind as I read your comment.

      Thomas Jay Oord has defined agape as “an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

      A gift for you Louis…

  9. Very true. Ad hominem is a way to avoid the issue and dive into the negative. I feel the same way about discrediting some point or another when the person trying to discredit it says “consider the source” as if anything coming from that person or group is de facto wrong because it is “those people” or “that group” saying it.

    Discuss the position, not the person. Now, of course, I, too have been guilty of name-calling, but I do try to refrain from it, because I agree it does no good at all.

    On the same note, what I really cannot stand, and see with more and more regularity, is the idea that proponents of certain ideas or ideologies are evil and mean to “destroy the world!”, or are stupid and mentally incompetent. I see that on both sides of the political spectrum – Obama is trying to “destroy this country,” or conservatives are sociopaths who want to “eradicate the poor.” Or, The Church of Scientology is out to enslave everyone, or anti-Scientologists are evil and can’t stand anyone getting better. Or Christians are dupes who are sub-zero in intelligence, or atheists are godless heathens determined to undermine humanity and righteousness. The list goes on.

    96% of people are good people regardless of their points of view. I try to remember that.

    But – all that said, sometimes name-calling and put-downs can be fun, even if they are not always constructive: http://mentalfloss.com/article/54637/19-scathing-political-put-downs

    Mark

    • Grasshopper, to me “ad hom” and “name calling” are 2 very different things. I will occassionally indulge myself in an outburst of name-calling when all else has failed, in terms of discussing the issues and content of another’s posts on their merits.

      I think it is usually pretty clear when that happens. Also, the definition of “ad hominem” does allow an “address to the person” when it is relevant and appropriate in the context of the matter being discussed.

      • Valkov wrote:

        “Also, the definition of “ad hominem” does allow an “address to the person” when it is relevant and appropriate in the context of the matter being discussed.”

        I’m wondering if you are capable of giving an example of this, and showing how “attacking the man” – rather than the statement the man makes – is not logically fallacious.

        Start.

        Alanzo

        • Al, Wikipedia explains the distinction. It’s pretty well expressed by “Consider the source”. It relates to matters of fact, rather than to fallacious reasoning. Judges, for example, will consider a person’s previous record in making a sentencing decision.

          I’m sure you will be able to think of many examples after reading the article.

          Many statements by politicians can be queried on this kind of basis.

          Here’s an example – a slaveowner might claim that Blacks are better off as slaves because they can’t really take care of themselves. “Who would know better than me”, he might claim. “I’ve been associating with Blacks all my life, and therefore have an intimate knowledge of their inferiority and their need for a strong controlling, benevolent of course, ruling hand.”

          Many justifications that people use fall into this category. Common sayings about it are “Follow the money”, “Consider the source”, etc. It can be a problem in the Justice system, when a witness turns “State’s evidence” in order to get leniency for himself. Can his testimony be fully trusted, under the circumstances?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          • Valkov:

            The statement “Blacks are better off as slaves because they can’t really take care of themselves.” is demonstrably false on its own. It can be shown to be false without ever having to “consider the source” at all.

            That the slaveowner made himself, and the fact that he stated it, the evidence for the truth of his own statement was an appeal to authority – another logical fallacy – and completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the original claim.

            This is something I have never seen you understand: It is a logical fallacy to attack the speaker or writer of a claim or statement, instead of attacking the truth or falsity the original claim or statement.

            Claims and statements must be examined for themselves. To attack the speaker of a claim or statement is a distraction, leaving the statement or claim unexamined, and thus, a failure of logic.

            The Ad hominem fallacy is to attack the speaker of the claim, ignoring the claim itself. L Ron Hubbard did this with his PTS/SP technology, and his labeling of “Black Fives” and “1.1s”, “DBs” and the list goes ON and ON throughout his reign as Founder of Scientology.

            And many many Scientologists fell for it.

            Even I fell for it for a while.

            But it’s good to see that you are on the road to no longer falling for this particular logical fallacy, Valkov.

            Way to go.

            Alanzo

            • Hello there, Alanzo. Your comment:
              “This is something I have never seen you understand: It is a logical fallacy to attack the speaker or writer of a claim or statement, instead of attacking the truth or falsity the original claim or statement.
              Claims and statements must be examined for themselves. To attack the speaker of a claim or statement is a distraction, leaving the statement or claim unexamined, and thus, a failure of logic.”

              Mark:
              This is a very profound and important statement you just made. I have made similar statements on this site. The wording was different, but the point was almost identical.

              I have followed this principle while reading Ron and others for the last 30 years. It has helped me a lot and brought much clarity. Never believe anything. Always check with your own observations. It’s a matter of keeping your own integrity.

              On the other hand, never discount anything, no matter the source. It’s a matter of keeping your own integrity.
              When Werner Von Braun said to put cooling channels on this portion of the thruster cone, you better listen to him, no matter how many slaves suffered at his factories. When Ron said check for an ARCX, it’s worth investigating.
              Mark

              • Yes, if Stalin told you 2+2=4, would you believe him, or disbelieve it because of the source? But if Stalin said at his trial at the Pearly Gates that no-one had ever died of malnutrition or disease in the GULAGs, would you give him a pass on his say-so, without considering the source?
                There are some people in jail because of a mistrial of justice, a wrongful conviction. But everyone in jail will tell you they are innocent. Just ask them.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

                “When an ad hominem argument is made against a statement, it is important to draw a distinction whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[10]
                Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[11] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.”

                • Valkov wrote:

                  Yes, if Stalin told you 2+2=4, would you believe him, or disbelieve it because of the source? But if Stalin said at his trial at the Pearly Gates that no-one had ever died of malnutrition or disease in the GULAGs, would you give him a pass on his say-so, without considering the source?

                  Again Valkov, one has to examine the statement 2+2=4 to discern the truth of it.

                  And it does not matter if Stalin said “no-one had ever died of malnutrition or disease in the GULAGs”, the statement can be examined and evidence can be found completely independent of Stalin to see whether it is true.

                  There is no need to bring Stalin into the examination of these statements, and relying on an examination of Stalin to discern the truth of these statements distracts you from the truth and is the logical fallacy of ad hom.

                  It’s like this: The story of the “Emperor Has No Clothes”.

                  Are you familiar with it?

                  All the sophisticated, educated, totally qualified grown ups in the town were unable to see that the Emperor was naked.

                  Who was the only one who could see it?

                  The totally unsophisticated, uneducated, completely unqualified little boy: He was the only one to say the true statement: “The Emperor Has No Clothes!”

                  If you were fooled by the logical fallacy of Ad hom, you would ignore the little boy’s statement because of course he was unqualified to make it.

                  And yet his statement itself was true.

                  That’s why you have to examine the truth or falsity of the statement itself, and not be distracted onto the personalities, qualifications, or characters of the person making the statement.

                  Don’t be fooled and distracted by the ad hom logical fallacy any more, Valkov.

                  Please?

                  Alanzo

                  • That’s why a valid method to determine the truth of something must necessarily include observation. In Scientology observation has effectively been replaced by “Hubbard’s word” or the word of some authorities in the group. Agreement or disagreement became a matter of “you are with us or against us” as opposed to just looking at something to arrive at conclusions. If you agree then you are “right.” If you don’t, then there is something wrong with you and you need to be attacked and/or “corrected” which in itself could be a form of attack on your mind.

                    • LTC wrote:

                      In Scientology observation has effectively been replaced by “Hubbard’s word” or the word of some authorities in the group. Agreement or disagreement became a matter of “you are with us or against us” as opposed to just looking at something to arrive at conclusions.

                      Exactly, LTC.

                      We are witnessing right here how letting Scientology do your thinking for you cripples a person’s ability to think logically.

                      Scientology is not the only ideology to do this to people. In fact, I think adopting any ideology to do your thinking for you does this to a greater or lesser degree.

                      But Scientology certainly does cripple a person’s ability to think logically.

                      Alanzo

                    • Al posted: We are witnessing right here how letting Scientology do your thinking for you cripples a person’s ability to think logically…..

                      ……But Scientology certainly does cripple a person’s ability to think logically.

                      So what or how are “we witnessing” this “right here”? What/who/which posts are you referring to?

                      Also, What supports your conclusion the “scientology certainly does cripple a person’s ability to think logically.” I would object that this is a case of “Facts not in evidence”; that is, you have not presented any facts to back this statement up……

                    • “Also, What supports your conclusion the “scientology certainly does cripple a person’s ability to think logically.” I would object that this is a case of “Facts not in evidence”; that is, you have not presented any facts to back this statement up……”

                      Have you been to Mike Rinder’s blog lately and seen his references to “Kool-aide drinkers”?

                      What is a Kool-aide drinker if not a person who can not think logically because they are letting Scientology do their thinking for them?

                      The facts are everywhere in evidence for this Valkov, you just have to let yourself see them.

                      Alanzo

                    • “Koolaide drinker” is obviously a label and an ad hom, depending on context. No different than “wog”, “db”, “1.1” etc. I think this illustrates my point that “ad hom reasoning” has its place in real life. Ad hom reasoning is different from the ad hom fallacy, one must look closely to figure out which is being done.

                      Besides, invoking statement by Mike Rinder can be construed to be the fallacy of “appeal to authority”, right? :-)

                    • Yeah, yeah. And what prevents Americans from thinking logically about America?, etc etc etc. You really don’t know or understand where I am coming from, dude. Because you are a born and bred, corn fed, American.

                      Is that a bad thing? No. But the matrix you were born into and grew up in, does place limitations on what you see and how you evaluate things.

                  • I possibly interpret the Emperor’s Clothes story a little differently. We do not really know whether or not the “qualified adults” could or could not see that the Emperor was naked. We do know that none of them spoke up to say so. They may well have seen the truth, but were afraid to say it, whereas the little boy was not “socialized” enough, “grown up” enough, to know he should not speak the truth. The adults had a tacit consent thing going, possibly backed by fear, of not exposing the Emperor’s lie. This appears to me to be similar to the situation in the CoS, where Miscavige says “Eat this sh*t, it is the finest Grade A Prime steak you will ever taste and don’t forget to pay up”, and everyone goes “MMMMM! Delicious! Here’s $10,000!”

                    A twist on that may be the view that the “qualified adults” are actually hypnotized and do actually see the Emperor as dressed in fine clothes, while the child is not hypnotized and sees the Emperor as he really is. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said, according to Matthew 18:2-6 –
                    “He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

                    I notice you have quite correctly related this to the fallacy of the “appeal to authority”, in your version of the story, where the “qualified adults” are the supposed “authority”. The Wiki article actually goes into the relationship between these 2 fallacies a bit.

                    My point is that not all “addresses to the person” constitute an “ad hom fallacy”. Some are relevant. Here’s a cute example – You discover that the person you are discussing with, took Logic 101 in college, but got a grade of F in the subject. Could this be relevant? This alone does not disqualify his argument, but it might alert you to look more closely at it, and any supposed “facts” he presents in it, as well as the logic itself.

                    • A person’s character is not related to whether a statement they make is true.

                      Period.

                      Alanzo

                    • “A person’s character is not related to whether a statement they make is true.
                      Period.”

                      Except when Alanzo talks about LRH in relation to statements made by him in Scientology.

                    • Al, I certainly don’t agree with that statement. I think it is false.

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      Al, I certainly don’t agree with that statement. I think it is false.

                      Can you stay on the subject and tell me why this statement:

                      A person’s character is not related to whether a statement they make is true.

                      Is false?

                      Alanzo

                    • OK Al, I’ll bite. Have you ever heard the term “compulsive liar? Some psychologists believe, based on various observations, that some individuals are “compulsive liars”. Look it up through Google. If this is valid, then based on their “character” what this kind of person says, can be expected to be untrue, not factual. Of course any statement still needs to be checked for factuality, apart from any considerations of the uttering person’s character. But I think this shows that your statement that a person’s character can NEVER be relevant to the truth or falsity of a statement s/he makes may itself be untrue in some cases.

                    • Of course any statement still needs to be checked for factuality, apart from any considerations of the uttering person’s character.

                      Thank you.

                      But I think this shows that your statement that a person’s character can NEVER be relevant to the truth or falsity of a statement s/he makes may itself be untrue in some cases.

                      Over and over, I have said that to look at the person’s character and to ignore the statement the person made is the fallacy of ad hom.

                      I have stated that the truth or falsity of any statement is not related to the character of the person making the statement.

                      Therefore, the degree to which the person’s character is examined – instead of the truth or falsity of the claim the person made – is the degree to which a person is falling for the logical fallacy of ad hom.

                      Two boys illustrate this logical principle: The boy from “The Emperor Has No Clothes” and the boy from “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

                      In these stories, both boys made true statements.

