Back from Mini-Vacation
Rogers. D.Scn.
Didn't see any lions or tigers, but got to see some bears (oh my!).
Didn't see any Moose but got to see some Elk.
Didn't see any T-Rex's (ha ha) but got to see some Bison and wolves.
Anyway, got back early enough to watch a movie, and decided to watch
Battlefield Earth (again).
Well, every time I have watched this movie it has gotten a bit better than
the last time. That's why I decided to get it on DVD recently. And, I have
to say, it was VERY GOOD yesterday. (About the 4th viewing, I think.)
Maybe it just seemed a lot better after watching Kevin Costner's abominable
movie "Open Range" a week or so ago.
Who knows? All I can attest to is what I already said, every time I watch
it, it is better and better. I still have criticisms about it, but it
definitely grows on you.
Les.
iTal
<The_...@NOSPAMmsn.com> wrote:
>Back from Mini-Vacation.
>
>Didn't see any lions or tigers, but got to see some bears (oh my!).
>
>Didn't see any Moose but got to see some Elk.
Too bad, Moose are cool looking beasts.
I saw a some deer on an airport runway last week.
>
>Didn't see any T-Rex's (ha ha) but got to see some Bison and wolves.
>
T-Rex's are also cool looking beasts ;-), but so are Bison and wolves.
I also got to see a fox on the same airport runway I saw the deer on
last week. Yep, the airport runway - about the only place I ever see
any wild animals around here, except for squirrels, skunks and
racoons.
>Anyway, got back early enough to watch a movie, and decided to watch
>Battlefield Earth (again).
>
>Well, every time I have watched this movie it has gotten a bit better than
>the last time. That's why I decided to get it on DVD recently. And, I have
>to say, it was VERY GOOD yesterday. (About the 4th viewing, I think.)
>
>Maybe it just seemed a lot better after watching Kevin Costner's abominable
>movie "Open Range" a week or so ago.
>
You just gave me an idea - if you really want to make BE seem
excellent by comparison, just sit through Kevin Costner's "Waterworld"
- the whole epic - no fair turning it off early - then watch BE
immediately afterward ;-)
>Who knows? All I can attest to is what I already said, every time I watch
>it, it is better and better. I still have criticisms about it, but it
>definitely grows on you.
>
>Les.
>
Travolta looks cool in his makeup - at least I think he does. I had to
dub-in how the characters look because the lighting is so dark
throughout the whole flick ;-)
iTal
basicbasic
Hi Les,
Dunno what the day job is. But I'd say stick to it.
Don't think you'll make it as a film critic. :)
bb
Richard Platek (Lion)
Les said:
> Back from Mini-Vacation.
>
> Didn't see any lions or tigers, but got to see some bears (oh my!).
Lion:
If you are in the wild and see a Lion or a Tiger, you are only seeing the
stupid ones :)
Or happen to be upwind working for National Geographic or visiting a zoo, or
in past years in Vegas, watching Siegfried and Roy.
Welcome back ... I was away, so I didn't even know you were gone.
Les, If you are watching the "convention" MSNBC is doing a very balanced and
humorous job (wink)
Yours,
Rogers. D.Scn.
> Don't think you'll make it as a film critic. :)
Well, BB, it was just my subjective comment. I didn't like the choice of
actor for the key hero part and I didn't like how the humans had reverted to
acting like apes. But hey, the story WAS interesting and it moved along at
a decent pace for the most part.
Me, I don't care about "physical" age. I know the hero was supposed to be a
young man, but I STILL would have put John Travolta as the hero. Travolta
(like Harrison Ford) can still display - as needed - that same sort of
youthful naivette that would have made it work.
I think Ital made a comment about the movie lacking brightness, light-wise,
and I think I remember the same thing during earlier viewings, but the DVD
seemed brighter. Sufficiently so that I didn't even think about it.
Reminds me. The (original) "Dune" movie, in my humble opinion, was on the
same precarious edge as Battlefield Earth. So close to being a bad movie in
many respects. Saved from being a bad movie by a mysterious factor x.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> You just gave me an idea - if you really want to make BE seem
> excellent by comparison, just sit through Kevin Costner's "Waterworld"
> - the whole epic - no fair turning it off early - then watch BE
> immediately afterward ;-)
Kevin sure does like to make long movies. It just so happens that I have
Waterworld on DVD too, and have had it (got it on sale, you know) for some
long time and haven't had the commitment to watching it (again - on the
DVD).
Same thing with The Postman. And although I like The Postman even more, I'm
reluctant to sit through it too often. Slow, slow, slow.
Have no intention to get any other Costner movies that I know of. Tin Cup
rubbed me the wrong way (though I enjoyed it somewhat). Hate to see a
"hero" who is psychotically self-sabotaging.
Talking about psychotic "heroes." I've gradually come to a point of
complete disgust for Schwartzenegger's and Stallone's psychotic hero movies.
They are a complete affirmation and validation of what Ron said, long ago,
about how the, quote, "american hero" has all the attributes of criminality.
Quiet, sullen, destructive.
Les.
Richard Platek (Lion)
> Talking about psychotic "heroes." I've gradually come to a point of
> complete disgust for Schwartzenegger's and Stallone's psychotic hero
movies.
Lion: Ditto.
Film classes in the future will have fun with this genre.
It's unfortunate that both Schwartzenegger and Stallone are living in
poverty, isn't it? :)
So, back to present time ... What was your take on Carter and Clinton,
tonight?
To me, it's really funny listening to talking heads evaluate (and pass
judgement upon) two men who have held the highest office.
Jimmy Carter simply drips integrity. What an extraordinary man, he is.
