CBW Work differentiated from COS/Scn
CB Willis
How is my courseWork different from COS?
A Table of Differentiation:
CBW | COS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goals:
Conscious spirit, creation processes. OT
Spiritual consciousness,
spiritual substance.
Heavenly states of consciousness.
Manifestation: Heaven on Earth.
Includes intuitive awareness. haphazard
3 Major Initiations of my design OTIII?
ground and support the above goals. NOTs?
Label as
implanting.
Clearing or Work-on-Self supports Clear
conscious spirit and intuitive
goals.
Eliminate falsehoods, false conclusions
drawn, logical fallacies, unconsciousness,
trauma, failure, emotional pain, upset,
and any "charge" on these.
These are negative goals, secondary to
positive goals above.
Methods:
Integrative course for all of the above Bridge levels
and more, worked more or less concurrently.
Interviews to determine suitability and Takes most comers.
religious alignment so course is an
extension of the spiritual path student
is already on, etc. We don't want to find
misalignments later if we can avoid them
upfront.
Mostly grounded in liberal Christian mysticism. Some elements from
Some elements inspired from other major Buddhist psychology,
world religions including Vedanta and yogas. etc. etc.
Spiritualism with its emphasis on
spirit-to-spirit communication, life after death,
prophecy, spiritual healing, energy healing,
clairvoyance, clairsentience, clairaudience,
and continual intuitive unfoldment.
Sporadic other elements drawn from
history of philosophy, alternative therapies,
New Thought religions (Unity, Science of
Mind, Religious Science - all early 20th
century), 4th way, Castaneda, Cayce,
Hahnemann, et al.
The Trinity: God the Father, Creator; -
Jesus Christ the Son, Christ Consciousness
and Sacred Heart;
and Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth,
agent of God and Christ;
the angels --
and our communion with all of them
are integral to the Work and a
fullness of success of the Work.
Also, Mary and the Immaculate Heart.
Saints, lives of the saints,
communion of saints.
Does not use the Auditor's Code; Auditor's Code
other guidelines for clergy and student.
A lot of "clinical philosophy," -
unstructured dialogue, teaching vignettes,
understanding and handling existential issues,
applied metaphysics and homework experiential
exercises.
* 5% of time spent in structured processes ~95-100% of
session time
in
structured
processes ?
No-meter, focus on deep intuition of
clergy and student. Metered.
A path with heart. -
Experience of cognition is secondary to truth, Cognition a major
secondary to movement of energy and Spirit desired element.
which are known by spiritual intuition.
Core of the case, chief feature(s)
identified and worked on early. -
Spiritual and devotional practices. ?
Prayer intentions.
Study of scriptures, especially New Testament,
Genesis (creation), Psalms (praise).
Special methods for working with goals, ?
begun early on and tracked.
Free-form, unstructured methods for working Ruds, etc.
with problem resolution, some mini processes,
intuition training involved. Specialized
dialogue.
Adaptation of TIR-type process, Dn, Exp Dn
with entirely different explanation
of how it works, and several spiritual
enhancements and setup, becomes a
conscious-spirit process.
Use of a few symbols Symbols are
low tone.
Differentiate 3 forms of inner seeing. ?
Work on the interfaces between ?
spirit and matter, including energy body,
energy field, and koshas. Perception and
creation, co-creation.
Past lives may spontaneously come up for Past lives
the student. investigated
using meter.
Looking at a theme from a variety of directions. 4 flows.
Seeing own responsibility in a matter, ?
getting responsibility in right proportion. More focus on
New ways to understand responsibility more other who's.
in alignment with Spirit.
C.B. Willis, MA
cbwi...@lightlink.com
9.16.2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| cbwi...@lightlink.com | "Values are the infrastructure |
| | upon which civilization |
| | will be reinvented." - CBW |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith
>How is my courseWork different from COS?
You are trying to produce better Creatures.
We are trying to produce better Creators of Creatures.
Creature Tech and Creator Tech are two totally different ball
games.
Homer
CB Willis
Homer Wilson Smith (ho...@lightlink.com) wrote:
> You are trying to produce better Creatures.
And co-Creators with God and each other.
- CBW
Homer Wilson Smith
>> You are trying to produce better Creatures.
>And co-Creators with God and each other.
OK, so I am a Co creator.
