Responsibility: Courts based on Arbitraries rather than Ethics

23 08 2009

image I’m listening to the lecture Responsibility from the Command of Theta lectures, and came across the following from LRH which I thought interesting:

In this section of the lecture, LRH is humorously describing some of the illogics of the way people behave, in the context of whether or not people could actually be responsible for things (good or bad) which they cause to occur.  He said:

“When I tell you some of these things about Earth, you’ll think I’m romancing.  You’ll think I’m telling you long, drawn-out stories and things when I tell you they have what they call a court of law that has nothing to do with ethics.  Now don’t laugh.  I mean, it’s true.  They have courts of law whcih have nothing to do with ethics but have only to do with arbitraries.”

He then goes on to explain:

“These courts judge solely on the basis of whether or not it has been written down someplace, not on whether or not it’s bad cause or good cause.  And this whole thing is devoted to just answering this question: ‘You were bad cause, but was it justified – not by reason, but by something somebody wrote in a lawbook?’” 

imageI thought it a very interesting point, one worth reflecting a bit on.  How may parts of our judicial system are built around determining if someone acted rationally or if he acted unethically?  And then how much is just built around figuring out whether or not what he did was written down in some lawbook somewhere?

  Take the most recent school-shooting conviction, in which (thankfully) the psychs on the case did not succeed in convincing the court that the defendant was “legally insane” just because he was on psych meds

That our current system even allows people to be represented as “legally insane” is itself a bizarre illustration of the above. 

In any case, I thought it an interesting quote worthy of some more reflection.


The Wrong Thing to Do is Nothing

12 08 2009

image I’m out and about and on the go right now, tethering on my iPhone, but just finished listening to the LRH lecture entitled The Wrong Thing to Do is Nothing.  I really could write a whole series of blog posts on this, as the lecture is just that profound.  Though it was delivered over 50 yrs ago, the lecture is just as profound and relevant now as it was then. 

LRH makes the point in so many different ways that suppressive elements will do just about anything to beat you back into apathy, so that you think that there’s just nothing at all you can do about your surroundings. 

He also makes the point that the way this begins, many times, is by taking people and putting them out of communication – by alienating them, and making them feel like they are individuals.  TV can be used as a mechanism for this, as can larger scale covert ops like the destruction of organized religion, convincing people not to go to church and instead take pills to solve their worries, etc.

Got me thinking about how this is being done even today with the Internet – to make it so that people never really get into communication, but instead just stay glued to their computers.  Chat tools even still can give someone the apparency of being in communication, but a post I saw also on Reddit yesterday, convinced me otherwise:


So, the point?  Well, one point is that you need to keep communicating and keep interacting with real people.  Another point, is that there is always, always something you can do about a given situation.  You may not be the overlord of the universe, but you certainly have your own skill, power and influence – and can always do something about it. 

Which, in itself, for me embodies the spirit by which I think Scientologists go about things, whether its drug abuse, human rights, or things like dealing with their families.  Something can always be done about it.

It’s a brilliant lecture, and I think so more can be said about it.  You can grab a copy from the Founding Church of Scientology Bookstore here.

What’s the Difference Between Work & Play?

10 08 2009

IMG_0429I was listening to a great lecture by L. Ron Hubbard on the way to work today, one entitled “Games” from the Golden Dawn: Phoenix Evening Lectures series (also available here as an LRH Classic Lecture).   In this lecture, LRH takes up the subject of Games, and how they relate to daily life, work, and your own relative sanity. 

Now, whilst LRH does take up the subject of Games in much more detail later on in the Games Congress lectures, there were several points LRH brought up in this lecture which illustrate the difference between work & play, and what actually makes work work.

I thought it pretty interesting, as he gives the example of the guy who goes out fishing for the weekend, spends most of the night packing his truck to go out, hikes all day to a proper fishing hole, drives all night to get back home, etc, etc, and that’s “play”.  Then, come Monday morning, he sits down to his desk job and stamps paperwork for “work”.   In this case, his “work” uses up like 5% of the actual calories & effort than his “play” does, so actual expended effort has positively nothing at all to do with whether something is “work” or “play”.   It really comes down to your own consideration, and what you’ve established as a game you want to play. 

