Covert Hostility... the Tone Level... WHAT IT IS

[judymoon]

I, personally, never feel 'uneasy' about Fred's intentions and I appreciate his tongue-in-cheek humor.

Your example of an 'appropriate' response sounds like vintage Bill Ryan don't-ruffle-any-feathers, type of response.

I have to admit, when Jimini first showed up on this forum with his amazing, (some would say, outlandish) claims, his apparent expectation that everyone would know the scientology langage, his crazy, convoluted, almost impossible to understand ramblings, I thought the people on this forum would quickly give him some appropriate and much needed feedback. And they did.

I was really surprised when Bill Ryan came in as his advocate. It wasn't until then that I realised how strongly scientology had affected his thinking and belief system. Strongly enough that he thought he had to protect Jimini from the questions and critisims of the other members of the forum.

Heavy handed enough that I said a few things, and then just stopped reading threads started by Jimini, mostly because I rarely understand a thing he says.

However, I agree with a few other posters who wonder what the point of this thread is.

Learning about dangerous personality types is definately an important experience as we navigate this life.

I wish they taught a class about it in high school.

Sociopaths, narrcisists,emotional vampires, these are dangerous personality types that can wreck havoc in an unsuspecting persons life. Knowing what to look for and how to avoid becoming emotionally involved with these types is sometimes life and sanity saving.

The different mental illnesses that we deal with in relationship.....bi-polar, depression, borderline etc. These are all important things to learn about so we can better handle and understand ourselves, and people we are in relationship with.

But Jimini's post is almost not understandable unless you speak scientology, so what good is that for the majority of members on this forum? It could be said so much clearer and without pointing fingers at any particulat group of people. Without all the 'tones', past life clearing, and savior-of-the-planet chest thumping. Which, to me anyway, is really off-putting.

With all that in mind, I think Freds post addressed this issue with a very apt analogy.

[jiminii]

Flash

Very interesting concept, Jimini and I kind of agree with it, but we may be using a different vocabulary for it. Would you be kind enough to explain to me the following:

1. A definition of what tones are in terms of emotionality, mental, whatever comes to you.
2. A description of how it is used for suppresson, deliberately and not
3. The covert hostility used by the 21/2 %: how would you describe their way of operation using it. From A to Z if possible (an example).
4. How is it related to the Free Theta? (if I remember what is a Free Theta, not sure)
5. Please explain further half tones.
6. Why would going down tones make the conversation less valuable? And makes the person cave in?
Quote for the covert person he does the opposite. works the tones going down making everyone's conversation less valuable until he caves the person in.
Good homework to do hey . Many thanks in advance.

You can get exactly everything you need about tones and how it effects the mental and physical parts of someones body. (each tone level has it's own set of illnesses)
you can get this from the download from bill somewhere from the freezone

the book is Science of Survival by LRH

as for half tones.

ever try to talk to someone in anger with enthusiasm. you will not be able to get in communication with him until you can come close to matching his tone level.

a perfect example is. "look at this thread we are on. Look at how many buttons it pushed. So you see I am communicating close to someones tone level and you will get all the buttons show up."

so let's take someone in anger. He is yelling, "the government is no good they should all be shot, etc, etc"

so you say, "you're right. they are just terrible they hurt a lot of people. They cause pain to the world, they are no good"

pain is just up from angry so i can be half angry with him while I start raising his tone to pain.
after you will see him either pop up to pain or even pop up several tones ...

Like, "Well I'm glad I got that off, thanks for understanding."

if I go the other way with an anger guy.

I would do this. "you know the government is too big ... we have to get revenge secretly. If they know it in the open they will attack us."

I can bring him down to covert hostile ... then fear. "god ... I am really afraid of these A***** and I am afraid they will get us into WWIII"

knowing the tone scale you can drive people up or down.

jim

[Flash]

Very interesting, those tone scales. I will definitely try to get the scale, from freezone. Could not get much about any freezone anywhere near where I live.

The technic described is near a technic I taught (and also thought I had build....hum, it seems I was not the only one to build it) to control angry customers and make them come down to a level where you can help them. What you describe is a mix of empathy wtih knowing what to say. And yes, it can be used both way, to make someone afraid or angry, or to sooth someone fright or anger.

The scientology approach seems more complet than mine however.

As for the personalities types, we are talking about the same thing, it is just our vocabulary that is different. By the way, following actual science, it is not 21/2% of the 20% that are dangerous and very sociopathic/psychopatic, but 2 to 4% of the general population, which makes it worst. The remaining 16 to 18% who have tendencies are more controllable, yet, they will follow the 2%.