I create a space and time, and a trillion little know nothings,
and I give them no knowledge and no choice about being in my universe,
I don't ask them "Hey little one, want to suffer for a billion
lifetimes until you figure it all out?". Then I give them free will,
hey free will that's a GOOD thing right? And then I let them run
amuck and see how long, how many crucifixions it takes, for them to
'learn their lesson' and become co creators besides me.
Graduate comes along, "Hey cool, that was Fun!, now I can create
a zillion beings, and watch them crucify each other with their free
will and an absence of fullness of wisdom."
Giving a creature 'free will' without fullness of wisdom is like
giving a 3 year old kid a load cocked gun.
Wow, can't wait to become a co-Creator besides God. Bet you he
takes that priv away from me quickly once he sees what I do with
MY goldfish.
Probably reminds him of what he did with his.
Homer
>- CBW
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
CB Willis
>>> You are trying to produce better Creatures.
>>And co-Creators with God and each other.
> OK, so I am a Co creator.
> I create a space and time, and a trillion little know nothings,
>and I give them no knowledge and no choice about being in my universe,
>I don't ask them "Hey little one, want to suffer for a billion
>lifetimes until you figure it all out?". Then I give them free will,
>hey free will that's a GOOD thing right? And then I let them run
>amuck and see how long, how many crucifixions it takes, for them to
>'learn their lesson' and become co creators besides me.
OR, I give them essentially everything I have, clone myself in them, send
them angels to protect them, send prophets to show the possibilities and
exhort them, send a special Son to be with them in a visible way, to love,
heal and teach them, send my spiritual substance, miraculous presence and
a touchstone of truth (Holy Spirit), plus 24/7 access to me and everything
I have. "You can have it all right now and co-create with me in paradise
forever, and co-create a Heaven on Earth. What do you say?"
And with that, some of them choose to spit at God, say "boring!" and that
they can do better. God allows them to experiment.
- CBW
CB Willis
> You are trying to produce better Creatures.
> We are trying to produce better Creators of Creatures.
> Creature Tech and Creator Tech are two totally different ball
>games.
Is THAT ALL you can say after I've written for years and reposted
yesterday regarding creation, and after this post on differentiation in
relation to what you said yesterday?????????? Your comments above do not
relate to my differentiation post at all.
- CBW
Homer Wilson Smith
>OR, I give them essentially everything I have,
Except wisdom to handle their free will.
clone myself in them, send
>them angels to protect them, send prophets to show the possibilities and
>exhort them, send a special Son to be with them in a visible way, to love,
>heal and teach them, send my spiritual substance, miraculous presence and
>a touchstone of truth (Holy Spirit), plus 24/7 access to me and everything
>I have. "You can have it all right now and co-create with me in paradise
>forever, and co-create a Heaven on Earth. What do you say?"
>And with that, some of them choose to spit at God, say "boring!" and that
>they can do better.
Why?
>God allows them to experiment.
If a Father allowed a Son to experiment in this way, the
Father would be jailed for child abuse.
Homer Wilson Smith
>Is THAT ALL you can say after I've written for years and reposted
>yesterday regarding creation, and after this post on differentiation in
>relation to what you said yesterday?????????? Your comments above do not
>relate to my differentiation post at all.
Sorry Carol, I can't read your stuff, it makes me barf.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
As I said your stuff is Creature Tech, Scn is Creator Tech.
We aren't trying to make better Creatures, we are trying to make
Free Gods.
You are trying to make Creatures free and able to be good, we are
trying to make Creators free and able to flap their wings of the dicom
again.
You apparently are not able to get the difference.
Homer
CB Willis (cbwi...@lightlink.com) wrote:
>How is my courseWork different from COS?
>A Table of Differentiation:
>CBW | COS
>-------------------------------------------------------------
> Includes intuitive awareness. haphazard
>Methods:
>
CB Willis
>>OR, I give them essentially everything I have,
> Except wisdom to handle their free will.
That's the game. The auditor doesn't had the pc all the cognitions.
The teacher doesn't give the students all the answers on the test or write
the dissertation for him.
>>God allows them to experiment.
> If a Father allowed a Son to experiment in this way, the
>Father would be jailed for child abuse.
If a father didn't allow his son to experiment in this way increasingly
as the son became an adult, he would be called a control freak and busy
body, a bad parent.
