*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Hi Peter,
yes, needless to say that advertising Ron's Axiom 31
in a society which is immature like ours, is not a good
idea. Would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
But a forum like this is certainly (hopefully) not representative
for the society at large.
Best regards
Robin
------
David,
By any chance do you know Caroline Markolin in Salsburg?
No David, I do not know her. I'll take a look at her site -
thanks for the link.
Salzburg is very close to Germany.
I currently do not regularly attend contacts to any
local groups of (ex)-scientologists or free-zoners.
This list is the only one I've been ever active on.
Best regards
Robin
------
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:18:25 +0100, <trom-requ...@lists.newciv.org> wrote:
Send TROM mailing list submissions to
trom@lists.newciv.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
trom-requ...@lists.newciv.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
trom-ow...@lists.newciv.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: More On Axiom 31 (The Resolution of Mind list)
2. Do you live in Germany? (The Resolution of Mind list)
3. Gerry Armstrong, one of LRHs personal attendants.
(The Resolution of Mind list)
4. Re: Replay B59 and B59A (The Resolution of Mind list)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 06:10:16 -0700
From: The Resolution of Mind list <trom@lists.newciv.org>
To: trom@lists.newciv.org
Subject: Re: [TROM1] More On Axiom 31
Message-ID: <mailman.22078.1478351713.1261.t...@lists.newciv.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Here is Denis' argument from the book 02 the Philosophy of TROM
Pete McLaughlin
The Philosophy of TROM
By Denis H. Stephens
Okay, I'd now like to take up the subject of the philosophy of
TROM?philosophy of TROM. I'm very grateful to Terry Scott who reminded
me of the importance of this subject in a taped communication to me; he
felt there's a definite need for a look into the philosophy of TROM.
Well, I agree with Terry. And so here we go, we're going to talk now
about the philosophy of TROM.
Let me say at once that the theory of TROM is quite consistent with the
theory of Scientology, and there are no areas, really, were they are at
variance at all with a definite exception that there's one of the axioms
which definitely does not apply in TROM. But I suspect that Ron in his
later years, himself, would have suspected that there's something odd
about that axiom. Because I used to talk to Ron in the early fifties and
we used to skirt around the subject of that axiom. There's things he
said then that made me suspect that he felt there was something odd
about it. Axiom 31.
Anyway, the axiom is Axiom 31 in Scientology, and this is the axiom
which states that "Goodness and badness, beauty and ugliness are alike
considerations and have no other basis than opinion" that is Axiom 31 of
the Scientology axioms. And this axiom tells us that goodness and
badness is really relative to the situation. In other words, it's
entirely a matter of opinion. That there's no basis for goodness or
badness, or beauty and ugliness in the universe. That there's no basis.
Well now, discounting the subject of beauty and ugliness, for which I
would be inclined to say that the second part of the axiom is true, but
I haven't studied it all that much. I would say that if the axiom simply
read, ?Beauty and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other
basis than opinion,? I would agree with that. But it's the first part,
goodness and badness that sticks in the craw.
Now this is a very old philosophical point that Ron hit when he hit
Axiom 31. I don't know whether he knew that he'd hit a very old
philosophical argument. I missed it at the time. It wasn't until a
number of years later that I realised there was a flaw in this axiom. It
wasn't really until I started to get down to my own research that I
began to seriously doubt the validity of the first part of that axiom.
And I hadn't got too far into my own research before I realised that the
first part of Axiom 31 is in error; it's simply wrong.
This is the way it works: if you say that all goodness and all badness
are simply a matter of opinion, then you stop all possibility of social
comment. You know, you can't then point your finger at something and
say, ?Well, I consider that bad.? The person would say, ?Yes, that's
fine, but it's simply your opinion that it's bad, and I consider it to
be good.? You see that? And, bang, you've destroyed the whole subject of
morality and ethics in one swoop, just like that. You've just wiped them
off the face of the planet. You see that?
Once you say that goodness and badness are simply a matter of opinion
you've just destroyed all social comment, you can't comment about an
action, because the person could immediately say, ?Axiom 31!? He could
invoke Axiom 31. So, ?Well, look, these things are simply a matter of
opinion. You consider it's bad, I consider it's good.? And there's no
absolutes on the subject. Well, not so much as no absolutes, but it's
simply a matter of opinion, simply a matter of opinion. ?I know my
opinion's as good as yours, old chap,? he can say. So you can't comment
on an action.
Now, that is a very dangerous way to run a society, I can assure you.
Societies tend to collapse when this is adhered to. If you were to try
and run a society on that basis it would run itself into a hole, it
would run itself into a hole rather rapidly.
Usually this concept is associated with hedonism: That whatever I do is
right and whatever you do is right, and it's all a matter of opinion,
and we all live for today for tomorrow we die. It's a hedonistic
philosophy. And no society has ever flourished using that philosophy. It
simply leads to the graveyard, very, very quickly.
