Date: 8 Jun 2000 03:24:24 -0000 From: Revenius@anon.org Subject: [FZA-L] Other Practices Revenius@anon.org to fza-l (repost decrypted) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Heidrun Beer wrote: >Exactly this is what I am also trying to do in my workgroup. Viewed >from a 7th or 8th dynamic viewpoint, we are trying to have and make >the WHOLE of technology available, which is built from multiple >sources - like a puzzle where many pieces add up to one image, >which would not be integer (whole) if any of the pieces were >missing. > >I would like to see Rev's comments on this. For me, any tech which >does not conceive this wholeness or integrity viewpoint, is a flawed >tech, or a specialist's product which is valid in itself but needs >to be integrated with the other pieces by a coordinator. The >specialist doesn't necessarily have to be aware of the bigger >picture, as long as he doesn't protest or fight the integration of >his work into the bigger picture. > >In Rev's writings this "wholeness of tech" idea was very present for >me - that's why I was and am interested in what he is doing. I >would like to know how he thinks about what I am saying here. Ralph, >could you >please manage a comm-cycle about this? There are quite a few questions in what you are asking. Some of them pre-supposed. The idea of integrating Scientology with other practices would require some sort of meta-technology and a practitioner of this meta-technology. Such a practitioner would need to have acquired mastery of each technology to be subsumed and integrated. It would also presumably involve a whole new set of terminology. The approach I would prefer is to expand Scientology terminology to include useful developments. If another existing technology cannot be explained or expanded upon using Scientology terminology then that points to a deficiency in the terminology which needs correcting. What is needed is a clarification of what other existing technologies should be incorporated into this presumed "bigger picture". Each area would have to be examined as itself. I feel in your writing a certain tendency to attempt to subsume the universes of others into your "bigger picture". Positioning yourself as a co-ordinator presumes that your perception of the whole scope of Scientology and other practices is greater than that of those whom you term "specialists" without any evidence that such is the case. I see this presumption on your part as creating a barrier with those whom you would communicate - you have quite a skill in making statements which contain an implicit unstated presupposition - others will inevitably resent this presumption on your part while often being unaware of quite what it is they resent in you. I would therefore say that examining other technologies is a valid area for discussion on the list provided that it is done using Scientology terminology wherever possible. Several people have gone through a process of inventing new terminology for things which have existing definitions in Scientology. I can see that a person might argue against my above statements by suggesting that the "Scientology model" or "paradigm" is in some way incomplete and cannot encompass their approach. However, from my observation, no-one so claiming has actually written up the implicit axioms and logics of the paradigm that they claim is in some way superior or needs to be incorporated. If such a new paradigm needs to be introduced into the approach needed to attain our goals then I would ask that it be clearly delineated axiomatically. If the paradigm cannot fit in with Scientology then there exists either a lie in the axioms of Scientology or a lie in the axioms implicit within the new paradigm. Unless the axioms underlying the new paradigm are explicitly stated rather than implicitly assumed then I see an incorporation as not being viable. Realistically I would ask you to list technologies which you see as missing and the specific parts of them that would need incorporating into a wider viewpoint. Examining these other technologies at an axiomatic level is a difficult task. I have not seen another technology of the spirit which has clearly stated its axioms and appositions. Nevertheless, to incorporate them into the broader view, it would be necessary for the creators of these approaches to do that detailed work which has so far only been done in Scientology or for another to take up the task. The upper dynamic banks have never really been examined in Scientology in the way that will be needed to achieve actual OT states. I think that such an examination will open into areas addressed by other spiritual practices and as it is done will resolve areas of apparent incompatibility by evaluation at an axiomatic level. Love, Revenius -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP iQA/AwUBOT74QEdRmJS6PittEQINqgCg7iRXaDIXmyUU/Tg5Zs+Kl2xr1A4AoKJC CrVfFW27gk+wgZvdMq8i7W+A =zESP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----