In fact, we could put it on a Bell curve, with 2% at the regressive end of the Spectrum and 2% at the propulsive end of the Spectrum, the bulk of humans being in the middle.

This too I was teaching for handling difficult customers, some of them quite antisocial (or plainly drugged which made them antisocial).

I had another approach written by a French author to describe the ansisocial behaviors mixed with the approach of a French psychiatrist who wrote on narcissists.

To contravene the sociopath manipulations, I was using some easy NLP techniques, based of grammatical usage, related to correcting the false information given. It works almost all the time.

The last aspect is self control which come with "know yourself" approaches.

[Limor Wolf]

Posted by jiminii (here)
we go up and down this scale depending on how much free theta we have. In fact a High tone person can not communicate to a low tone person until he comes down to somewhere that matches the low tone person.

so here is this child crying and the parent is trying to communicate with the child in enthusiasm and the child just gets louder.

so you come down to about a half tone above grief in sympathy and the child will start to go in communication. By working half tones above another person's tone level you can raise their tone level up.

for the covert person he does the opposite. works the tones going down making everyone's conversation less valuable until he caves the person in.

jim

I understand it much better now, Thank you.

[Ultima Thule]

The tone scale is very interesting! I´ve seen some other quite similar scales that I have found to work for me in the sense of: don´t even try to jump from a place of fear directly to a place of love, but if you can upgrade yourself from to fear a notch up to maybe just concerned, it is a good start.

I am (be it overt or covert) however annoyed by Romans dictative posts in this thread. Looking at the scale that has been presented here I have an opinion where I would place them, ranging some levels post-by-post, but close to one another.

Where would you Roman place your posts in this thread if you consider reading them as someone else?
I feel that you may be in a certain level in the scale in your presence for real or you might have a belief of yourself as expressing certain level. Do your posts in your opinion reflect the level you feel to be on, if you think of reading them as someone else than you?

UT

[araucaria]

Posted by turiya (here)
On the contrary, I find Fred's commentary an amusing rise in the level of frequency from what was being demonstrated & felt previously.

Just remember - ALL WORDS ARE LIES -
So, not to worry... and certainly not to be too, too serious about anything anybody is telling...

Turiya, I have already commented elsewhere on this ‘truth’ of yours. If ‘All words are lies’, then what makes that statement suddenly true? I’ll tell you what: the contrary but nuanced statement that ‘All words (statements) contain a grain of truth’. The nuances of language are what give it a degree of truth. The only true blanket statement then might be: ‘All blanket statements are false’, because it leaves room for truths to be expressed.

Let me adjust this to the context of this thread. Your blanket statement, in BOLD BLUE ITALICIZED CAPITALS, looks like an example of covert hostility, namely falsity passing off as truth. If you yourself believe the statement ‘All words are lies’, then what on earth are you doing on a language-based forum propagating lies among liars? You have painted yourself into a corner, and you yourself are inviting people to disregard your otherwise interesting comments.

In other words, you are not so much practicing covert hostility as acting like the reverse of a snake-oil salesman: your product may be good, but your sales pitch suggests otherwise. But words come in all sorts of packaging, and the absence of voices and facial gestures makes them ambiguous. When you look at the substance of what he is saying, Fred’s tone probably contains (among other things, because language is always complex) a degree of diplomacy and polite deference, which is not covert hostility but respectful disagreement addressed at Bill, the power behind the throne.

The ability to question the boss’s positions is crucial to the health of any regime. The king’s fool was there to fill the vacuum left by over-deferent courtiers. A regime collapses when the king has been getting 100% disinfo and becomes cut off from reality. So, however clumsy or multilayered his tone, and possibly incorrect as to the substance, Fred’s comment needed to be posted.

As I’ve said before on a number of occasions, we really all need to hone our language skills – which is of course precisely what we are doing here. The forum has reached a maturity whereby we read each other’s posts with the possibility of covert hostility in the back of our minds, but with a presumption of innocent clumsiness. This is of course what Jim is implicitly requesting for himself, and paradoxically, it is this unsuspicious attitude that he says got us into this situation in the first place.