The society just collapses. It just falls apart. Usually it just falls
apart into bloody conflict. That's an end to the society and something
more stable takes its place.
In other words, it's not a workable; it's not a practical proposition.
So the first part of Axiom 31 is a fault.
So with the possible exception of that, TROM and the body of data of
Scientology are consistent with each other. And all we can really say is
that TROM bears the same relationship to Scientology say as, oh, say
Einstein's relativity theory bears to Newtonian mechanics. It's just a
smoother way of looking at it, and a much faster and a much more
practical way of getting the job done. But it does contain some more
fundamental truths which were missing from Scientology and so tended to
limit the application of Scientology.
I suppose, logically speaking, from a philosophical viewpoint, you could
put Scientology within TROM with the exception of these odd little bits
and pieces like the first bit of Axiom 31. But you can't put TROM within
Scientology, because there's data in TROM which is not known in
Scientology. But there's everything that's known in Scientology in TROM.
You'll find that it's all in there.
So the senior subject is TROM, I can assure you. It's the senior
subject. But Scientology, with few exceptions, is quite consistent with
TROM. So we do have a philosophical background there, the philosophical
background of Scientology. But we can actually take the technology of
TROM, and from it get a much more workable philosophy than Scientology
could ever have. And god, Ron worked hard at this subject with the
philosophy of Scientology. He really did over the years burn the
midnight oil there to try and get a philosophy of Scientology.
And in his latter years he even started to get into this subject of
ethics, you know, and started to say what was ethical, yet in his own
axiom, Axiom 31 says that goodness and badness are all alike
considerations and have no other basis than opinion. Yet here he was in
the latter days of Scientology expounding a code of ethics. Well, this
is inconsistency in his own field, and he paid for it. He paid for it.
You can't teach the students, make them learn Axiom 31 by heart on the
one hand, and on the other hand insist that they abide by a code of
ethics. They're two things that are logically inconsistent with each
other. You see that? There's these logical inconsistencies that caught
up with him in the final years.
Code of Ethics in TROM
Well, we're not going to fall for these logical inconsistencies of that
type. We do not say that goodness and badness are simply a matter of
opinion. We know that there is the subject of goodness and badness, we
do know that there's such a thing as ethics. You will find in TROM a
code of ethics. It's written up quite firmly in TROM. And as you live by
this code you flourish.
And if you don't live by that code, the further you run your life away
from that code the less you flourish.
But we in TROM, we can go much, much further than that code of ethics
when we talk about the philosophy of TROM.
Code of an Ethical Being:
Never force a person to know a thing against their choice.
Never prevent a person from knowing.
Never force a person to make a thing known
Never prevent a person from making a thing known
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 5, 2016, at 3:03 AM, The Resolution of Mind list
<trom@lists.newciv.org> wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
05:33 05.11.2016
The weekend is around the corner and I thought I create some
time and do a quick write up for your and my edification.
Here it is:
Actually there are no such things like goodness or badness.
They do not exist actually _because_ they are a matter of
consideration and opinion. Only your considerations can
create goodness and badness. As such they are a matter of
illusion. Which puts them in the same class as anything
else which surrounds us. It is simply an additional aspect
of our reality which all together is the product of our
considerations. Since you can change your considerations
or opinions any time, corollary you manufacture and change
your world permanently.
The seemingly unreality of this idea comes only form the
agreed-upon agreements done in the first place
when you decided to be part of the game; to be part of a
prefabricated "raw" world; to participate in an endeavor
which is called co-creation.
You forgot about that fact on purpose.
Now you get confused since you experience an effect which you
were never exposed to in your home universe or anytime you
deal exclusively with your own creations caused exclusively by
your own postulates. On the other hand you learned what the
spirit of play is, which is at the core of co-creation.
In the course of engaging on such a playground a being now and then
can fail (lose a game embedded in the larger play) and thus gets
erroneously convinced of the necessity to operate on the victors
postulate.
Thus we have what, in TROM is called, mis-ownership of postulate.
That is one core and cause of aberration.
At the beginning I had placed this sentence:
"there is no such things like goodness or badness".
It is not possible to give "evidence" or "counter-evidence"
regarding that statement. (That impossibility, by the way, is
the specific property which classifies an axiom.)
It can only be hinted at, by means of metaphors or examples,
why an axiom is something to rely on as a foundation for
a philosophical construct or even an universe.
I try to give you an idea now:
We can say: "there is no such thing like good or bad apples."
Because the goodness or badness of an apple is only a matter
of consideration and opinion. (Even a rotten apple may be
considered good - for instance by an insect or microorganism
which devours it)
Only thing we can say with certainty is that apples exist.
And they do exist at various states of ripeness.
There are states of ripeness which we consider as better or
more desirable than other states of ripeness. Again it is a
matter of consideration and opinion.
In terms of a race, a single member of a race, be it humans
or otherwise, angles or spirits, ... we do sometimes talk
about ripeness of a being or a society. But more often we say
"maturity" or "grade" or "grade of maturity" when talking
about life, theta; and not MEST.