                      But to the degree that a person examines the boys’ character instead of their statements, is the degree to which a person would miss the truth of their statements and fall for the logical fallacy of ad hom.

                      L Ron Hubbard, in many ways, got Scientologists to fall for the logical fallacy of ad hom. His writings on critics of Scientology, for example, are ALL based on getting Scientologists to apply the ad hom fallacy in their thinking about criticism of Scientology.

                      He attacks the character of the critic himself and actually tells Scientologists not to waste their time examining critical statements of Scientology themselves.

                      Thus, Scientology has built-in logical fallacies, which when a person accepts these teachings and “thinks with them”, is the degree to which they are not able to think logically.

                      I have appreciated this exchange with you Valkov. We have mostly stayed on the subject and examined the logical fallacy of ad hom, and to that degree it has been productive.

                      Thank you.

                      Alanzo

                    • I have never disagreed with your basic definition of ad hom. I also don’t disagree that LRH used various political ploys and manipulations quite freely. But I am aware that he also said scientology students should differentiate between his (LRH’s) opinions and his factual statements, and test things for themselves. That may have been in the earlier days, before there were clearly defined organizations with strict policies, before the Sea Org and all that. I still see LRH as having created both sides of the dialectic, whether knowingly or unknowingly, I can’t say. But in effect, directly or indirectly LRH created the CoS, the Sea Org, the Ron’s Orgs, the Freezone, the Critics etc. Did he know EXACTLY how it would all play out? I don’t think so, that only happens in the Dune novels, but I think he had some ideas of how it would go. And it has made scientology and the name of LRH persist on a broad scale, in various ways, which was his intention.

                      There are some interesting parallels between the lives of LRH and Joseph Smith, who has been called by some, “the American Moses”:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

                      A more detailed history of Mormonism is here:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons

                    • Thanks Al. I guess I could have been more clear that I did not disagree with you about the basic definition of “ad hom”, but was looking at extensions of what might be called “ad hom thinking”, which does come into play in real life, as in court trials and judgements for example. In fact “ad hom” is very pervasive in our culture, especially in politics.

                    • A person’s beliefs, circumstances, and/or character may all be relevant or related to whether or not a statement s/he makes is true, false, or incomplete. Have you ever heard of ‘confirmation bias’?

                    • The statement itself is what is true or false.

                      The person’s circumstances, and/or character, are not connected at all to the truth or falsity of any statement.

                      They are different.

                      And not related.

                      A statement,

                      And a person,

                      are different.

                      Alanzo

                • The source of a statement of fact can be an ‘indicator’ of it’s possible validity, but I would fall short of calling it ‘evidence’ and we all agree it is nowhere near ‘proof’. Unfortunately, we are all bombarded with unverifiable data on a daily basis. It cannot help but alter one’s opinions and thoughts. At least for the average person.
                  Example:
                  A great deal of the data supporting man made global warming has been proven to be skewed, cherry picked, or outright altered of fabricated. But this hasn’t slowed down the perception that ‘everyone knows’ man made global warming is a serious problem.

                  I traveled to Key West Fl. and noticed that the shore line hasn’t moved one bit. That was my observation.

                  When considering the source of data or opinions, look first and foremost at your own fixed opinions and how you perceive and accept information. That is the greatest source of altered and skewed data.
                  Mark

        • Al, as the article makes clear, (I hope), it is not matters of logic that are in question, in relevant addresses “to the person”, but facts and basic premises of fact as stated by that person. A fallacious premise presented as “fact” nullifies or weakens an argument, regardless of the apparent logic used. Anyway, the distinction is made in articles about “ad hom”. Here’s an absurd example – 1. The moon is made of green cheese 2. We are able to fly to the moon and back, 3. Therefore, Earth’s starving masses can be fed by using space shuttles to get this cheese back to Earth. 4. Donate all your spare cash towards the building of these shuttles!

          #1. is factually false, therefore the entire argument based on it is false, no matter how “logical” the structure of premises leading to the conclusion may be.

          • This has nothing to do with ad hom.

            A false premise is a false premise.

            Alanzo

            • Yes, and it is precisely in those cases that a premise may be questioned on the basis of the person’s character or circumstances. It neither proves nor disproves the argument being made, but it does bring into question some stated “fact”, by an address to the person.

              • Yes, and it is precisely in those cases that a premise may be questioned on the basis of the person’s character or circumstances. It neither proves nor disproves the argument being made, but it does bring into question some stated “fact”, by an address to the person.

                A premise can not be questioned on the basis of a person’s character.

                A premise must be questioned as itself.

                This is totally the logical fallacy of ad hom: being distracted onto the character of the person stating the premise, rather than examining the premise itself.

                You still do not get this logical fallacy of ad hom, Valkov.

                You have some kind of block here. I have seen you have this block for years now. And every time we specifically discuss this, you demonstrate the same misunderstanding of this logical fallacy.

                Totally amazing.

                Alanzo

                • No Al, it is YOU who doesn’t get what I’m saying. I understand what ad hom is, but you clearly do not understand the whole definition of ad hom, even though I have posted it several times now. Apparently you have not clicked the link and read it. Here is a brief excerpt:
                  “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.” Here is the article itself. Why don’t you read it and use your supposed ‘reasoning skills’ to refute the article itself, instead of just repeatedly bleating that I don’t understand it?

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

                  After all, repeating that I don’t understand it is just actually an ad hom argument against me on your part, isn’t it Therefore you are actually proving my point, because you must think it is OK to baldly state such an ad hom with regards to my posts, don’t you agree?
                  Anyway, the whole point is that it is legitimate to question supposed “statements of fact”, or even statements of intent, as is usual in courts. A Judge will consider a person’s previous record or current circumstances before sentencing him. He’d be a fool not to! If the person claims to be reformed, but has a record of robbing banks or purse-snatching, the judge will view him differently than someone who has never to anyone’s knowledge committed a crime before. The testimony of character witnesses come into play, for example.

                  It is not a “logical fallacy” that is involved, the article makes that quite clear. It is that you can trust a politician to be a politician on some matters and in some circumstances.. That of course is an ad hom against politicians, as well as a generalization, but it is well-known that the statements of politicians bear close scrutiny but not outright dismissal. That would be the fallacy – outright dismissal of a statement simply because it was made by a politician. Equally fallacious would be uncritically accepting the statement with “considering the source”.

                  This is the aspect of “ad hom reasoning” you apparently don’t understand, even though you use it regularly in your own posts, such as when you invalidate someone for “thinking like a scientologist”. That would be a “thought-stopping ad hom” on your part, wouldn’t it?

                  • Should read “withOUT considering the source, where it reads “Equally fallacious would be uncritically accepting the statement with “considering the source”.

                    • I do not uncritically accept a statement, no matter the source. Believe nothing, experience everything, pay attention.
                      Mark

                    • Mark hi there kid… sounds good to me, question: when experienced one just experiences or that experience is the truth? :)
                      when the truth is experiences all other illusions alterations vanish… so what one in reality experiences? :) dwell into this and let me know…. :) Riddle!

                    • Experiences, illusions, alterations. Solving this riddle is like trying to grasp smoke. You’re making me feel solid. Wait, that’s just an illusion of my own creation.
                      Mark

                  • Valkov quoted a wikipedia article as saying:

                    “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.”

                    “Credibility” means “the quality of being believable or worthy of trust: For example: After all those lies, his credibility was at a low ebb.

                    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credibility

                    But, Valkov, statements of fact do not require the believability or trust of anyone else. Statements of fact can be independently verified.

                    Therefore, statements of fact are not related to the credibility of any person – even the person who stated the statement of fact.

                    Alanzo

                    • I think the point is, people often make non-factual statements which they present as ‘fact’. “Everybody knows’ type statements among them, although those are not the only kind of questionable statements. It should be obvious that the reason we have trials in which both sides of a case are presented, is we do not always have clear sets of verifiable facts available to us. There are claims and counter-claims etc. Sometimes people lie or misrepresent things or are biased etc, and present claims as ‘fact’ that really are not ‘fact’. But I guess not in your world?

                      Perhaps you should take action and get that part of the Wiki article edited, if you feel it is inaccurate?

  10. The Saturday Night Live routine when Dan Akroyd would respond to Jane Curtain’s opinion by saying “Jane, you miserable slut” was funny at the time because of it’s over the top boldness. Far beyond appropriate was the outpoint. The basis of most humor is the “recognition of an outpoint” LRH

    Most people recognize that a personal attack in response to an opinion is an outpoint. Perhaps due to my work, to me, it has become completely non-sequitur. A person has at least a bit of true data to support their opinion. Find out what it is. If a person has absolutely no value to their communication, why are you communicating to them.

    When I am attacked, it invokes my curiosity. I am not suppressing my attacks, the idea just doesn’t come to mind. I have found this to be irritating to some who want to ‘engage’ me in spirited banter. I just no longer have the urge.
    Mark

  11. basketballjane

    Well said. I have been guilty of reducing myself down to name calling. It is a bad habit and can be avoided when having an argument of any kind. There isn’t any need to do it. And yes sometimes telling someone that they are a fucking asshole piece of shit will get them to shut up but it generally won’t bring them to an understanding of any kind.

  12. Even the label of “Scientologists” when used derogatorily amounts to name-calling and defines the one using it “in the context of their chosen nemesis.”

    And it isn’t just name-calling and labeling per se – it’s any kind of derogatory remark to an individual about his/her considerations or allegiances – that brings about all the ills listed in the OP. Very few of us haven’t been guilty of that. So I don’t we’re off the hook just because we don’t couch our remarks in terms of labels or name-calling.

  13. I’ve read several books from the 1980s-90s about how constantly hearing statements in your environment “lays into” your thoughts. The books were about solutions to re-adjust those thoughts and/or the effects they had on you.

    They start to get fastened in there. One of those books said something like 90% of the things we hear everyday about ourselves or our challenges or endeavors are negative comments from others. That includes name-calling. So you have the double whammy going on. You have the effects of the consistent name-calling fixating in the person’s thoughts more and more, and you have the behavior of the person amping up because he’s pushing back against the names and labels that he objects to.

    I experienced the names and derogatory descriptions daily, hourly for many years in the SO. Charming group of executives. (Some SO members don’t like to act that way and try not to.) Not too long ago someone told me “You must’ve been really great there for them to want to cut you down so much.” Now that was a huge turning point for me. Duh! The ones needing to make little of others are the ones threatened by something about them, and the whole administrative sturcture had turned into that personality. So of course it was getting fired out as often as possible at as many as possible.

    There I go rattling on too much, but maybe that concept can help someone else too–people with good abilities are prime targets for criminal psychos and deputy psychos. And that’s not name-calling.

    • I know I’m late on this but I just have to say thanks for passing on about the books you read and I love how you are looking back with such colorfull descriptions!
      “the SO. Charming group of executives”
      “the whole administrative sturcture had turned into that personality”
      Hope you are finding time to write your book :)

  14. Exactly my thought while reading this- there is no need to degrade yourself by denigrating another.

    • Silvia, I shouldn’t say I usually don’t, I should say I never do. I may speak the truth about someone or something (for example the Church of Scientology). I may tell another person an O/W I know of that a staff member at an Org acquired on me. BUT…to those facts, to that truth I would never say like DM does for example and calling every living thing a CICS in the process. It just an incorrect flow of energy to attempt to better an area by flowing entheta to it. It may sound spiritual to some people, but I can assure you it isn’t. :)

  15. Great post Marty. Thanks

    I had a lifelong frustration with Scientologists, particularly with OTs, refusing to engage in old fashion philosophical dialectic or just in any analytical debate about Scientology or it Founder.

    Now I know that this deficiency is in the very nature of Scientology, as spun by Hubbard.

    Hubbard essentially manufactured a highly elaborate belief system along with some workable methodology, but hide it and pushed it as a scientific body of data.

    So understandably Hubbard could not afford to engage in dialectic analysis of his philosophical system, procedures, personal motives or goals, lets his entire house of cards crumble.

    And it shows at all levels of his cult, by its members enforced silence, refusal to engage in honest debate, and by the overall mandated secrecy and mystery that pervades Scientology.

    I’m naturally attracted to the Zen view of reality and its freedom to explore and inquire into the nature of things, so I found Scientologists gut reactions to avoid, lie or attack the inquiring mind quite indicative of their deeply held religious beliefs masquerading as certainty.

    Naturally, it was in this blog where I finally found my intellectual home.

    • Your view of things sounds paralyzed and fixated. I can’t stand that. I am not here to correct members of the church from doing the wrong thing. Remember that old adage that *most people* answer no to “If somebody told you to go jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it?” So, if somebody asked the church member this and they said no, one could always suggest them “Well there are other bridges for you to choose from if you don’t want to jump off the Brooklyn one!” :)

      • Lawrence,
        You are wrong. I’m doing what it comes naturally to me: evaluating philosophical systems, writing what I think of them, and exposing any significant flaws that I consider dangerous to most people.