We had this discussion of what I call ‘sophisticated innocence’ on the Here & Now thread last March:

Posted by ulli (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
Pursuing my thoughts on leadership in an earlier post. If the leader is acting out on behalf of/driven by the grassroots, then we may take the counterintuitive view that politicians of late have been no exception, and have continued to fulfill voters’ expectations. As these expectations approached zero and worse, they have behaved accordingly. We do not get the leadership that we deserve or want, we get the leadership that we expect.

The key then is to expect what we really want (and deserve). This is a form of the ‘naïve optimism’ that is so decried on this forum and that some of us see rather differently. It cannot be truly naive since it is conscious. It is actually ‘sophisticated innocence’, which only sounds like an oxymoron to the extent that we haven’t fully understood the concept.

How do we get from where we are to where we want to be? Well some sophisticated innocents have been voting in a few politicians like forum member Simon Parkes, who are already acting upon these positive expectations. As our expectations gradually increase, their performance will follow. This will be so, just as surely as the same principle has so far applied in the opposite direction: the more corrupt we can imagine our politicians to be, the more corrupt they have shown themselves to be.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that forums like Avalon, yes Avalon, have turned this corner yet.

Thank you for this very good post. I have been thinking about his for years, how the cycle of life works...
Being born ignorant, naive and innocent we are plunged into a world of contradictions,
to which we react each in our unique way, often angry, bewildered, or withdraw altogether.
To find a balanced response that does not perpetuate the vicious circle we expose ourselves as naive, and encounter ridicule.
Yet the alternative, with its accompanying cynicism, can never take us out of the vicious circle of ever perpetuating hostility.
Sophisticated innocence, which means innocence by choice, is the only true option that stands a chance to bring about the world we desire. Thank you for bringing this up. I hope others can join in and add their thoughts.

[TODD & NORA]

..........

[Flash]

I ignore the hostile when I see that the end result will be either negative for all involved. Or when I decide to play with it by rendering the person non existent at all. Otherwise, it seems to me that ignoring hostility is encouraging the continuation of it. When we do not name what is happening that is detrimental to others, we in fact participate to the spreading of it. In my opinion of course.

I will ignore pettiness, because time resolve it and not much harm is created, but I will not very often ignore a sociopath.

A psychopath denounced is a psychopath who has lost most of its power.

[Mark]

Posted by Roisin (here)
It just boggles my mind how well adjusted most of you are here -- even to the extent that you have group therapy sessions, like what this thread is like, to hammer out whatever issues you all are dealing with at any given time.

It is indeed very interesting to bear witness to the tangling of neurons that occurs here. Considering the trigger that was pulled in the OP, that the thread was able to continue I attribute in large part to Bill's intervention, Jim's recognition of and apology for choosing such a difficult example and the relatively evolved opposition.

I think the sub-text here is revealed in the evolution of the discussion. Even within the alternative community, some things remain difficult to discuss because they are general human tendencies that transcend political orientation. Here, where most people consider themselves Awake and Aware to cultural and societal ills, the deeper strains of human nature and transcending those self-perceived limitations remain our limitations, speaking very generally. Once the emotions have been roiled and a certain tact has been taken in the course of a thread, ad hominem attacks come fast and furious and begin to take on an unfair taint. Here in this thread, a discussion about hostility that used, as an example, a category of people self-identified by sexual preference then becomes an attack on the person who pointed out this behavior.

The example that I used later in the thread of black people with attitudes of covert hostility in jobs around the country might have triggered someone else, if I were not black myself. Does that mean that I should not recognize this behavior? Or that I should defend it? Perhaps if I did so, then I would be identifying with that behavior and that population that engages in it. If I point out the behavior of white people in the thread, stating that they're all racist, they hide their purses (for the ladies) and bristle with aggression when I come around their kids (if you're a man), will that pull a trigger in some white people reading it? Because I recognize this behavior and make a generality about it?

If a generality is internalized and gives rise to an emotional response within, that means that, in some fashion, I am identifying with it. Perhaps I am commiserating with the population under seeming attack, and so, in turn, I attack, pull down the person who vocalized the perceived offense, thereby gaining some form of emotional satisfaction from having responded in what I deem to be a supportive and favorable manner aligned with my cultural ideals. Perhaps, also, I am making the choice that I consider to be the righteous one; I am standing up for a population that has been slandered and maligned. I am making a choice to support one side of a dichotomy over the other. If homosexuality is deemed, in my view, to be alright, then they and those who support them are the good guys, and those who do not think homosexuality is alright, are the bad guys.

I, personally, have done this in support of my own personal belief system and morality rating scale on many, many occasions in my life.