- CBW
CB Willis
>>yesterday regarding creation, and after this post on differentiation in
>>relation to what you said yesterday?????????? Your comments above do not
>>relate to my differentiation post at all.
> Sorry Carol, I can't read your stuff, it makes me barf.
If you won't read my reply, then enough with the inflammatory comments and
accusations already.
- CBW
CB Willis
Wow, quick recovery.
> As I said your stuff is Creature Tech, Scn is Creator Tech.
I still don't know how you can say this after reading my Great Work and
Creation fundamentals articles. We are both creatures and
co-creators with God and each other.
> We aren't trying to make better Creatures, we are trying to make
>Free Gods.
You're creating a false separation there, goes against your own recent
writings.
> You are trying to make Creatures free and able to be good, we are
>trying to make Creators free and able to flap their wings of the dicom
>again.
Would make a good cartoon.
> You apparently are not able to get the difference.
Somehow I'm not able to get distinctions that are useless and misleading.
- CBW
> Homer
Phil Scott
<ho...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> OK, read it without barfing.
>
> As I said your stuff is Creature Tech, Scn is Creator Tech.
>
> We aren't trying to make better Creatures, we are trying to make
>Free Gods.
>
> You are trying to make Creatures free and able to be good, we are
>trying to make Creators free and able to flap their wings of the dicom
>again.
>
> You apparently are not able to get the difference.
>
> Homer
Thats well stated Homer.
Beyond being able to flap the wings of the dicom again is
transcendence of dicoms... leaving all dicoms from the static node
they present... and not wishing to be thus involved in such a pedantic
existence again.
Thats described usefully in the 8 stages of death chapter of the URL
that was in my post 'The wedding with infinity'
Phil Scott
Homer Wilson Smith
>Homer Wilson Smith (ho...@lightlink.com) wrote:
>>CB Willis (cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>>OR, I give them essentially everything I have,
>> Except wisdom to handle their free will.
>That's the game.
Sick game, considering the soul was not consulted first about
whether it wanted to join in this game, and the consequences of
playing and loosing the game are infinitely dire.
>The auditor doesn't had the pc all the cognitions.
>The teacher doesn't give the students all the answers on the test or write
>the dissertation for him.
No one asked God to *TEST* me, he can take his test and shove it
up his ass. Besides what is being tested? Certainly not the fullness
of knowledge that God didn't give me to handle my free will.
*WHAT IS BEING TESTED* Carol?
And who the *FUCK* is this asswipe God to test me?
>>>God allows them to experiment.
>> If a Father allowed a Son to experiment in this way, the
>>Father would be jailed for child abuse.
>If a father didn't allow his son to experiment in this way increasingly
>as the son became an adult, he would be called a control freak and busy
>body, a bad parent.
Sorry, no one allows a son to experiment at the expense of
others.
Your analogy is putrid.
Experimentation is done with guidance, never allowing the child
to go over the edge where he ruins things for itself or for others,
especially ruins things FOREVER.
One can argue that at some point the Father must let go of trying
to guide the child and protect it from itself, but one never let's go
of protecting others from the child, one shoots the child if necessary
no matter how old it is if it is about to destroy others or
civilization with cyanide gas or atomic war etc.
One can also argue that mankind is not out of its child phase
yet, or else men would be gods, so the Father really has no business
letting the child out of his sight for one minute let alone allowing
him to rampage around like a spoiled brat destroying everything in
sight, including innocent men women and children.
THAT IS *BARBARIC*.
Basically Carol, your efforts to anthropomorphize and humanize
the nature of God are ludicrous. The creature was not made in the
image of God, God and Soul are very different, God is in fact a
criminal from the viewpoint of the Soul, and the only reason this is
not a problem is because the Soul IS God after God jumped into his own
creations.
God and Soul in fact are anti images of each other,
"Source sources what Source is not." - Adore
It's ok to be a criminal to yourself with your own full consent,
for the sake of humor, it would never be ok to do this to someone
else, particularly without their consent.
Christianity and the "God is good" crowd are EVIL and part of the
trap that the God laid for himself as Soul to see how far he could
sink himself before he woke up to operating his own wings of the
dicom.
The Soul doesn't get the joke, the God does.
God and Soul are one, it can be no other way.
Those that strive to be GOOD, lose.
Those that strive to be the ARTIST of Good and Evil, win.