        I have not only personal experience with Scientology but with other comparable systems and it is not difficult for me to analyze and deconstruct them.

        And I do understand personal causation, but I don’t buy into your blame the victim scenario.

        So I’m sorry but I’ll keep communicating what I think about Hubbard and Scientology, which seems to be what upset you.

        • Wouldn’t that be awful if someone from OSA was reading this and you didn’t get acknowledged for your communication and that OSA person said to another OSA person “Oh, look how out their TR’s are!”. Really? Well people come to expect that other people’s TR’s can be out if they are trained in a DB environment like a Church of Scientology on TR’s. That has been my unfortunate circumstance in the past. So please forgive me for an effort to drag you down the tone scale with me! :)

        • Conan, I know exactly what you are going through… ;) Many Scientologists simply cannot tolerate an alternative viewpoint or some disagreement. If you disagree, if you have your own viewpoint that is not “adjusted” to be that of Hubbard’s… then there must be something wrong with you.

  16. I simply think that this failure to openly and honestly debate the merits/faults of Scientology, without out ad hominem attacks to the inquirers, is just plain old propaganda techniques as mandated by Hubbard:

    Propaganda,

    Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.

    Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

  17. Marie guerin

    when I got declared a few months ago with the usual and common manipulations and lies and disconnections , I tried my hand at labelling idiots , traitors and more flowery language , but soon experienced this uneasy feeling of degradation joining the camp of the label makers.
    I still call an idiot …an idiot occasionnaly but still do not like how it feels.
    Only understanding where people come from and wait it out make me feel good.

    • Marie,
      I feel your pain!!! I too used the word “idiots”, openly and with abandon, but I ended up frustrated anyways, because those people still have a point of view, and are trying to meet basic needs and wants with the subject.
      So at the end I opted for keep telling the documented truths about Hubbard and Scientology and people can decide whatever they want.

  18. When we all come to that place where no one offends us, where we can be criticized without responding back in defense…Where we know who we are so well that the “sticks and stones” datum can really apply to us….only then will the “name calling” stop.
    We keep our enemies our enemies…without our projection they can no longer exist.

  19. Separation is an illusion and therefore cannot be as-issed. Attempting to rid oneself of any illusion makes it more solid and reinforces it.

  20. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/headshrinkers-guide-the-galaxy/201109/three-fingers-pointing-back-you

    A Headshrinker’s Guide to the Galaxy
    Psychoanalytic wisdom for everyday life

    Jesus had a version of this wisdom when he said, “Don’t focus on the speck in your brother’s eye while ignoring the log in your own eye.”

  21. Name calling is the stock in trade of Scientology. Everyone gets a moniker, a classification, a rank, a rating, and a pigeon hole to live in and finally a suppressive person declare — as sure as death and taxes.

    • Indeed.
      There is SP, PTS, degraded being, small being, [as opposed to big being],
      out ethics, tiger, all of A-J, squirrel, Robot, fringe of the internet, living in
      moms basement, defrocked apostate, one who has been PDHed, [ I was investigated for that], ethics bait, and more than I can recall. Was never SO at int base so I guess “pieface ” is not applicable.

      Guess I missed out on many others.

    • You haven’t been listening to politicians, chefs in the kitchen.. or sailors in the bar.. or ..or..or.

    • The irony about this is that the habitual name-calling is partially what is meant by ‘suppressive person’.

  22. I remember Ron said somewhere: “Never make fun of another persons NAME or COUNTRY”. It’s obvious why.

  23. Please forgive me if I sound a little “preachy” here, I was really just pondering this topic and the replies in order to formulate thoughts on it for my own benefit, but thought I’d share just in case I actually manage to say anything of value (but don’t hold your breath, I probably won’t, lol.) :p

    Responding to this post from Elizabeth Hamre: (Quote) “OH.. so I must behave fallow the rules and regulations in order to be accepted at all times by the group.Wear the same uniform of behaviour be nice.. be polite and most of all don’t spit on the floor..Never show the true feelings, never let others see the displeasure I feel, never let others see my rotten bad nasty side, that hell cat…” (endquote)

    Well, yeah. I’d throw you out of my house pretty darn quick if you spit on the floor. No, that is not civilized behavior. Yes, you do have to curb your tendencies to do “whatever you feel like doing” if you want to be accepted and welcomed by people… this is usually taught to children around age 3 or so. You can’t expect to stomp your feet and throw a tantrum to get your way… grow up already.

    You don’t have to agree with someone all the time. You can and should make your disagreement known, but being mean, rude, and beligerant when you do it, is not only ugly and unpleasant behavior, but it also does not help you get your point across, since when people feel they are being attacked, they are more likely to concentrate on forming a defense to your attack and less inclined to listen to whatever you have to say. I can’t hear you if you scream. I shut down my listening. So if you really want to make your feelings known, establish a more favorable communication style.

    Also, if someone is so vulgar that they have to resort to name-calling, then that isn’t a person whose opinion I value or care about, so I am not going to listen to you or place much importance on what you say or your assessment of me.

    On the other hand, I am willing to listen to what you say if you tell me kindly, politely, honestly and respectfully what you think about something or what the problem is. I, in turn will treat you with the same level of respect and courtesy that you show to me.

    By the way, and I say this kindly, in the spirit of helpfulness, you might want to be more clear in your wording in order to be better understood, for instance here: (Quote) “…why appraisal telling some one how wonderful.. how great they are, is better thing to do?” and (Quote)”When I appraise you to the height of Himalayas and Say You are brilliant…”

    I really think you meant to say “praise” you instead of “appraisal” which does not fit in this context.

    appraisal: an act of assessing something or someone.

    praise: to express warm approval or admiration of; to commend, applaud, pay tribute to, speak highly of, compliment, congratulate.

    Here is another thought to ponder: “venting” about someone (to another person) to let off steam can be helpful on occasion, as it allows you to diffuse your angry energy so that you can later deal with that person on a more relaxed level; however, constantly ranting about or cursing someone in anger does little to relieve your negative feelings towards them, and tends to make you an angry, mean-spirited person that no one wants to be around. Who wants to subject themselves to a tirade of negativity all the time? When you do this, people will start to avoid you, as you cause them stress from your anger.

    And finally, think about this: when people talk to you and you are constantly denigrating others, it makes them start to wonder.. are you saying these types of things about me behind my back as well?

    Peace and Love,
    April

    • you never hear a Hungarian talk.. have you?:) No, I don’t think so… we do not spit on floors we know how to handle knife and fork at the table and use damask linen, to wipe out lips and we have been thought manners. Manner we have.. you judge words.. you assume.. without proof.. you guessing. and evaluating from few words.. have fun.. feel superior, better. if this what it needed to make you feel great, I am delighted that my writing has achieved that. Welcome !

    • Lady.. your approval don’t have any meanings. Comments on my reality what ever they might be I value in this blog from Marildi… Valkov and 3 more… You are not among them. Sorry maybe next life.. . But be well. and don’t let a nasty bad mannered Hungarian spit on your floor.. not cool.. bad manners.. it was all my mothers fault.. or was it nannies?

    • PS;; you should be happy that you can write something pour it all out.. express you reality because of me… I am at cause after all! Grand life we are having…:)

    • PS.. I love PS’s: without my post. expressing bad manner etc… etc.. you could not write up your virtues, could not blown your own trumpet how good you are.. and we would not gotten to know you.
      April kidding aside. Hungarians love spicy words.. and that is all.

    • Aprill here is the thing.. over a year back someone has challenged me a well to do ex scientologist that I would not be able to take the attacks the heat from the group if I will say what ever I wanted.. be outrages.. challenging etc… I have taken the bet. the loser will give a ticket for 2 on the Viking cruse on Danube.. and includes first class flight from Vancouver to Budapest..

      • Origin tradition and culture play a role in identity. New Yorkers are always getting labeled “rude” “aggressive” “insensitive” and host of other words. Then when they come to California they complain about how 1.1 people are on the West Coast and how creepy it all is.

        The fact is that New Yorkers are more accustomed to handling force. And they are comfortable with it. Californians are not used to force for the most part unless you are inner city San Fransisco or Mission district. And view people who do think with force as “negative energy”.

        Force is negative energy to a Californian. Force is positive energy to a New Yorker. Because you don’t need any force to live on the West Coast and if you can’t deal with force you will not survive on the East Coast. Just different atmospheres.

        I would be perfectly willing to permit someone to spit on my floor. Because I may have someone in my home that comes from someplace that considers that a blessing ritual.

        People use the tools the know with what sense or desire they have.

        I do not expect anyone to be a copy of me or live up or down to my standards. I don’t have to live their life, they do.

        Considering you are fluent in at least two languages I would say your communication skills are better than. I am we had to start posting in a language that was not native we might sound very elegant.

        There is a lot of rightness to find in yourself and others if that is your purpose.

        • Oracle.. that is nice.. thank you..
          I have lived in 6 different countries.. and have learned a lot from people. Since I entered into scientology by accident in 73.. since then it has been one incredible adventure.. Daily the my beliefs were shaken, changed, my universe was turned upside down.
          From the first day on the daily cognitions poured in, no matter what books are read including the Tech. dic.. I cognited and cognited.. To me this path which I was ready for has offered nothing but lessons-learning and cognitions by the thousands.. Ever since 73 no matter what ever has happed and a lot did everything was there for me to learn from and every person has become my teacher too and have been a very good student..
          When 3 1/2 years back I looked for scientology for the first time since I cut out in 82 I come back to share the wins, the gains and the abilities I have gained over the years through daily solo auditing…. But hehehe..only one person was willing to listen and believed me.
          I have come to inspire others to tell my story what solo auditing can do and achieve with!…. deaf ears… and nothing more greeted me.
          Man oh man was I restimulated by all the rejection had nothing but ARCB’s by the hundreds and with those lively kicking energies I had lots of new material to take into session again! And I did… On the group, on losses, rejection: Not wanted, not recognised, not ack-ad. Name it all has fallen on my head. I was in pigs heaven swimming in heavy stimulation. Sessions and sessions again the cognitions poured in. I have confronted every bloody ARCB and went back to blogs and looked for more stimulation. And found them.. heaven-joy was mine because scientologist know how to take you apart and tell you how the wins had are not real, cannot be since the achieved state never happened, the tech do not work and that I am crazy, delusional under hypnotic influence, heavy , low toned banky, fool of shit who need auditing and by this time I have had since 73 100000 hours of auditing. By now I could observe holographic pictures on everything I can put my attention on no matter what and see that item regardless where that item in the universe. And I know the track of energy masses from the time they were postulated into from till they will dissipate.. that is the past—present-and the future of the object.
          I seldom need sessions since any incoming info is as-ised in the instant.
          And Oracle I don’t need any acknowledgement by any one my universe what I know is pure knowledge born out of cognitions… and I do not have to put up with crap.. . But it is up to each individual not to take it from me either!
          I don’t spit… I use sterling flatware, Royal Crown Derby is my dinner set and antique Italian lace is on my dining table.. I am a Cordon Blue cook and accomplished baked..
          Have entertained big time and given garden parties but I love to use words that is my Hungarian heritage and I will rip out any ones liver who has the mind to put evil intention into my space.. Oh I can handle.. but I won’t let it happen. Those who use evil destructive energy-mass of them people are afraid of but I am not since I have erased fear.. none left that was 16 years back..and when fear is not in existence occluding the perception one can observe just how things are.
          What I write here sounds like justification why I behave as I do.. yes.. that to makes sense but when one erase the bank the considerations which makes the human a human and no longer behaves accordingly as those dictated considerations allow: Than One is free to communicate on any level.
          There is a belief on assumption how on OT should behave.. saintly, quietly, gentle, mindful, never step on any toes.. never let it fly…. Etc.. etc.. etc… Now that consideration is truly a human point of view… OT’s can be and are whatever they wish to be. express any level of emotions anytime.. I might yell.. but I don’t have evil intentions.. Those things which caused them have been as-ised long time back..
          Now My Dear. I am off the soap box.. thank again for your wonderful communication and if I ever have the chance to visit you I will spit on the floor just for the hell of it! . Love you back! Elizabeth.

        • Hi Oracle,
          When I lived in LA one of my good buddies was
          Harold Lieberz. A true New Yorker through and through.
          Me being a hick from Indiana…..what a combo we made
          in California.
          We loved our sports. Seeing his point of view on events
          we went to and knowing my point of view was truly poetry
          in motion….lol.

    • “Yes, you do have …”
      “You can’t expect …”
      “You can and should…”

      “grow up already”
      “Also, if someone is so vulgar that they have to resort to name-calling,..”