And, almost all of the talking heads agreed, that if a third term were
possible, Clinton would have been nominated and confirmed, on the spot, blow
jobs and all.
I thought Jimmy Carters' speech were the words of a Tribal Elder.
I had no idea yesterday, that I would get sucked into this. I heard a bit of
Carter's speech riding my bike home.
MSNBC has this great team doing "after hours" stuff. It's very balanced
journalism. Yeah, it's network and hollywierd, but, the producers seem to
take this into account and play with it.
Ron Reagan interviewing Michael Moore, Priceless :)
Have fun ... Lion
Rogers. D.Scn.
> So, back to present time ... What was your take on Carter and Clinton,
> tonight?
I haven't been watching any election stuff.
I didn't like Carter very much when he got into office...
But he grew on me.
I didn't like Clinton very much when he got into office...
But he also grew on me.
I didn't like Bush (either of them) when they got into office...
Still don't.
Don't know if I like Kerry either, but I sure don't like or trust the
Bushes.
Les.
Dori
basicbasic
It was more the trashing of The Kevin Costner movie. :)
When I watched Dune, I hadn't and still havn't read the book.
The producer Dino de Laurentis, famously or infamously threatened the
director with deleted pages of script if he didn't get things done in
time.
Maybe he did. My impression on watching it was that it was the
greatest
sci-fi movie I'd ever seen. I didn't really know what was going on
though
really. :) There was definitely an X factor. :)
bb
Zinj
basic...@yahoo.com says...
I have to admit that I find any comparison of 'Dune' with 'Battlefield
Earth' offensive.
Superficially, I can get the comparison. I had read and enjoyed and even
loved the Frank Herbert book for decades, and was horribly disappointed
at first. Despite the fact that despite my enjoyment of the book, that I
had *major* philosophical objections to it.
That's not unusual for me. I often enjoy highly works that I object to
even extremely.
I didn't watch 'Dune' until years after my first very disappointed
viewing, and after noticing that it was a David Lynch work.
David Lynch is *always* outrageously off the wall, and until I reviewed
'Dune' knowing its director I couldn't see it in context.
I still wish he'd chosen something else to mark indelibly with his own
stamp. It's rare tat 'good SF movies' are made from books, and once
made, it's rare that they're successfully remade.
There are rare exceptions. 'Simulacron 3' was made as both 'Welt am
Draht' and 'The 13th Floor'; both valuable and extremely different
interpretations of a fascinating book.
'Village of the Damned' was made into two very different, but both very
valuable movies, and there is legiitimate thought that the remake was
better than the original.
'Battlefield Earth' is one I had actually read before the movie, and
considered one of the worst SF tomes ever. Admittedly, I read it while
aware of Hubbard and Scientology, and I can only say that I thought
'Mission Earth' was superior; although that's hardly a recommendation.
I've seen the movie at least twice since then (I watch a lot of movies,
and usually *like* horrible movies), but I think the suggestions I've
heard that the movie wasn't well converted from the book are ridiculous.
All things considered, it was as miserable as the book, for exactly the
same reasons, but admittedly went on to commit sins only possible on
film, which the book was spared.
I was watching a trailer for 'Predator vs. Aliens' recently, and was
immediately struck by the dreadlocks before it was revealed what was
until then 'hidden'.
I was actually asking myself... 'Oh my god! Are they really doing
Battlefield Earth II?
It was only then that I realized that 'Terl's' dreadlocks were stolen
from 'Predator'. Still, nobody has yet explained where the booger tubes
came from :)
Let's all vote that they actually do BE II though :)
What could be more fun than the revelation of the intergalactic bankers
as the evil behind all evil?
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Richard Platek (Lion)
> I didn't watch 'Dune' until years after my first very disappointed
> viewing, and after noticing that it was a David Lynch work.
>
> David Lynch is *always* outrageously off the wall, and until I reviewed
> 'Dune' knowing its director I couldn't see it in context.
Lion:
Wow, I was unaware that David Lynch was involved in the original Dune film.
I have never read Dune. But I really enjoyed (and enjoy) this film from the
first time I saw it.
I also enjoyed the remake William Hurt was in. It's about 4-5 hours on
video.
My favorite sci-fi is Forbidden Planet. The special effects are simply
amazing, given the tools available at the time.
I also really like The Martian Chronicles which Rock Hudson was in.
Zinj:
> 'Village of the Damned' was made into two very different, but both very
> valuable movies, and there is legiitimate thought that the remake was
> better than the original.
Lion:
The remake is very different than the original. I don't think of it as a
remake.
I saw the second version recently, and it is an okay movie .... I haven't
seen the original for many, many years.
Some films, originally made in BW, don't stand up, when converted to color.
I am really glad the colorization of BW films has faded away.
Zinj:
> I was watching a trailer for 'Predator vs. Aliens' recently, and was
> immediately struck by the dreadlocks before it was revealed what was
> until then 'hidden'.
>
> I was actually asking myself... 'Oh my god! Are they really doing
> Battlefield Earth II?
>
> It was only then that I realized that 'Terl's' dreadlocks were stolen
> from 'Predator'. Still, nobody has yet explained where the booger tubes
> came from :)
Lion:
Yeah, the original Predator was really good.
And you know what? Last weekend I watched a couple of the original Star Trek
episodes, and while they are obviously dated, they still stand up.
I watched Kirk flip open his communicator, and I thought about modern cell
phones, which flip open.
Your Lion
Richard Platek (Lion)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dori" <dori...@hotmail.com
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3707
Lion:
Free speech is amazing, isn't it? You can say almost anything, almost
everywhere.