Homer
>- CBW
Homer Wilson Smith
>I still don't know how you can say this after reading my Great Work and
>Creation fundamentals articles. We are both creatures and
>co-creators with God and each other.
No we are Creators playing Creature. We are not co-creators
besides anyone.
*BIG* difference Carol.
*I* am Omni Sovereign, not some big asshole in the sky that
made me and I am trying forever more to emulate because I was made
in its image.
>> You are trying to make Creatures free and able to be good, we are
>>trying to make Creators free and able to flap their wings of the dicom
>>again.
>Would make a good cartoon.
That's the best you can do is make jokes about it.
OK, well that's a start.
Homer
Phil Scott
Willis) wrote:
Homer wrote
>> We aren't trying to make better Creatures, we are trying to make
>>Free Gods.
>You're creating a false separation there, goes against your own recent
>writings.
Thats true too. imho.. my liberation and transcendence has come
*through becoming more human, not by leaving my humanity behind...
there is no separation.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
Willis) wrote:
>
>Homer Wilson Smith (ho...@lightlink.com) wrote:
>>CB Willis (cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>>Is THAT ALL you can say after I've written for years and reposted
>>>yesterday regarding creation, and after this post on differentiation in
>>>relation to what you said yesterday?????????? Your comments above do not
>>>relate to my differentiation post at all.
>
>> Sorry Carol, I can't read your stuff, it makes me barf.
>If you won't read my reply, then enough with the inflammatory comments and
>accusations already.
Well if it helps clarify things at all for you Carol... much of your
intellectually founded stuff (not the flippant remarks which I enjoy)
make me want to barf too.
Its thick, and imho like Homer says, does not 'see' beyond the
creatrue level to put it into words...
I think Homer sees well beyond the creature level to put it mildly...
and into the transcendent levels, but has not crossed the transcendent
threashold yet.. transcending ti the entire material
construct...most especially thought... he mulls fatally in thought
imho.... and he is about as hard for me to suffer through at times as
what you write....
Please dont misconstrue my use of the term transcendence here to mean
separate... I do not mean that at all... in fact the oposite...
completely though and beyond... beyond mostly. but not separate.
(but in some ways Homer seems to have transcended in areas I have
not,).
Homer and I are definnitely out of the creature band.
Having said that, I found my freedom thoough becoming fully human,
not in becoming less human. It is one whole as you say.
Phil Scott
>
>- CBW
CB Willis
>>Homer Wilson Smith (ho...@lightlink.com) wrote:
>>>CB Willis (cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>>>OR, I give them essentially everything I have,
>>> Except wisdom to handle their free will.
>>That's the game.
> Sick game,
Not a sick game, they have to dig deep and come up with wisdom. It's at
the bottom of the backpack. That's if the heart fails. And they have NO
good role models to demonstrate wisdom to spark their own knowingness.
>>The auditor doesn't hand the pc all the cognitions.
>>The teacher doesn't give the students all the answers on the test or write
>>the dissertation for him.
> No one asked God to *TEST* me, he can take his test and shove it
>up his ass. Besides what is being tested? Certainly not the fullness
>of knowledge that God didn't give me to handle my free will.
> *WHAT IS BEING TESTED* Carol?
It was just an analogy, pointing in a direction...--->
We have to discover what we've got, how to use it, apply ourselves, create
in our own right. That's the game.
> And who the *FUCK* is this asswipe God to test me?
Maybe we test ourselves. Or can use life circumstances to put ourselves
to the test.
The best students, athletes, scientists, musicians do.
Make up a challenge and achieve or exceed it.
What if...
>>>>God allows them to experiment.
>>> If a Father allowed a Son to experiment in this way, the
>>>Father would be jailed for child abuse.
>>If a father didn't allow his son to experiment in this way increasingly
>>as the son became an adult, he would be called a control freak and busy
>>body, a bad parent.
> Sorry, no one allows a son to experiment at the expense of
>others.
True, and very obvious, but an adult child is not normally under the
control of a parent like a toddler at home is.
> Your analogy is putrid.
> Experimentation is done with guidance, never allowing the child
>to go over the edge where he ruins things for itself or for others,
>especially ruins things FOREVER.
That's right and very obvious.
> One can argue that at some point the Father must let go of trying
>to guide the child and protect it from itself, but one never let's go
>of protecting others from the child, one shoots the child if necessary
>no matter how old it is if it is about to destroy others or
>civilization with cyanide gas or atomic war etc.