In large part, now, this is part of my current conundrum. Like Ulli and some others, once I had certain spiritual experiences, I seemed to move into another perceptive space. By doing so, what had been very powerful imperatives to stand up for the underdogs in life and to battle in the service of righteousness and truth were revealed to me as culturally determinative and morally questionable or even negative forays into patterns of energy exchange that feed Tulpas and collective 4D constructs that have made an industry out of culling human emotional fields over a period of many millennia. The shift in me has led to confusion on the part of those who know my achievements but do not understand why I am not fully invested in the system, employing my understanding for the benefit of those at the very lowest rungs of a system where, now, most people are overtly enslaved.

So, what do I do with a lifetime of knowledge, gained in order to help elevate and educate populations about the ills of society and the plight of minority populations? How do I engage in regular conversations about these issues, how do I take sides and invest my energies into the furtherance of a doomed system, when I know that both sides are feeding the same greater energetic structure that is not invested in our individual material or spiritual freedoms, but is instead, impersonal and vampiric, integrally designed to keep me and everyone else enslaved to a mechanistic process of material and spiritual servitude from here to eternity? Not to mention, genocide me and those I know and are like me and then cull our energy for some Harvest, as if we were just batteries designed to satiate the appetites of so-called Elite and higher D entities?

These are the choices we all eventually must consider, based upon our own personal life-paths and destinies, if we are attempting to attain a state of utter clarity.

Ultimately, the thread topic is concerned with Enlightenment. With clearing of these personality traits that lower energy. The top of the chart that was posted here was Clear. Enlightenment. All else is really just the dross related to incomplete understanding, of each other, and of the energies at work, the energies raised by discussions of this type.

If you are coming from that perspective, then the petty argumentation, the covert and overt aggressions, the sidebars related to Scientology and Time Travel are recognized as signs of individual orientation and experience at different levels of psycho-spiritual nature. Of the power of our emotions and loyalties and our commitments to our own family and friends, our ideals and our beliefs.

Will this perspective trigger someone else? Probably. The enlightenment experience and those who claim it always undergo periods of trial and tribulation in spaces where folks at different stages of their own personal spiritual evolution have congregated. From that experience, as from the greater cosmic perspective, energy must be conserved. All of it. That includes sexual energy. That includes emotional energy. That includes mental energy. That includes spiritual energy.

Very Conservative. But beyond Left and Right. So all human dalliance within forms of physical and material satiation are considered excess. There are no exceptions. And, of course, many people take exception to that lack of exceptions. Denigrate the entire process, malign those who claim it, create tales of cosmic errors and mistakes that supposedly negate basic laws of creation or reveal those laws to be corrupted and, therefore, non-applicable. Then, they trumpet the physical fulfillment of life experience, claim illusion and play and relativity as excuse to justify anything and everything, or, just their peculiar tendencies. It is all ok, anybody can do what they want, everything is fine. And they are correct. It is. But at the same time, it is not. Paradox. But, not.

Who can argue, with that? It is what it is. And yet, arguments ensue.

What we do as humans is perfect. And is imperfect. We are each exactly where and who we are supposed to be. And we are not. If we are gay, if we incarnate as black, if we love sheep or dogs, if we are mass murderers, if we are child molesters, if we are psychopaths, it is all perfect and exactly how things are supposed to be. And it is not.

Now will that comment trigger someone else? Probably. Or, then again, probably not.

[araucaria]

Posted by jiminii (here)
covert hostility is a tone. when you go up tone you will go through this tone. when you go down tone you will go through this tone.

...

I am talking about the 2 and a half percent of the world who use this tone to suppress people

they deliberately use this tone to suppress. that is a difference between someone who just happens to be covert hostile once in a while.

these 2 and a half percent would be like rockefeller the rothchilds obama ... they are the dangerous 2 and a half percent that use covert hostility as a way of operation to try to take over and enslave the people of the planet.

jim

The typical example is Shakespeare’s Iago, the ‘honest friend’ who pushes Othello’s and others’ buttons out of hatred, jealousy and revenge. A murderous button-pusher.

Make the Moor thank me, love me, and reward me
For making him egregiously an ass,
And practising upon his peace and quiet
Even to madness. ’Tis here, but yet confused.
Knavery’s plain face is never seen till used.

Interestingly, when the detective writer Agatha Christie portrays such a character, the only device she can find to stop the carnage is to have her sleuth Hercule Poirot rise from his deathbed to execute him. There is no ordinary way of dealing with this.