America is the bright star, but America lacks agreement on purpose and
mission, because we don't have leadership. That is what is missing.
And that is why everyone is confused, and fearful.
America has had great leaders, on occasion. But I don't think America has
ever had a great leader who understood fully, what leadership is.
Your Lion
Richard Platek (Lion)
> "Richard Platek (Lion)" <li...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>
> > So, back to present time ... What was your take on Carter and Clinton,
> > tonight?
Les:
> I haven't been watching any election stuff.
>
> I didn't like Carter very much when he got into office...
>
> But he grew on me.
>
> I didn't like Clinton very much when he got into office...
>
> But he also grew on me.
>
> I didn't like Bush (either of them) when they got into office...
>
> Still don't.
>
> Don't know if I like Kerry either, but I sure don't like or trust the
> Bushes.
>
> Les.
Lion:
Ditto to everything above.
I had a friend who got to go to the Whitehouse for a state dinner or
something, in Clinton's first term.
And this woman is very aware, present, and concious. After going through the
receiving line, she just stood back and watched.
And she said, "You know, he is simply brilliant. He outshines every one"
It's like he has 100 watts and everyone else has 40 Watts.
I stand waiting for true and real leadership.
That is what this country needs, more than anything.
Dubya is nothing more than a CEO who failed. Certainly not a leader.
I doubt Kerry will do much better, but any change of face will work for me.
This election is very important. I urge everyone to registure and vote.
Your Lion
>
Rogers. D.Scn.
> It was more the trashing of The Kevin Costner movie. :)
No problem, BB. But, just to get this straight, did you LIKE "Open Range?"
(and WHY? How could you? ha ha ha)
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> I have to admit that I find any comparison of 'Dune' with 'Battlefield
> Earth' offensive.
I wouldn't use the word "offensive" but I know what you mean, Zinj. I
wasn't really comparing the two - except in, oh hell! HOW was I comparing
them again? ha ha ha.
Dune involves sophistications that are missing in Battlefield Earth, that's
true. I say that in the context of "art as communication" and LRH just had
a simpler message to communicate, that's all.
But honestly, Zinj, when Battlefield Earth first came out it was viciously
and INSANELY 3rd partied. I myself read a movie review by a critic that
suggested the movie had some "secret teaching that LRH was the messiah."
Huh!? Well, somebody who HAS watched the movie (unlike that critic, I
suspect) might have to explain that one to me. I sure as hell didn't see
that!
But man, that was a "perfect" 3rd party accusation (reminds me of the ones
suppressive Philamina Scott makes) in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic society.
Perfectly evil-intentioned, push-the-buttons accusation.
But, that aside, as I said or implied, I didn't think much of the movie
myself on first viewing. Didn't like the hero, didn't like the human apes,
was rather inclined to admire the perverse but at least dignified and
consistent "bad guys."
> I didn't watch 'Dune' until years after my first very disappointed
> viewing, and after noticing that it was a David Lynch work.
>
> David Lynch is *always* outrageously off the wall, and until I reviewed
> 'Dune' knowing its director I couldn't see it in context.
So, Zinj, did it become a better movie (to you) upon finding out it was
directed by somebody you know about?
If so, I would suggest that that increase in the Reality factor contributed
to a permissible increase in Affinity?
That works backwards too. With Battlefield Earth (for example) if a
person's Affinity has been alienated - for whatever reason - it bars
acceptance of the Reality of the movie.
I mean, I tell you Zinj, as much as I liked (and still like) my son's German
girlfriend, I really thought it was NUTS for her not to go see (and enjoy)
Tom Cruise movies - 'cos' he was a Scientologist.
Back to Battlefield Earth. Knowing LRH was behind the story did NOT make it
any the less disappointing to me on first view. Hey, it's an issue of
DIFFERENTIATION. LRH as a story-teller and LRH as the Scientology
researcher are unrelated. And then, as you yourself said, there can be a
further difference when a story is made into a movie.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> But honestly, Zinj, when Battlefield Earth first came out it was viciously
> and INSANELY 3rd partied.
Just some general comments.
I believe the whole world could be changed - to a considerable improvement -
by the wide distribution and use of just a few things that LRH came up with.
Things like study tech, or PTS tech, data eval per the Data Series
understandings, knowing the 3rd Party Law. Things as simple as that. Any
ONE of those could change the world.
When I see an artist, director or actor going down the tubes in quality of
production, I am damn well certain it's BECAUSE they've acquired some
suppressive influences in their life. They HAVE become PTS.
When I see Kevin Costner's movies (as well as other's) deteriorating,
bangety-bangety-bang, it makes me SAD. Sad for THEM, you understand.
I mean, to me, Kevin Costner was quite the OT in his early days. To see
somebody go from OT to degraded being - in just a decade or two - hey, it
parallels the way the universe has gone.
Hey, here we are on an aberrated planet where it is quite common for people
to "make themselves right" for being involved in a subject or religion. And
it does often go backward. "I was born a christian - so Jesus Christ IS the
lord." So, shit! here *I* am in all this nonsense, and sometimes I think
people think that, what? "Scientology is great - BECAUSE I'M A
SCIENTOLOGIST!?" Give me a break!
It ain't 'cos' I'm "a believer" that I insist that things like study tech,
or PTS tech, data eval per the Data Series understandings or knowing the 3rd
Party Law would change the world. Isn't it OBVIOUS that it would?
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> I stand waiting for true and real leadership.
>
> That is what this country needs, more than anything.
I know what you're saying, Lion and sort of agree and sort of disagree.