> One can also argue that mankind is not out of its child phase
>yet, or else men would be gods, so the Father really has no business
>letting the child out of his sight for one minute let alone allowing
>him to rampage around like a spoiled brat destroying everything in
>sight, including innocent men women and children.
>
> THAT IS *BARBARIC*.
Yer on a rant, Homer.
> Basically Carol, your efforts to anthropomorphize and humanize
>the nature of God are ludicrous. The creature was not made in the
>image of God, God and Soul are very different, God is in fact a
>criminal from the viewpoint of the Soul, and the only reason this is
>not a problem is because the Soul IS God after God jumped into his own
>creations.
> God and Soul in fact are anti images of each other,
> "Source sources what Source is not." - Adore
>
> It's ok to be a criminal to yourself with your own full consent,
>for the sake of humor, it would never be ok to do this to someone
>else, particularly without their consent.
May I remind you of one of your criteria for clearing:
Able and willing to be here.
> Christianity and the "God is good" crowd are EVIL and part of the
>trap that the God laid for himself as Soul to see how far he could
>sink himself before he woke up to operating his own wings of the
>dicom.
>
> The Soul doesn't get the joke, the God does.
>
> God and Soul are one, it can be no other way.
> Those that strive to be GOOD, lose.
Not necessarily true, and a destructive suggestion.
> Those that strive to be the ARTIST of Good and Evil, win.
They "win" at being an artist of good and evil.
That's all we can say with certainty.
- CBW
CB Willis
>>I still don't know how you can say this after reading my Great Work and
>>Creation fundamentals articles. We are both creatures and
>>co-creators with God and each other.
Homer Wilson Smith (ho...@lightlink.com) wrote:
> No we are Creators playing Creature. We are not co-creators
>besides anyone.
> *BIG* difference Carol.
That IS a big difference.
I disagree with you then.
I hold that we are co-creators with God and each other.
Remind me to never co-create anything with you as it's not only
doomed to failure, it's downright theologically impossible.
- CBW
Lone Ranger
Hi Homer
Have been followin your posts on these threads with some interest (altho I
admit I been skippin most of CBW's sameold stuff.) One would hope that anyone
who is seriously examining God-is-Good-and-I'll-be-a-sunbean-for-Jesus would
study it from this viewpoint.
I always figured that a god who couldn't bear scrutiny/blasphemy/dissection
wasn't worth havin around.
Ted Crammer
In article <39c55...@news2.lightlink.com>, cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com
wrote:
>I hold that we are co-creators with God and each other.
I hold likewise and this flys into the teeth of the Scio proposition that a
being is Totally Responsible for the Condition It Is In -- and other notions of
isolation and disassociation.
>
>Remind me to never co-create anything with you as it's not only
>doomed to failure, it's downright theologically impossible.
>
Ah, but you are co-creating with Homer. What you see is what you get.
--
Ted
Homer Wilson Smith
>I disagree with you then.
We are not creators WITH God.
We ARE God.
God did this to HIMSELF, not to US. We ARE him.
Homer
CB Willis
[CBW to Homer, calling his bluff:]
>>Remind me to never co-create anything with you as it's not only
>>doomed to failure, it's downright theologically impossible.
>>
[TED:]
>Ah, but you are co-creating with Homer. What you see is what you get.
True enough, which proves my point about co-creation. QED. I rest my
case.
- CBW
CB Willis
>Well if it helps clarify things at all for you Carol... much of your
>intellectually founded stuff (not the flippant remarks which I enjoy)
>make me want to barf too.
>Its thick,
I got this and saw it squarely ahead of me as a teenage girl getting ready
for more philosophy studies. I realized being a philosopher would not
make me popular, quite the reverse. I made the choice, no regrets.
People can always find something about you not to like, even try to
convince others of it, if they are of such a mind.
Philosophy students train in endurance, it's a developed skill, just like
training for the Olympics. Both came from classical Greece. Few other
than a philosopher or an athlete or surgeon or programmer might have the
interest to train in that kind of endurance for its own sake, or see any
value in it. Endurance, patience, how to use attention, etc. I wouldn't
fault someone outside a discipline for not having the endurance or not
wanting to acquire it - at the same time, they need not fault those IN the
discipline or imply they are doing anything undesirable.