      (Didn’t you just call her infantile?)

      ” I am not going to listen to you..” (threats)

      ” be more clear in your wording”

      “When you do this, people will start to avoid you, as you cause them stress from your anger.

      “By the way, and I say this kindly, in the spirit of helpfulness,…” “Peace and Love.” (And I just wanted to cause you to like yourself a little bit less today.)

      (And by the way, ) “Who wants to subject themselves to a tirade of negativity all the time?”

    • April… hang loose.. have fun… words are just words… hot when role off the lips and by the time hit the paper they are cold…

  24. singanddanceall

    I like Benjamin Franklin solution:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ZaEaAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+autobiography+of+benjamin+franklin&source=bl&ots=SeBoVjxw21&sig=LUl5ijqJ0Svz5XX4EWmI8F-vzv0&hl=en&ei=akkRTdrrMomasAPCtMiXCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    It’s about page 93 where Ben decided to get in Virtues in his life in the early 1700’s, which is before, of course, the July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence. He named 13 of them, expanded from the old masters.

    The one in particular apropos to this posting is humility.

    Here’s what Ben says, explained at page 102:

    “My list of virtues contained at first but twelve; but a Quaker friend having kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my pride showed itself frequently in conversation; that I was not content with being in the right when discussing any point, but was overbearing, and rather insolent, of which he convinced me by mentioning several instances, I determined to endeavor to cure myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the rest; and I added Humility to my list, giving an extensive meaning to the word.

    I cannot boast much success to acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion; such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc, and I adopted instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine, a thing to be so or so; or so it appears to me at present……………”

    The results of Ben applying this virtue is on page 103 and only a few more paragraphs.

    Don’t forget to look up “Junto” google search.

  25. As The Most Interesting Man In The World has been overheard to say, “I seldom indulge myself in Name-calling, but when I do, I prefer to go whole hog including the postage. Stay real, my friend.”

    Unfortunately, it is often ‘giving a win’ to someone who really might be best ignored, past a certain point, because s/he really doesn’t care how s/he uses others and is trying to provoke that kind of reaction. Descending to name-calling can be kinda like what LRH referred to as “accepting an invitation to hate”. Or as Buddha is reputed to have said, “It’s like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.” “Sounds awfully grim! :-) )

    • Valkov.. that Buddha person never stopped yakking… I assume, since no one can leave that much saying behind when the words were not written down.! Those sayings are from the Chinese fortune cookies for sure!

  26. After Marty’s last two posts where he pointed those visiting his blog to the edge of reality where an intangible actuality is only sensed and all words and symbols become utterly useless…it is sort of a relief to get back to some solid subject like name calling and labeling where words can really get some traction. Understandably, solid subjects of ‘reality’ are much more conducive to communication and the sharing of perspectives. Actuality, on the other hand, presents nothing to attach any concepts to.

    Now, about name calling and labeling (I’ll just refer to is as labeling)….I believe that labeling is the mind’s (whatever that really is) hammer used for the sole purpose of breaking larger objects into many smaller objects and thereby reinforcing the belief of separation. Whether the label exalts or demonizes is irrelevant, the fundamental purpose of labeling has been served.

    Name calling and labeling is essentially a method for a person to judge something or someone as being better than or less than the image of one’s self that one identifies as being who they are. And this…is the engine of drama. Out of this we get reinforced concepts of self; of what’s right and wrong; what’s good and evil and these concepts then spawn concepts of persecutors, victims and rescuers with all their multi-dynamic ramifications. It’s a wonderful distraction that is enormously effective in keeping one from ever looking toward that which is inconceivable or even sensing it.

    • Long ago I adopted this adage (this is the short version)…Nothing or no one is ever what or who it appears to be. Of course, I always included the Monte character as not being what it appears to be. However, it never occurred to me to include ‘my’ insights as not being what they appear to be. And the comments I make, not just here on Marty’s blog, but in day-to-day life…are essentially statements that come from my insights. But, where do my insights come from and what exactly am I doing with them? This question never came up until I watched this video by Scott Kiloby a few minutes ago. I wonder…is name calling and labeling tied into one’s insights? Something to explore.

      • Monte, thank you for posting this great video! The last couple of minutes (from about 8:30) I thought were awesome and worth quoting – especially now that words and language have been ultimately vindicated by this man. ;)

        “What I say on my website is that I use the pointer ‘no-self’ to point people off of the fixation, mental fixation, that they are ‘selves’ – which is just a concept. It’s a deeply-held concept. And then, of course, with just a little bit of freedom, many of those same people begin telling me that they are ‘no-self’ and that they don’t exist. And so I just point them off of that fixation. Because whatever it is that you really think is true about non-duality, whatever your spiritual insight is – the one that you repeat often, as if it’s the truth – that’s precisely what it’s not.

        “And so when that kind of freedom comes in, then we see that no word has actually ever been a problem, and that any and every word can be expressed. And you can say ‘I am a separate person’ one million times in a row and never step out of the truth of what life is – because the truth was never in the language. And when there’s an unhooking from language completely, then there’s a freedom to use language completely – that sort of a paradox.

        “And again, the same is true for experiences and states and emotions. The moment you associate enlightenment or truth or non-duality with a particular experience, you try then to recreate the experience. You associate in your mind as a concept that this particular experience is it, or this particular emotion or state – and that’s precisely what it’s not. Because life is constantly revealing itself, freshly. In this moment.”

        • Here’s another short one where he talks awareness, and about “labels”:

          • marildi, thanks much for including the excerpts from the video in your reply. I too definitely consider those statements worth quoting. Particularly this one: “…the truth was never in the language. And when there’s an unhooking from language completely, then there’s a freedom to use language completely – that sort of a paradox.”

            One of the things that I really appreciated about SC was its language as I finally had a viable way to communicate in such a way that I could turn some very vague and seemingly ineffable experiences into something rather tangible and understandable. More for myself, though, than for anyone else. That said, I did get myself quite fixated into the language of SC and it took a good bit of self-coaching to get myself unfixed. However, there are many terms from the SC language that I frequently use because they work better than any other terms I’ve encountered. Those terms, though, are not bolted down nor does their ‘rightness’ ever require defending. Instead, they seem to float along with me and if and when a different term comes along (regardless of where it comes from) that does a better job at doing what a particular term was doing…well, the better term replaces the other.

            Also marildi, thanks for adding the other video clip. I’ve now used what
            Scott had to say to adjust some of my perspectives. Language, even if truth is not in it, can most definitely be used to expand one’s viewpoint as well as point of view to allow what is False and True to be recognized.

            Now, here’s an excerpt from my ACIM lesson for today (# 127): “The world that seems to hold you prisoner can be escaped by anyone who does not hold it dear. Withdraw all value you have placed upon its meager offerings and senseless gifts, and let the gift of God replace them all.”

            http://www.acimdailylesson.com/lesson-127-there-is-no-love-but-gods

            • “Language, even if truth is not in it, can most definitely be used to expand one’s viewpoint as well as point of view to allow what is False and True to be recognized.”

              Well stated, Monte. That’s another very quotable line. ;)

              Thanks again for the exchange we’ve had on this whole topic – starting several threads back! You’ve helped me get a better understanding of this paradoxical subject of duality.

              Much love,
              marildi

          • marildi, is another short clip from Scott re the equanimity of concepts and no concepts. Although he doesn’t use the exact words, he’s basically saying about concepts what he said about language i.e., that when you completely unhook from language then there’s a freedom to use language completely. Same goes for all concepts. In any case, what he had to say I found helpful as I’ve been wondering how to regard all my concepts and being that every label I use is a concept…that includes all labels that I seem to be pinning to everything I perceive.

            From my ACIM lesson today: “Each thing you value here is but a chain that binds you to the world, and it will serve no other end but this. For everything must serve the purpose you have given it, until you see a different purpose there….For what you value you make part of you as you perceive yourself. All things you seek to make your value greater in your sight limit you further, hide your worth from you, and add another bar across the door that leads to true awareness of your Self.”

            http://www.acimdailylesson.com/lesson-128-the-world-i-see-holds-nothing-that-i-want

  27. Very cool. I did look up Junto (club) in Wikipedia. Ben Franklin was an insightful guy. Also, thanks for reminding me that I need to work on myself more, instead of advising others. It’s so easy to point out other people’s flaws instead of searching for ways to improve ones own… I still need to work on myself! It’s a long way from April of 2014 to April with self-actualization (I’m aiming for a Buddha, Dalai Lama type of peaceful being-ness – long journey ahead, huh?) Funny aside note: I am apparently one of the few Quakers left in The San Francisco Bay area these days, one of only a dozen or so that attend our “Friends” meetings. So it’s like you spoke right to me. :-) Now, I’m back to work for the next 6 days straight (sigh) so everyone gets a break from my two cents, or one and a half cents in my case, lol. :p Have a great week, all! :-)

    • singanddanceall

      yah, it’s cool.

      In my 26 years in scientology, I never looked elsewhere thinking Hubbard had it figured out. That KSW sure was a thought stopper for me, and it also stopped my expansion of viewpoint, and it stopped my comparing scientology to other viewpoints.

      • You do realize the there is no technical term called “thought stopping” except in Psychology where it is used to stop obsessive, unwanted thoughts. Not sure how the term entered into the ex-Scientologist universe, but the way it is used in the ex-Scn world, it is the same as Service Facsimile. A Service Fac is an aberrated stable datum/computation used to hold back confusion. Isn’t that the same thing as someone saying “Psychology is bullshit – I have all the answers – stop bothering me” or “Apostates always lie, David Miscavige is a hero, and I won’t hear otherwise?”

        http://panicdisorder.about.com/od/livingwithpd/a/thoughtstopping.htm

        Mark

        • singanddanceall

          No, I did not realize there is no term called “thought stopping” in scientology and I did not realize it is a term used by Psychology. Whatever.

          Did, you get the gist of my communication?

          Here is how I define “thought stopping”:

          KSW caused me to not look elsewhere as I thought Hubbard figured it out, and thus I didn’t need to research source writing that Hubbard said one was supposed to do in his early lectures, pre 1960’s. And because of KSW, I fully trusted Hubbard’s writings, PR, Marketing, Positioning, etc of Scientology, and thus I never in my time in Scientology examined the actual truths, as I thought Hubbard did that. I was thought stopped.

          I’m not quite sure what you are trying to communicate otherwise.

        • Mark wrote:

          You do realize the there is no technical term called “thought stopping” except in Psychology where it is used to stop obsessive, unwanted thoughts. Not sure how the term entered into the ex-Scientologist universe, but the way it is used in the ex-Scn world, it is the same as Service Facsimile.

          Actually, it comes from Robert Jay Lifton’s book “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism”

          “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”

          It’s a bumper sticker slogan given by the cult leader so that members stop thinking along a certain line.

          Some thought stopping clicjes created by Hubbard were:

          He has an MU

          He’s a DB

          That’s just your case talking

          You’re keyed-in

          That’s entheta

          No verbal data

          No case on post

          etc etc etc

          They are EVERYWHERE in Scientology.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9

          Alanzo

          • Yes Al, you’re right. They are all over the scientology world. But don’t overlook that they also have another use and meaning, parallel to the popular jingoism. They are also words that can convey specific information, just as psychological terminology can. But as you say, their use can be political and often is.

          • Ah! I see. So, “Thought Terminating Cliche” is the correct term, from this one book. One thing to think about is that this is not necessarily the result of a totalitarian regime, but rather is the result of people just being lazy and not wanting to discuss the subject further because they already made up their mind.

            This happens everywhere.

            “Obama’s a socialist.”
            “Obamacare is socialism, pure and simple.”
            “He’s a liberal.”
            “He’s a neo-Nazi.”

            This is human nature.

            From the book you cite: “Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.”

            Take, for example, “No case on post.” In fact, this is an incredibly workable idea, especially for high-stakes jobs like being a pilot or ship captain. You push your shit aside and get the cussing job done.

            BUT, when used as an excuse to bully people, as SO members are won’t to do, by idiots who don’t have a clue about why the idea exists, yes, sure, it becomes a cliche.

            BUT you have to realize, don’t you, that certain exes have turned the phrase “Thought Stopping” into its only thought-terminating cliche? What irony! You use the cliché “thought stopping” to enforce your idea that Hubbard “created” these thought-terminating cliches. The terminology is Scientology, sure, but any use it has for thought termination is strictly in the hands of the user. Hubbard never meant it to be used that way.

            BTW, thanks for the reference. I was wondering where this came from. This is, you know, the mechanism of a Service Fac. Computation: “That’s just entheta!” to avoid confrontation of things uncomfortable to view.

            • Exactly Grasshopper! The term “thought stopping” can itself be used as a thought-stopping label to prevent further consideration of any idea at all.

