[FREEZONE_EARTH] Raising the ARC on FREEZONE_EARTH!
Dear Per (I have to meet you with the same compassionate intent that you carry)Dear Terrence,
Yes, I did not say it was wrong. It said it was incorrect. And I defined incorrect as not lining up with something else (in this case Jolanda's understanding and mine).
No my dear, my understanding is not wrong, it is MY understanding.
This sentence doesnt make any sense. The word 'write' in that sentence confuses me. I am a native English speaker and have no idea what the word 'write' is doing at that place in that sentence.I am sorry that you feel like you write towards me, my opinions and my
friends ditto.
I appreciate the information about generalities and specifics. I wasnt exactly aware of it in that terms. It seems to relate to the idea of seeing similars as sames: if I see similar things as that same, then I am being general about things I need to be specific about.Don't take it as facts.
Jolanda will be here for an evening with dinner soon, and I will ask
her for specifics as I can't use your generalities for anything. Please
know that genearalities can CREATE charge wheras specifics can
BLOW charge. Also with the originator my friend. That's YOU.
In this communication of mine:
Which point of yours did I not address in your opinion?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEZONE_EARTH/message/3651 You did not respond, but chose to end the comm cycle. There are numerous queries from me in that email. I will list the last one in there, but it certainly was not the only one:
> This is how
> meglomaniacs look at things.
>
Do you have a specific issue with the chapter 'The Three Universes'
(http://spiritologie.eu/index.php?id=40&L=0) or any other chapter that
implies the Spiritologie teachings encourage or promote megalomania?
Yes, but your statements contradict pre-83 Scientology and Spiritologie regarding the seniority of considerations of matter. This is a Freezone Scientology discussion forum. Such comments are commonly found on anti-Scientology forums. I told you that you wont find a shred of data in any Scientology text supporting your view. But I am also sensitive to the danger of a community being a cult. But it completely stuns me that 3 senior auditors would hold such an out-tech view and join hand-in-hand in supporting it.
Offcourse the statements I made was based on MY view of the
world, as that is (even pr. Spiritologie) my truth.
You are 100% correct. Conflict occurs when two forces oppose. This is the central point of what I was trying to say. 1. you have a full right to self-determinismI am sorry if you
do not like it my friend, but you have to get used to, sooner or later,
that people have different views on a lot of things than you do. It
is time to be real in a real world for all of us. We can all have
different actualities in our own universes. That is a freedom to
do, be and have as YOU want too Terrence.
2. you have a full right to develop A.R.C. with beings of similar determinism
3. such a 3rd dynamic becomes strong and forms its own group
4. I saw a 3rd dynamic being formed between you, AE and Heidrun and I felt left out because I hold a different view
5. FREEZONE_EARTH has loose guidelines for 3rd dynamic that allows for your viewpoint, even though it is out-tech
Interesting viewpoint.
Hammering out any new tech means stagnation, reactionarism,
robotism, and no development. Tech has to change constantly
as cases change constantly. That is also the only reason for the
existance of Spiritologie...
Results are definitely what count.
To me the correct tech is the tech that create a needed and wanted
result. I have been doing that for more than 40.000 hours in the
chair, so please believe me, I know what I am talking about.
I am receiving r3x auditing. I am preclear. 3 total years of Scientology, most of it in the freezone. Only started receiving auditing seriously in the past 6 months having surveyed the landscape for awhile.What
is your experience?
Hmm. So the Per-Terrence conflict was a compulsive/subconscious/aberrant creation of a Thetan who fell prey to certain limitations it was not aware of. I wouldnt have had a disagreement if I had stayed on Spiritologie forums only. I would be getting congratulated on _correct_ understanding. But I see myself as doing front-line battle work. They dont waste any time with you and have no interest in fixing your misunderstandings about their personalities or tech. If you want to condemn them with ignorance and out-tech, they are fine with that. I'm here to help. Maybe I should start by getting some info on why you hold your viewpoints. Or I should communicate about my motivations? Or maybe just drop the whole thing and agree to disagree? I dont have much time for email banter with all my studying honestly.
My understanding do not have to lign up with anyone elses, that would
be the stupidification process nr. one. Same goes for you. Loose your
own understanding, and you have lost everything. To me you seem to
be heading that way when you see a lot of disagreements around you,
that is not understanding!!
yes, I was unhappy when I wrote the initial email "Raising the ARC" but I am trying to stay in communication with some people who I see as being against some views that I hold. But whom I respect.
When you see people as being against you, right or not, you will not be
a very happy person, believe me, I have been there myself. Call me
naiive, but I promish you, the world looks best from the positive side.
Hmm, change MY considerations??? Hmm....
It's good that you realize that YOU created the ridge yourself, that is
step One. But what are you going to do about it? I would just love
seeing you taking some action and get out of it.
yes, I was just hoping that we could have some basic agreements on this list about what will work. And since this is a scientology forum, I would think some basic ideas about communication would be an acceptable bottom line that we must (?) agree one.