The normal thing is to silently take as a given that one outside a
discipline will not have the same endurance or interest as one in it,
rather than fault the endurance or the work product because one is not
conditioned to it.
As for "thick", you should read the academicians. My forte is making what
is historically complex simple and clear enough for interested students to
grasp easily, allowing them to consider and appreciate ideas they might
not have otherwise.
>I think Homer sees well beyond the creature level to put it mildly...
>and into the transcendent levels, but has not crossed the transcendent
>threashold yet.. transcending ti the entire material
>construct...most especially thought... he mulls fatally in thought
>imho.... and he is about as hard for me to suffer through at times as
>what you write....
Poor baby!
>Please dont misconstrue my use of the term transcendence here to mean
>separate... I do not mean that at all... in fact the oposite...
>completely though and beyond... beyond mostly. but not separate.
I have no problem with the transcendent or the immanent.
> (but in some ways Homer seems to have transcended in areas I have
>not,).
>Homer and I are definnitely out of the creature band.
>Having said that, I found my freedom thoough becoming fully human,
>not in becoming less human. It is one whole as you say.
>Phil Scott
Yeah. When terms are used to judge others or make another wrong, or to
elevate ourselves, we're ALL in trouble and need to go back to square one.
- CBW
CB Willis
> We ARE God.
> Homer
Now you're returning to your earlier thesis.
God is a masochist.
We are God.
Therefore we are masochists.
Back to the drawing board!
- CBW
Lion (in Solar Explorer)
Homer > Carol
>
> *WHAT IS BEING TESTED* Carol?
>
Lion > Homer
It might be a pitfall to assign intention to isness. I think it confuses
getting what's so. What makes you think you are being tested?
You seem to be pitting various aspects of God against each other. I don't
think (but may be wrong) that happiness of freedom come from figuring it all
out. I think these come from being *it* without limitation.
Whatever *it* may ultimately be.
I agree that life may seem to be a test. It certainly reflects limitations.
But thats just the way it is. That's just what it does. The only thing that
one learns about life it what doesn't work and what causes pain. That's not
a test. It's the isness of existence.
Sorry bout that,
Mlove, Lion
**********************************************
Richard D. Platek 530.304.5776 Love is always appropriate. Always
What is the truth of subjectivity, when everything you view is an object?
Including, your own subjectivity.
Homer Wilson Smith
>Now you're returning to your earlier thesis.
I have never left it.
>God is a masochist.
God is an Imp.
>We are God.
>Therefore we are masochists.
Therefore we are Imp's and humor is the only way out.
Homer
CB Willis
>>God is a masochist.
> God is an Imp.
> Homer
Hope you didn't miss my humor in the above.
- CBW
Curiosus
I find this post quite useful, as I was currently trying to understand
your position in the field of clearing.
Perhaps I can fill some blanks:
1) The basic principles: “the trinity, God the creator,” etc. can be
compared with the axioms of dianetics and scientology. A lot of
differences, but in both cases this is the theoretical background.
2) “Clinical philosophy” has some correspondence with the ethic cycles,
where the PC is looking at his life and correcting outpoints.
3) “Working on the chief feature(s)” has some relationship with the
grade 4 of scientology: service fac handling.
4) “Special methods for working with goals” has perhaps some relation
to the GPM processing of scn.
5) “Seeing own responsibility in a matter” has a direct relationship
with the handling of overts and withholds, which has an important place
in scn. In many sessions, the responsibility of the PC is established
and assumed about “sins” of the PC.
All this is quite interesting on the qualitative level.
Would you like to add some quantitative data, for the sake of
comparison? For example: how many students do you train each year, and
how much do you charge for the courses?
I would like also to understand why you are using scientology as “the
other pole”, something to be compared with.
Curiosus
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty is to Knowledge what air is to animals
Henri Poincaré
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
CB Willis
>Re: CBW Work differentiated from COS/Scn
Interesting 6 points. I had never considered them as comparisons,
other comments below.
>1) The basic principles: “the trinity, God the creator,” etc. can be
>compared with the axioms of dianetics and scientology. A lot of
>differences, but in both cases this is the theoretical background.
The Christian Trinity is indeed fundamental, along with many ideas in my
Great Work article, though the content of those in comparison to the
axioms has only some tangential similarity in terms of topics commonly
addressed in psychology, theology, philosophy, etc.
>2) “Clinical philosophy” has some correspondence with the ethic cycles,
>where the PC is looking at his life and correcting outpoints.