  28. The PURPOSE behind name calling is to make someone like them self less.

    Whenever you criticize another person or devalue their reality, you are requesting of them to like themselves less.

    When you suggest someone is stupid or misguided or unaware or flawed you are asking them to like them self less.

    When you interrogate and challenge someone you are asking them to like them self less.

    When you attack someone for “the past” and they are in the present, you are asking them to like them self less.

    When you label some one you are asking them to like them self less.

    Just handle your reasons why, your purpose, for convincing others they should like them self less.

    That is an imposition to put on your fellow man.

    Why not just say, “Excuse me, could you drop some of your ARC for your identity?”

    Why don’t you just get straight with your meaning?

    Why not just walk up to the other person and say, “It would make me feel a lot better if you could make yourself feel worse”. Or, “It would really make my day if I knew by the time you receive my communication, I have caused you to dislike yourself just a little bit more because you crossed my path”.
    Or, “Would you please stop talking?” Or, “You’re a C/ S 22 case”. Or, “You’re a squirrel”. Or, “You did something 22 years ago that wasn’t alright.” Or, “I blame you.” Or, “I just hate all women.” Or, “I just hate all Scientologists.” Or, “I am the effect of your handicaps”. Or, “I am effected by everything you should have been and said and done but weren’t and didn’t”. Or, “Let me talk you into liking yourself less.” Or, “I WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE YOUR ARC FOR THE WORLD TODAY, CAN I INTEREST YOU IN LIKING YOURSELF LESS, AND IF NOT, CAN I INTEREST YOU IN LIKING SOMEONE ELSE LESS? As long as I know I have sucked some ARC out the atrmosphere.”

  29. I think name calling has it’s time and place.
    I don’t really believe that anyone has reached some sort of blissful state where they at least don’t think to themselves that someone is a jerk or worse. Sometimes stating it can be therapeutic.
    On the other hand as others have mentioned, someone who is always name calling starts to lose credibility and can be a pain in the ass. (there’s some name calling for you)

  30. I also think labeling has some value.
    When I got into the Scientology construct it was something that I needed. It was sort of comforting to be able to categorize things. Separating the social from the anti social is a form of labeling that has value. Labeling someone as PTS and other things may not be the Ideal form or construct but it can be a stepping stone for someone to get to a higher level.
    A druggie, (another label and possibly name calling) may benefit by joining a Pentecostal church. In this construct there may be labeling such as good or evil, back slider, etc. This lumping together and sorting of the components of life might be largely wrong but has some value to some people that are looking for some kind of a construct to believe in.

    It is obvious to me that there is a filtration process going on in life. As a person moves up there can be finer and finer differentiation of things.

    In fact I would go as far to say that you cannot really differentiate things if you don’t first label them. If you wanted to sort a bunch of fruit, you would have to decide if they were apples, oranges, pears etc. This is all labeling.

    I think the problem starts when you incorrectly label things. It’s not really labeling that is the problem it is incorrect labeling that people object to. He or she is “nice”. Is a “good” label. He is an “SP” is a not so nice label, at least to the person being labeled an “SP”. He or she is a “fundamentalist Scientologist” is a label and it may or may not be true and for most may not even be understood. I think it all boils down to being able to communicate accurately what you want to convey to others and accomplish what ever it is you want to accomplish. Also a person has to be able to deal with labels that they feel are false and still carry on. That is a part of life that I don’t see ending soon.

    • I agree. Name calling can be just a force. People on the West Coast would rather be called a name than pushed or smacked. I called a loan broker a criminal today. An hour later he called me back to apologize for attempting to financially molest an investor . It was just a right item.

    • Joe Pendleton

      Tony, I agree with what you are saying, while at the same time pointing out that a very key factor here is one’s INTENTION in the name calling or labeling. If I am CSing a case and route the person to ethics with a note that the person is PTS Type A to someone, then my intent is to get it handled so that the person can continue with the auditing. If I say to a friend that so and so is stuck in hostility and am doing it so that we can better UNDERSTAND that person in dealing with him, well that’s one thing.

      But there is a VERY insidious subtext to name calling and labeling in Scientology that I encountered almost from the beginning of my staff days in 1970. Downstat, degraded being or DB, 1.1, etc were all ways to categorize a person and IMMEDIATELY communicate the fact that this person was not to be trusted as to his viewpoint or his communication. He’s “just being critical”, he’s “out ethics’, he “repeats enemy line”, he’s “out 2D”, he’s just “motivated for personal gain”, all have the intention to make this person NULL AND VOID as a terminal. Nothing he says can be trusted, pay no attention to him.

      Back in the day, one big label was “INDIVIDUATED.” I could give tons more examples, but I’ll just note the most effective one over the past decade or two – “HE’S DISAFFECTED!” Of course, as soon as that is said about a person, he is no longer a “valid” being in Scientology to either recognize or listen to (in face, you are committing an overt if you take anything he says seriously or even grant him the time or space to be heard).

      It’s almost (or is actually) a POLITICAL thing. Anyone who wants to challenge anything the power is doing is immediately labeled so as to make that person a non-person, and not only make him null and void as a being, but PARTICULARLY to protect the power against anything this person may be saying and of course encouraging attacks on that person’s integrity and reputation is standard fare. Now all you have to do to destroy a FORTY YEAR relationship with someone, is to announce to an on lines Scientologist that someone has been “declared’ or is an “SP” and the accused is treated as if the air he breathes will cause leprosy and of course, EVERYTHING he says is meant to destroy the future of every man, woman and child on this planet.

      • I agree with what you are saying too Joe.
        I never meant to say that all labeling is good. If someone is evil they can wreak lots of havoc by calling people things that they know are objectionable. Throughout history names like heretic, traitor, faggot, nigger have been thrown around and have caused much grief. The intentions behind people throwing these names or labels around weren’t good. Scientologists got into this too as you point out in your excellent examples.
        Despite this I think using labels in a rational way is beneficial. The abuse of it cannot be avoided in my opinion. This is an example of the tone scale I guess, where people of a lower mind will buy into the miss-labeling of other people because it is easy. They can get the whole idea of the person with one word like SP, db, jew, beaner, etc.

      • Joe, the phenomena of declaring or labeling others “not OK” was pointed out and made broadly known, then quickly fell out of the limelight, through some books published starting with “Games People Play” in 1964, followed by one called “I’M OK You’re OK.” “Games” was written in technical psychoanalytic language which reduced its readability, but subsequent books were written in plain English.

      • Joe, what a wonderful post that totally indicates! OMG, what bypassed charge has been located! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

        Were you a staff member at the Austin org in 1970?

  31. In my life there has been two groups , the scientologists and the anti-scientologists , I have been called names and labelled by both groups, both groups have disseminated false rumors and lies about me .
    Is all I have been doing is researching and investigating and I am continuing my researches in spite of all I have had to put up with from those two groups.

  32. I try not to respond to that sort of thing any more. The OSA minions (and some others) like to troll people into fights using personal attacks of various sorts – “name calling” and false labeling being foremost. This tends to disrupt the discussions and act as a sort of Social Engineering Denial of Service attack on the venue. It has taken me a couple of years to develop the discipline necessary to withstand this particular form of “bullbait” without going all chop-chop on the perpetrators, though.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist

  33. “Naming something as bad causes an emotional contraction within you.
    When you let it be, without naming it, enormous power is suddenly available to you.
    The contraction cuts you off from power, the power of life itself”
    Eckhart Tolle

  34. Yes!!! Thanks Marty. This rings forth to me as a perfect truth. I believe those who “like” being called names are in the tiniest minority. I can’t say as I know anyone who has never called someone “a name”. Certainly, throughout my life, I am very guilty myself of that. A more positive approach for people to express disapproval of another’s actions etc. would just to state that disapproval. The creation of added upset is just that; injecting more upset into an already very upset world. We have quite enough of that already. Possiby a person might “deserve” to be called a name – but would doing so improve the matter at hand for those concerned or merely add fuel to an already raging fire?

  35. Interesting. I was just commenting elsewhere about the monkey-mind sh*t-flinging self-indulgence humans can be prone to, which I think includes name-calling. It is indeed self-indulgent, and we all fall into it sometimes. It can feel so GOOD to fling a label at someone, to just spew contempt when you have a bellyful for whatever reason. But it is costly and does no good beyond that immediate gratification. It renders you less effective than if you mastered that energy and focused it into a tool for confronting what you consider to be a problem, in an effective way.

    It is easy to confuse name-calling, which is ineffectual and self-defeating, with NAMING, which can be important at times in dealing with a problem at hand. It is, of course, all about the intent. A name can be a handle, which helps us to grasp an issue or take hold of something that needs to be dealt with. Clarity about what you are dealing with is important in making decisions on how to deal with it, and naming things is how we map them in our minds. But when hanging a name on a thing becomes a substitute for dealing with it, it ceases to be useful. It becomes a way of stopping further response, and diffusing energy that might otherwise power effective action or a change for the better. It can serve as way of passing the buck, pointing the finger in expectation that others will go where we are pointing and handle what they find. None of this supports an effective response to whatever was vexatious enough to prompt the name-calling in the first place.

    Many folks seem to think that by making a statement about another, hanging a label on them or calling names, we exercise a power over the other, to determine who or what they are and where that puts them in the scheme of things. Our naming them so, makes them so, and that is that. Some suggest there is a moral obligation to do it, lest the other get away with … whatever. My experience has taught me that this is absolutely not the case. What we think, how we name and understand the things we experience, and how we express this — these things can only define our SELF, not another. We do not ever determine another’s place in the scheme of things, only our own; and we do so by the impact we have on our world in expressing ourselves. The truth about a person is not controlled by the choice of names applied to them. Our true shape is revealed in the mark we leave when we have an impact on someone or something. No other person can change the fact of that with any label or name — critical ones or praiseful ones.

  36. whoops.. I thought that since other posters were coming out strong with everything they wanted to say, no holds barred, that I could feel free to be as forthright and outspoken too… but apparently a couple of posters were offended by my candid comments. I apologize if this is the case, I assure you that it was not my intention to insult anyone or cause hurt feelings. Oracle, it is commendable that you defended your friend. Loyalty is an admirable trait, and an important part of what defines a friend. I read your comments thoughtfully, and will take them to heart. I think if you can put aside natural defensiveness, there is something of value in my comments as well. The most insight into myself sometimes comes from people who do not know me well, and therefore feel free to give me their honest assessments and feedback, and I do think about what is said with an eye toward self improvement. I assure you that I am not the type of person who goes around “feeling superior” by finding fault with others, the opposite is true, and from here on I will have to watch my words more carefully so that they are not perceived that way. I need to say again, that it wasn’t my intention to insult Elizabeth Hamre, I was responding to her comments, and thought that since she was being very candid that I could do the same and it would be received in that same vein. I was not denigrating her as a person, which I am sure she is a lovely, lively, interesting lady, judging by the wealth of her posts. *Hand extended in friendship* So, lets start again: hello I am April, nice to meet you. :-)

    • I am not defending “my friend” (I do not know Elizabeth) and I am very happy about my “natural defensiveness” and have no urge to curb it as I do not see it as an outpoint.

      I took no offense to your comments, it would be a cold day in hell before I could “take offense” at someone else given my track record.

      I like to think we are all here for the conversation. Conversation is a good thing.

      I do get attracted to magical elements and tend to poke at illusion.

      That is all that happened.

  37. Interesting discussion, good points made all around. The posts here await moderation before appearing, so the particular post I am responding to isn’t always right above me like it is when I type my reply, which is why my comments may seem a bit disjointed. But this discussion has given me a few more thoughts on this subject (and please keep in mind that I am not attacking anyone who posted, just giving my candid thoughts on the topic, and adding to this discussion about *motivation* for name-calling)

    I want to respond to this comment: ,,, “The PURPOSE behind name calling is to make someone like them self less… Whenever you criticize another person or devalue their reality, you are requesting of them to like themselves less.”

    True, but I actually believe the purposes of name-calling can be more diverse. One reason certainly could be as stated above, but there are other reasons too… I think it can be broken down into 3 basic categories: 1) to affect the person being called a name, such as in the comment above, 2) to affect the person doing the name-calling, (see examples below) and 3) to influence others.

    So in 1) you might want to shake someone’s self-esteem or make them feel bad because you don’t like them, as stated by the poster: “to make them “like themselves less” but in 2) the name caller could be doing it for other reasons: in retaliation for some perceived slight, or solely because the person doing the name-calling feels insecure within themselves and does this as a way to try to boost their own feelings of self worth. Other times the motive of the name-caller is solely to assert power over someone, As an example, think of an Army Drill Sergeant who hollers a slew of names towards the recruits; his goal most likely isn’t to try to hurt their feelings or self-esteem, or to boost his own, but he does this purposely as a method of keeping control, as an intimidation factor. Or think DM yelling at execs, and the next strata carrying this over to those stationed below them; it’s done to assert power and control.