On the one hand, I'd ask, what is the meaningful difference between a herd
of sheep milling around, and a herd of sheep that are being led by a dog?
Being led by a dog - perhaps - to prison fields or slaughterhouses?
What this country needs is to increase the KRC of each individual citizen.
That is the same as saying, training and education in Scientology!
The individual is the keystone to any and every group.
Les.
Zinj
says...
> "Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > I have to admit that I find any comparison of 'Dune' with 'Battlefield
> > Earth' offensive.
>
> I wouldn't use the word "offensive" but I know what you mean, Zinj. I
> wasn't really comparing the two - except in, oh hell! HOW was I comparing
> them again? ha ha ha.
>
> Dune involves sophistications that are missing in Battlefield Earth, that's
> true. I say that in the context of "art as communication" and LRH just had
> a simpler message to communicate, that's all.
In general my appreciation of a work; book, film etc. can be on any
number of levels. Some I appreciate for their effective use of the
medium, even when I positively deplore their purpose. Some propaganda
for example. In a way, 'Dune' falls into that category. I have a very
consistent antipathy to 'royalty', 'divine rights of kings', 'breeding'
as measures of social value and so on, and God knows 'Dune' was rife
with that :) Both on the Atreides/family level and on the Muad dib
level. Same goes for 'Lord of the Rings'. But both are novels I've
enjoyed despite antipathy to the theme.
Some I appreciate for their agreement and restatement of my own pet
concepts, and some for actually going beyond my own concepts and
suggesting new ones. If those do so with admirable technique all the
better, and some like Hesse's 'Steppenwolf' or Delany's 'Dhalgren' go on
to be hugely influential on me. But some other technically less-than-
brilliant works manage that on concept alone, like Galouye's 'Simulacron
3' (as mentioned elsewhere, in movie form as 'Welt am Draht' or 'The
13th Floor'. As a note, his 'Dark Universe' is better written, and is
conceptually wonderful, but wasn't as personally influential.)
So, I don't have to agree with Heinlein's politics to love his stories,
and I don't have to retain a consistent love of his work, and don't,
since I think his later works (post 'Stranger') begin a long slow
decline into polemics and preaching; something Heinlein was always
afflicted with, just less.
In that vein, Hubbard's 'Battlefield Earth' and even more so, 'Mission
Earth' left me entirely flat. Possibly because I was already aware of
Scientology's 'conspiracy theory' view of cosmology, I didn't find
anything in either particularly surprising, and worse, the style was to
me merely an endless series of dei ex machina, without plot or goal,
only relieved by occassional mad scramblings to resolve internal
inconsistencies caused by meandering 'and then this happened; and then
that happened; and then *this* happened...'s'. In short; hack work,
written page to page with no direction.
Lest yee think this is pure suppressive hostility to Hubbard Himself, I
have exactly the same complaint against some of my favorite authors,
Philip Jose Farmer comes especially to mind; whose 'World of Tiers' and
'Riverworld' stuff suffers from exactly the same pointless 'page to
page' evolution.
> But honestly, Zinj, when Battlefield Earth first came out it was viciously
> and INSANELY 3rd partied. I myself read a movie review by a critic that
> suggested the movie had some "secret teaching that LRH was the messiah."
> Huh!? Well, somebody who HAS watched the movie (unlike that critic, I
> suspect) might have to explain that one to me. I sure as hell didn't see
> that!
>
> But man, that was a "perfect" 3rd party accusation (reminds me of the ones
> suppressive Philamina Scott makes) in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic society.
> Perfectly evil-intentioned, push-the-buttons accusation.
>
> But, that aside, as I said or implied, I didn't think much of the movie
> myself on first viewing. Didn't like the hero, didn't like the human apes,
> was rather inclined to admire the perverse but at least dignified and
> consistent "bad guys."
Well, to be honest, I tend to agree with much of the negative reaction,
but I'll admit that there was a general gleeful undertone in the
trashing. I doubt you'll agree with me, but much of that seems to be
perfectly comprehensible. BE got hyped as a 'flagship' project for
Travolta, Hubbard and, yes, Scientology (despite coy disclaimers of non-
relation), and since *I* at least see Scientology's 'war on wogs' as
primarilly a 'political' issue, much of the trashing reflects that.
Politics gets nasty. That and the abject failure of the 'Church's' PR
machinery to 'make it go right' invited the shadenfreude.
Anyway, it's not really worth making much of it, and yes, some of the
criticism could be considered 'unfair'.
My own criticism would be the same as for the book, with some added
criticism for derivative filmmaking and incredibly cheesey dialogue,
which is actually worse than the book. As a critic I look forward to BE
II, but as a film lover I don't :)
> > I didn't watch 'Dune' until years after my first very disappointed
> > viewing, and after noticing that it was a David Lynch work.
> >
> > David Lynch is *always* outrageously off the wall, and until I reviewed
> > 'Dune' knowing its director I couldn't see it in context.
>
> So, Zinj, did it become a better movie (to you) upon finding out it was
> directed by somebody you know about?
Not so much that. I'm still not sure whether I approve of Lynch's
wholesale mutation of what could have been a classic SF film into a
David Lynch Project. I feel the same way about 'Blade Runner', and what
it did to Dick's 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep', which is a book
very dear to my heart. Recognizing it as a Lynch work though, in the
same vein and style as 'Blue Velvet', 'Mulholland Dr.' and 'Wild at
Heart' allowed me to enjoy it on its own terms, and in its own context.
> If so, I would suggest that that increase in the Reality factor contributed
> to a permissible increase in Affinity?