A very vague correspondence, really a stretch, but certainly sharing a
common goal of an improved life and way of being in the world, a broad
goal also shared by most other religions, therapies, philosophies, etc.
That and communication would be the points of similarity, very broad.
>3) “Working on the chief feature(s)” has some relationship with the
>grade 4 of scientology: service fac handling.
Some yes, that topic came up a while back. My current thinking or
hypothesis is that service facs derive from chief feature(s), but I'm not
stuck in concrete about that.
>4) “Special methods for working with goals” has perhaps some relation
>to the GPM processing of scn.
Only in that they both deal with goals. The method has no relation at all
to scn, something like skewed lines, both lines but not meeting at all.
>5) “Seeing own responsibility in a matter” has a direct relationship
>with the handling of overts and withholds, which has an important place
>in scn. In many sessions, the responsibility of the PC is established
>and assumed about “sins” of the PC.
There is no blame in my approach, no talk of sins. Different languaging
makes it so much easier to correct. Seeing own responsibility in a matter
is as old as the hills, but reminders and applications are needed.
>All this is quite interesting on the qualitative level.
>Would you like to add some quantitative data, for the sake of
>comparison? For example: how many students do you train each year, and
>how much do you charge for the courses?
My stats are private. I have room for very few students in a year's time,
so am particular about who I take. I'd rather have one student a year
that was right for the Work and in good rapport with me, than 100 or 1000
per year that weren't really a good fit. So as you can see there is no
money in this, it's just the exchange factor.
My rates break down to $100/hr, though I don't charge by the hour for
courses. My rates have not changed in 13 yrs.
>I would like also to understand why you are using scientology as “the
>other pole”, something to be compared with.
I had exposure to many other theologies, religions, cosmologies,
metaphysics, philosophies, intuitive development methods, energy healing,
alternative therapies, etc etc including teaching, training, and leading
group work for many years (20?) before I ever encountered a scn book,
though I read Dn when I was a freshman in college. And it was 6 years
after I encountered the scn book before I experienced a scn-type process
and studied other books and Anatomy of a Cause, and 1 more year after that
before I experienced a dn-type process and studied PDC, so I already had a
LOT to compare dn/scn to. Dn/scn is one part of a much larger historical
scene involving many fields or disciplines.
- CBW
CB Willis
>I would like also to understand why you are using scientology as “the
>other pole”, something to be compared with.
More... I think it's the scope and ambitions and claims of scn that got a
lot of my attn. Any time anyone is putting out huge claims for something,
the question is, is all that really true? I take it all on a claim by
claim basis, proposition by proposition basis, method by method basis,
action by action basis, session by session basis, case by case basis,
rationale by rationale basis, etc., but at the same time keep my
understanding of the whole system in view, which may be changing
constantly. And I compare it to what else I've surveyed, seen and
practiced. Constantly comparing, saying if this is what you're trying to
achieve, why are you doing it this way and it takes so many hours, and
costs this much, when you could be doing it that way, takes a fraction of
the time, costs less, is more stable, and connects with valid theology for
liberal mystical Christians such as myself and most of the people I've
known in my life.
Because if it is true and valid and its underlying philosophy and
practices true and valid and just, it could mean a lot for the community,
the world, even me. And if it is true, valid and just, could it be done
even better in various ways? Are the goals they hold out to people valid,
doable? Could they be accomplished in more elegant and stable ways?
Always the questions.
And if it is not, where are the falsehoods, weaknesses, bluff and bravado,
what is all that covering up? Why the lack of interest in being open to
the best and truth wherever it may be found? Why the PR about compatible
with any religion and then it isn't really? What essentials are being left
out or omitted as if they don't exist - is that just an oversight, or is
it deliberate, and what do they think about what I see as essential? How
to see such a complex subject and organization in right proportion and
sort it out in comparison to the best that exists elsewhere, including my
own favorite methods that I know will produce certain results in roughly
so many hours or at the end of the course. These have been some of my
questions over the last ~10 yrs.
- CBW
Ted Crammer
cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com (CB Willis) wrote:
[...]
>... where are the falsehoods, weaknesses, bluff and bravado,
> what is all that covering up?
[...]
Precisely.
Scieners have the "tech" to answer these questions but being in a State
of Suspended Disbelief they will never pose them.
--
Ted