    In category 3) Politicians (and others) may use name-calling for their own purposes which have having nothing to do with caring about the persons feelings or sense of self-worth, or trying to boost their own ego or emotions, but is done solely to try to lower their opponents credibility in the eyes of others, of the general public or voters, to cast doubt on the person and their abilities or integrity, to give themselves an advantage; it’s strategic. Name calling is not always personal, it can be just a tactic.

  38. For me, it is all about “create.” One person can “create” toward another person with “name calling” – in essence creating identities for the person on the other end… and in Scientology there are definitely a whole lot of “bad” identities to “cast” onto others for getting out of line in some way. We all know what they are. The indie field and the critics of Scientology also worked out some of their own: OSA plant/spy, brainwashed cult member, scion, etc. And this form of create indeed can have a profound effect on the receiving party – one can actually adopt the “bad” identity and for example dramatize to be an SP or a degraded being or whatever else.

    Hovering “bad” identities over peoples’ heads is often times a way of keeping people in line and in agreement… and so when one rebels one can assume the “bad” identity as a form of protest and disagreement. I think Scientology dynamic is practically constructed on manipulating people through “good” and “bad” identities. I mean look at the IAS scheme – it’s all about buying identity tags: Patron with Honors, Golden Meritorious… etc. – must be some sort of a “scarcity of identities” at the Church.

    Obviously, there is also a fine line between evaluation from observation and creation of some fixed perception. The two are usually interconnected – i.e. you see another doing something you don’t like; you decide the person is a “scum bag” or whatever, but thereafter your postulate of that person being a “scum bag” can actually continue to reinforce that reality.

    In the end, I think people would greatly benefit from taking responsibility (i.e. admit causing) for what they create toward others. If someone continues to create “bad” identities compulsively, that person can take over the compulsive “create” function by actually doing it under one’s control – i.e. mock-up more “bad” (undesirable) identities, then mock-up some “good” (desirable) identities (beingnesses in others). I found that worked for me to shake up some fixed realities on the 3rd dynamic.

    I think a good process for an indoctrinated Scientologist would be something like: “mock-up an enemy.” Many Scientologists seem to be on total “autopilot” with creating enemies left and right for almost any reason.

    Once you get a hang of it, it’s also kind of interesting to see what other people may be creating toward you or toward someone else. Again, I think this is a big problem in Scientology as this “bad create” is basically integrated into Scientology’s “group dynamic” based on Hubbard’s “bad creates” toward other people fixed in his lectures and policies including toward the general public outside of Scientology (i.e. “wogs”).

  39. As a gay man, I am well acquainted with labels and name-calling.
    However, after a long time pondering this very fact of life, often with a lot of misemotion involved, I came to the conclusion that human beings label things — it’s a thing we do.
    Labeling something is not necessarily a wrong thing. It is a basic way we communicate. If we did not label things we would not have that basic part of speech called a noun.
    However, name-calling, in my opinion, is a basic assertion that one is insufficiently capable of dealing with a debate. Having nothing else intelligent to say, then one resorts to name-calling.
    I often find people who resort to this because they are factually ignorant, often even about the subjects and reference material they use to attack with. It’s pretty pathetic.
    In the LGBT community, we are sort of forced to go and find out things, inform ourselves about one topic or another, so that we are not complete ignorants when we deal with specific debates. This is born out of a defense mechanism to continue our sub-cultural survival. It does not mean that every one in the LGBT community is superinformed about everything but, in the long run and regarding certain subjects, we have to be informed — especially when we deal with the religious fundamentalist. Some are more informed than others but overall, if we find ourselves having to debate over our very right to be considered a valuable person and not an aberration or a damned soul, we can usually do well.
    I am one of those who have studied religions of all kinds and also other spiritual bodies of information (like scientology), so as to have an understanding of what they consider me, as a member of the LGBT community, and thus I know what’s expected and how to counter their often fallacious and incorrect view of things.
    I find that, if people were to try to inform themselves about the LGBT community, they would be less ignorant and more accepting — or, at least, more tolerant.
    The problem about labeling and name-calling goes prior to these two actions. It stems from an unwillingness to look and observe other viewpoints and to let go of fixed ideas. It stems from an unwillingness to open oneself to other possibilities and realities.
    In my opinion, the biggest fallacy about this universe is the fact that there absolutely must be a duality. This fact is constantly ingrained in us. It is false. This untruth only serves to compartmentalize us and close us off from ever being willing to look honestly at someone else’s viewpoint and thus understanding it.
    I do not know how most of the people who follow Marty view the LGBT community or gay people in general; I wager a lot of you are ok with us. Some of you probably not — and that’s ok, too.
    Still, since we are all human beings, the compartmentalization of “us gays” and “youse straights” is really an unfortunate fallacy. There is no such dichotomy.
    I am using all of this as an example to describe one of the most obvious fields of labeling and name-calling in our society today. The LGBT community is probably the most affected by this phenomenon, at this point of time. Not to say that we do not label and compartmentalize within the community itself. We do and it’s kind of sad, often! LOL!
    Thank you, Marty, for this post, however; as always, it gives a lot of food for thought.

  40. Tom Gallagher

    “You cannot antagonize and influence at the same time.”
    – John Knox

  41. Well, name calling and labelling is the stock in trade of Hubbard and the cult of Scientology.

    Now, we all do it, and I’m not trying to paint myself like a little angel, god knows I’m not.

    But there is a major difference between lay folks and the practicing Scientologist.

    Scientology is predicated as a spiritual therapy and is supposedly built around the auditor’s code, which has two big shuns, evaluation and invalidation.

    But in actual practice and by group experience, traced back to Hubbard, it is one of the most obnoxious, evaluative and invalidative mind control groups in existence.

    There is literally every epithet and quasi-psychological labeling that one is constantly subject to, just because one has his own viewpoint and dares to express it openly.

    And overtime this continuous barrage of labeling people, to box them into their expected roles, takes its toll.

    So no, I don’t buy that Scientology is just like any other group, unless you see Scientologists as a bunch of obsessive analysts from the 1950-1960s era, or a bunch of prissy, pious religionists.

    • singanddanceall

      hubbard basically said a person was insane until he was “clear” in the book dianetics. Ain’t that evaluation and invalidation?

      Now that is a label of major proportion, which we didn’t realize.

      It also means you cannot trust a non-clear in hubbards construct, and it also means one must go “clear” as soon as possible.

      Much time has gone by since hubbard said that in his book.

    • Thank you,Conan, for your very inciteful post! It has handled the last vestiges of the upset I had over the declare cycle that I went through. I had never had a bad session, nothing but incredible wins during a 30 year span. Your post has allowed me to realize that the reason that the declare cycle bothered me is that without realizing it, on a subawareness level, I was questioning: “If I really am a Suppressive Person, why did I have all those incredible case gains and wins?” By definition, a real suppressive person is only satisfied with auditing when he or she gets worse!

      I have no question now that I really did experience all the wins and gains that I had, including the State of Clear OT, where my win was word for word the confidential definition on the little card at the examiner! So, I am going to end the cycle on the incredible evaluation and invalidation that the Declare cycle put on my “case”.

      Thank you for rehabilitating all the wonderful wins I had through the years. No one or nothing can take those away, and I will never again question this fact. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

      • You are welcome!
        I’m glad that you had those wonderful wins. Those gains are for us to keep, we earned them, NOBODY gave them to us so they cannot be taken away.

  42. Good article Marty.

    “A valued teacher of mine once said ‘when you point your finger at someone, look to where your other three fingers are pointing.'”

    My teacher must have come along a bit later.

    “When you point a finger at someone, make sure to always point with all five fingers.”
    :)

  43. Thank you for continuing to unwrap life. I suppose this is all in way of a new book? I loaned Amy’s book a month ago to a friend with no TV and idea of Scientology what-so-ever and the gal loved it. She was stunned by the abuse. She admired that I’ve escaped. Then she loaned it to another who completed reading over one day who also was sympathetic and compassionate about the subject. She now has ‘Memoirs of a Warrior’ and The ‘Syco-path next door’. I could spell better if the books were still here :)
    Anyway I was going to just say thank you and to anyone who has anything at all to say constructive ~ just write and let others learn from your mistakes and see your side of life. It helps to understand others perspective’s. For a long time I was only concerned about my own so this is a very good thing :)

  44. This has been a very hot topic! After reading so many responses, I wanted to thank one and all for all the very enlightening viewpoints expressed. My original thought was to regard “name calling” in the way some critical kids would insult one another in a schoolyard. But, after much consideration, I decided this isn’t always the case.

    A “name” can be useful as a correct indication – like this: “Joe, you’re being a jerk! Really, Bill? Ya know, Bill, you’re right; I have been a jerk – sorry.”
    Something like that. Someone had stated this earlier and it got me to thinking – thanks for your insight.

    Any particle of communication can be more solid or less solid and travel at a normal or slow velocity or a really high one. Too solid and too fast = big blast.

    On the flip side, would there have been a point in being polite and nice to Hitler? Back in his day many people were – and look where it got them.

    • You might consider to look at name calling a bit differently.. all depends on what the person thinks-believes agrees to what is OK to be named and addressed. Name calling is not just few words here and there is it Sweetheart?

  45. About name calling. It’s really calming to be around someone who day in and day out does not result to name calling. Hearing name calling is abrasive. It is a generality after all. I don’t resort to it due mostly to the fact I never thought I knew enough about the definitions to use them – democrat, republic, conservative, tea party, new-age, wog, db, dilatant, gay. I didn’t have that schooling. I’ve had to learn the hard way about people and how what you see and hear is not always what it seems.
    I suppose that’s a good thing in some ways. I likewise I never bothered to listen much to anyone getting into it. I can always walk away. I don’t need someone else to approve my viewpoint. It’s not like I’m going to get singled out for sec-cking or roll-back or a KR written on me which never bothered me too much anyway. I knew I was being attacked because I refused to follow the leader. Oh well – at least I wasn’t just always sitting back and falling for the BS. I just could not for the life of me ever imagined it was coming from the top until he did the TC award thing and re-wrote the books. I checked out that debate rules posted and missing it seems is failing to listen. It’s truly amazing how responsive the whole world is if one will simply stop and listen.
    I walked over to a friends house yesterday kinda up a steep hillside and picked her some Yucca blooms. I said these are Yucca as I slid them into her hand. She said “E-u they stink” (she conjured this up out of the name). I said “They smell like lemons” and she said “Oh they do!”. In many ways the language replaces intuition and observation for one self. Wish my kids would look over the definition of an SP once again :)

  46. CECE …””I’ve had to learn the hard way about people and how what you see and hear is not always what it seems.”” I have learned that seldom is!

    • Yes, exactly. I’m glad the food I eat is not that unreliable :)

      • Oh… Cece.. do we really know what our food these days contain? Since the 50’s over 100000 different chemicals were invented and put to use! you can use your imagination where all those chemicals went.
        Not necessarily paving the roads with them.. just some of them and while they are being used those roads where those chemical go? how about the millions of tires which wear down each year, where the stuff what has been worn down went too?

        • Well yes, I know what you mean but with food you pretty usually instantly know how it make you feel. I think we can go along way by paying attention to how we feel around someone and how we make them feel. I believe having the use of language (with it’s labels) being so dominate in our lives has to some degree left the intuition and love behind for more regard for the looks and talk. I feel fortunate to be regaining this again since it was all but shunned in scientology. It was un-acknowledged. The tones are to be obnosed with no mention of how that person makes you feel – intuition. If it did not read on the list it was ignored. Why not simply ask a person what he wants handled and get on with it. The ONLY time I was asked to think about myself and how I was doing was when doing conditions. Otherwise it was ‘is the neddle flooting’ and mine pretty much always was becasue I loved what I was doing in life. I fned all the grades – never got a one! Even fned a drug r/d and most of OT IV but looking back there probably was much more to be gained back there it just wasn’t the right time for me.
          Anyway… what were we talking about? :)

  47. A good friend of mine was a part-time stand up comedian and a full time waiter. He was a charming guy and a good friend.

    He worked at a high-class restaurant for some time. One night he had a group of over a dozen people. One of the diners was criticizing everything my friend was doing. Nothing was good enough, fast enough or correct. The rest of the group seemed to be enjoying their evening.

    At one point my friend asked everyone at the table for their attention. They all looked at him. He asked, quite pleasantly, “Could you please tell me, am I doing something terribly wrong, or is HE an asshole?”

    The entire table applauded. The “asshole” ceased his antics for the rest of the evening and my friend got a very good tip.