[markpierre]

For those who have learned to resist believing that their human identity is who they are,
it's no different in identifying a 'hostile' as it's attitude. I presume the point is to learn to meet the
victims of their own hostility with a helpful response. I like the use of the word 'tones'.
I use that to describe my day or how I feel sometimes.
I can see how in language it can be a tool as well as a weapon. Thanks for illustrating that.
You guys who think you're awake and others aren't, haven't noticed yet that everything is awake
relative to yourself. Or everything is sleeping '' ''.

[ulli]

I woke up at 5 am and started reading on this page, and must say I feel humbled to be in this company of people.
The level of sensitivity expressed here, and brilliant, illumined thoughts has me speechless. Just wanted to say that.
Rahkyt, you have outdone yourself. Araucaria, I expected no better, but I'm sure you will continue to not only live up to my normal expectations of you, but take me beyond my wildest dreams and hopes for mankind.

And to Jiminii, despite your clumsy naive and sloppily written posts you have managed to reach my soul, which does not mean I would ever sign it over to LRH for 5 billion years, as I don't think such contracts are even necessary amongst real friends.
I have always liked Sci-Fi, and in a way Sci-fi is the only form of religion that works for me,
just as the Internet is becoming increasingly the only social place of interaction I enjoy.

[Flash]

You are go .... dam so right Rakhyt. No later than Saturday night, two Young boys walked my daughter home so that she would not be in danger, telling her they would walk back to their home (a 11/2 hour walk). She phoned to tell me. This did not make sense to me so I was in the basement, the window opened so that I would hear them coming and offer the boys a 15 minutes drive to their home.

They came, I opened the door and offered them the ride, which they politely accepted telling me I was nice to offer, and me telling them "no, I am fully respectful of your action of walking my daughter home at this time of the night, many thanks".

My daughter then told me she had offered the boys to get in, but one of them, a black boy, said "no, I have those weird contact lenses that will scare your mom and above all, I am black, she will be more afraid".

I could not believe it, but here it is, he was expecting covert agressivity from me. He has internalized it. From seeing it all the time.

I could not care less about the color of his skin,(I did care about not seeing his eyes though, the soul part) he was much better than all those who never walked my daughter back. And, I do have black people in my family, I truly could not care less. Yet, me too I was, in a way, subjected to this societal covert agressivity.

Universality will be learned through my and my daughter's behavior, in those situations, it seems.

[araucaria]

Posted by Flash (here)
I could not believe it, but here it is, he was expecting covert agressivity from me. He has internalized it. From seeing it all the time.

I could not care less about the color of his skin, he was much better than all those who never walked my daughter back. And, I do have black people in my family, I truly could not care less. Yet, me to I was subjected to this societal covert agressivity, in a different way.

This is what Sartre's existentialist philosophy calls être pour autrui (being for others): you define yourself in terms of what other people think, which is to demonstrate mauvaise foi (bad faith) when instead of conforming to stereotypes you ought to be claiming the freedom to be yourself. This boy is halfway there because at the same time he is disregarding the stereotype of dangerous company by courteously escorting Mini Flash in the first place.

[ulli]

Posted by Flash (here)
You are go .... dam so right Rakhyt. No later than Saturday night, two Young boys walked my daughter home so that she would not be in danger, telling her they would walk back to their home (a 11/2 hour walk). She phoned to tell me. This did not make sense to me so I was in the basement, the window opened so that I would hear them coming and offer the boys a 15 minutes drive to their home.

They came, I opened the door and offered them the ride, which they politely accepted telling me I was nice to offer, and me telling them "no, I am fully respectful of your action of walking my daughter home at this time of the night, many thanks".

My daughter then told me she had offered the boys to get in, but one of them, a black boy, said "no, I have those weird contact lenses that will scare your mom and above all, I am black, she will be more afraid".

I could not believe it, but here it is, he was expecting covert agressivity from me. He has internalized it. From seeing it all the time.

I could not care less about the color of his skin,(I did care about not seeing his eyes though, the soul part) he was much better than all those who never walked my daughter back. And, I do have black people in my family, I truly could not care less. Yet, me too I was, in a way, subjected to this societal covert agressivity.

Universality will be learned through my and my daughter's behavior, in those situations, it seems.