> That works backwards too. With Battlefield Earth (for example) if a
> person's Affinity has been alienated - for whatever reason - it bars
> acceptance of the Reality of the movie.
As I'm sure you're aware, I don't buy into the 'ARC' formula as anything
more than a slightly trite oversimplification, but yes, doubtless my own
alienation from 'Scientology' and 'Hubbard' colored my interpretation
and enjoyment of the movie, but I think that despite that, I do try to
give every artwork a fair shake, and that I did the same for BE. As it
happens, I didn't particularly like the book, and while there are rare
examples of bad books making good movies, they're *very* rare. And
pompous bombast is'nt really my taste anyway, much less when it's so
cheesey :)
But, there's no accounting for taste, and I wish you many more enjoyable
viewings :)
> I mean, I tell you Zinj, as much as I liked (and still like) my son's German
> girlfriend, I really thought it was NUTS for her not to go see (and enjoy)
> Tom Cruise movies - 'cos' he was a Scientologist.
I couldin't agree more. Blinders that insist that one aspect of a person
inevitably rules all others are just blinders, and blind the user. I
really like any number of Tom Cruise movies, some of which are almost
universally panned for reason *other* than his Scientologism. 'Eyes Wide
Shut' comes to mind, or 'Vanilla Sky', and some, like 'Magnolia' I just
consider brilliant. Some others I like a lot less; but not because of
the clam connection :) Like 'Last Samurai'. I still love 'Risky
Business', and I enjoy 'Top Gun', not the least for its hilarious
homoerotic interplay between Kilmer and Cruise, but mostly for the
flight scenes.
Travolta is a whole different issue, and it's a rare movie from Johnny I
like. Pulp Fiction especially, but strangely enough, I really like
'Saturday Night Fever', despite no 'disco' leanings, and 'Urban Cowboy'
which I thought was a gas. I'm afraid that most of his other later work
qualifies as ugly and mean spirited for me, and not particularly
entertaining, but the only ones I'd directly dislike for their
'Scientology' leanings are 'Michael' and 'Phenomenon'. Anyway, I try to
be even handed about these things.
> Back to Battlefield Earth. Knowing LRH was behind the story did NOT make it
> any the less disappointing to me on first view. Hey, it's an issue of
> DIFFERENTIATION. LRH as a story-teller and LRH as the Scientology
> researcher are unrelated. And then, as you yourself said, there can be a
> further difference when a story is made into a movie.
>
> Les.
Well, the differentiation often seems to be failing in fanatic
Hubbardites, who often seem to me to differentiate between Hubbard as
'Source' and Hubbard as man/artist when it's convenient, such as when
it's useful for deniability.
After all, if Scientology sites are going to hype Hubbard as the
universal genius in film, music, philosophy, photography and and and....
well the poor guy *is* gonna be held to a kind of exaggerated standard
:)
Anyway, nice talkin with you.
Richard Platek (Lion)
> knowing the 3rd
> Party Law would change the world. Isn't it OBVIOUS that it would?
>
> Les.
Lion:
It's very painful to view someone aggressively 3rd partying me. I haven't
had a lot of experience with this.
For the most part, very few understand what they are doing when they do
this.
Yours,
Richard Platek (Lion)
> > I stand waiting for true and real leadership.
> >
> > That is what this country needs, more than anything.
Les:
> I know what you're saying, Lion and sort of agree and sort of disagree.
>
> On the one hand, I'd ask, what is the meaningful difference between a herd
> of sheep milling around, and a herd of sheep that are being led by a dog?
> Being led by a dog - perhaps - to prison fields or slaughterhouses?
>
> What this country needs is to increase the KRC of each individual citizen.
Lion: Of course. I understand your point. But leadership and KRC are
different. I could have a great deal of KRC and still admire and respect
great leadership.
I really don't expect the President of the United States to be a spiritual
master.
The fact is that America is kind of just flailing around. And of course that
has to do with individual choices and values. But under good leadership
people get better, on their own. Good leadership inspires people to be
better, to grow and move forward. It sets forth a direction to move in, with
some target points, with which to judge on or off pupose. And if it
accomplishes this, that is good enough for me.
Government shouldn't get involved in higher level education until they make
sure that every child in America learns to read.
Your Lion
Rogers. D.Scn.
> I have a very
> consistent antipathy to 'royalty', 'divine rights of kings...
Oh? Well that poses a problem in our relationship here, Zinj. But I won't
ask you to call me "Sire!"
(ha ha ha!)
> as measures of social value and so on, and God knows 'Dune' was rife
> with that :) Both on the Atreides/family level and on the Muad dib
> level. Same goes for 'Lord of the Rings'. But both are novels I've
> enjoyed despite antipathy to the theme.
It's funny, I was going to make a statement to the effect that I don't let
philosophical disagreements interfere with my movie enjoyment - but then I
realized I DO, hence it would have been hypocritical.
I never watched "Patch Adams" with Robin Williams playing that doctor whose
only way of helping sick kids was to make them laugh - until such time as
they die?
I never watched that movie about the painter whose created compositions
consisted of dribbling paint onto a canvas on the floor. As far as I am
concerned, maybe one can create some pretty wallpaper that way - but it is
NOT ART. That offended my sensibilities. Hey, I once looked at a Playboy
mag and it had Farah Fawcett using her nude body to spread paint on a canvas
on the floor. Now, THAT was art. (ha ha ha)
> In that vein, Hubbard's 'Battlefield Earth' and even more so, 'Mission
> Earth' left me entirely flat.
I didn't read Mission Earth but my wife did. This was years and years ago.