    I think that sometimes a label can be a correct indication that blows charge and can help correct an enturbulative situation. Sometimes they are just used as a make wrong or to start a fight.

    • It is the purpose behind it Les. I can think of a lot of names people love to be called. Oh yeah…………. Nobody frets when you call them “Superman”.

      • The “anti” name calling is even more insidious. David labels himself “religious leader” and he has a brand. It is good to notice opposite meanings. Just as much damage can be done with labels that carry positive connotations. You can tear people down with “positive” labels and name calling. Look at how a man can be degraded falling all over himself to get the label “patron meritorious”.

        I do not ridge too much on people calling or insinuating I am less than. When someone demands everyone in the room stand up to applaud me I know I am being used as a puppet.

        EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwww.

    • Very entertaining story, showing a clever use of name calling to diffuse a situation! Thanks for sharing!

    • Charming story :)

  48. Abolish Blasphemy Laws by Amending Articles 13 (b), 55 (c) & 76 (c) of the ‘Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice,’ to include freedom from religion.

    Our petition appeals to the United Nations to amend Articles 13 (b), 55 (c) & 76 (c) of the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice to include the non-religious as an expressly protected group. In so amending, the United Nations would be sending a clear message to its member states that imprisoning, torturing, executing and otherwise molesting secularists and nonbelievers such as atheists and agnostics is incompatible with basic human rights.

    https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/abolish-blasphemy-laws

    • Conan:
      Freedom FROM religion is a very slippery and dangerous slope. The inevitable outcome would be getting sued for offending anyone who feels offended by expressing your religion in public, or possibly making it a criminal offense. A misguided goal of the ACLU.

      The actual worth of these amendments would be in their precise wording and intent, and especially in their long term effects. The basic problem is the desire and effort for one to impose control over another. There is an exact reason for this. Want to know it?
      Mark

      • Mark,

        Are you kidding me? Religion is the oldest con game in the universe.
        It is predicated on beings IGNORING fundamental reality, by emphasizing “here”and not knowing “there”, we open ourselves to the High Priests, charlatans and sociopaths, who exploit that weakness to no end.
        No, I disagree with your assessment, religion’s insane history shows that its practices have to be contained under the rules of common law, and to allow free reign to superstition and mystery over human affairs is a disaster. Take a hard look at Scientology and imagine what the world would be like under the thumb of these greedy vultures.

        • Hi there, Conan.
          Ya got me. I fired off a small comment to a big problem, a long (very long) term problem of magnitude.

          Religious persecution, enforcement, torture, murder, genocide, is a horrendous scourge on our society and of other societies long distant past. My apology for any diminutive implications.

          I have heard individuals say that religion has caused more suffering, death, war, etc. than any other source in history. I say, more accurately, that evil individuals, in the name of religion, are the actual source of this horror. People who do not necessarily follow the beliefs and wisdoms (I list these two traits separately) of their own religion which they command, which use the beliefs of their prey to further their own twisted goals, desires.

          Religion, being so close to many individuals hearts, can leave them vulnerable to unscrupulous individuals who do not have their best interests in mind, yet have worked their way into positions of respect and power. Although ‘belief’ is a perfectly valid word when defining current and past religions, it is not a part of religion which I employ.

          It is true that religion, in general, is the major force which brought the human race from an animalistic barbarism to a mostly workable and civil society many thousands of years ago here on earth. It is what brought forth and spread the idea that we are more than mere animals, that there is a such thing as right and wrong. But religion works to improve the lot of individuals and groups when it is offered, disseminated freely, made available for the taking, not force fed, imposed, commanded.

          The problem I mentioned is a much smaller problem, but is a problem still. To feel that we have the right to be free FROM religion and to enforce that right by restricting others from practicing, disseminating, offering that religion is to spring back the other way and go beyond center.

          When one exercises his rights and displays his religion, you have the right to not look or listen. When one beats you down with his words or stops you from walking away, he has imposed on and restricted your rights. This is delicate ground. How these minor details are defined are quite important and deserve the utmost attention. Imposing the religion of Atheism on others is a throwback to the Soviet police state. Freedom of Religion, freedom to practice one’s religion, and Freedom from Religion is a delicate balance that requires attention to maintain.
          Hope this defines my position more accurately.
          Mark

          • Mark,
            You went off on a tangent dude.

            The UN petition DOES NOT state to deny the right to practice religion, but to INCLUDE in those rights, the rights not to be forced to practice any religious belief.

            Your assessment of Soviet enforced Atheism is an altered importance in the large scheme of things, as historically the main monotheist and polytheist cults have dominated the landscape of human thought for many thousands of years.

            Sixty of so years of communistic materialism are but a bleep in the long dark history of religious despotisms.

            You and the other apologists are engaged in a desperate attempt to hold onto Hubbard’s divinity status, while every indication demonstrates that Hubbard unleashed a revolting religious cult similar to the worst monotheistic cults in human history.

            Please DUPLICATE what this states:

            “Please consider signing the petition and circulating it to your networks so that we can create a bigger groundswell of support. There are thousands of unfortunate people globally suffering right now because of these brutal and inhumane laws, such as Saudi apostate blogger Raif Badawi, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for his disbelief in Islam:

            http://freethoughtnation.com/petition-to-the-un-to-protect-freedom-from-religion-and-barbaric-blasphemy-laws/

            • I signed the petition, but I would like to say your distinction between Communism and “religions” is flawed in that Communism has functioned just as any “religious belief”. There is a book tilted “The God That Failed”, which is the stories of 6 different “true believers” in Communism who stepped away from it after seeing what it was actually playing out. Arthur Koestler was one of them.

              My point is just that any ideology can function like that, it is not limited to monotheisms or any overtly “religious” beliefs. The problem is the deeper than “religion”, it is the human tendency to to believe something so fanatically that one abandons caring for others and decides the “ends justify the means”. As one person I know put it, “There are no ends – there are only means”.

            • Hi Conan.
              I stated strongly what a horror religious persecution has been through the ages. This petition as described on the site you provided is an effort to chip away at a piece of this horror. I applaud your work.

              The right to be left alone is the cornerstone of the US Bill of Rights.
              Mark

      • Good one! Mark I had a very small realization.. people stay with the social niceties of course it is nice polite and one will know what to accept when one is within the group. Fear dictates the behavior.. I call you names and tell you what I really think of you than the possibility will be 100% that I will give the same for me back and we would find out how we in reality see each other and think of each other Than the pleasant gathering for the cocktail party would be no more!.
        I have found that is session the question asked ”Has the withhold been missed?” Opened the true reality how I have seen ” me” and everything everybody around me.. lots of hidden stuff come to the surface and they were hidden before because of fear that others might not like me, I wont be allowed in the group, etc..etc.. if they would know how I really think of them. Of course.. not only the ”bad” thoughts surfaced but the secret admirations too and knowledge -power too was hidden also.. because one wants to be the part of the group than one had to fit in cant be different. example: Look what a riot it cause here me mentioning a bit being a cannibal! wow..!!!

        • PS;; I was reminded by a reader t:hat to have good communication one must communicate on the level of reality what the other party is willing to or able to confront.. well.. of course… that leads back to the box.

          • E, I would say it depends on one’s intention. You can communicate on the level of reality of the other party just for the purpose of not rocking the boat. Or you can communicate for the purpose of getting across something you would like the other to understand – which might even help get him out of the box. Whatever your purpose, the way to achieve it takes the right level of reality.

            • Marildi…. hehehe RIGHT LEVEL OF REALITY? than cross your finger and hope that whatever you communicate will be duplicated? You know it is impassible to duplicate the reality of others.. When some one say: yes I got it, yes I understand you.. what they really understand is how they see what you have written but never ever what you really meant!.

          • Communicating with another CAN pull you toward their level of reality. It doesn’t HAVE to.
            Mark

            • Mark.. no. definitely not.. When some one is stable will not be effected.. will experience that incoming new energy on own reality level. It was interesting example of this in Geirs blog.. even Geir thought I was fighting with V. and V accused me that I see things through hate.. neither was to me.. I just posted opposite what V said. and continued-did not let him dribble all that stuff all over the universe. Why would I hate him? that would be such a burden to carry!

              • Hate is the effort to stop another.

                • No V…. that is your reality… nothing but nothing can stop any ones believes but self! I cant take anything away from you as you cant change what I believe in!

                • V… one don’t have to hate to disagree… not at all..I just cant see that why you believe in such on idea.

                  • Disagreement doesn’t mean one has to write hundreds of comments to stop the person one is disagreeing with. The alternative is to resolve the disagreement. But when a person is going on a jihad against another instead of discussing the point of disagreement then underlying that effort is hate per the tone level as described by LRH.

                    • V… I really really don’t care what LRH had to say about the tone level…you already have labeled me. so be happy with your choice..in the past I did my best to tell you where I am at, what I believe in and what I have achieved with auditing.. you told me I am suffering from delusions.. what do you want? what ever that is I don’t think I have it.

                    • I don’t label anybody. I just look at the degree of consistency or inconsistency in anything on a dynamic basis. Things are always changing.

  49. About religious fanatics and fundamentalists:

    Please consider signing the petition and circulating it to your networks so that we can create a bigger groundswell of support. There are thousands of unfortunate people globally suffering right now because of these brutal and inhumane laws, such as Saudi apostate blogger Raif Badawi, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for his disbelief in Islam:

    http://freethoughtnation.com/petition-to-the-un-to-protect-freedom-from-religion-and-barbaric-blasphemy-laws/

  50. One of those who see

    I agree. Name calling distracts from the points being made during a communication. And is usually irrelevant. Name calling is a generalization and therefore lacks the complete truth needed for an as-isness. Also name calling restimulates which never helps a discussion or situation. It is fascinating that the organization that says they provide the road to freedom restimulate people with abandon.

    A side note: I recently received a letter from “the Mecca.” My folders are not @ Flag. It was from a letter reg. He stated that he sees that I had received the non-clear R factor. Nope, I never did. Kind ofa big thing to get wrong in a letter. Don’t ya think!

    • Name calling can be on indicator how the persons sees, understands and is restimulated by the incoming information.. and drive a point in with that label..
      Name calling has not been invented by bloggers or scientologists.
      Just think how many duals were fought over that given but unwanted label!
      How many wars were fought, how many divorces are there and how many people beat up others or being beaten for using some label which was not acceptable.
      How many kids going home from school crying…how many street fight are there fought daily, look at the news media, the movies, show hosts, politicians how they use the language to build up or to demolish the opposition.
      Please look beyond the border of those persons who use labels to express self a bit spicier than what is ”dictated and allowed by the good house keeping rules” those scientologist who have been studying Scientology in one form or other.

    • One of those who See. Yes, “kind of a big thing to get wrong in a letter”.
      Hope you are not taking it too personally.

  51. “To win a war, you have to start one” — (tag line from the new HBO movie: The Normal Heart)

    But in any case — what Marty has done I think — is start a war (yes, there were earlier starters of this war) against first the current regime of scientology and then through the years of this blog, progressing to the founder by exposure … and continuing with blog posts that deal with other wisdom traditions …

    This war won’t be — again my opinion — won with a BANG but will be won with a whimper …

    Attrition will win this war, waking up will win this war, sadly death of the old guard will win this war, exposure will win this war …

    People do not leave as a result of a discussion but because something becomes so utterly untenable they say — DONE.

    I welcome everyone who is DONE but I don’t think for 2 seconds that because they are DONE, they are NOW my new best friend.

    De-compressing, de-programming, cult separation, cult awareness is a HUGE big deal and takes whatever it takes by whatever means.

    I believe that as individuals we should work on our OWN interior landscape using whatever means makes sense to us. Searching for whatever qualities mean something to us personally.

    And perhaps IF we were to do this we JUST MIGHT stop calling each other names OR assuming that we are supposed to act in a particular way because we might NOW be buddhists/Christians/xyz religion/OR atheists/reformed Scientologists … etc

    We are ULTIMATELY all wanting the same thing:

    To be happy.

    And one of the best ways that I know to work towards achieving this is by being kind to each other.

    EVEN IF being kind to someone means — telling that person what a rude SOB they were, in one way or the other.

    MIGHT get them to look at their INTERIOR world for a change. Really look.

    • “I believe that as individuals we should work on our OWN interior landscape using whatever means makes sense to us. Searching for whatever qualities mean something to us personally.”

      Maybe this is all it would take:

      • marildi, loved the video and the message!!

        Forgiveness is an ENORMOUSLY effective tech to as-is the ego thought system aka reactive mind aka hate, pain, suffering, insanity, etc. (basically, anything delineated on Ron’s Tone Scale from 2.0 down). However, that being said, the concept of forgiveness, for the biggest part of my journey through space and time as the ‘Monte’ character, has been held in deeply rooted disdain, albeit, not really realized or acknowledged by the character. It just never seemed socially acceptable to overtly show disdain for a concept that was so broadly considered to be a loving or even divine act (God and Jesus eventually always seemed to get pulled into it), thus, out of fear, the character constructed a socially acceptable pretense with regards to forgiveness.