What you did there for your daughter's black friend will probably affect his future in a more positive way than the busing legislations and job quota which in the past left many blacks even more cynical and angry at whites, in their discovery how much more deeply separationism rules white society.
Both cultures have so much to learn from each other, but it cannot come about unless whites show a willingness to be members of the tribe of humanity, and blacks show a willingness to develop their own inner light being, possibly in isolation, and their individual uniqueness, and let go of their fear of whites.

[jiminii]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

Posted by Roisin (here)
It just boggles my mind how well adjusted most of you are here -- even to the extent that you have group therapy sessions, like what this thread is like, to hammer out whatever issues you all are dealing with at any given time.

It is indeed very interesting to bear witness to the tangling of neurons that occurs here. Considering the trigger that was pulled in the OP, that the thread was able to continue I attribute in large part to Bill's intervention, Jim's recognition of and apology for choosing such a difficult example and the relatively evolved opposition.

I think the sub-text here is revealed in the evolution of the discussion. Even within the alternative community, some things remain difficult to discuss because they are general human tendencies that transcend political orientation. Here, where most people consider themselves Awake and Aware to cultural and societal ills, the deeper strains of human nature and transcending those self-perceived limitations remain our limitations, speaking very generally. Once the emotions have been roiled and a certain tact has been taken in the course of a thread, ad hominem attacks come fast and furious and begin to take on an unfair taint. Here in this thread, a discussion about hostility that used, as an example, a category of people self-identified by sexual preference then becomes an attack on the person who pointed out this behavior.

The example that I used later in the thread of black people with attitudes of covert hostility in jobs around the country might have triggered someone else, if I were not black myself. Does that mean that I should not recognize this behavior? Or that I should defend it? Perhaps if I did so, then I would be identifying with that behavior and that population that engages in it. If I point out the behavior of white people in the thread, stating that they're all racist, they hide their purses (for the ladies) and bristle with aggression when I come around their kids (if you're a man), will that pull a trigger in some white people reading it? Because I recognize this behavior and make a generality about it?

If a generality is internalized and gives rise to an emotional response within, that means that, in some fashion, I am identifying with it. Perhaps I am commiserating with the population under seeming attack, and so, in turn, I attack, pull down the person who vocalized the perceived offense, thereby gaining some form of emotional satisfaction from having responded in what I deem to be a supportive and favorable manner aligned with my cultural ideals. Perhaps, also, I am making the choice that I consider to be the righteous one; I am standing up for a population that has been slandered and maligned. I am making a choice to support one side of a dichotomy over the other. If homosexuality is deemed, in my view, to be alright, then they and those who support them are the good guys, and those who do not think homosexuality is alright, are the bad guys.

I, personally, have done this in support of my own personal belief system and morality rating scale on many, many occasions in my life.

In large part, now, this is part of my current conundrum. Like Ulli and some others, once I had certain spiritual experiences, I seemed to move into another perceptive space. By doing so, what had been very powerful imperatives to stand up for the underdogs in life and to battle in the service of righteousness and truth were revealed to me as culturally determinative and morally questionable or even negative forays into patterns of energy exchange that feed Tulpas and collective 4D constructs that have made an industry out of culling human emotional fields over a period of many millennia. The shift in me has led to confusion on the part of those who know my achievements but do not understand why I am not fully invested in the system, employing my understanding for the benefit of those at the very lowest rungs of a system where, now, most people are overtly enslaved.

So, what do I do with a lifetime of knowledge, gained in order to help elevate and educate populations about the ills of society and the plight of minority populations? How do I engage in regular conversations about these issues, how do I take sides and invest my energies into the furtherance of a doomed system, when I know that both sides are feeding the same greater energetic structure that is not invested in our individual material or spiritual freedoms, but is instead, impersonal and vampiric, integrally designed to keep me and everyone else enslaved to a mechanistic process of material and spiritual servitude from here to eternity? Not to mention, genocide me and those I know and are like me and then cull our energy for some Harvest, as if we were just batteries designed to satiate the appetites of so-called Elite and higher D entities?

These are the choices we all eventually must consider, based upon our own personal life-paths and destinies, if we are attempting to attain a state of utter clarity.

Ultimately, the thread topic is concerned with Enlightenment. With clearing of these personality traits that lower energy. The top of the chart that was posted here was Clear. Enlightenment. All else is really just the dross related to incomplete understanding, of each other, and of the energies at work, the energies raised by discussions of this type.

If you are coming from that perspective, then the petty argumentation, the covert and overt aggressions, the sidebars related to Scientology and Time Travel are recognized as signs of individual orientation and experience at different levels of psycho-spiritual nature. Of the power of our emotions and loyalties and our commitments to our own family and friends, our ideals and our beliefs.