The only thing I remember about that experience is her laughing and
chortling throughout much of the series and her eagerness to get the next
one in the series. She'd relate some of the funny situations the characters
would get into - and it sounded funny to me too. Sounded more comedic than
serious.
> My own criticism would be the same as for the book, with some added
> criticism for derivative filmmaking and incredibly cheesey dialogue,
> which is actually worse than the book.
The dialogue in BE went unnoticed by myself for the most part. Maybe that's
a good sign, I don't know. Dialogue can be a monumental influence in
movies - hey, there ARE movies that contain nothing else but. Me, I love
witty dialogue (in fact, I think that's why I appreciate Shakespeare so
much - was watching "Much Ado About Nothing" the other day and it was white
heat dialogue in places. (White heat? I guess that's a welding term.
wink!) Hey, it was as much for the dialogue (as the Marx Brothers
silliness) that I enjoyed "Booty Call."
> Like 'Last Samurai'.
My wife insisted that we get "Last Samurai" on DVD (we'd seen it at the
theaters when it came out) even though it wasn't on sale. Now, there's a
totally, totally, totally, preposterous plot if ever there was one. But, ya
know, I thought, "Well, it could be a reality on another planet in another
galaxy - maybe in some ancient time period, cazillions of years ago." So,
that got me over that hump.
> but the only ones I'd directly dislike for their
> 'Scientology' leanings are 'Michael' and 'Phenomenon'.
Oh hell, Zinj! I enjoyed those movies but the essential components I did
NOT like were exactly for the opposite reasons. It was the "worldly" (read
"non-Scientology") sort of philosophical crap understandings in both of
them.
One of these days I'm gonna have to find out from you just WHAT you think IS
Scientology. Apparently it is quite different from what *I* understand as
Scientology.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> It's very painful to view someone aggressively 3rd partying me. I haven't
> had a lot of experience with this.
Hey, Lion, just using your comment as a springboard to a general discussion
here.
Context: alt-clearing-technology, say.
If/when somebody makes a public post that "3rd party's" you - yes, it
qualifies as "3rd partying" no doubt about it, but it is NOT quite in the
same zone of magnitude or insidiousness that goes with the pure concept.
(May I suggest, the main charge on that would probably be in terms of "wrong
indications" not 3rd partying, per se.)
The pure concept of 3rd Partying involves "behind the scenes." It might
also be unsuspected, but certainly, it is hidden from view. This is the
WORST case scenario. This would occur if somebody were to send a private
e-mail 3rd partying somebody. This is worse than making a public post -
which, at least, could be rebutted.
Yeah, 3rd partying - in its pure concept - involves a hidden data line.
Somebody whispering falsities to a person about somebody else and
influencing that person's opinion thereby.
> For the most part, very few understand what they are doing when they do
> this.
This IS possible. Reminds me of the song "Gossip Calipso." Yeah, there's
no giant rule-book in the sky, and thetans can get into bad habits by
exposure and aquired familiarity. "Gossiping" is one of those bad habits.
And of course, if a person has adopted that habit, 3rd partying won't stand
out as being anything unusual or questionable.
And I think back to early this lifetime. My mother - with no evil
intentions, I'm sure - used to 3rd party my dad regularly. So, I grow to
teenhood (is that a word?) and am rather inclined to HATE my dad. But,
if/when I in any way express that hatred, SHE - my mother - would jump on my
case and defend him! Hello? Pretty confusing, isn't it? Well, I handled
all that years ago, but it still strikes me as a possible common experience
for many.
I can laugh about the out-gradeness of the situation now. It's like, my
mother always told stories and made accusations about how dad "punched" her.
He was always "punching" her - according to her. And she'd always use that
term "punching." So, what was her definition of a "punch?" (Now, I know
this is true by careful observation.) Dad would give her a PAT on the butt.
THAT was a "punch" when she related that "incident." And then, she had
these other stories of prior "abuse" that she'd come up with. Man, if I'd
had Scientology training and understanding at that time, FIRST I wouldn't
have been influenced by that 3rd partying because I would have as-ised it as
it happened, SECOND, I could have blown that motivator hunger in my mother
by, "What doesn't dad know about you?" or somesuch.
Anyway, water under the bridge, and I was thousands of miles away and in my
twenties when this began to unravel. But basically my mother - sweet dear
thing - had effectively alienated me from my father - and HE never knew why
I was so icey cold and aloof toward him. Hidden data line from my mother.
I owe him an apology, but he died some years back so he will have to wait.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> As I'm sure you're aware, I don't buy into the 'ARC' formula as anything
> more than a slightly trite oversimplification...
Nothing necessarily wrong with that. One doesn't have to bow to the east
every time somebody says "ARC" after all.
But, just a personal anecdote here.
First I'd better explain that I didn't raise either of my kids as
"Scientologists." I myself was OUT and alienated from the CofS when they
were being raised. So, I didn't educate them particularly.
So, a few years ago my number one son had a falling out with his German
girlfriend. He lamented to me how "she hated him." And man! That "hated
him" was just like a concrete barrier as far as he was concerned. No way
around it.
So, I explained ARC to him and how it could - and periodically would be in
life - sundered and lowered. You know, an "ARC break" is a relative thing.
And I further explained how it could be BOOSTED BACK UPWARDS - using
communication.
Yeah, trite simplicity, right? But, the understanding of ARC provided a KEY
to handling what was before an impossible barrier. It was self-empowering
to have that understanding.
As opposed to "she hates me, and there's nothing I can do about it."
So, yeah, ARC is not only a vital understanding to use in "auditing" it is
of inestimable value in Life itself.