        It wasn’t until I read the book Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard that this long repressed disdain for the concept of forgiveness began to rise up and manifest as a forceful resistance that I was very much tempted to succumb to. But, I didn’t fold. I kept reading and I’m glad I did because in doing so I finally came face to face with the forgiveness that I held such an immense disdain for. And when this occurred, a great many things (understandings) fell into place. Things that I had no inkling of an idea were out of place or even extant.

        The Disappearance of Universe book is sort of A Course of Miracles for Dummies. Being that the ‘Miracles’ referred to in that course is forgiveness tech, Gary’s book addressed that concept quite thoroughly and incorporated numerous excerpts from the course in doing so. Anyway, here’s the particular excerpt that unfixed my very fixed and mishmashed perspective on the concept of forgiveness:

        [Note: the course teaches that the 'ego' is not an entity but is a thought system.]

        “The ego, too, has a plan of forgiveness because you are asking for one, though not of the right teacher. The ego’s plan, of course, makes no sense and will not work. By following its plan you will merely place yourself in an impossible situation, to which the ego always leads you. the ego’s plan is to have you see error clearly first, and then overlook it. Yet how can you overlook what you have made real? By seeing it clearly, you have made it real and cannot overlook it.”

        Of course, I realize that you or anyone else could read this excerpt and there would be nothing particularly noteworthy about it. Indeed I would expect that sort of response more than any other. That noted, I should mention that I had read 200 pages prior to encountering this excerpt in the book and it would be impossible for me to describe all the loosening of bound perspectives and consequent shifts in perspectives that occurred in those 200 pages that set me up to receive this comm i.e., the above excerpt, as being so profound. It’s just part of the story. :)

        The concept of forgiveness that I have found to be so remarkably effective as a tool with which to as-is the ego thought system, as described in the course, is simply seeing and recognizing the ego thought system for what it is not i.e., it is not real (there is no judgment in this). Therefore, the forgiveness is not for what was done but for what was never done. How can what is not real really do anything? This, of course, is completely opposite to the ego thought system’s forgiveness, which acknowledges that something (something wrong) was done. The ego’s concept of forgiveness serves to perpetuate a belief that objects are separate, are real and can cause harm to another object. The ego’s brand of forgiveness requires the prerequisite of judgment. And, of course, the flip side to this sort of forgiveness is condemnation.

        In Gary Renard’s book the forgiveness that is not of the ego thought system is referred to as being “True Forgiveness.” That noted, here is an example, as given in the book, of the thought process of True Forgiveness:

        “You’re not really there. If I think you are guilty or the cause of the problem, and if I made you up, then the imagined guilt and fear must be in me. Since the separation from God never occurred, I forgive “both” of us for what we haven’t really done. Now there is only innocence, and I join with the Holy Spirit in peace.”

        [Note: the course, just like the world, is one big metaphor and numerous times and in many, many ways, it states that God; Holy Spirit; Jesus, are One and the same and that One is ME.]

        marildi, if you or anyone else who happens to read this, is ever interested in getting A Course in Miracles in the proverbial ‘nutshell’….go to youtube and search: Intro – Workshop on “The Real World.” This workshop, not including the brief intro, is 15 parts with each part being aprx 10min in length. IMO, this workshop is ACIM in a nutshell.

        One more thing….see what you prompted marildi :)…here’s another video about forgiveness that I came across a while back. If you watch it on youtube you’ll be able to easily find other videos where the artist tells this incredible back story to this song. Look for Matthew West “Forgiveness story.”

        Much Love marildi ~ Monte

        • Monte, sorry for the late reply. I have less computer time these days.Thank you so much for the great tips as usual. I’ve bookmarked “Workshop on The Real World”.youtube series.

          And thanks for that beautiful song too.
          Much love ~ marildi

          “Forgiveness”

          It’s the hardest thing to give away
          And the last thing on your mind today
          It always goes to those that don’t deserve

          It’s the opposite of how you feel
          When the pain they caused is just too real
          It takes everything you have just to say the word…

          Forgiveness
          Forgiveness

          It flies in the face of all your pride
          It moves away the mad inside
          It’s always anger’s own worst enemy
          Even when the jury and the judge
          Say you got a right to hold a grudge
          It’s the whisper in your ear saying ‘Set It Free’

          Forgiveness, Forgiveness
          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

          Show me how to love the unlovable
          Show me how to reach the unreachable
          Help me now to do the impossible

          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

          Help me now to do the impossible
          Forgiveness

          It’ll clear the bitterness away
          It can even set a prisoner free
          There is no end to what its power can do
          So, let it go and be amazed
          By what you see through eyes of grace
          The prisoner that it really frees is you

          Forgiveness, Forgiveness
          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

          Show me how to love the unlovable
          Show me how to reach the unreachable
          Help me now to do the impossible
          Forgiveness

          I want to finally set it free
          So show me how to see what Your mercy sees
          Help me now to give what You gave to me
          Forgiveness, Forgiveness

    • windhorse: “This war won’t be — again my opinion — won with a BANG but will be won with a whimper …

      “Attrition will win this war, waking up will win this war, sadly death of the old guard will win this war, exposure will win this war …”

      Only minutes before reading your wonderful comment windhorse, I heard this question being asked to an audience by someone speaking at a TED Talk…”How do you kill a dinosaur?” The speaker then answers his own question: “You don’t. Evolution will take care of it.”

      IMO, there is no fight or ‘war’ to be had with anything. Evolution will take care of it. In a seeming world of perception that has originated from projection, everything comes and goes again and again and again, but…nothing ever lasts.

      …………..

      windhorse: “I believe that as individuals we should work on our OWN interior landscape using whatever means makes sense to us. Searching for whatever qualities mean something to us personally.”

      When one works on their OWN interior landscape, they will eventually come to recognize that there never has been anything but an interior landscape. And it was always their OWN. There never really was an ‘exterior’ or an ‘other, or an ‘outside, or an ‘out there.’ In other words, there never was a world that actually existed outside of and separate from SELF that could cause any effect whatsoever.

      As for the name calling and labeling that is intended to in any way diminish another point of view and particularly if you’re the one that is being targeted…Kurt Vonnegut offered (I think) a viable perspective regarding such circumstances. He said: “Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness. Take pride that even though the rest of the world may disagree, you still believe it to be a beautiful place.”

      Much Love windhorse ~ Monte

      • At the end of the video there is quote from the Bible re forgiveness. It is from the gospel of Matthew 6:14-15 NLT (I don’t know what the NLT stands for). It reads:

        “If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

        In A Course in Miracles the concept of ‘sin’ aligns more to the Arabic derivation of the word ‘sin,’ which means “miss the mark.” In other words, ACIM teaches that ‘sin’ is nothing evil, wrong or bad, it’s just an error/mistake. Sin is not some evil deed that needs to be condemned and punished or overlooked through ‘forgiveness” (either way makes it real). Instead, ‘sin’ is merely a mistake that needs to be corrected. True forgiveness atones (corrects) the error by recognizing that it’s not real and never was real. And every time True forgiveness is used it disappears (erases) portions of the ego thought system. That said, the concept of sin being something evil, wrong and bad, is a key component in the ego thought system’s desire for self-preservation. Because, with a belief in sin, comes guilt and fear (the unholy trinity) that fortifies a belief in separation, individual persons, identities, objects, levels, and so on. Thus, the ego thought system is perpetuated.

        As for a ‘heavenly Father’ or God(s) forgiving or not forgiving ‘sin’ or anything else…well, per the ACIM teachings the concept of God or whatever other symbol one might choose to use to represent a supreme creator, are just symbols that ‘point’ to that which is irreconcilable with concepts and are thereby inconceivable. If this is the case, then it’s obvious that ‘God’ (a convenient symbol) wouldn’t know sin, forgiveness, condemnation, ego thought system, duality, non-duality or any other concept. In other words, this means that ‘God’ would never be hearing or answering or not answering anyone’s prayers as well as never judging, condemning, punishing, forgiving or saving anyone or anything (all concepts).

      • Hello Monte,

        And thank you for your kind acknowledgement.

        Kurt Vonnegut’s words are wonderful — thank you for sharing them.

        As to your comment about realizing that “there never was a world that actually existed outside of and separate from SELF …”

        ULTIMATELY this is where one arrives hopefully — through whatever means — but still there is a very seemingly real world of the “other” – who is hell bent on ruining ones business, marriage etc … (and is actually a reflection of parts of unresolved self (small s) but that’s a whole book in itself). There is also the “other” who one thought/thinks is a friend but is in fact so mired down in their own “stuff” that bridging over to someone else EXCEPT for their immediate small world – is not possible.

        And there are “others” who because of decades of scientology mind-set are unable to break free with a sense of emotions towards anyone other than immediate family. Friends are often kept as status symbols or pawns in a game meant for only them to win.

        UNTIL the interior of ones self (small s) — matches the exterior of SELF these words from Rainer Maria Rilke – (Bohemian-Austrian poet and novelist born in Prague, he died in Montreux Switzerland in 1926) are wonderful. I found these words of Rilke to be a comfort:

        “I beg you … to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language.

        Don’t search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them.

        And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now.

        Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer …” (Rainer Maria Rilke)

        • Nice valance to take on, but it is worth it? It seems when one cant confront ones own realities looks for some other soothing more bearable experiences offered by those who see the universe differently the those new realities are less restimulating for a short period. they are good cover ups.. considered better and more acceptable than drugs alcohol but still take the place for confrontation. My reality!

  52. Interestingly I have encountered 2 times since reading your post that the English language did NOT have a label I needed the time both in conversations with others. What does one do?
    Example ~ referring to cousins and nephews what if you don’t know the gender? Or “Is ‘she/he home’ when I did not know the gender. You can’t say “Is them home”. “Is it home?”

    • Cece: When you are uncertain of the gender OR you don’t want to point out the gender … you can use the singular pronoun THEY or possessive singular pronoun THEM

      This is acceptable grammar.

    • Still Awakening

      You might consider “Are they home?”

    • Generally you’d say “Are they home?”. Even if you’re only talking about one person. “They” is generally used in reference to two or more people, but can also be used for a single person of unknown gender.

  53. Martin Gibson

    Don’t be a side-note.
    You are a liar.
    You know purification Rundown works.
    Stop hiding behind a delusion
    What works, works.
    Don’t be a “see intro” (dick).

    • Martin Gibson

      Actually I take that back. You are entitled to your opinion.
      I just can’t add it up against what I assume your experience is.

    • Martin could you please write to me at endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com I have a question. thanks. Elizabeth

    • marilyna2010@yahoo.com

      E. What in the world is this guy Martin talking about? Do you know him?

      >________________________________ > From: Moving On Up a Little Higher >To: marilyna2010@yahoo.com >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:07 AM >Subject: [New comment] Name Calling and Labeling > > > > WordPress.com >Martin Gibson commented: “Don’t be a side-note. You are a liar. You know purification Rundown works. Stop hiding behind a delusion What works, works. Don’t be a “see intro” (dick).” >

      • Hi marilyna2010. I am talking about the fact that Marty has been insisting scientology is a belief system, and the fact that doesnt take into acount the practical side of it.
        Are dictionary definitions a belief system? Is the purif a belief system?
        My comment above was not attached to the post above. Name calling is pretty awful, which I agree with. But, saying scientology is wholly a belief system is a belief not based on total fact. I found it insinuated a inability to discern fact from fiction for oneself and I felt it was unfounded and basically unspoken invalidation.
        Thus I was pissed off enough to comment venomously.

        It seemed delusional to think a dictionary definition being advisable to learn is a belief in something insubstantial to ones furtherance in life.

        Hope that s-p-e-l-l-e-d it out for you.

    • marilyna2010@yahoo.com

      Sorry. A bit ago I meant to forward this comment and pushed reply by mistake.

  54. And as an addendum to my response to Monte:

    I realized during a trip to visit my sister and friends in Texas that in actual fact not everyone is on a quest to discover their interior world/exterior world.

    As someone who came up in the late 60’s – I kinda assumed we were all on the same page: 1) interested in our own personal spiritual quest 2) anti-establishment — think student protests 3) wanting to create a better safer world FOR THE BENEFIT of everyone — not just “non-dbs”

    SURPRISE — this isn’t the case.

    We are not all wired the same until you dig VERY deep. There really are people who vote republican or independent or democratic OR don’t vote at all.

    And it always surprises me. Always. Since of course

    I’ve got all the answers :)

    Much love to you all
    Windhorse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s