Pardon me while I put on my Freezoner hat (OK, so it's made of aluminum foil).

I believe that the LRH idea of taking responsibility was intended to be entirely self-determined. When one takes some responsibility for a bad situation one is experiencing, one regains causation and better control of other areas of one's life. It can be therapeutic when it is applied with nobody suggesting that it should be applied.

What is totally, totally WRONG is saying to someone else, "you need to take responsibility for that", or "you pulled that in". Happens in the church all the time. It is a good reason to get upset at someone, since it is totally clueless and basically out-tech.

If LaFatty "goofed the floof", as he often did, and didn't clarify this sufficiently, it is still possible to use some common sense to put the "tech" to good use. The problem is, KSW kills common sense. This is the first policy that has to go, if the church wishes to help mankind.

Newclear,

I agree with your scientology definition.

With regard to the graphics by Sea Horse telling me that DM wants me to lie down and worship him I responded by saying that I do not think we can blame it all on DM. I was not auditing her so where was there out tech?

The courts make people responsible every day for decisions.

If Sea Horse thinks that people have to lie down and worship somebody in order to apply scientology then I can only assume that that is what she did.

However, it is written in a scientology book that a person is responsible for not only for what happens to them but also for what happens to others. This regretably makes me responsible for the fact that Sea Horse lay down with her bum stuck up in the air as depicted by her graphics.

Put your Freezone hat on again.

I hope you are being facetious Mog.

Mog - As Newclear said, and I agree - self-determination can be therapeutic when it is applied, with nobody suggesting that it should be applied. So, unless you are somebody's mother or boss or a sitting judge handing down a verdict, you have no right to tell others what their responsibilities are. However, in Scientology, everybody is everybody else's minder. They all spy and snitch on each other and write KRs. I can't imagine a more toxic social environment. I think you are having a problem separating yourself from this concept.

You are not responsible for anything that anyone else does or says on this board nor are they responsible for anything that you do or say. However, your reluctance to stop chewing on this same tired, stringy piece of celery points to something else that only you can address and resolve. I'll leave you to determine what it is. That's all I have to say on the subject.

Mog and other Scio-promoters have no clue what goes on in my head and yet Mog purports to think she knows what makes me tick (or tocked), what I think, and what I have or have not taken responsibility for.

She's stuck on the Scio-idea that if one says something bad about someone or something, then one MUST have overts against him, her or it. That Scio-idea is false.

Newclear, you're right that no one has the right to tell someone they "need to take responsibility", because how does one know if a body has already taken responsibility or not. One doesn't, of course.

Mog acts like an OSA bot. Keeping the thread just barely alive, but waiting a few days so as to analyse the previous post, make plans for how to attack, draft a reply, and get permission to post it. SuzanneMarie was doing the same exact thing earlier. Mog hasn't a clue what I said because it's obvious by her replies that she had entirely misconstrued what I wrote. But as an OSA-bot, it's not necessary and not part of the plan to understand and answer anything sanely.


Incorrect. Courts make decisions about who should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for ACTIONS. There's a mighty big difference between HELD ACCOUNTABLE and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

A Scientologist can't really understand what "taking responsibility" is, because the meaning has been twisted by L. Ron Hubbard and various staff members along the way.

To "take responsibility" is like an estranged father deciding that his newborn left behind with its now single mother needs a father, decides to clean up his act and earn some money to send support, makes time to go see the child, swallows his pride when the mother harangues him and bears it so as to rise above it and "be a father" to the child. That is taking responsibility FOR the child.

Noticing a loose and terrified dog racing alongside the road, stopping and taking it in to the local SPCA instead of driving on without doing anything -- THAT is taking responsibility FOR the dog (and the other drivers in the area who might hit it or have an accident while trying to avoid hitting it).

Seeing that there is a dangerous cult preying upon one's neighbors and deciding to do something about it, and doing it -- THAT is taking responsibility FOR one's community.

Just compare the language used. Mog (and Scientologists) uses the term "take responsibility for (something in the past)", accompanied by feeling bad or having your anchor points shoved in (for you Scios and ex-Scios who understand that phrase). But notice the language of the wog -- you "take responsibility for (something of the future)", accompanied by ongoing actions.

There have been two meanings in Scientology for "take responsibility". One means that one should "feel" responsible and have some "cognition" about how things came to be the way they are and how one had something to do about it (one usually feels bad about this). The other meaning is that one should propitiate about it -- to make amends that one caused it to happen (here, one is made to feel degraded). These are false meanings for "take responsibility" but it is exactly these meanings that are used by Scio-believers, including Mog.

In Scientology the phrase "take responsibility" means you should feel bad about something, either something you did or something that happened to you (it doesn't matter which). There is no "take responsibility FOR" something in the accusations. The closest thing Scientology has is "take responsibility FOR the planet" by spreading Scientology far and wide. Even then it's used to INDUCE the feeling DUTY or OBLIGATION.