Near the beginning of the lecture, he defines games as:

What is a game?  A game is an activity engaged upon by one or more individuals in order to maintain his interest in communication in life.

I thought that to be a pretty interesting definition – as well as a particularly interesting and thought-provoking lecture – seeing as there are a number of things that I find very interesting – and for which I could simply continue on doing nearly indefinitely; as I don’t consider them to be work.  For example, anything I’m doing where I know I’m genuinely helping others, and am doing so effectively – well, that doesn’t qualify as work, does it?  If I’m getting more people trained as Scientology Volunteer Ministers, as an example, so that they can help out in disaster spots around the world – that hardly classifies as “work”. 

Mowing the lawn (however) is something I may need to change my think on, as right now…it’s looking a bit ominous.  🙂

Checking out the New Dianetics Lectures

22 07 2009

PICT2234Now that I’m in receipt of my new How to Use Dianetics DVD, as well as my new Dianetics Professional Course lectures, I’m taking a brief pause on my Command of Theta lectures, and am buckling down to complete my study on Dianetics.

I basically couldn’t help myself.  After watching the first part of the new Dianetics DVD, I was hooked – as there’s just so much to that science that can be put to immediate use, especially with every part of it depicted graphically like that.

And then, the Dianetics Professional course – which contains the best description of the ARC Triangle and Dianetics procedure – should be an excellent way to round out my education on such.

And if you need a refresher on how the ARC Triangle works, here’s a video:

Control of an Individual by Sound

18 07 2009

imageI’m right now listening to the lectures by L. Ron Hubbard entitled “The Command of Theta”.   They’re lectures that are part of the Basics, the essential study of Scientology materials comprising all of the basic truths of Scientology. 

The lectures themselves are a good ways along in the sequence of study, so definitely don’t attack this series first if you want a taste of Scientology, but as I’ve already been through all of the books & lectures that lead up to this, going through this series has been quite something.

I listened to a lecture riding home on the Metro a few days ago which I thought was brilliant – a lecture entitled The Control of the Individual by an Unknown: Sound.  The lecture goes over in more detail why it is in Dianetics that the sound contained in painful incidents can continue to have such an effect on a person later in life – and why it is that sound in particular can cause this.

If you’re in need of refreshing on the basics of how an engram works, here’s a video from the Scientology Video Channel:

One of the parts of this lecture I thought interesting was when he was discussing the mechanics of this – in that just about any other source of control or sensory input, an individual can shut himself off from it if he wants.  If he’s touching a hot stove, he can take his hand off it.  If he’s seeing light that’s too intense, he can close his eyes.  However, the body is designed such that you can’t actually disconnect sound if you don’t want it.  So, sound can then be used as a means of control, and can also reactively equate to pain and other incidents where the person couldn’t control what was going on. 

It was just a neat lecture from a technical perspective, as it gives another angle on the basics that you get with Dianetics – and why it does work to relieve the individual of such incidents of pain. 

Why I’m writing this blog on Scientology Lectures

18 07 2009

imageI just started this blog to catalog my trip through the Basics, the LRH Congresses, as well as any other Scientology or Dianetics lectures that may come out that I’ll want to give a listen to.   I’ve especially wanted to fire up a blog on the subject, as commonly when I’m listening to a lecture I’ll end up having some blinding realization about something — some basic truth or the way that some piece of life fits together, that in some cases a blog is the best format to write such things down and preserve them. 

There’s a lot to Scientology, so if I don’t write it down, I might lose track of some of the significances of what I’m listening to.  🙂

Right now I’m listening to the Command of Theta lectures, and have some things I’ll want to say on them.  But I have a ton of significances still rattling around my head from the other Basics lectures I’ve listened to, which I’ll want to put down as well.

But if you happen to see this or any of my other posts as your first exposure to studying about Scientology, one of the most important things which I cannot overstress is the importance of studying Scientology materials in-sequence.  There is some pretty advanced stuff in Scientology, some of which is not going to make much sense if it’s the first book you read – as opposed to reading about it in sequence.  So, I’d definitely recommend going about it as detailed on the Materials Guide Chart

Got any questions?  Just ask!

%d bloggers like this: