Wow Scientology has nothing to do with Scientology anymore.

It seems in their anxiety to seek approval the Church of Scientology officials who organized this STAND web page show who they really are, and that they’ve no idea where they are.

You don’t need to be expert, you just need to have an understanding of few basics like the code of honor to see this STAND blog has nothing to do with Scientology. It appeals to psychology and to politics that are anything from irrelevant to opposite to it. It says ‘freedom’ then it ‘exposes’ those it doesn’t like as ‘false experts’, because it wants a monopoly.

Scientologists of the Church of Scientology, if you’re allowed to read anything other than what they designate for you, find out where you are.

My goals are my own

It often occurs to me to encounter others and see that they do thing the very hard way, and that it leads nowhere or worse. And then I point out to them there’s an easy way to go about things, and actually arrive where we want to. But it doesn’t occur to me that ‘we’ don’t want the same.

You’re going to hear many protest suffer, have a hard time, be victims, and so on. But if you could offer them the magic solution so they wouldn’t be that, how many would take it? Some would prefer to have a casus belli so as to cause suffering and victimhood unto others instead, or maybe not even that…

Individuality is true. We don’t think the same, we don’t want the same, we don’t have the same short and long term goals. And so, what happens to one doesn’t have to happen to another, either.

Help have never occurred in on unwilling basis. If someone doesn’t want something or wants something else, he cannot be helped in a way another would want. To help, you help somebody the way he wants to be helped.

About group-think

It is possible to rig a group so it will think and act in a completely fictional manner.

You point at a dog and you say ‘this is a cat’. And ‘if you say it’s a cat you’ll get a biscuit, and if you say otherwise we will mock you’ or something.

As that occurs, people get the impression that their survival depends on being in agreement with that group, and with it’s bosses. And that their own awareness and will doesn’t serve then in any way. Out of the confusion that’s caused by the conflict of their own viewpoint and of the groups, and of their own will and of the group’s they may as well completely give up and never even consult themselves what is true and what they want to do themselves.

That is group-think, and the definition of normality as well. And it goes by many other fancy names too and in -more less- different forms too. For example, public pissing contests have the purpose to get the group on one’s side by reducing another, as one thinks he’ll be better off like that.

And there may as well be a portion of truth that he’ll be better off being in agreement with the group and in denial of himself, but it’s completely untrue outside the context of the group. It isn’t even true that we cannot get along with each other well, unless we repeat and do the same things; as the without being divided and in conflict with ourselves, we’re freer to connect and get along with others too.

Me and others

Until we understand each other thoroughly, very thoroughly, extremely to the absolute thoroughly we are alone.

If I thought something about you that’d be my thought alone, and it could -or not- have any resemblance to you.

Because we can look at each other’s bodies, or ‘learn’ about each other from third party sources we can get the idea we know each other. But what we know is our own knowledge, our own thoughts.

Know that if you are criticized and that criticism has nothing to do with you. It isn’t you that doesn’t know yourself, it is the speaker that doesn’t. Let the snake devour it’s own tail, and don’t follow down that path too; for it’s a dark one to follow.

Really understanding each other is magic, but also rare. When it isn’t actual, it is pretense, even to ourselves. And may we do understand what we truly are.

 

 

kisspng-ouroboros-snakes-ens-tattoo-symbol-the-hissing-link-art-maths-and-infinity-edward-5b73850a44af65.4980669215342973542813.jpg

About denying evil

Everyone, without a single exception have the will to be good. We could go deep into what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ meant, but to be brief, I’ll briefly say ‘to preserve that which exists’ or ‘to let it be’ or ‘to not oppose it’. One could argue ‘what about those bad things that exist, should we let those be too?’ Hold on a second, how come bad things exist?

You will find as somebody becomes more thorough in knowing that which exists, he can also allow it to exist more thoroughly, as he doesn’t then change and oppose it in his thinking. If I for example thought that a person was inherently evil, I wouldn’t have any remorse to oppose him too. But what if I found out otherwise?

Supporting the ‘good’ about a person is supporting that which that person actually is, otherwise I’d be supporting something else (changing), or I could as well oppose that which that person wasn’t (destroy). And basically, when we oppose each other, that’s what we do.

Since nobody wants to be bad, one also rejects the idea of being bad. One is capable of exhibiting extremely evil traits, while -on the same time- may blame others of exhibiting them. That is because he doesn’t ‘feel’ those traits are himself. And -indeed- deep down he isn’t those traits, but he is capable of seemingly opposing that which he is.

It doesn’t matter whether you think Satan is actual or a myth. He is not evil, and all he’s done is based on a misunderstanding, what’s going on. He thinks ‘evil is’. He thinks that which made him is evil. And he never revolted against ‘good’. Then based on that understanding he reacted and became that which he reacted against. That is why understanding each other thoroughly, not by making assumptions, not by remembering yesterday, but by truly knowing and becoming known to each other here and now can have ‘healing’ properties. Everything can be sorted out. But of course for such a thing to occur openness, honesty and persistence are needed.

The more somebody acts evil, the more he denies himself. The more he denies himself the more a victim he becomes of the evil he thinks. And the more he denies himself the more he seemingly ‘disappears’, not as human body that can seemingly act ‘normal’, but as that which controls that body. People that act very evil aren’t free to think, and they aren’t free to employ logic, as their thought is full of self-denial, being victim, blaming others. When that is extreme, one becomes unable to truly examine anything, so that person generalizes a lot, and the evil he perceives is of course rejected from himself and projected unto the whole world. Statements like that ‘people are evil’, ‘everything is ruined’ are very common from such persons. He is also unable to examine himself by any means and to do anything about himself, and so he cannot change the way he operates. Having such people teach other that ‘the world’ is like, is very dangerous as those others may adopt his viewpoint and react against it the way he does.

How to choose your teacher

We’re used to having people that we have no clue about teach us ‘how things are’, but we’re not used to questioning ‘what do you do with all that knowledge?’ ‘What difference does it make for you?’ ‘How has that ever helped you?’

It isn’t that we should all be interested in the same things, nor is it that if one succeeded he could make another succeed as well. But it’s nearly certain that if somebody has a problem he cannot teach other how to handle it, as obviously he can’t handle it himself. Obviously, you wouldn’t go to anybody who couldn’t repair a computer to teach you how to repair your own, nor would you go to anybody that operated in relationships in a certain manner teach you how to operate in a manner you would like yourself, so as to have a relationship the way you’d want to have it yourself. No, he could teach you to achieve what he or she achieved, and to have the viewpoint she or he had and have similar or same results.

Every day most of us are bombarded information, and one could buy much of that information even it was completely useless, without having any knowledge whatsoever who taught that information was and what he achieved.

I mean OK, if I put a pretty picture of myself somewhere and wore a winner’s smile, would you know I wasn’t suicidal? I could probably tip you how to look good and have a winner’s smile, but no more than that.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against good-looking photos nor smiles. All I’m saying is a nice appearance, a stamp of approval, popularity (that could as well be artificial) are no measure of a person’s skills nor problems.

And one last thing you need to be careful of is that equality of information –OMG. No, information is not equal. Some information can be useful, other less, other can be useless, other can be -more or less- harmful.

Basically, it is yourself that needs to will to attain something, and you must know it. Then you need to be able to know clearly who can teach you, if you want to have any teacher at all; and I’m not even suggesting that you should need one. And above all you need to know whether what you want is attain, or you just go around in circles, or worse…

Maybe after you have mastered a particular subject, no matter what that is, you may want to teach others that want a teacher as well.

About using force

What is force? It is synonymous to energy, and used in physics to describe particular behaviors of energy, such as opposition.

Is force bad? Force is force, and it is everywhere in the force universe. But as we seek to survive in an orderly manner, and to preserve as much of our own self-control as possible too, we seek to put force in order as well, and have it behave like we want it to.

This isn’t very different from the reason why we frown at forcing each other. A large volume of force exerted on a human body would mean chaos for the body, or even no body at all.

That doesn’t mean -however- that force is bad in general, unless this universe is bad in general too. Our bodies operate with energy. Unable to employ any energy whatsoever a body couldn’t be alive, leave alone to perform any tasks at all.

The evil connotation that force has, comes from the fact that force can be used to hide truth.

If somebody didn’t have money and couldn’t have money, he could lie that there were reasons he ought to have money and use force to attain it, which is a very indirect way to attain something. If -in an imaginary example- there was a robber and he wanted money he could tell himself that -for example- the woman he was targeting didn’t deserve the money she had because she had taken it from her husband. He’d need to do that to make himself seem right to himself. And then -being convinced of his own lie- he could threaten the woman by force so as to acquire the money. Was he able to make money by more direct means, he wouldn’t need to do such a thing.

So basically, an inability to use force reasonably -as in the case of working so as to acquire money- lead to an illogical, untruthful use of force, which could also turn out to be self-destructive for the user.

Don’t think that people that use force compulsively, or threaten and scare others all the time are more able than others. Using force unreasonably doesn’t show more ability; nor does not using force unreasonably show inability. It means the guy who can’t employ force in a constructive way, is losing his grip over himself. And he may as well give others good reasons to do the same. Even though it is good to be able to defend oneself -if and when needed- you shouldn’t become like that, because it may as well backfire, which is past of being unreasonable.

For mental discomfort

I like to look things in depth and often I ‘forget’ not everyone’s like me. Each one has his own life, own goals and some times I notice people also have ‘negative’ mental conditions, like terrible emotions. I’ve done that too, but it’s been a while since I dealt with my own problems of that sort.

If you want a suggestion, if you want to snap out of a ‘negative’ mental condition, only do something mental when you’re very precise and know very well what you’re doing, which can be very rare. That which worked for me the best was to focus on the material ‘seriously’ and work on it. Do anything from taking a stroll to building a house and don’t think. Do it for as long and as much as it’s needed and don’t hesitate to waste energy. And better don’t exercise just to exercise, do it to achieve something (work). This could be very effective.

The lone pioneer

It could be said that people frown at new things, but it isn’t very true. Most just can’t understand new things for reasons too complex to explain.

Understand that if math was something new one would need to put serious effort and time to understand some of it, and it is the same with many other things.

Aside from an inability to understand new things by merely snapping our fingers there can also be unwillingness to do so. A person that profited from X could oppose something that would replace X. Moreover, that person could make it so others would reject or even attack anything new, so as to retain a monopoly.

We are all potentially pioneers. We are able to think, imagine, invent new thing. And most of us also employ thoughts why it is bad to do so; like that we’re not clever enough, or that it’s up to experts to do it, or because we’re afraid of some other’s reactions and possibly isolation and punishment, because of reasons I mentioned above. It is not even normal to be so different so as to be a pioneer, and who wouldn’t want to be normal, right?

I’ll tell you a ‘secret’. They say intelligence and strength are like opposites, but in truth they are very closely related. One needs to dare to be intelligent much like he needs to dare to do many other things that some others could frown upon. And I don’t necessarily mean bad things. I know some who could get very upset if they encountered something as simple as a happy couple, or maybe a freelancer that made some money by new means…

Morals, objective, subjective

That whether morals are objective or subjective that I see asked and fought over and over again is obviously never satisfactorily answered, nor is it meant to be answered.

Objective and subjective don’t have any specific definitions to be begin with.

Right and wrong that pertain to action pertain to consistency of action -whether personal or agreed upon- towards a known goal. If a couple agrees to be married they agree to what they agree marriage means. If you’re a doctor and agree to cure somebody, you agree to cure him, not to leave him in the middle of an operation and go watch football. If you’re a friend you aren’t supposed to turn against somebody and so on…

But what if agreement is not present? Since we seem to co-exist in big cities and countries some things are taken for granted automatically and arbitrarily, as we don’t communicate with each other, and yet expect from each other to subscribe to some rules, such as not beating each other. And because we don’t take responsibility to make and agree over rules, we may appoint others to make them for us, and we may also lose control.

When religion was more prominent, agreed upon morals were more determined by religion as well. And so, they were also more specific. Now there is more conflict and confusion around morals and so there are also many more laws. And due to that confusion ‘norms’ (normality) have become more prominent as well. In other words, morals are often determined by that which is usual, average, no matter what that is, as there is no other compass what is right and wrong.

The way to cut through all this is to make own goals and to agree over goals together again, no matter what those are. Even if that doesn’t happen on a level of state one can make it on his own, with friends, and whomever lies. And he can win more than he may lose.