Don't forget that you can't force people to communicate. Trying to
do so is trying to introduce slavery again.
Yes, we cant forget that. And we cant forget to take full responisibility for whatever situation we get into.All beings have the right
to play any game, stop playing or not playing at all.
happy holidays, Per.Same with
I wish you a very happy holiday and a new year with lot's of blue
communication. I chose to communicate with you again, because
what you write about me, I see as your non-understanding of
me and what i do. You are very welcome to ask me any question,
and I will answer you as well as I can (within reasonable limits).
skies and sunny seas and lot's and lot's of new understanding
within all your impulses and endavours.
-------Original Message------- From: Terrence Brannon (OSA, Division Freezone)
Everlove
Per
Date: 19-12-2010 05:19:25
To: FREEZONE_EARTH@yahoogroups.com
Cc: #livingcosmos.org@posterous.com; Colleen Peltomaa; Multi Genius
Technologies, Un-Ltd
Subject: [FREEZONE_EARTH] Raising the ARC on FREEZONE_EARTH! ((tags:
scientology))
This email has some name-calling in it, but it is done with the belief
that communication, ethical communication, raises the ARC. In other
words, this is a 100% raise-up email with an eye towards raising ARC on
FREEZONE_EARTH. I left the techs4reality mailing list because I felt they were hell bent
on case inval.
I am very uncomfortable on this FREEZONE_EARTH mailing list for similar
reasons: # out-tech/misunderstood tech Per made several statements based on his own worldview that are at odds
with Scientology and Spiritologie tech. In the name of experimentation
to break new ground, this should be welcomed. In the name of KEEPING
SCIENTOLOGY WORKING, it should be hammered out. I certainly shouldn't have created a ridge based on my lack of reality
with him. I appreciate how upset I got at his statements because it
shows poor confront. Nonetheless, his understanding of Spiritologie is incorrect. But
incorrect simply means it doesnt line up. Jolanda sees his flawed
understanding and I do. Note that Per is not _wrong_ - simply incorrect. # arc breaks ## per breaks the comm cycle Per ended our conversation on 'knowing versus agreement' without
addressing my points. ## heidrun breaks the comm cycle Heidrun has 2 open comm cycles with me on 'knowing versus agreement' ## Robert D. broke the comm cycle Yes, even my all-perfect auditor broke a comm cycle. Heidrun was trying
to understand why Robert didnt believe Andreas Buttler was still alive
and Robert said he shouldnt have to explain why. It took prompting from
me to elicit communication from him about the issue. # everyone's against terrence AE Everlight joined forces with Heidrun and Per (and hence against me)
in the 'knowing versus agreement' discussion. This made it 3 versus 1. I
felt mis-understood. When communication is not acknowledged, it hurts.
Feeling alone hurts. This would not happen in the Co$. It doesnt happen
in a fundamentalist church. But when you have a loose organization that
encourages free thought, severe arc drops are bound to happen and it did
happen. But writing this email is healing me by the minute. # spiritologie sucks and should stay that way There is a strong urge to down Spiritologie. I've made requests to
discuss the text openly, but the urge seems to be to paint them as the
bad guys. It seems to be more fun for them to remain wrong and bad than
to discuss the specific issues with the text. It would be easier for me
to drop out of this list and simply join them and only communicate with
them, but that does not heal the rift. And that is symptomatic of cult
behavior. I am inviting constructive criticism of the Spiritologie *text* - 2nd
hand rumors about Rolf Dane and Caspar are irrelevant to the validity of
the *text* itself. # productive use of time I am 80% done with the Spiritologie online course and have restarted my
work in Dianetics: The Original Thesis with the IFA. On top of that,
there are several texts I need to study as well as receive r3x auditing
from Rob D. It does not seem productive to come here and be ignored.
However, I do believe that communication is the universal solvent. If
Per (or others) want to hold anti-Scientology viewpoints (based on
pre-83 LRH), then it is an opportunity for me to communicate until we
resolve the discussion instead of creating ridges. Now accusing someone of anti-Scientology viewpoints is a loaded gun. And
given that any scientology tech is based on the technical dictionary.
And given that the technical dictionary is often vague or ambiguous, it
is actually impossible to truly have a single coherent Scientology. And ultimately what I experience is the direct result of my thinking, so
I chose to degenerate into this game of other-determinism. I guess what I am asking is not to drop comm cycles and to keep a mind
towards ethics. In an open place like FREEZONE_EARTH, we have to remain
open to all ideas, even those apparently anti-Scientology, in the name
of breaking new ground. But can we not agree that comm cycles should complete and that ethics is
mandatory? We need some ground rules. And we need some to smoke a little
cannabis together some time :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