Never in Scientology is the phrase "take responsibility" used in the honorable sense of the word that the rest of the world uses.

If you were in the Church at any time, you probably have bypassed charge on "responsibility" because of Ethics. I was in for 8 years, then off lines. But, I was on staff for a year, and I worked in PAC for 3 months and did the EPF twice.

Personally, I never had a constructive "ethics" cycle. I have never seen anyone who had any major stable win from an ethics cycle. I have seen plenty of robotic beingness created. So, these actions are useless at best, destructive at worst. So, you should avoid like the plague any org that has an HCO.

You know if you are correctly taking responsibility if the area becomes more rewarding to deal with.

I'm sorry newclear, the whole scientology loaded language speak is like nails on a chalkboard to me. For some reason it is extra loud this evening. So what you just shared means absolutely nothing to me. Honestly, not being trite or defensive.

Can I ask you please to interpret your first paragraph without the scientology language.

I readily concur with what Seahorse shared on Responsibility.

Scientology hammers in the term Responsibility and uses it in the most abusive sense with its followers. That was my view while in. It is another subtle notch on the indoctrination chain.

Your words are wise (except for the phrase "bypassed charge" which is a Hubbard invention and means nothing outside of Scientology) and your compassion is evident.

Yes, all ethics cycles in the world of Scientology were ridiculous. REAL substantial and life-changing ethics changes (changing one's attitudes and operating basis) from self-application of "ethics tech" were accompanied by scoffing of MAAs and demands for "do more". Only approaching the Ethics Officer or MAA with your tail between your legs would get you back in good with them.

The whole organization (and subject) of Scientology is insane. It is the embodiment of L. Ron Hubbard's tripe. David Miscavige's organization is no different. DM didn't take Scientology post-Hubbard and turn it into some evil thing -- it was already evil to begin with.

My life NOW is more rewarding. Read my sig line. I wrote it. THAT is the embodiment of my idea of responsibility of one's own life.

Thanks, Newclear, for your contributions to this thread.

So sorry, my bad. The term "bypassed charge" presumes the existence of mental charge and the reactive mind. It means that you feel bad about it. Realistically, if you were betrayed by people you thought were your friends, you would feel hurt and angry, and might even make posts on OCMB.

When I study Hubbard's material from 1951 and 1952, I find it hard to believe that he was evil and crazy from the very beginning. At one time, I think he would have been happy to have people study the materials and try it out themselves without ever having to deal with an organization. After Fatso got a taste of power, it was the beginning of the end.

The reason I left the thread for a few days was because we were cutting down trees. We cut down seven, they were birch trees and growing too tall.

I find ethics to be invaluable when correctly applied.

I was not trying to tell Sea Horse anything other than I do not find blame constructive. If I was too harsh or antagonistic then she will just have to realise that I am a bitch.

As for responsibility then the scientology view has been well presented in published books. These are available to the general public to read.

I agree with that view. If others prefer blame then thats their choice.

sm filters wont alow her to google

"I find ethics to be invaluable when correctly applied. " - Mog

Do you think Clambake needs an Ethic Officer?

+++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture+++++++++

ETHICS,

3. All ethics really does is hold the lines firm so that you
can route and audit. All ethics is for in actual fact is simply
that additional tool necessary to make it possible to get
technology in. That's the whole purpose of ethics; to get
technology in. When you've got technical in, that's as far
as you carry an ethics action. (SH Spec 61, 6505C18)

4. the purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions
from the environment. And having accomplished that
the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness
from the environment. (HCO PL 18 Jun 68 )

5. what we have then, in ethics, is a system of removing
the counter-effort to the forward push, and that's all an
Ethics Officer is supposed to do. (6711C18 SO)

— L. Ron Hubbard
Modern Management Technology Defined

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Most appreciated New Clear. Sometimes I get "charge" from scieno-speak. For me being in Scientology was a big betrayal to my own soul, to my own self.

I can understand your point of view on those early days. There is some truth to the early work, though there are other ways, modalities, philosophy's, what have you, that bring about the same ends in a much gentler wiser fashion.

I agree ... Fatso got the taste of power and it most certainly was the beginning of the end!

Thank you again for taking the time to clarify for me. Greatly appreciated!

Thanks HM!

The truth is always right in front of ya, one need just look!

Hubbard says it clearly that ethics is to get the tech in! Hmmmm the good ol' mind bending tech. The tech of Hubbard and HIS MIND. Do you really want to become Hubbard?!?! That is the question.

If this tech is so good, and this started in 1951 then why haven't there been greater results achieved? Why hasn't the world been cleared, man kind been salvaged? Especially if man is basically good and only 2% of the population are SP's.

Where is Hubbard ... the exteriorized fatso?! Who is he talking to ... Davey? Look at the condition Davey is in?!

Hmmmmmmm ... yeah get your ethics in and become a mad man like Hubbard.

No thank you.

Bump.