So we can conclude that there is no such thing like goodness
or badness beyond our considerations or opinions. What we see
around us are only different stages of development towards
higher states.
Therefore we can state: Criticism or judgment in terms of
good/bad of others is always criticism of oneself as well.
Because we all have done the whole cycle of maturing from begin
to end. Therefore criticism is a futile endeavor.
(If it tells anything at all, then it usually tells more about
the critic than the criticized ;-)
The apparency (not the actuality) of existence seemingly teaches
us otherwise and makes us believe otherwise. That gives rise to
all kind of conflicts and insanities.
A factor of importance for mixing-up apparency and actuality in the
MEST universe is the factor of time. But time itself is a matter
of consideration and actually an illusion.
(That's why "timebreaking" or incident running (no matter if
narrative or in chains) can work at all. By which I mean:
to work for a mind which is designed to interface a MEST
environment. That kind of processing would be worthless for
other minds which were made for other universes where time -
as we know it - does not exist).
Since time is not an actuality it becomes obvious that a
sequential occurrence in term of cause -> effect does only
exist as far as the mind is concerned and not beyond that.
In other words anything is simultaneous. But this state of
is-ness is perceived by a being as a sequence of events, a chain
of incidents along a virtual time-track, with and by the assistance
of a mind. The mind serves as a filter and a kind of compass
in order to not get utterly lost and confused in the MEST universe.
(Theoretically one could immediately as-is his whole track in
an instance if he is in very, very well shape. It is kind of
funny that a being, which is so well, has no necessity to
as-is anything ;-)
As long as one is still interested in that universe it is
recommendable to not resolve the mind completely, just heal
it or repair it. Like it is not advisable for a sailor to
throw the compass and sextant over board. If the instruments
mislead, you just repair them.
Conclusion:
Ron's version of Axiom 31 can be regarded as superior to
Dennis' truncated version. Most likely Dennis tried to
challenge "The Old Man". He failed because he did not
have yet reached the intellectual capacities of his foster
father.
Both personalities held different positions on the
tone scale. Other pieces of circumstantial evidence are, that
Dennis had perceptional troubles like sub-optimum hearing
throughout his life and bad eyesight in later years.
(An auditor would as well be suspicious about a PC who tells
that he is "easy-running". Of course he would not tell him.
It's when a PC does not run anything at all. It's because
of an improper gradient for that person. Either too low
or too high.)
Interesting that Dennis states in regard of Axiom 31
that he had reason to think that Ron himself, in his later
years, had doubts about the validity of his Axiom 31.
Dennis only makes vague remarks that something in what Hubbard
said later hinted at that. Perhaps that was only because
Dennis' perceived whatever Ron said very selectively in order
to fit it into his own system of believes. That would be quite
natural.
Further it would not be too unusual if Ron in fact had doubts
in old age about something he had said when he was younger.
He simply was at his best in terms of intellectual potency
and tone when he was younger. One can see that quite easy
when studying and listening to material from the 50ties and
early 60ties and comparing that to material two decades later.
Things got more solid, less up-lifting, more degenerated.
Still this all together falls into the class of speculation.
And all speculations, be it Dennis', mine or anyone else's, are
overruled by the mere fact that Ron did never bother to reformulate
Axiom 31 in later years.
Nothing in the above does in any way imply that the works of
Dennis Stevens are below those of Ron Hubbard. Nor does it imply
that they are above.
They are similar in many ways and simultaneously different in
many other ways.
Neither does it tell us anything objectively about goodness or
badness of those persons. They simply operated - in there time
and space - on somewhat different levels of maturity.
Which does certainly not - by application of clean logic - establish
any good reason to start a game on a high level of solidity or
earnestness about that matters :-)
One can learn a lot form _apparent_ errors or discrepancies.
Often much more than from the rest which can be regarded as
"area cognita" *) and which does not disturb.
Robin
*) I just coined that term in following the term "terra incognita".
By "area cognita" I mean: cognition-free area, subject, space, ...
I'm almost impressed of my own creativity ;-)
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:24:26 -0400
From: The Resolution of Mind list <trom@lists.newciv.org>
To: The Resolution of Mind list <trom@lists.newciv.org>
Subject: [TROM1] Do you live in Germany?
Message-ID: <mailman.22079.1478351905.1261.t...@lists.newciv.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Robin:
"David,
by scanning through the recent posts I saw that I've missed
to answer your question: "Do you live in Germany?"
No David, I do live in Austria (not to mix up with
Australia - which we call "down under" ;-).
Austria is a small country in the middle of Europe
and has a boarder line with Germany. We speak the same
language. But you could easily distinguish us by our
different dialects.
Best regards
Robin"
Thanks for your reply.
I do know where Austria is.
By any chance do you know Caroline Markolin in Salsburg?
She is the owner of the website: www.learninggnm.com.
GNM is German New Medicine, which is a derivative of dianetics, or
medical
dianetics.
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20161104/b9cea874/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