When it is considered in terms of priority and usefulness, it really should
go "C-R-A" (as Ron said). Communication is the number one thing, and if one
can Communicate-with-Reality one boosts Affinity.
And, truly, the very best ideas ARE "simple."
Les.
thomlove
Interesting thread.
I wonder if ultimate Affinity = Identification? The reason I ask is
because of the relationship between A and R. If A is 'the willingness
to occupy the same space...', then ultimate affinity is of course
occupying the 'same space as' in a very complete sense. Wouldn't this
include viewpoints? And, that then leads to C being identical, doesn't
it? And that leads to Ultimate A towards another Being = Being that
Being. C gets involved because it is C that opens up the R and allows
the A to permeate.
And, this leads to something on OT3. Of course, one can collapse other
Beings onto oneself by overts and so forth, whatever. But, wouldn't
'affinity' also be a possible reason for the identification and
resultant confusion?
Just my own gibberish. These avenues are always fascinating to follow,
and usually lead to some enlightenment.
thom
Rogers. D.Scn.
Always good to hear from you.
"thomlove" <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> I wonder if ultimate Affinity = Identification?
Sounds like you're talking Axiom 25? (Let me insert that for the benefit of
those who haven't the resources to look it up.)
Axiom 25: Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the
co-existence of Static, through the interpositions of distance and energy,
to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.
(end quote)
And yeah, the bottom is a mockery of the top (as usual).
But let me insert, "co-existence of Static" is still likely to be in the
zone of differentiation. You know what I mean? Just 'cos' there's no
space, say, doesn't mean everything is in a complete amorphous (and
"identified") oneness. For the most part, identification is down-tone. For
the sake of the non-Scientologists present, I'll quickly explain that
"identifying things" is not what I mean by indentification here. Ironically
(as Ron pointed out) identifying things is a solution to identification -
identification which has some falsity or error to it.
I think that handles the issue. But I'm going to chat on, ARC is always so
interesting.
> The reason I ask is
> because of the relationship between A and R. If A is 'the willingness
> to occupy the same space...',
I think the key word is "willingness." Different from isness. But yeah, as
per Axiom 25, Affinity is could be deemed "based on" co-existence of Static.
Funny concept, but the "base" is always at the top, eh? That is, when one
is talking about data organized into "pyramids" - the APEX is the most
encompassing and inclusive basic of the entire pyramid. (As Ron said, and
it made sense to me.)
> And, this leads to something on OT3. Of course, one can collapse other
> Beings onto oneself by overts and so forth, whatever. But, wouldn't
> 'affinity' also be a possible reason for the identification and
> resultant confusion?
As said, I think identification represents the very bottom of the Affinity
scale. But of course, Affinity has got to be a key element (in addition to
Communication and Reality) in sorting out the upper levels. Oh sure,
there's negativity to be confronted, but I must say I liked the attitude of
CBR who thought auditing the uppermost levels was an absolute DELIGHT. That
definitely indicated to me to be the right attitude.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
"Rogers. D.Scn." <The_...@NOSPAMmsn.com> wrote in message
> But let me insert, "co-existence of Static" is still likely to be in the
> zone of differentiation. You know what I mean? Just 'cos' there's no
> space, say, doesn't mean everything is in a complete amorphous (and
> "identified") oneness.
ARC needs MEST. To that extent, if ARC was boosted up to an absolute, it
would end up - at the top - disappearing. To be replaced by co-existence of
Static.
But let me again emphasize that concept of differentiation in that zone of
co-existence. Yeah, "communication" - like perception - requires space.
And I hope you won't mind but I'm going to quickly shuffle off into
"perception" here - well, just 'cos' I came across an interesting definition
the other day that I think clicks in perfectly here. Ron said (in 1953, I
think) "perception is knowing across a distance."
Knowing across a distance! So, how about, in a condition of co-existence
(I'm talking in terms of the top - not the bottom mockery) one can just
directly KNOW - no distance involved.
I mean, co-existence of Static - one being could just know something and
another would pick that up, but unlike the Borg concept (ha ha ha),
differentiation still exists.
At a bottom mockery of that, one being could (cough) "know" something but is
NOT able to differentiate (identify the source). Assumes it's a
self-thought. In the absence of identification, there's an identification.
There's the mystery element and there's the aberrative buggerness of the
whole thing.
Les.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> > I had a friend who got to go to the Whitehouse for a state dinner or
> > something, in Clinton's first term.
> >
> > And this woman is very aware, present, and concious. After going through
> the
> > receiving line, she just stood back and watched.
> >
> > And she said, "You know, he is simply brilliant. He outshines every one"
> > It's like he has 100 watts and everyone else has 40 Watts.
"Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
> I'd always thought of Clinton as very very bright until I had a look at
his
> book. Sophomorically written. Really comes off like a dumb ass. Maybe he
had
> a really shitty ghostwriter?
Hey, I really don't know. Repeat, really don't know. Perhaps Clinton IS a
100 watt thetan compared to the other 40 watters. But, the OTHER THING that
can go on, of course, just comes down to Havingness.
Man! You see some stars at the peak of their fame and fortune and they can
be really keyed-out! Demonstrate the bestest of theta-ness to boot. A few
years later (after acquiring oh-so-many suppressive influences, and so on)
they are back DOWN to 40 watts again, maybe less than 40 watts now. True
for all sorts of celebrities. Well, it's true for everybody of course, but
celebrities are in that zone of life where their havingness can REALLY go up
dramatically. Although, life is funny, well, aberrations are funny,
sometimes an unexpected boost to havingness can be upsetting too and doesn't
induce a key-out, in fact, induces the opposite. But you know what I'm
saying.