Will this perspective trigger someone else? Probably. The enlightenment experience and those who claim it always undergo periods of trial and tribulation in spaces where folks at different stages of their own personal spiritual evolution have congregated. From that experience, as from the greater cosmic perspective, energy must be conserved. All of it. That includes sexual energy. That includes emotional energy. That includes mental energy. That includes spiritual energy.

Very Conservative. But beyond Left and Right. So all human dalliance within forms of physical and material satiation are considered excess. There are no exceptions. And, of course, many people take exception to that lack of exceptions. Denigrate the entire process, malign those who claim it, create tales of cosmic errors and mistakes that supposedly negate basic laws of creation or reveal those laws to be corrupted and, therefore, non-applicable. Then, they trumpet the physical fulfillment of life experience, claim illusion and play and relativity as excuse to justify anything and everything, or, just their peculiar tendencies. It is all ok, anybody can do what they want, everything is fine. And they are correct. It is. But at the same time, it is not. Paradox. But, not.

Who can argue, with that? It is what it is. And yet, arguments ensue.

What we do as humans is perfect. And is imperfect. We are each exactly where and who we are supposed to be. And we are not. If we are gay, if we incarnate as black, if we love sheep or dogs, if we are mass murderers, if we are child molesters, if we are psychopaths, it is all perfect and exactly how things are supposed to be. And it is not.

Now will that comment trigger someone else? Probably. Or, then again, probably not.

I was in the park in New York City singing my songs when this Old Black man came up and started screaming something about black and white. Didn't even know what he was talking about.

So I said, "let me see your hand" and he stuck his hand out while I counted all his fingers and all my fingers.

I said, "hmmm you got the same number of fingers I do."

I said, "look you have a wrist too, just like mine"

I said, "and the elbows look the same and arms too."

I said, "what are you talking about this black and white."

he looked at me and smiled and gave me a hug and sat down and we sang more songs.

simple

just communicate.

jim

[araucaria]

Posted by shmoopie_3119 (here)
I find that ignoring the hostile types is typically sufficient unto itself, as they self-destruct eventually.

Sure, but you must lose out with the 'covertly friendly' unconsciously playing hard to get. It sounds like Jim's finger-counting exchange wouldn't haven't got as far as two

[jiminii]

Posted by judymoon (here)
I, personally, never feel 'uneasy' about Fred's intentions and I appreciate his tongue-in-cheek humor.

Your example of an 'appropriate' response sounds like vintage Bill Ryan don't-ruffle-any-feathers, type of response.

I have to admit, when Jimini first showed up on this forum with his amazing, (some would say, outlandish) claims, his apparent expectation that everyone would know the scientology langage, his crazy, convoluted, almost impossible to understand ramblings, I thought the people on this forum would quickly give him some appropriate and much needed feedback. And they did.

I was really surprised when Bill Ryan came in as his advocate. It wasn't until then that I realised how strongly scientology had affected his thinking and belief system. Strongly enough that he thought he had to protect Jimini from the questions and critisims of the other members of the forum.

Heavy handed enough that I said a few things, and then just stopped reading threads started by Jimini, mostly because I rarely understand a thing he says.

However, I agree with a few other posters who wonder what the point of this thread is.

Learning about dangerous personality types is definately an important experience as we navigate this life.

I wish they taught a class about it in high school.

Sociopaths, narrcisists,emotional vampires, these are dangerous personality types that can wreck havoc in an unsuspecting persons life. Knowing what to look for and how to avoid becoming emotionally involved with these types is sometimes life and sanity saving.

The different mental illnesses that we deal with in relationship.....bi-polar, depression, borderline etc. These are all important things to learn about so we can better handle and understand ourselves, and people we are in relationship with.

But Jimini's post is almost not understandable unless you speak scientology, so what good is that for the majority of members on this forum? It could be said so much clearer and without pointing fingers at any particulat group of people. Without all the 'tones', past life clearing, and savior-of-the-planet chest thumping. Which, to me anyway, is really off-putting.

With all that in mind, I think Freds post addressed this issue with a very apt analogy.

you know when you are around a lot of people who are in the same world as you and you find yourself talking all these other words as an everyday thing, I find it very hard to try to describe something spiritual in regular english.

Example is Theta. we use it a lot. if someone has a lot of free theta then people like to be around him, and with enough free theta he can heal people.

That is the first thing that happened to me. Someone has a toothache and I moved my hand near her face near her tooth. I didn't even touch her. Her head jerked back and she said, "what did you do ..... my toothache is gone."

I said, "I don't know what I did."

someone is rolling on the floor in extreme pain from something in her intestines on the right side. She is SCREAMING.

I moved my hand near the side of her body and suddenly she said, "jim the pain is gone."

now it would have stopped there if there wasn't some kind of premonition that I should move my hand more to the center.

I said, "I think I have to move it more this way." and suddenly her body jerks and she says, "something inside of me moved."

I said, "I think I should move it more." and I did and her body jerked again and she says, "Jim it moved again ...... Jim ..... there is white lines coming from your fingers."

I couldn't see the white lines, but she could seem them.

How do I use another word besides theta. if you want to raise your theta level up just start imagining putting gold inside your body and just keep putting the gold in there.

you can raise the amount of free theta inside your body.

A spirit CAN CREATE UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF FREE THETA. How do I tell you in English words. You have some of the most complicated english I have ever read and I have to try to piece all this english together to try to understand what you are saying too.

Yes I try to say it in farmers words. But there is not, THAT many words you would have to learn, to be speaking like a scientologist.

we talk about postulates all the time. I am talking postulates that can change weather and powers beyond your wildest dreams and WE TALK ABOUT IT AS COMMON LANGUAGE.

for example: a girl is driving her car. she is OT. How do I say OT simple. It means a spirit able to operate outside the body.

a car comes in from the side street and doesn't stop at the stop light and just comes right into the intersection and so she pushes the car back up against the curb.

and the man in the car says, "hey lady how did you do that?"

she said, "please drive more careful"

I am talking to WOG people. (that is the term we use for others not familiar with us.) It means Western Oriental Gentleman.

it is the terms the Eastern religious people use to describe the obstinate westerner who comes in to tell them he knows more than they do.

So they turn his cane into an illusion and he sees it become a snake and he runs out the door.

So how do you talk to people about religious things without the WORDS that best describe it.

jim

[northstar]

I would like to mention that this thread is impacting me in interesting ways.

When Jim used homophobic language in his post to try to make his point about covert hostility it triggered me to respond to the unwarranted attack on GLBT people as a group. I try very hard to judge individuals for their actions, and avoid sweeping generalizations about groups of people. I have come to the conclusion that while Jim is unskilled in his method of written communication, I think his heart is in the right place. I appreciate the fact that he is open to feedback and correction and that is a big plus in my books.

Once Jim apologized for his homophobic comments and information was posted about the tone chart and covert hostility I had a chance to look at the chart and read the materials and I found it fascinating. Since then I am finding this material, especially the tone scale, is resonating with me personally. It is filling in some of the pieces of my own personal perceptual puzzle and I am finding it a useful mental construct.

On a more cerebral level I am observing a lot of fascinating behavior in this thread - a lot of covert and overt hostility!! haha!! I am not saying this with malice or to attack anyone, it it just what I have noticed.

I am now using this useful concept (the tone scale and covert hostility) to check my own communications and the behavior and speech of others. This is a fascinating topic to study and I wish it hadn't be derailed by that homophobia discussion BUT perhaps the emotions generated by the homophobia discussion provided the "juice" to get people to put their shadow out there so it could all be examined in the calm light of day.

Love to you all.

[ulli]

Posted by jiminii (here)

I am talking to WOG people. (that is the term we use for others not familiar with us.) It means Western Oriental Gentleman.

it is the terms the Eastern religious people use to describe the obstinate westerner who comes in to tell them he knows more than they do.

So they turn his cane into an illusion and he sees it become a snake and he runs out the door.

So how do you talk to people about religious things without the WORDS that best describe it.

jim

The term WOG has lots of racist connotations, as it was used mostly by the British when describing Pakistanis and Indians as opposed to Chinese who were eastern orientals.

This is the entry in Wikipedia:
"Wog is slang word in the idiom of British and Australian English employed as an ethnic or racial slur. Considered derogatory and offensive, in British English it is often applied in reference to dark-skinned or olive-skinned person from Africa or Asia. It can be applied to any darker-skinned people, but is used generally to refer to peoples of the East Indies and India, as well as immigrants or migrant workers from the Middle-East."

No wonder Scientologists have a bad reputation...
That word has always been a total no-no, as far as I'm concerned.
But open communication, as you said, Jim, can get to the root of all misunderstandings.