Les.
thomlove
The main point of my intrusion into this thread was;
"And that leads to Ultimate A towards another Being = Being that
Being."
Note: I'm curious not about one Being 'identifying' with another
Being, but that one Being IS now the other Being. Not two Beings, but
one Being. Two Beings become one Being. A kind of simultanaity. (SP?).
I suspect that for such an event to occur, that the 'other' Being
would have to have Ultimate A towards the first Being. Otherwise there
would be a flaw in the duplication, which would result in an
individuation, no matter how insignificant. It would be a 'mirror'
effect.
Perhaps the Axiom you quoted is the pyramid. However, I'm curious
about going 'up' that pyramid, not understanding how it is that I and
others went 'down' that pyramid.
I also suspect that a study of 'duplication' in the ultimate sense
would also be of interest.
thom
thomlove
"In the absence of identification, there's an identification.
There's the mystery element and there's the aberrative buggerness of the
whole thing."
I think that is well said.
thom
Rogers. D.Scn.
"thomlove" <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> The main point of my intrusion into this thread was;
>
> "And that leads to Ultimate A towards another Being = Being that
> Being."
>
> Note: I'm curious not about one Being 'identifying' with another
> Being, but that one Being IS now the other Being. Not two Beings, but
> one Being. Two Beings become one Being. A kind of simultanaity. (SP?).
It IS a very intriguing issue. I WAS going to say that I didn't think that
"being another being" couldn't exist, per se, but was indeed just an aspect
of identification and confusion (instead). However, it did occur to me that
there might be one special exception.
IF you duplicated yourself, as it were, projecting another... excuse the
term, "thetan life form" elsewhere, THEN that particular being could be
hooked up to and one could easily BE (with all the affinity one can expect)
because it would be self with self.
Let me just clarify that godawful term I used, "thetan life form." Seems
like a thetan can just postulate an awareness elsewhere and anywhere in the
universe. And because of Axiom One can equally and simultaneously be two
awarenesses now - two thetans if you will. However, I think in practice
there's a reason why a thetan would do that and so it also involves the
creation of a sort of automaticity. Something that would pass for
"structure" that relates to the function. A separate "form." A separate
playing piece?
And, if for some reason one encountered that other "being" again and didn't
recognize it (didn't get the as-isness), well, as said, there's one being
one could definitely "be" because it's you. (ha ha ha! Maybe this silly
hypothesis explains the quest for "soul-mates" and one or two other
philosophical notions.)
> I suspect that for such an event to occur, that the 'other' Being
> would have to have Ultimate A towards the first Being. Otherwise there
> would be a flaw in the duplication, which would result in an
> individuation, no matter how insignificant. It would be a 'mirror'
> effect.
Aside from that possible exception I mentioned, I think that, ultimately,
"being another being" is going to be a down the tone scale mockery level of
co-existence of Static. And it doesn't have to involve perfect
duplication - just confusion.
And remember what Ron said about "be." Namely, "if a thetan can see it he
can be it." "Duplication" isn't a prerequisite for permeation or pervasion,
but again, looking to Axiom One, one cannot permeate a thetan - there's
nothing there to permeate.
Ha ha! Just looked at another funny situation. If a thetan did perfectly
duplicate something - there wouldn't be anything there either.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
"thomlove" <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> The main point of my intrusion into this thread was;
>
> "And that leads to Ultimate A towards another Being = Being that
> Being."
In Professional Auditors Bulletin #15 of mid-December 1953 Ron did write:
"The most ARC there can be is a complete identification: the person IS the
person with whom he has the ARC."
(end of that quote)
But me, I'd temper that theoretical absolute against some comments made in
the 19th lecture of the 5th ACC (April 23, 1954)
"When you study particles you're studying affinity. You see that? Should be
very clear to you. When you're studying matching particles, you're studying
reality, and when you're studying space and particles you're studying
communication. So the ARC triangle, of course, falls immediately below that
point where theta deserts the complete pervasiveness, complete knowingness,
but no action - falls below that point where theta first makes some space.
And the ARC triangle proceeds on down from there.
(and)
"The ARC triangle is actually, for people low on the Tone Scale, the first
step up to salvation. And for a thetan at 40 is the first step to
destruction. The ARC triangle lies below him at 40, but it sure lies way
above him as Homo Sapiens."
(end quotes)
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> In Professional Auditors Bulletin #15 of mid-December 1953 Ron did write:
>
> "The most ARC there can be is a complete identification: the person IS the
> person with whom he has the ARC."
Not the same thing, but the above reminds me...
In the early seventies, the Toronto Org offered some (squirrel -
off-gradient, ha ha ha) group auditing to be delivered by recently returned
Class VIII Brian Levman. Man! It was fun! And provided huge key-outs.
One of the... errrh...exercises he had us do was to pair up, like in TRs,
two people facing each other and then do Spacation Drills. But... like
this. First, each person would create a box around him/herself using eight
anchor points - two sets of four, you know, four arranged like a square or
rectangle in front and four similarly behind. The four that formed the
"wall" behind remained constant, but he would have us intermittently move
the front "wall" so that sometimes it was BETWEEN you and the other person,
and sometimes it was on the OTHER SIDE of the other person. You know, when
it was on the other side of the other person it meant he/she was SHARING
YOUR SPACE.
After doing this drill just a few times, the group auditor (Brian) consulted
with the group. It was a very common experience/cognition that there was a
reduction in ARC when the four front anchor points were BETWEEN, and a
definite increase of ARC occurred when the four front anchor points
ENCOMPASSED the other person.
Les.